Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

I call Members to order.

The first item on our agenda this afternoon is questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Local Government and Public Services, and the first question is from Angela Burns.

Through the third sector support Wales grant in 2017-18, we provided £176,217 to the Carmarthenshire Association of Voluntary Services in core funding, to help local organisations with fundraising, good governance, safeguarding and volunteering. I have already committed to the same amount for 2018-19.

Thank you for your response. As I'm sure you know, there are some extraordinarily community-minded organisations based in Carmarthenshire that rely very, very heavily on volunteers—organisations from CAVS, to Homestart Carmarthenshire, ward befrienders at Glangwili hospital, animal rescue sites, home visiting volunteers. And they've really stepped up to the plate, especially at times like this when public funds are tighter. What could you as the Welsh Government do to encourage more people into volunteering, not only to help these extraordinary organisations, and to give them the numbers and the arms and legs that they need to go about doing what they do, but also because volunteering is so good for the person who's doing the volunteering? It helps to combat some of the ills we talk about, like isolation and loneliness, it's good for the soul, and it's really good for the organisations. And I just wonder what help you can give to encourage more people to do voluntary work, particularly younger people—and I don't mean necessarily the teenagers, but the 30, 40, 50-year-old bracket, where there's a huge gap.

Can I say, Presiding Officer, how much I endorse the sentiments that have been described by the Member? I think all of us—it's one thing that unites, I think, Members on all sides of the Chamber here, and Members who represent all parts of this country—recognise the importance of volunteering, for the individual concerned, as has been outlined, the community, and different organisations, many of which simply wouldn't survive without volunteering and the skills, the energy, and the creativity that volunteers bring to this role.

The Welsh Government seeks to provide funding, clearly, for a number of different third sector organisations. But it's my view, and I think it will be the view of the Member also, that Welsh Government needs to go further than that. We need to create the opportunities for a holistic approach to policy, which means volunteers and volunteering is at the heart of what we do in terms of social prescribing, which the Member has described, and in terms of fostering and engendering a sense of community as well. And I hope that one of the areas that we can discuss—I met the Welsh Council for Voluntary Action this morning, and I'm speaking at Gofal3 event next week, and at the third sector partnership council next week as well. And what I will seek to do is to move beyond the conversation about funding, into a conversation about the sort of society and the sort of communities we want to protect and to invest in in Wales, and that means a holistic approach to policy that sees volunteering as a part of not just how we deliver services, but a part of what our communities actually will be in the future. So, I very much endorse the sentiments that have been made.

I am providing £30 million in this financial year across all local authorities for the refurbishment of local roads. Details have been shared with local authorities.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Earlier this month, you announced that the Welsh Government was providing councils in Wales with £30 million to improve the state of roads in their areas, and this measure was indeed widely welcomed from all corners of the political spectrum. Councillor Anthony Hunt, Welsh Local Government Association spokesman for finance and resources stated, 'We will look forward to continuing to have constructive and open dialogue to find sustainable responses.' Cabinet Secretary, based on the established highway allocation formula, what amount of moneys will Islwyn's Caerphilly County Borough Council receive from the £30 million investment, and what future opportunities are open to the Welsh Government to directly invest in the Welsh road network?

Presiding Officer, to answer the two questions directly, Caerphilly County Borough Council will receive an additional £1.5 million to spend on roads through this scheme, and responsibility for general road improvement, road spending and road maintenance, of course, falls to my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for economy and infrastructure.

But can I go a bit further than that in answering this question? I think it's important that we do support local authorities in ensuring that our local road network is fit for purpose. We all know that there are some significant problems in all parts of the country, and that is why, when we had the opportunity to do so, we found the £30 million in capital, available immediately to all local authorities, distributed on a fair basis, to ensure that local authorities have the resources, as well as the responsibility to be able to invest in a stable and safe road network. We've worked with Anthony Hunt and his colleagues to ensure that has been made available immediately, and I look forward to local authorities continuing a conversation with us about how we can work together in the future to maintain a safe and stable local road network.

Cabinet Secretary, given that you've got those very useful figures to hand in front of you, it would be remiss of me not to ask about my own local authority, at the risk of being parochial. Monmouthshire County Council—what share are they going to receive of that £30 million? We've heard how much Caerphilly will receive, so if you could update us on that, that would be great. And, also, in terms of the wider sharing out of that money, how do you envisage it being divided between urban and rural authorities, because there's clearly a large number of rural roads that are falling into disrepair and facing closure, and it's a lot more costly to try and maintain some of those roads in some of our rural authorities across Wales? 

Presiding Officer, nobody's surprised that Nick Ramsay's used the opportunity to ask the question he has. Members may be more surprised that I know the answer. Monmouthshire County Council will receive £921,218 as a consequence of this grant. The £30 million capital grant has been distributed using the transport element of the general capital funding formula, and this formula has been agreed with local government. I will say in answer to the question that I think it's important to ensure that these moneys are distributed fairly between urban and rural, north and south, according to the needs of the area, and I hope that the funding formula that we have available to us does exactly that. 

Cabinet Secretary, the backlog of road repairs is having a detrimental effect on the people in my region, South Wales West. One of my constituents is unable to take his wheelchair-bound wife out because of the state of the pavements around their home. When he called the council, they simply said that he was at the bottom of a very long list of repairs. So, how does your Government plan to tackle the backlog of repairs, which are trapping people in their homes, damaging their vehicles and resulting in personal injury?

We have made this money available to all local authorities immediately in order to address those sorts of issues. Where there are specific issues, I would invite the Member to take that up in writing, either with the local authority or with us directly. But I will say also to the Member that the reason that these backlogs and these funding problems are being faced by local authorities across Wales is because of an austerity programme that is being delivered by a UK Conservative Government, and your party believes that they should go further and reduce funding still further. I disagree with them, and I disagree with you. 

Questions now from the party spokespeople. The Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Siân Gwenllian. 

Thank you very much. I have had an opportunity to read your blog, where you discuss local government reform, and I was very pleased initially that you mentioned that the blog was some sort of response to a question that I posed to you in this place a few weeks ago in terms of the kind of style you are going to adopt in dealing with local authorities. I'm very pleased that I have inspired you to at least think about that.

The debate about local government reform has been quite fiery at times, and has been going on over many years without any resolution. In reading your blog, it appears that you are willing to put any progress made by your predecessor, Mark Drakeford, to one side, and that you are thinking of starting the whole process once again. So, can I ask: over the past four years, as your Government has attempted to reform local government, what exactly has been achieved?

Llywydd, I'm very pleased that my blog has pleased at least one Member here, and I'm very pleased that she's read it, at least. May I say that what I was trying to say last week when I wrote the blog was to try and establish, and re-establish, a more mature relationship between various governmental parts of Wales, and I don't think that that has been the case over the past decade at all times.

It's not true that I have made any kind of decision, as the Member suggested. Local government itself said that it didn't want to progress with the kind of proposals that my predecessor made as regards regional collaboration. That was not my decision; that was local government's decision, and members from local government did discuss that at their seminar in Cardiff last November. So, in writing the blog, I was responding to the stance taken by local government and not saying what my view was.

Well, from that it appears that the only thing that has been achieved is the waste of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money and the time of Welsh Government officials in holding consultation upon consultation, with proposals on legislation that will now be ignored. At least with the most recent White Paper, there was a way forward that didn't require local authority mergers. So, can I ask you first of all what negotiations took place in Cabinet before you decided to put aside the work of your predecessor? Can you also explain to us today what the next action points are? Will you now be turning your back entirely on the White Paper and the outcomes of the consultation related to that? What will be the timetable for this u-turn? Will you create a new map for authority mergers? Is that the intention? If that is the intention, how will you succeed where Leighton Andrews failed?

I would suggest that the Member re-reads the blog, and reads beyond the first paragraphs, to see what I was trying to say. What I was trying to say was that we need a slightly more mature relationship between the various tiers of local government and to try to move away from the kind of discussion that we have had over the past few years.

I saw that you were reading your second question. It might have been easier had you listened to the answer to your first question, because I stated clearly there that I didn't put my predecessor's proposals to one side. That was done by local government and, because of that, I have to reconsider the local government stance on this. Having had time to consider the way forward, I will bring a statement to the Assembly.

I entirely accept that it's local government who have told you, and I quote from the blog:

'the inherited policy of mandated regional working wasn't a runner'. 

That suggests to me that it wasn't a runner for them, and you agree with them, and you're going to turn your back on that policy. That was the policy in the White Paper, so I don't quite understand what you're trying to say. Having clarity would be most useful. So can you confirm today whether your vision, on the basis of what you've heard from local government, will include regional collaboration on a mandatory basis as outlined in the original proposals?

Obviously, local government has stated that they don't want to move in that direction, and I accept that. I will not impose this on local government if that's not what they wish to do, and they have made it crystal clear that they don't want to move in that direction. So, we have to consider this, and in calling for a more mature discussion, what I've been trying to do is discuss with local government what kind of powers are needed on a more local level. We've received a response on that, and then we must consider how to implement those policies. It's important that you read not just the blog in its entirety, but also that you read what local authorities and local government had to say in November. They said clearly that the current structure wasn't sustainable for the future. They were clear on that, and they were also clear that they didn't want to move in the direction that Welsh Government wanted them to move. So, they were clear on those two points in November.

So, we must now consider those points, and I would wish to have time to reflect and look at which options we have before moving forward. In my blog, I was trying to expand or enhance the discussion. I don’t know whether I’ve succeeded in doing that this afternoon, but I’d like a broader discussion on the role of local government and our Government and which powers are necessary for local government and then move on to consider which structures would enable us to sustain quality services and also secure democratic accountability at a local level. That is what I want to do, and that is what I will do. Once this process is concluded, I will come here to make a clear statement on the direction in which we wish to move forward.

Conservative spokesperson, Mark Isherwood.

Diolch, Llywydd. Although the UK Government's July 2017 response to the defence select committee report, responding to the armed forces covenant annual report commented on progress—and it used the word 'progress'—in Wales, there hasn't yet been an independent review of progress and delivery across the whole of Wales since the establishment of the armed forces covenant. You are the Welsh Government lead on policy in relation to armed forces and veterans. What proposals, therefore, do you have to undertake or commission an independent review of progress and/or to give attention to the evidence-based recommendations made by the Assembly armed forces committee inquiry into the implementation of the armed forces covenant?

I think the Member was at the meeting of the all-party group earlier this month when I attended and answered some questions on those issues. Can I say that I'm very comfortable at the moment with the level of delivery in terms of what we're able to do for delivering on the armed forces covenant and our services for veterans? I believe that we need to go somewhat further in the future. There were some very good recommendations from the all-party group. I have, in previous answers, undertaken to consider all of those recommendations and I will in due course, when I have had an opportunity to do so, make a full response on all of those matters. But I absolutely agree with the Conservative spokesperson that these are serious issues that require a serious approach.

Thank you. Notwithstanding the, I think, £100,000 extra continuation funding provided for Veterans NHS Wales, the report highlighted, or recommended, that funding for Veterans NHS Wales should be reviewed and targets for access to the service established, and performance against the targets regularly published. As at the time we debated this in November, waiting lists for Veterans NHS Wales were nine months in the Swansea area and averaging five to six months elsewhere. Although they'd secured three years extra funding from Help the Heroes to employ three full-time therapists to bring waiting lists down, they expected waiting times to rise again without additional support. And they’ve also provided me with figures showing that only 45 per cent of those veterans they're working with or referred to them are actually in employment. How, particularly, are you engaging with Veterans NHS Wales so that you and your colleague the heath Secretary are properly informed (a) on level of demand and (b) on their recommendations to address that?

I hope that we are very well informed on both those matters, but can I say that the main method of engagement, if you like, is through the expert group that we have on these matters? I chaired my first meeting of that group, as it happens, earlier this month and I found the atmosphere there and the conversation we had there to be one of a wish to move very quickly and collaboratively together to ensure that we're able to deliver on all the ambitions and the commitments that we have given and that we have undertaken to deliver on behalf of veterans and others in the armed forces community and family in Wales.

There are a number of different elements to that and you've described the challenges that we have in the health service. There are also significant challenges facing us in education and also in terms of the secure estate and provision in Wales. I think there are some significant areas there that we need to continue to address. I'm confident at the moment that the structure that we have in place helps us to do that. The expert group meeting I found to be a very useful meeting in terms of challenge on all of those different issues, and I will be responding to the all-party group and their report when I have the opportunity to have considered further some of their suggestions.

Thank you, and I'm sure the expert advisory group emphasises that the pressures on the statutory services you referred to add avoidable costs—if we could perhaps do things a little bit differently in terms of early intervention and prevention in this area. One of those areas relates to residential treatment, and particularly respite for people with complex mental health issues who've served in the armed forces. On Monday, your colleague the health Secretary issued a written statement following the removal of veterans' residential treatment facilities at Audley Court in Newport, Shropshire, to which a number of people from Wales have been referred over the years. The statement said:

'The Welsh Government has previously considered the potential for a dedicated Welsh veterans’ residential facility'

and you'd commissioned an independent report and that

'concluded that the necessary demand and need to sustain such a facility could not be made out and that community based services were more appropriate.'

In fact, in 2012, the Healthcare Inspectorate Wales report, 'Healthcare and the Armed Forces Community in Wales’, had recommended that the Welsh Government should consider the utility of establishing a form of residential facility within Wales for the armed forces community. This followed the closure of Tŷ Gwyn, which had been packed, in Llandudno, and Pathways, which had opened temporarily near Bangor, which had been packed with unfunded referrals from Wales, not least from the police services. Many members of the armed forces community in Wales had commented on the need for a residential centre for veterans as something you can see, touch and feel, but the Kennedy report, the report referred to by the health Secretary, recommended against that, on terms of reference set by the Welsh Government, concluding there was

'no evidence, nor strong support from the key charities and other bodies working in the field, to warrant a residential facility which supports veterans with PTSD, so long as sufficient capacity exists within existing NHS and Third Sector providers.'

Well, clearly, it doesn't. The evidence is there that that capacity isn't there and, in fact, the third sector capacity has been, sadly, reducing in some areas. So, how will you, or will you at all, revisit the findings of the Kennedy report in the context of 2018 circumstances and look at the overall demand and requirements to meet that demand amongst the armed forces community in Wales?

This is a matter that was raised at a previous question session by the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire. I undertook at that time to give due consideration to the matters that you've raised this afternoon. You will be aware that the Cabinet Secretary for health has announced an additional £100,000 to increase the capacity of our mental health services in the community, and he has also given an undertaking to look and understand how those services are being used and whether we do need to increase our capacity in those services. But I do accept that the point you raise is a very valid and important one and it is a matter that we will keep under due consideration. And if we do believe that there is a requirement for change in the way that you've described, then certainly that's a conversation I will have with the Cabinet Secretary for health, and I will come back to the Chamber to make announcements on that.

UKIP spokesperson, Gareth Bennett.

Diolch, Llywydd. Good afternoon, Minister. I wanted to ask a couple of questions, if I may, relating to your recent statement on reforming local government electoral arrangements in Wales. One of your proposed reforms is to extend the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds. One of the arguments that has been used recently in support of that move is the principle of no taxation without representation, but I note that 16 and 17-year-olds aren't actually supposed to pay council tax, and figures from HMRC for 2014-15 suggest that only around 15 per cent of 16 and 17-year-olds pay any income tax. So, I think it's a laudable aim to extend the vote, but I wonder: is there an argument that perhaps we could extend the vote to some 16 and 17-year-olds but perhaps it might be extended to those who are actually paying tax?

I'm not entirely sure of the point that the Member seeks to make, but I will say to him that the decision to extend the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds in local elections—and I hope the National Assembly will follow in due course—is that we're talking about extending and deepening a franchise to enable people throughout our communities to play an active role in taking decisions upon the future of those communities. It is the view of this Government, and I think of people on most sides of this Chamber, that 16 and 17-year-olds certainly should have the capacity to be engaged in political debate and discussion, and should have the ability to vote and take part in decisions that will affect them and their friends', neighbours' and families' lives. I think we are in a process of renewal and change at the moment. I'm looking at extending the franchise in order to enable us to hold local elections on the new franchise, which will also seek, of course, to ensure that all foreign nationals who are resident and living in our communities will also have the vote. 

Yes, I'm aware of those proposals as well. If I can restrict these questions to the 16 and 17-year-olds issue for the time being, another perhaps related point is that we have in this Assembly recently passed legislation that in effect banned 16 and 17-year-olds from being able to use sunbeds or to get a tongue piercing. We in UKIP supported those pieces of Government legislation. If you're now saying that 16 and 17-year-olds should have an automatic right to vote, so they are able to exercise political judgment, but at the same time they're not able to exercise judgment over issues like using sunbeds or getting a tongue piercing, does that not present an anomaly? Can you see that the electorate may see that there is a certain incongruity about the attitudes that are coming from the Welsh Government with those two seemingly conflicting attitudes?

I think most people are aware that reaching the age of majority for different parts of social activity, whatever it happens to be, may happen at a slightly different age for different issues, and we're aware of that. A 16-year-old may be able to vote but they won't be able to drive. We're aware of these issues.

What I'm looking at doing is doing something slightly different, and that is to invest in more cohesive communities, where people feel enfranchised and able to play a full part in ensuring that people have not just the right to vote and the ability to exercise that vote but also, of course, the knowledge and the capacity to be able to participate in political conversations and political debate about the future of those communities. I hope that we'll be able to go further and ensure that we then extend the ability to vote in all sorts of different ways, from electronic voting through to voting on different days, and ensuring that people, whoever they happen to be in our communities in Wales, are able to play a full part in determining the future of those communities.

Yes, you raised the important point there that people need the knowledge. If you're going to give them the responsibility of voting, they need the knowledge, and I think that that is a crucial point. Now, you said in your statement that:

'Within schools, the active citizenship theme of personal and social education will provide young people with an understanding of politics and the right to vote.' 

That's the end of your quote. Now, it has been raised recently by young campaigners—who actually support what you're doing and who actually want the vote to be extended to 16 and 17-year-olds—that many of them feel that what they have in schools at the moment in the active citizenship theme, which you alluded to, isn't actually sufficient to give them that political knowledge. So, I wondered were you seeking to change that element of the national curriculum in Wales, working with the education Minister, or does your statement actually indicate that you think that the education system at the moment does provide 16 and 17-year-olds with that knowledge?

The Member will be aware that we are refreshing the curriculum in its entirety at the moment. Can I say this? I do remember the Member giving a media interview during the election campaign where he said that he never canvassed, never knocked on people's doors, because he saw it as a terrible intrusion upon their lives. I would suggest that the Member does knock on some doors and does talk to people who he seeks to represent. Were he to do that, he would find some very engaged 16 and 17-year-olds—young people who want to play a part in shaping the future of their communities, young people who have both the knowledge and the vision for what they want to see in the future. So, I wouldn't take quite the view that he takes, but I do accept that we do need to ensure that through a curriculum refresh we do ensure that these matters are fully covered in the curriculum. But I've got far more faith in 16 and 17-year-olds than, perhaps, the Member for UKIP.

Our armed forces package of support makes clear our commitment to supporting veterans in Wales.

Can I thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for your support for our veterans across the country? I know that your update to the cross-party group recently was very much appreciated by all of the members. Following your address to the meeting, the meeting obviously continued, and one of the issues that was taxing the minds of people around the table was that of the need to identify more veterans across Wales in order that we can offer them proactively the support that they may need. Now, one of the ways to achieve this is, of course, the adoption of a veteran ID card, something that the cross-party group and my party and others in this Chamber have considered on many occasions in the past. Whilst I appreciate that this is a recommendation to which you will respond in due course, I wonder whether you could give us the Welsh Government's thinking on this at this particular time, because I think it is something that we need to address sooner rather than later. 

I do agree with the point you make about recognition and understanding the nature of the community, where that community lives and how it lives, and the nature of that community. I think we do need greater understanding of that, and I do accept that point in full. I hesitate before giving a definitive answer to that question. I will provide a more holistic response to the whole of the report when I have the opportunity to do so. But let me say this: one of my priorities is to ensure that we are able to put resources where those resources are needed, where we deliver services to those people. Fundamental to that approach is understanding where those people are and what their needs are. So, I think we do need a greater understanding of the characteristics and the nature of the family and of the community. I think we do need to improve our understanding of those issues. How we do that I'm giving consideration to at the moment. I think the investment in liaison officers for local authorities, for example, has made a huge difference to our understanding of the community and its needs. So, I think there's more than one way to answer that particular question, and I'm certainly seeking to ensure that we will be able to respond in full in due course.  

Does the Cabinet Secretary welcome the contribution of volunteers in supporting veterans? Clearly, there are Royal British Legion volunteers, and I'm very pleased to be a member of the Barry branch of the British legion, which is doing so much not just in terms of raising money through the poppy appeal, but also through local initiatives such as Woody's Lodge—and I know David Melding has spoken about this—which was launched by Carl Sargeant in the Senedd last year. Although it's based in the Vale of Glamorgan, it has now secured funding to expand across the whole of Wales. But this is entirely a voluntary initiative, very much run and led by veterans themselves and providing not just signposting support, but also the support that they can give each other in terms of the all-importance of that social understanding of what people have been through.   

Can I say I absolutely agree with the Member for the Vale of Glamorgan in the points she has made? In many ways, she has echoed the point made by the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire in her first question this afternoon about the importance of volunteers, and the role that they play in our communities and our society in delivering services in a holistic setting, which enables them to deliver the services required by people who are facing difficulties in this way. I'm delighted that Woody's Lodge has also been able to secure funding to open in north Wales, I think, in 2020, and then also in west Wales as well. I think it's a great example of how local volunteers can come together, deliver a service—a fantastic service—to people where they need it, and then use that knowledge, use that experience, use that skill and use that commitment to expand that service to deliver something that, as a Government, we would find impossible. 

Cabinet Secretary, Jane Hutt has just highlighted the issue of the support of volunteers, but there are many organisations, big and small, and charities, that help to support veterans. An example of where they sometimes fall down and somebody goes through the net is where we had a veteran in Maesteg who was living in a car for seven months. He fell on bad luck after he left the forces; he wasn't automatically eligible for support for housing. But that shows an example of how the volunteers then got hold of him. But these small groups and these larger groups sometimes conflict with one another. Is it possible that the Welsh Government can bring together these organisations to look at how a co-ordinated approach can be put together to support veterans in their communities?

I hope so. One of the reasons why we have appointed armed forces liaison officers in different local authorities is to enable us to co-ordinate exactly that sort of work to ensure that the work that is done by volunteers in the third sector complements and is associated with the work that is done by statutory services. Working together, I believe we can deliver a holistic service to people who need that service, and, working together, I believe we can achieve far more than we do working in isolation. So, I do agree with you in the point that you make and I hope that by having locally based liaison officers in different parts of Wales, we're able to have that local knowledge and root services on local needs. 

Local authority services play a vitally important role in the lives of all citizens in Wales. The Welsh Government continues to protect funding for 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.

Thank you for that answer, Cabinet Secretary. We know that the UK Government's austerity policies are placing great pressure on our local authorities, and obviously they have to meet what many would say are their primary statutory responsibilities in terms of education and social services, for example. But leisure services, libraries, museums, youth services and many other services are also very important and significant and, indeed, they all have to be seen as a whole in terms of quality of life for local people. 

We know that different methods of delivery have been brought forward by local authorities in Wales and many of those are quite successful. I wonder, Cabinet Secretary, to what extent Welsh Government has an overview of these new and sometimes better ways of delivery and what advice and support and spreading of best practice is taking place through Welsh Government in complementing the activities of the WLGA. Also, what new powers, and perhaps particularly the general power of competence, might help local authorities deliver better in the future?

I very much agree with the points that were being made by the Member for Newport East. I think he understands exactly that, in delivering a different model for local government, we need to do so in a way that is holistic, delivering powers for local government to act in a way that enables them to follow a holistic approach in their communities, shaping their communities, and creating great places to live and work that are great for families, a sense of place and a sense of community.

What we want local authorities to be able to be in the future is a shaper of communities, creating not just services for people but creating places where people can live and thrive. That's the sort of vision that I have, and it goes back to the earlier questions from the Plaid Cymru spokesperson about not just the shape and the structures of local government in the future, but also the powers and responsibilities for local government. I've tried to be very clear in the points that I've made in this role: that I see a great future for local government as an enabler of community services as well as a provider of community services, and I want to see local government strengthened in the future, more able to deliver not just statutory services but a great way of living for people wherever they happen to be in Wales.

Cabinet Secretary, Newport City Council has approved a budget that will result in cuts to services that will fall heavily on some of the most vulnerable people in the area. These include vulnerable people with mental health issues, people with learning disabilities and children with additional learning needs. What is the Cabinet secretary doing to address the genuine anger and dismay of the people of Newport, faced with these cuts to essential services? Tomorrow is St David's Day; I'd be grateful if you could give an answer in the St David's Day spirit, rather than blaming London, and give a Welsh answer on it.

I'm glad the Conservative Party now feels the need to advise me on my answers as well as to scrutinise me on my performance in office. Can I say this: it ill becomes any Conservative Member to come here to discuss the issues faced by some of the most vulnerable people in our communities as a direct consequence of the policies they themselves support. 

The taskforce is delivering a co-ordinated approach to economic development across the Valleys, particularly through strategic hubs and supporting entrepreneurship. It will also ensure people in the Valleys benefit from economic development across the whole of south-east Wales by working with the city deals and maximising opportunities from major infrastructure projects.

How effective does he judge the working between the city deals and the Valleys taskforce, particularly the city deal board and the Valleys taskforce board, and what improvements would he introduce to enhance that collaborative working?

I'm grateful to my friend from Caerphilly for that taxing question. Can I say that the Valleys taskforce exists in order to shape the policies and approach of the Welsh Government? It doesn't exist as an independent entity away from Government, and, as such, it seeks to work closely with both the city deals in south Wales, in both the capital region and in Swansea, and it seeks to ensure that we reduce complexity. One of the challenges that I think we have to face is to ensure greater coherence in policy development and policy delivery, whilst ensuring that we reduce complexity and increase simplicity in how we work together. At the moment, I am confident that we do have the structures in place that ensure that we are able to work effectively together and to maximise the impact of each other without falling into a trap of duplicating each other's ambitions, visions and policies. But I do believe that we do need to ensure that we do have greater simplicity in the future.

Cabinet Secretary, from 2012, the Welsh Government has spent £94 million on the Ebbw Vale enterprise zone to create just 175 jobs that are full-time. How will the Valleys taskforce support and improve the performance of the Ebbw Vale enterprise zone, please?

Presiding Officer, you're aware that I'm the Member for Blaenau Gwent and I have a direct interest in this matter. I will say to the Member that there's a great deal of work taking place within Blaenau Gwent between Welsh Government and the local authority there, and working with the enterprise zone and the enterprise zone board and others with an interest in investing in the economy of the Heads of the Valleys. We have both represented the area for the same period of time—myself and the Conservative Member—and I have not seen him at any of those meetings or taking part in any of those activities. Perhaps if he took a greater interest in the whole of his region, he would be able to answer the question himself.

I think most of us Valleys AMs, Cabinet Secretary, are very supportive of the strategic hub—I was trying to think of the words there—in the plan. I think identifying opportunities to invest in the social and economic conditions in communities like the upper Rhymney valley and in your own constituency of Blaenau Gwent forms an important consideration of the public sector partners on the city region board. I've said before that no-one should object to us investing regionally in projects in Newport and in Cardiff and some of the big conurbations, but I'm sure you'd agree with me that the real success is going to come when we see real, sustainable growth and success in places like the upper Rhymney valley.

Can I say, Presiding Officer, that I absolutely agree with the Member for Merthyr? I know how active she has been—Merthyr and Rhymney, I should say, of course, or I'll get into terrible trouble. I know how active she has been in promoting that area, and I know the work that she has done in ensuring that this is on the agenda of the Valleys taskforce and the wider Welsh Government.

The Member is aware that we will be holding a seminar next month on how we do maximise the benefits of the A465 dualling project to ensure that we are able to create the greatest possible impact across the whole of the Heads of the Valleys from Brynmawr across to Hirwaun, to ensure that we don't simply spend the money dualling the Heads of the Valleys road, but that we actually invest that in economic development. I think it's important that we maximise the work done in the strategic hubs in Merthyr and in Ebbw Vale to ensure that we're able to create a new economic region, if you like, across the whole of the Heads of the Valleys, and that that is something on which this Government works with local government, businesses and others to support and sustain.

Presiding Officer, this trial has now come to an end. It made a powerful case for firefighters responding to medical emergencies, which saves both lives and money. Making it permanent now depends on a new pay deal for firefighters, and I hope that both sides can reach an agreement on this. 

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. We are all grateful to firefighters across the country for the work that they do in keeping us safe. I'm aware that the national joint council has put forward some proposals for change that may impact the work that firefighters undertake in our communities. Could you give us an indication of how you intend to respond to these proposals? I'm also aware that the Scottish Government has made a pay offer to the Scottish fire service that appears to be outside the current negotiation structure. Could you give us an indication if you intend to follow suit?

I met the national joint council and the Fire Brigades Union and employers' side on 30 January in order to discuss a paper that has been presented to me and other UK Ministers from the national joint council on different ways in which our fire service can develop in order to provide greater services for the community. We do already have a number of additional services delivered by the fire service across different parts of Wales. It is my objective to ensure that we're able to continue this conversation with the fire service, the FBU and the NJC in order to reach an agreement.

I'm also aware of the point that the Member makes about the situation in Scotland. I was very clear with the NJC that I do not necessarily see it as being, as it is currently structured, fit for purpose for the future. I certainly want to ensure that the national Governments in Wales and Scotland are able to have a greater ability to influence what happens there, whilst accepting that we are not the employers in this case, and there has to be a forum for national collective bargaining. We don't disagree with that principle, but we do need, I believe, to have a richer conversation with and about the fire services for the future.

I will also say, Presiding Officer, that I am looking at the moment at reform of the fire and rescue authorities in Wales, and I will be making a further statement on this matter to the National Assembly in due course.

Any legislation for reorganisation would include provision specifying that all liabilities, including criminal liabilities, would transfer from the predecessor authority to the new authority on the day that reorganisation took effect.  

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. The Court of Appeal judgment in the case of Powys County Council v. Price and Hardwick overturns a High Court decision that could have wide ramifications for local authorities in relation to their liabilities under the contamination land regime. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 says that primary responsibility for the remediation of contaminated land is the original polluter, even if they no longer have an interest in the land in question. However, the Court of Appeal has taken a different approach, overturning the original High Court decision, and says that Powys is not liable for pollution caused by its predecessor landfill operations, meaning that current landowners may be held responsible for remediation, even though they had no part in the original pollution. You will appreciate this is causing great concern to some landowners in Powys, I'd therefore be grateful if you could state what the ramifications are for local authorities of this Court of Appeal judgment and confirm whether or not you will work with colleagues to resolve what appears to be a legal loophole.

I'm grateful to the Member for that question. Can I say to him it's clearly an issue that I will need to consider in greater detail than to provide a full answer this afternoon? [Laughter.]

I'll write to you.

I hope that Members will sympathise with that.

Can I say, Presiding Officer, that I will make a written statement on this matter, since it's clearly of interest to the Chamber and it's clearly an important issue that we need to address?

The current structure of fire and rescue authorities dates from the mid-1990s. It needs reform to ensure that fire and rescue authorities are properly accountable for delivery and spending. This will not necessarily mean changes to the number or coverage of fire and rescue authorities.

The structure of principal local authorities, including today, has been discussed regularly—for as long back as I can remember—but the structure of fire and rescue services does not seem to have been considered. Many believe that the structure of the Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Service was created for political reasons. I do not see the community interest of the ability to provide emergency support between Machynlleth and Margam or Welshpool and Worm's Head. Will the Cabinet Secretary consider a review of the structure of fire and rescue services in Wales? If we're only going to have three, I'm sure that parts of northern Powys would fit more easily into north Wales than they do in with Neath Port Talbot and Swansea.

I'm glad to hear, Presiding Officer, the Member for Swansea East arguing for changes to the structure and organisation of local government bodies in Wales. I'm delighted that he's joined us in that consensus. Can I say to him that it isn't my intention at present to make any statements on this matter except to say that I have written to the chairs of all three fire and rescue authorities in Wales outlining what I believe the case for change happens to be? I'm very happy, Presiding Officer, to put that letter in the library for all Members to see that letter, to see that correspondence, and I've asked the chairs of the fire and rescue authorities to come to me with a response to that when they're able to do so. It is my intention, Presiding Officer, in all these matters, to move ahead with a maximum amount of consensus. So, at present, it's not my intention to make specific proposals for the reform of fire and rescue authorities—simply to say that I believe that reform is necessary and that the status quo is not sustainable.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. 

The next item is questions to the Leader of the House and Chief Whip, Julie James. And the first question is from Suzy Davies.

The Welsh Government has consistently stressed to the UK Government that one of the fundamental criteria driving digital radio switchover should be that the coverage in Wales is no less than that in the rest of the UK. We would not be in favour of digital switchover for radio until there is a guarantee of at least 97 per cent coverage for digital audio broadcasting throughout Wales.

Thank you for that answer. The UK Government has indicated, of course, when it's going to consider switching over, or a date for that anyway, when 50 per cent of all radio listening is via digital platform, when national DAB coverage is comparable to FM, and local DAB coverage reaches 90. So, I was interested in your 97 per cent figure there. Those figures have been pretty much reached in England, and certainly as an average in the UK, so what additional infrastructure do you think we need to make sure that Wales catches up quickly?

Well, the big issue always in Wales is the difficulty of where the population is, and this is a problem for all of these sorts of services, and it's why we have a constant argument with the UK Government about what the proportional coverage should be. And that's because, as I'm sure I've expressed in this Chamber very often, everybody in Wales is spread out into every nook and cranny of Wales. So, we miss out quite large sections of the population, percentage-wise, if we concentrate on the high-population coverage areas. So, we have that constant conversation with them, and the difficulty is—it's exactly the same for much of the rest of the mobile coverage—we need a lot more masts in Wales to get the service out there. So, what we've been trying to do is make the UK understand that Wales has a specific issue and that we need a specific solution for it. It's not done through the broadband infrastructure, it's done through the broadcasting infrastructure. However, of course, you can pick up digital radio through the internet if you want to, and so our digital roll-out in terms of broadband will assist, but we're nevertheless insisting that the coverage should be good enough to cover the geographical spread of Wales as well as its population base.

May I assure the Cabinet Secretary that I'm not going to turn the internet on first thing in the morning? I want to listen to the radio in the morning in Aberystwyth, and it's not just smaller communities that are missing out on digital radio. There is a digital service in Aberystwyth, but there is no Radio Cymru or Radio Wales available, so we must ensure that our national broadcasters are available in all parts of Wales before we allow any switch-off of the FM signal. I speak as someone who has turned to digital for over 15 years. I'm a big fan of digital radio, but it causes me great concern that I can't listen to Radio Cymru and someone like Rhys Mwyn during the evenings in Aberystwyth.

Yes, I sympathise with that very much. Welsh Government officials have continued to raise this issue in meetings with the UK Government, the BBC, Ofcom, UK Digital Radio, and we continue to do so. In addition, our position in relation to DAB has been included in the Welsh Government's responses to various broadcasting consultations, including our recent response to the consultation on Ofcom's annual plan for 2018-19. Last October, UK Digital Radio ran a briefing session in Cardiff with a number of stakeholders to discuss recent developments in relation to digital radio. During that event, a number of organisations, including the Welsh Government, stressed again that, despite improvements in coverage of DAB in some parts of Wales, there is still a long way to go before we might contemplate any such switchover.

The Welsh Government provides equality grant funding to Stonewall Cymru. Part of this funding supports a transgender engagement officer to lead on trans equality issues. They work within communities at a grass-roots level to hear trans voices and ensure they are fully engaged with the services designed to support them.

Thank you for that. You are probably aware that the latest Stonewall report identified that two in 10 trans people—that's 41 per cent—and three in 10 of non-binary people—31 per cent—have experienced a hate crime or incident because of their gender identity over the last 12 months. Now, this is, obviously, totally unacceptable, and you'll be aware that the Westminster Government is consulting on reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004. Cabinet Secretary, will the Welsh Government be taking part in this? Will you be responding to the consultation? And how else will you be involved in trying to influence changes to that Gender Recognition Act in order to provide more safety, more security and more protection to the trans community throughout Wales and the rest of the UK?

Well, absolutely. I'm sure the Member knows that the Gender Recognition Act is not devolved to Wales, but we welcome the UK Government's plans to reform the Act, and we've been engaging, at an official level, with those plans.

All our stakeholders tell us of the increasingly negative media and social media attacks our trans communities are facing. We don't like the damaging narrative at all, and we've been working with trans people to address the barriers they face in equality. We fund a number of organisations, which we have specifically asked to be aware of the trans issues. We fund Victim Support, for example, and we've been working with them to make sure that our training is in place for everybody who is involved in our Supporting People programmes so that they have specific training. We've been rolling that specific training out for specifically that reason. We're very, very much aware that we've a long way to go, but we are in the process of working on a number of initiatives, in conjunction with the community themselves, to make sure that we get the very best outcomes for trans people in Wales, in all our communities.

Thank you. I now call the party spokespeople to question the leader of the house, and the first is the Welsh Conservatives' spokesperson, Russell George.

Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer. Leader of the house, today marks the end of the two-month extension to the Superfast Cymru project. I've repeatedly asked you and Openreach for details of how many premises were told that they were in scope of the Superfast Cymru project before 31 December, only for the project to end before they had been connected, and for a list of 2,500 premises, which are part of the two-month extension. Can you provide me with an answer to these questions today?

I'm afraid I can't. As I said, it takes us somewhere between 12 and 16 weeks to go through the very vigorous tests and verification process for the claims put in by BT under the superfast contract, but I can assure the Member that as soon as I have that data, I will make it available to the house.

I'm grateful for that. I'm also grateful that you have previously acknowledged the communication issues that have plagued the Superfast Cymru project, and you've pledged to address them with Openreach. However, communication issues do continue. When will the information on the Openreach broadband checker finally reflect what the accurate position is for all premises, including those enabled under the two-month extension? And for those who were in scope for an upgrade under Superfast Cymru but missed out, when will it become clear whether or not they will be included in the next scheme?

Yes, I think there are some communications issues still. Some of those are very complicated now because they are to do with the availability of connections via particular internet service providers, and we have been working with a number of Assembly Members—you included—to make sure that people are getting the right information about the question to ask. Because we have had some examples of people attempting to buy the services through an internet service provider that doesn't provide, for example, fibre-to-the-premises-type services, and the individual being told that the service isn't available, rather than that the particular provider doesn't provide it. So, we've got some complex communications issues going on at the moment. We have got a number of pieces of information on the website to assist with that. In terms of the successor programmes, we're very pleased that we're as near as we can be to looking at what can be done about the stranded assets programme, which I know the Member is very familiar with as well. I'm hoping to have a definitive list of the additional premises that were connected as a result of our extension, so that we could get the ones that have been completed to a very great extent done very shortly. And we think it's actually more than we originally planned, which is good news, but it's what's holding up the information. And in terms of the bespoke programme, we're going to be rolling that out as we speak to individual communities, and they will have a bespoke solution, which they will very much be in control of.

I very much look forward to receiving that additional information. Can I finally turn to the mobile action plan, which to date seems to be characterised by its lack of action? Are you concerned by the comments of your colleague the Cabinet Secretary responsible for planning, who in a recent letter to the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee, appears to have kicked into the long grass the planning reforms that are required to bring Wales in line with planning reforms that have taken place in England and Scotland, to enable the roll-out of mobile infrastructure? What do you say to the mobile industry, and to those people in rural areas who remain without coverage, who are concerned that the Welsh Government does not have the appetite to address the barriers of rolling out a critical mobile infrastructure, and without which coverage improvements cannot be delivered in a timely way? With positive actions being taken elsewhere in the UK, do you agree that this could lead to a situation where Wales does fall significantly behind? And, in your answer, please don't tell me that mobile is the responsibility of the UK Government, when these levers are very much the responsibility of the Welsh Government.

Well, of course, mobile services are not devolved, so it's—. We don't have some of the levers that I would very much like to have in order to move some of these things forward.

Planning is.

But of course some of the levers are within our control. We undertook a piece of planning research to look at what attitudes across Wales were to just increasing mast sizes. And, as I said in my earlier answer about digital radio, the problem with Wales is the population is spread out into every nook and cranny. Just making the masts higher doesn't solve the problem—it's not a silver bullet in any way. And very large numbers of the communities who live in the most beautiful parts of Wales don't want their landscape covered with a lot of very high masts. So, we must come up with some other solutions to that.

So, it is a conversation between us and the UK Government, because we think that, for very rural areas, and low geographical population coverage, we will have to have some solutions that are unpalatable to the industry, such as the ability to roam, for example, between networks. So, if you have 97 per cent coverage for a single network, that's of no use to you at all if you're not on that network, and it doesn't solve the tourist problem either. So it may well be that everybody who lives in the area can swap to that network, but that's useless if you're trying to run a tourist business, and you've got people coming in on the other networks. So, I'm afraid I think there are some more innovative solutions that will need to be put in place by the UK Government in order to allow us to have the very best coverage in Wales, and I continue to press for that.

In the meantime, of course, we have gone out to consultation on the revised 'Planning Policy Wales', in order to gauge what appetite there is in those communities for increased mast coverage, and increased mast height, as a balance for coverage as against the destruction of our very beautiful landscape.

Thank you. Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Siân Gwenllian.

Thank you very much. This week, your Government has published the continuity Bill to ensure that EU law in terms of devolved issues is transferred into Welsh law. But of course there is another important aspect of leaving the European Union, and that is the risk to human rights. So, what is your Government intending to do to ensure that human rights are maintained in Wales in the post-Brexit era?

Thank you for that very important question actually. We've made it very plain that we're utterly opposed to the repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998, and all that that entails, and we're utterly opposed to any withdrawal from the European convention on human rights. We're also opposed to any lessening of human rights protections in the context of the UK's withdrawal from the EU. It's impossible to set out the potential effects of a bill of rights without sight of exactly how these changes would be proposed to be framed. Even small amendments to the Human Rights Act could potentially raise complex legal issues. So, careful scrutiny of any such reforms will be required. The Welsh Government expects to be consulted on these issues when more concrete proposals are made available. But, I just want to make it absolutely plain that we don't see the need for it. We have a Human Rights Act that's been very effective, and it's been shown to be effective. It was drafted mostly by British lawyers in fact. It works inside a convention that has worldwide approval, and to use one of the old clichés, 'Why fix it if it ain't broke?'

Exactly, but it is clear that one of the major risks of exiting the European Union is that some of those who were on the leave side of the campaign, including some of those who funded that campaign, have an ideological vision that is very different to the one that you and I hold: the UK as a low-taxation nation, where public services are privatised, and where employers can treat their employees as they choose, without any safeguarding of workers' rights, for example, for women on maternity, and so on and so forth. I know that that isn't what you or I would want for Wales. So, how can your Government prepare to safeguard these rights—the rights of people, the rights of women and disabled people—against efforts to weaken those rights that are currently part of the make-up of our nation, partly because of European legislation?

Absolutely. And that's very much part of the idea of the continuity Bill, to protect our ability as a devolved Government to protect the transfer of current EU regulation into Welsh law, and to keep it embedded therein. And, actually, just to continue our cultural tradition of being extremely proud of being a culture in Wales that protects human rights and actually welcomes people from across the world, seeking asylum and sanctuary, because we're proud of our human rights record. And I, for one, have got no truck at all with changing our position, either in Wales or in the UK as a whole, to anything other than that, and it's one of the reasons that I think that what we're doing is not the right course of action, and we continue to push that point of view very forcefully. 

But I wonder whether we need to go further than the continuity Bill. I wonder whether we need specific legislation on rights. Professor Simon Hoffman has presented evidence stating that legislation on rights is within the competence of this Assembly. He has stated:

'When the revised Schedule 7A—'

of the Wales Act 2017—

'is in force the Welsh Minsters will have power to introduce legislation, and the NAW will be competent to enact legislation in the field of human rights generally'.

Therefore, to me, that suggests that there is a window of opportunity here between the time that Schedule 7A comes into force and when the UK leaves the European Union. There is a window of opportunity to legislate to safeguard as much as possible of these human rights and the workers' rights currently in place. Do you believe that it would be valuable to pass specific legislation in terms of protecting the rights of the people of Wales?

Well, I think there's a possibility of that, but as I said, at the moment, the UK Government's plans to reform human rights are on hold—which I'm delighted to hear them say—until the UK's withdrawal from the EU is finalised. This was confirmed in the Conservative 2017 general election manifesto, one of the only bits of it that I greeted with any enthusiasm. It says:

'We will not repeal or replace the Human Rights Act while the process of Brexit is underway but we will consider our human rights legal framework when the process of leaving the EU concludes. We will remain signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights for the duration of the next Parliament.'

So, that's their current position. Our position very clearly is, as I say, we like the Human Rights Act as it is. We like being a member of the convention on human rights. We think that's fundamental to our culture and our society and we'll continue to push for that. But, quite rightly, we will keep a weather eye on what might need to be done, and while we're discussing the continuity Bill, I'm sure we'll be bearing some of those issues in mind. 

Thank you. UKIP spokesperson, Caroline Jones.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Leader of the house, Wales is facing a huge demographic shift in the near future, with the number of over-65s set to rocket, and the number of those of working age set to plummet. This presents enormous challenges for public services, particularly health and social care. Increased use of digital technologies can help address these problems, but only if we have the proper digital infrastructure. So, how does your Government plan to ensure that our digital infrastructure is fit for future needs?

Yes. We've spent a lot of money, as Members across the Chamber will have heard me say on a number of occasions, on extending superfast broadband right through Wales, and that has a number of effects, not least allowing telemedicine and so on to take effect, so that we take better care of our population as a whole, and specifically those who have any kind of mobility or distance issues. That's very much part of the reason we've spent very large numbers of millions on the roll-out of that digital infrastructure.

I will say, however, to the Member that I have a fundamental problem really with the start of what she said, because one of the issues we now face is the difficulty of attracting migrants of working age into the Welsh economy as a result of her party's pushing of a particular migration policy with which I fundamentally disagree. So, actually, restricting immigration for breeder-age populations, which is what largely migrant populations actually are, is a fundamentally backwards step in readjusting our economy. 

Thank you for that answer, leader of the house, because I was coming on to telemedicine, which is fast becoming a solution for healthcare in rural areas and widely seen as a solution to the shortages that we have in primary care. Unfortunately, those same rural areas are poorly provisioned in both broadband and mobile reception. So, if we are to address health inequalities in rural parts of Wales, we have to ensure that digital communications are 100 per cent reliable. So, what discussions have you had with the UK Government and the service providers regarding the provision of reliable digital communications to 100 per cent of the population? 

Well, we've had extensive conversations with the UK Government about this, particularly in light of the Digital Economy Act 2017. They've gone for a 10 Mbps universal service obligation; however, it's not yet at all clear what 'universal' means in this context. It's unlikely to mean 100 per cent as that's not likely to be within the budget associated with the Act. We think 10 Mbps isn't sufficient, and one of the reasons we don't think it's sufficient is that it's not sufficient for telemedicine. In fact, only this morning, in my ministerial data and digital services group, we had a presentation from the Powys Teaching Local Health Board about their new community care information system and we were discussing the need to extend broadband further into rural Wales as part of the new Superfast 2 programme, with a view to getting 30 Mbps minimum speeds across large parts of Wales. It's worth mentioning that without Superfast Cymru none of that would have ever been done: no part of Powys, Ceredigion or Carmarthenshire would ever have been done under a commercial roll-out. So, it's entirely due to the Welsh Government's programme that these areas have any broadband at all. 

Thank you, once again, for those answers, leader of the house. Our digital infrastructure depends not only upon cables and radio transmitters, but also highly trained personnel, particularly in cyber security and data management. Cyber attacks and data centre outages have wreaked havoc on the NHS in recent times, highlighting the fact that computer scientists are as vital to our NHS as the life scientists. What discussions have you had with the Cabinet Secretary for Education about ensuring Wales has sufficient skilled individuals to protect our digital infrastructure?

Yes, cyber security is a real live issue for us obviously and I very recently met with Ciaran Martin, the chief executive of the National Cyber Security Centre, and my officials maintain a good working relationship with his organisation. We're very pleased that the NCSC has just announced a dedicated devolved administrations relationships manager to work with us in Wales. Our officials held a workshop with him at the end of January to discuss robust cyber instant management procedures and that's right across the Welsh Government. So, we're very actively involved in ensuring that we have good cyber security across the Welsh public estate. 

Now, we return to the questions on the order paper. Question 3, Mike Hedges.

Certainly. Although not holding information specifically for Swansea East, under the Superfast Cymru project we have provided access to fast fibre broadband to 24,093 premises across all parts of Swansea, equating to just over 98 per cent completion. The average download speed across Swansea is currently 82.81 Mbps. 

And what is the upload speed? 

There's a big issue with upload speeds depending on what kind of technology you use to connect it and they depend on a number of other factors. So, customers on a fibre-to-the-cabinet connection can expect download speeds of a maximum of about 80 Mbps and upload speeds of around 20 Mbps. But it's dependent on distance from the cabinet, the package the customer buys from their internet service provider and what's called 'contention' on the network, which just means how busy it is. However, customers on a fibre-to-the-premises connection can expect download speeds of around 330 Mbps and upload speeds of around 30 Mbps, and that's dependent on the package that the customer buys as well, but it's not dependent on distance and FTTP is not subject to contention. So, we have the biggest fibre penetration in the UK at the moment, across parts of Wales, because people on a full fibre connection clearly don't have that problem. There is definitely an upload speed problem on copper networks and especially as you go into the fade-out area, and one of the things that's really interesting in Swansea is the BT test for a new way of sending a signal down copper wires in Swansea, called the G.fast test. I'm really looking forward to seeing what the outcome of that will be shortly, to see whether it has an effect that we can roll out elsewhere in Wales.

In response to a question that I asked the economy Secretary last year about broadband provision near rail lines, he said that he recognised the importance of Wi-Fi on rail services in Wales and mentioned that Arriva Trains Wales was doing work to improve that at the time. While you know that constituents will enter Swansea train station in Swansea West, it takes them just a matter of seconds, as Mike Hedges will agree, to be in Swansea East and they're already complaining about how fickle the Wi-Fi connection is. Have you spoken to the economy Secretary at all about how we can improve Wi-Fi services on trains? I appreciate that trains aren't your responsibility, but Wi-Fi is, so there's obviously some work to be done together there?

Indeed, and his officials attend my ministerial data and digital group, which as I said, met only this morning. One of the topics of conversation was that we're putting in place a new transport data arrangement, as part of the way the officials work, to consider how we might best improve some of the connectivity issues. So, you will know that Arriva Trains Wales has just put Wi-Fi on all of its rolling stock and the rolling stock will transfer when the franchise happens. But Great Western—we've been unable to secure that, although there's a conversation going on. We are, however, looking to see whether an agreement with Network Rail might be productive in terms of using some of the network itself as infrastructure, and, indeed, we're also looking at noding the roads and so on in order to improve some of it. So, I have a very intensive and ongoing conversation with the Cabinet Secretary and his officials about how we can best use the infrastructure that's available to us in order to increase exactly that sort of provision.

Leader of the house, you say that the take-up rate for superfast broadband has remained much lower than the actual availability of superfast broadband. So, could I ask what you as a Government are doing to ensure that people are aware of the availability of superfast broadband in their area?

Yes, we've just increased the amount of money that we currently spend on advertising the availability of broadband. We've just procured an advertising agency to go out on a two-county basis at a time—a rolling programme of advertising the availability of superfast in order to increase take-up.

I will say, though, that this is an enormous cultural change. We've all forgotten how fast this change has happened really. So, when this programme was first put in place, BT themselves estimated that about 21 per cent of the population would take up broadband. That's why the gain share is set at 21 per cent. They didn't expect to share any profit with us. It's currently running at just over 50 per cent. That's why we've got so much money to invest in the next stage. But, obviously, the faster that that climbs, the better. It's got quite a timetable on it, so we keep getting that gain share over several years in the future. So, I would encourage all of us to encourage as many people as possible to get online.

We continue to work closely with our partners on the hate crime criminal justice board, including the police and Crown Prosecution Service, to tackle homophobic hate crime. We also provide funding to Victim Support Cymru and Stonewall Cymru, through our equality and inclusion programme, which supports work in this area.

Thank you for that answer, leader of the house. Research by Stonewall Cymru has shown that the number of LGBT people in Wales who have experienced hate crime has increased by 82 per cent within the last five years. They also found that four in five hate crimes and incidents go unreported, with younger people particularly reluctant to go to the police. Leader of the house, what is the Welsh Government doing to encourage the reporting of homophobic hate crime by young people and has it considered using social media, such as the This is Me campaign, which raises awareness of domestic violence?

Yes indeed, we're very proud of the This is Me campaign, which I launched in Gower College a few weeks ago now. It's been widely taken up on social media, and, as the Member will know, it's based very much on promoting what the research shows us, which is that increased gender equality and transgender equality decreases violence as people are able to just express themselves as they wish to be and are not forced into roles and stereotypes that mean that they're not able to cope with their general life.

We have a number of very specific things we do around hate crime. The hate crime criminal justice board will set its 2018 objectives on 9 May. These will be aligned to our 2014 tackling hate crimes and incidents framework. The three objectives are on prevention, support and improving a multi-agency response. We also, as I said in an earlier answer, under the equality and inclusion programme, fund Victim Support at around £624,000 and Stonewall Cymru at around £250,000 a year.

The national hate crime report and support centre, run by Victim Support, continues to raise awareness and help victims of homophobic hate crime. They work closely with their sister service, Rainbow Bridge LGBT domestic abuse service. I hope the Member is aware of Stonewall Cymru's Come Out For LGBT campaign, which encourages people to take a visible stand against LGBT hate crime and show support for LGBT equality in all forms.

We're also, as he specifically asked about schools, working to make sure school staff are well equipped and confident about tackling hate-related bullying. In 2015, the Welsh Government published lesson plans for schools on gender- and transgender-based bullying, aimed at key stages 3 and 4, which can be found in our digital learning service Hwb.

Certainly. Under the Superfast Cymru project, we have provided access to fast-fibre broadband to 17,767 premises across all parts of Monmouthshire, equating to just over 76.2 per cent completion, and they have an average download speed of 83.84 Mbps. 

All credit to you for managing to find different answers to all the questions on broadband today and different statistics. I think your file will be running out soon.

As my colleague Russ George said earlier in questions to you, many families in rural areas dropped off the Superfast Cymru scheme originally, which was very disappointing. Can you update us on your assessment of the potential for using new technologies to plug the remaining gaps, such as the use of tv white space, which a company in Monmouthshire has been trialling? Also, the 4G network has got capacity that could be used for broadband. And, following on from all that, have you considered whether it might be appropriate to devolve some more funding to local authorities directly so that they can come up with bespoke, localised solutions that will drill down and address the broadband gaps specifically located in their areas?

Yes, I'm very happy to say that we're considering all forms of availability for broadband. The programme has never been technology reliant. In fact, we let the programme to BT and they used their two big technologies for it. But we've always, through the ABC programme around the ultrafast programme, supported all technologies in Wales of whatever sort, as long as it gets the speed to above 30 Mbps. So, that's the criterion and continues to be the criterion. As I've said a number of times in this Chamber, we're looking to have very bespoke solutions for particular communities of people, and I'm very happy to discuss with any community any particular solution that gets them to that 30 Mbps-plus provision. But, whatever works, we're happy to work with whatever works. I'll say to the Member though that, in terms of the take-up, in Monmouthshire, the take-up is only just over 40.13 per cent. So, if he would like to work with me and my officials to see if we could get that up, I'd be very grateful.

We have 32,081 premises that have been provided with access to fast broadband on Anglesey under the Superfast Cymru project, which equates to 91 per cent of eligible premises.

Thank you very much. My question today comes directly from the clerk of Bodedern council. I ask it because it's pertinent for so many of our rural communities, and I'm grateful to the clerk for contacting me. I will read:

Significant problems with broadband connectivity exist in a number of areas of the community, which is having a very negative impact on many individuals, families and businesses. For example, many farmers have to send their grant applications online, but I'm aware of a number of farmers who are unable to do this because of the broadband connection, and because of this they are disadvantaged. They have attended open sessions to express their concerns, but to date they have only received the response that their concerns have been noted, and haven't received any offer of improvement or any plan for the future.

There is then a question for me, which I pass on to you: can you confirm what you suggest should be done to assist rural communities that are suffering these negative impacts?

I'm not too sure what the specific issue there is, but I'm more than happy to have a good look to see what it is. We are aware that there are some fibre-to-the-premises connection problems in Anglesey and some parts of the north-west of Wales. It may be that you're caught in one of those, but I'm afraid I don't have that information to hand, so I'm very happy to, perhaps, exchange correspondence with you.

I am in Anglesey in the not-too-distant future, so I'd also, if I can manage to fit it in, like to come along to the community and actually see for myself what the issues are and get one of our exploitation teams to have a specific look to see whether we can solve those problems. As I say, Anglesey has a very good percentage of coverage, so I'm surprised to find that there's that much of a problem. I suspect that we've got to look at a very specific issue there. 

Analysis published by Which? in June last year found that Anglesey was thirteenth out of the 20 worst places for broadband in the UK, behind only Powys and Monmouthshire in Wales. On 30 January, you announced the first details of your new strategy to help to make fast and reliable broadband available to every property in Wales, with three lots going out to tender. The related tender document is now available online, stating only that the aim is to deliver superfast broadband services to as many premises as possible in Wales. So, when will the tender for north-west Wales—the lot 1 tender for north-west Wales—open and close? And why has the target for every property in Wales been removed?

What we're trying to do is we're trying to test the market to see—. This is always a balance between numbers and getting to communities that have a specific recorded need. I've said this a number of times before: it's a real balance for us to know whether we should just get past as many premises as possible, regardless of whether those people have contacted us to say that they want it, or whether we should be looking to specific individuals and small groups of people who have indicated that they are very desperate to get the connection because that's patchy across Wales.

Part of the process of the tender is to see what's available for what price. We've asked the market to tell us what they're able to do, and then we can make specific bespoke solutions for places that have either indicated already that they want that or are left out of the market calculation. So, I'm afraid it's quite a complex procurement to run.

We're also looking to see what we can do with local authority partners to pick up some of the issues in some of their areas. So, there's no simple answer to that question, but we're basically just trying to get to as many people as possible for the money that we have available. 

Yes, we continue to implement our national strategy that sets out our action to protect and support victims and survivors of domestic abuse. We will publish draft commissioning guidance shortly that will support a more collaborative regional approach to providing services.  

Thank you for that answer, leader of the house. However, victims of domestic abuse in Wales are being turned away from some refuges due to lack of space, and funding changes imposed by the UK Government threaten the closure of many refuges across the country. What is your Government doing to protect refuges in Wales, and how will you increase the number of available spaces?

We're very aware that benefit changes are causing some difficulties in some of the refuges in Wales, and we've been working very closely with providers to make sure that we can understand exactly what the issues are. We have provided £5.4 million in 2017-18 in the violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence services grant to local authorities and to third sector organisations for implementation of the Violence against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act 2015, and we've also given £376,000 in 2017-18 for Hafan Cymru's Spectrum project, which is teaching children about healthy relationships and about abuse, its consequences and where to seek help. 

I was very privileged to attend a session of that programme very recently to see for myself the effect that it has on the children and their ability to understand what constitutes a healthy relationship and what might constitute a not-so-healthy relationship. I was very impressed indeed by the quality of the programme and how it was raising awareness not only in the group of children receiving the tuition but right across the school and its teaching staff. So, I was very pleased with that.

As I said in answer to an earlier question, we're running the This is Me campaign, because we're very aware that gender stereotyping is, according to all the research, one of the main drivers of domestic violence and domestic abuse, as people try to live up to personalities and traits that simply aren't natural to them, and the stress that that engenders within the domestic setting. So, we're sponsoring that programme, which I'm very proud of, and the young people were very responsive to some of the messages in that programme also.  

I agree with what you just said in terms of promoting positive behaviour is absolutely key, and that we do that in schools—amongst other places, but schools are really important. But I think most public agencies are in a very good place to detect poor behaviour and attitudes, and then also signs of actual violence, because there's such under-reporting in this area. And that's got to be part of our strategy of absolutely no tolerance.    

I completely agree with that. Our strategy is based on three purposes: prevention, protection and support, and that's very much part of it. So, we've been rolling out our 'ask and act' guidance right across all of the responders and all of our partners on this agenda with a view to doing exactly that, actually—to make sure that people recognise the signs of behaviours and pick them up early and get people signposted to the right sort of support, but also, actually, to pick up the perpetrators early and pick up the signposts for that. So, all three bits of the strategy are equally important, and I completely concur that we must—well, we must make sure that as many people in Wales as possible are trained to recognise those signs.  

Although we don't hold information specifically for Islwyn, under the Superfast Cymru project we have provided access to fast fibre broadband to 27,206 premises across all parts of Caerphilly county borough, which equates to just over 92 per cent completion. 

Diolch. Since the project began in 2013, the availability of superfast broadband across Wales has more than doubled. Leader of the house, is the Welsh Government able to identify the percentage of Islwyn premises that are now covered by superfast broadband, and what further actions does the Government intend to take to ensure that all premises in my constituency are covered? 

We've got, as I said, a 92 per cent completion rate at the moment. I'm not too sure if that's actually Islwyn, because it's across Caerphilly; we don't hold them in constituency boundaries in that way. But, as I said earlier, we plan to introduce an additional novel scheme that supports communities that demonstrate tangible demand, particularly targeting communities that are not currently covered by suppliers in response to the successor scheme that was outlined by Mark Isherwood in his earlier question. So, if Rhianon Passmore knows of any specific communities that have that issue, I'd be more than happy to come and visit them with her. Otherwise, I'm sure that most parts of Islwyn will be picked up under the successor programme by the companies that are currently expressing an interest.  

Leader of the house, I've been informed that Caerphilly County Borough Council is holding up the installation of ultrafast broadband by charging extortionate planning fees and ground rental for the ultrafast boxes. This endangers ultrafast provision, not just in Caerphilly, including Islwyn, but in surrounding areas as well. Would you ensure that Caerphilly stops endangering provision of ultrafast broadband in this way?   

We are aware that there's an issue with competitor broadband schemes in Caerphilly. We do encourage as much competition as possible in the market in order to get the best possible prices, so we are aware of the issue in Caerphilly over cabinet siting and some of the planning issues, and my officials are in discussion with Caerphilly about that matter.  

Yes. Much has been achieved since the Act was passed and we continue to implement the legislation through our national strategy. Following input from our new national advisors, our delivery framework and national indicators will be published this year, with further roll-out of our 'ask and act' programme.

Diolch. You mention national indicators and, as you know, the Act said Welsh Ministers must publish national indicators that may be applied for the purpose of measuring progress towards the achievement of the purpose of this Act. Given that 29 April this year will be the third anniversary of Royal Assent for the Act, could you give us a little more information on where you stand with national indicators? You say later this year. Can you say when and what stage you've reached in their formulation?

Yes, indeed. Our national strategy on violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence was published in November 2016. That sets out the key objectives based on the three purposes of the Act: prevention, protection and support. We'll publish a cross-Government delivery framework to complement the strategy, drawing on the new national adviser's expertise, before publishing the framework in the summer of this year. We're developing national indicators, which will be measures of progress against the purpose of the Act. This is a priority for the new national advisers, working with our external partners. 

Since publication of the national framework for relevant authorities, we've created and funded a range of training for specialist professionals across Wales. We've published a suite of films aimed at public service leadership to raise awareness of violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence. The films have now been viewed over 6,500 times and we're developing a national survivor engagement framework to ensure that we hear and act upon the lived experience of those experiencing violence against women, domestic violence and sexual violence.

And, finally, we're working in partnership with service providers and survivors to develop the Live Fear Free national communications campaign, which I launched last month in Swansea. 

Thank you very much, leader of the house.

Item 3 on the agenda is questions to the Assembly Commission. The first question is to be answered by the Llywydd as the Chair of the Commission, and it's question 1, Dai Lloyd. 

We show live verbatim and translated Plenary proceedings on Senedd.tv and YouTube. We provide broadcasters with verbatim and translated audio feeds from all Plenary meetings. BBC Wales stream Plenary live on their Welsh and English-language websites. First Minister's questions is broadcast with the translated feed on BBC Wales every Tuesday, and BBC Parliament shows First Minister's questions and selected items from Plenary each week.

Thank you very much for that response, Llywydd. Now, a number of individuals have told me over the past few months that, when channels, such as BBC 2 specifically, broadcast proceedings from this Chamber live, when a Member makes a contribution in Welsh, both languages—Welsh and the English interpretation—are broadcast simultaneously with neither being quieter than the other, so that people complain that they can't hear either language clearly, particularly older people. So, could we convince our broadcasters to make it easier for Welsh-language listeners to hear contributions clearly in the original Welsh or to provide subtitles or any other response that wouldn't mean hours of painstaking work for the viewer to retune their television once again?

Thank you for the question. The sound engineers working for us provide the feed for the broadcasters and good practice, I understand, as regards broadcasting the interpretation is that both audio feeds are available so that the viewer, the listener, can see that the person is speaking in one language with interpretation provided in another language. Of course, it's very important that the interpretation can be understood and that the original sound doesn't infringe upon people being able to understand what is being said by Dai Lloyd and myself on this point now via the interpretation and the broadcasting. So, it's clear, if there are complaints, that we need to look once again at how mixing both the feeds is done and how we get the balance right for the viewers. I will ensure that that is reviewed, because it's important that everybody understands what is being said in both Welsh and English in this place.

Thank you. Question 2 is to be answered by Joyce Watson as the Commissioner for equalities and the Commission as the employer of Assembly staff. It's question 2. It's Mark Isherwood.

The Commission is committed to ensuring access to the Assembly estate for disabled people and regularly reviews accessibility to all our buildings and facilities. We complete equality impact assessments before undertaking refurbishment or improvement work to ensure accessibility and compliance with building regulations.

Thank you. Let me start by praising Assembly Commission staff as somebody with hearing loss, that, whenever a problem arises with technology, they are wonderful in seeking to help and remove those barriers. But in the early Assembly—. I've been here long enough to have sat in the old Chamber, and, in those days, Members with impairments, including those like myself with hearing loss, would be asked to road test the equipment or adaptations being considered before the Commission of the day—or the parliamentary service, as it was then called—would invest in those new provisions. That has not been the case in my experience since we moved to this Chamber early in 2006, before the formal opening then on St David's Day. Will the Commission give, therefore, consideration to restoring a system whereby, before investment in new disability adaptations for the Assembly estate is implemented, that Members, and potentially other disability access groups, are invited to road test and advise first?

I thank you for raising what is a hugely important issue, and that is that we provide, as a Commission and as an Assembly, the facilities that fit the purpose for which people intend to use them and it is the case, you know, that we have updated very recently the loop here and in 2015 and 2016 we upgraded the audio system, and we did the same in the committee rooms and the Chamber and committee public galleries and then bought the new system that you are now currently using, I believe.

But you can have my assurance, and, I'm sure, the assurance of my fellow Assembly Commissioners, that we will return to a system that seems very sensible to me, that, when people want to use a device or a system, we do ask those people who will be using that to road test it before we go out and purchase on their behalf what we hope might be appropriate. We will do that in every case, because I know that there are other issues that have been raised with me about accessibility at the front of the Assembly, where we have quite clearly put in the ramps and the lifts so that disabled people, wheelchair users and others can access the building, but we haven't backed that up with the signage and people are finding it to be somewhat of a maze, and that was never the original intention of doing that. There have been other issues about access to stages and platforms where we host events. So, all of those things are very much on our radar and I can absolutely assure you that they will be attended to.

Thank you. Question 3 is to be answered by Caroline Jones as the Commissioner for Security and Assembly Resource and the question is from Simon Thomas.

Thank you very much, Simon, for raising this important issue on electrical charging points on the Assembly estate. Following our previous commitment to install charging points, it’s my pleasure to confirm that this work is ongoing in order to put in place the charging points on the Assembly estate by the end of March 2018. There are currently a small number of EV users on the estate, and we hope that the new charging facilities will encourage additional users in the future. I will now turn to English.

May I thank the Commissioner for using the bilingual broadcasting services here in such a powerful way, and may I thank her for confirming that the process that has been ongoing for about a year will be completed by March? I look forward, personally, to being able to change the way I come to this place, not only by rail, of course, but in an electric car. But it's important to remember that we have ensured that the Government is investing £2 million throughout Wales in this system and that we as an Assembly are leading the way in decarbonising transport, and encouraging people to come to the Assembly in the way that is most convenient to them. So, I hope that this work will be completed and I look forward to that happening.

I thank the Member for his positive response and I hope that we can progress from here. When we did the survey, there was only one person who had an electric vehicle, so we are now implementing two power points that will, hopefully, encourage us to lessen the carbon footprint and we can look further. When we see the response to having these points in place, we can then look forward to receiving more information from other Members who wish for us to engage more fully with the services. Thank you. 

Thank you very much. 

Item 4 is topical questions. No topical questions have been accepted.

So, we move to item 5, which is the 90-second statements. Simon Thomas.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Plastic and its impact on our environment is an issue of huge public interest now. In 1950, 1.5 million tonnes of plastics were produced across the world. It is now more than 320 million tonnes per annum, and half of all plastics produced since 1950 have been produced over the past decade alone.

Plastic waste is now responsible for some 60 per cent to 90 per cent of waste in our seas; a plastic bottle can last up to 450 years, and plastic waste is detrimental to as many as 100,000 sea species and a million sea birds every year. So, I'm pleased to congratulate the village of Aberporth on becoming a plastic-free community—the first of its kind in Wales. My thanks are to the whole village for coming together to seek alternative ways of providing for citizens and visitors without using unnecessary plastic. It varies from recyclable cups in cafes, using paper straws in the local pub and milk in glass bottle in the village shop. 

In this Assembly, we are discussing a tax on plastics, and I am pleased to have negotiated funding for the consideration of a deposit-return scheme. But the greatest change is to be seen in our communities. New Quay in Ceredigion has followed Aberporth, and around 200 people have been discussing the idea in Aberystwyth recently. I look forward, therefore, Deputy Presiding Officer, eagerly, to see the day when Wales will be free of plastic. 

Vikki Howells. 

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. February 2018 is LGBT History Month. This important annual event gives us a chance to reflect on LGBT+ history, noting how far we have come in terms of promoting equal rights and diversity, but also the challenges and barriers we still have to overcome.

The year 2018 marks the hundredth anniversary of the Representation of the People Act 1918, so it's perhaps no surprise that LGBT History Month this year explores the role that lesbians and bisexual women played in the votes-for-women campaign. Other important anniversaries include it being 40 years since Harvey Milk was murdered. It is also 30 years since the Conservative Government legislated for homophobia in the shape of section 28. Both latter commemorations adequately capture this year's theme, geography—mapping the world. This offers the chance to celebrate the global advance towards equal marriage, but also the opportunity to reflect on the persecution LGBT people face around the world and the role we must all play in changing this.

Community events are also important, highlighting this message at a grass-roots level. I was very pleased on Saturday to speak at the first ever LGBT+ history event to be held in Aberdare at the Cynon Valley Museum organised by a local group, Project Unity. I note the rainbow flag also marks its fortieth birthday this year. So, let's each of us fly the flag for equality and LGBT+ rights in 2018 and beyond.

Thank you. Darren Millar. 

The first of March marks the day of our patron saint, David, a devoted follower of Jesus Christ and the inspiration for the inaugural St David's parliamentary prayer breakfast, which will be held in the Pierhead building tomorrow morning. The prayer breakfast will bring together Assembly Members, international guests and others to celebrate Wales's rich Christian heritage, and the huge contribution of Christian congregations in the past, present and future to Welsh society. Guests will be braving the weather to travel from every corner of Wales, and they will enjoy the company of representatives from many places around the globe, including people from Germany and Switzerland, India, Israel, Singapore, the Netherlands, Palestine, Pakistan, Zimbabwe and Nigeria, and of course Siberia will also be represented in terms of the weather.

The event will be preceded by a reception here in the Senedd this evening, and will coincide with an exhibition of treasures from the archives of the National Library of Wales, including the famous Bible of Mary Jones, whose story led to the establishment of the Bible Society, and a scorched Bible that was damaged in a pit explosion in a coal mine that belonged to the famous Welsh revivalist Evan Roberts. We're grateful to those who've helped to make the event happen and we trust that it will be a blessing for this great nation of Wales, which we in this Chamber are proud to call our home. Happy St David's Day to you all.

Thank you.

Item 6 on our agenda this afternoon is a debate on the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee's report on UK governance post Brexit. I call on Mick Antoniw to move the report.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. The United Kingdom has been through a period of momentous constitutional change since the advent of devolution. The changes to the way we are governed have transformed and continue to transform our political and constitutional landscape. As a result of the vote in 2016 to leave the European Union, the UK is also now in the midst of one of the most important and challenging constitutional reforms it has ever faced, with long-lasting implications for the operation and governance of the UK and the individual nations and regions of the UK. This has been the constitutional backdrop to our work on UK and devolved governmental and parliamentary inter-institutional relations.

Our work also drew on the committee’s scrutiny of the Wales Bill and, in particular, the recurring concerns that were voiced about the effectiveness of the relations between the UK and Welsh Governments and how this impacted on the development of the Bill. Our report on UK governance post Brexit, which we published at the start of February, was the culmination of over a year’s work. This work, which started out as 'A stronger voice for Wales', evolved over the course of 2017 and was affected by many events such as the UK general election and the preparations for the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union, particularly as a consequence of the controversial European Union (Withdrawal) Bill.

Before I delve into our findings, I have many people to thank. First of all, those who gave either written or oral evidence; secondly, a citizens panel, who gave their time freely to assist with our work and who provided an insight into what the public expect from Governments and Parliaments working together for the people they serve; thirdly, an expert panel who helped shape and focus our thinking on the last report; and last but not least, the former Chair of this committee, Huw Irranca-Davies, who led the first nine months of our work.   

So, turning to the report, it makes nine recommendations. We believe that they are necessary to improve our inter-institutional relations and, equally important, to ensure that withdrawal from the EU does not result in unintended constitutional consequences. In reaching our views, we sought to learn lessons and, where we felt appropriate, endorse recommendations contained in other reports in this subject area, including those undertaken by parliamentary committees across the UK. Indeed, many of our observations and themes that emerged during our work reflect and build upon the findings of those committees. We were encouraged by the considerable degree of cross-party consensus that has developed amongst the various constitutional committees on the need for radical constitutional reform and how that could be achieved.

Our first two recommendations focus on strengthening the inter-governmental relations that currently exist through the Joint Ministerial Committee. Our fifth and sixth recommendations focus on the use of a Speakers’ conference to help facilitate the delivery of change. We believe that a Speakers’ conference could be used as a means of reaching agreement on changes to the UK’s inter-institutional relations. These will inevitably need to adapt, not only to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, but also to the changing relationship between the constituent nations of the UK as a result.

We heard numerous examples of how effective interpersonal relationships between Ministers can aid the day-to-day work of Government. However, you cannot always rely on those relationships. So it is imperative, in the interests of good governance, to have formal inter-governmental structures in place that are capable of resolving effectively any breakdown in ministerial relations. Getting the arrangements right is vital to ensure efficiency in the delivery of services where there are mutual interests between Governments, where disputes need to be resolved or, in the case of Wales and England, where there are benefits to working together, for example on cross-border issues. We therefore examined the existing inter-governmental relationships to see whether they are fit for purpose and to assess whether they need to change, particularly to ensure that Wales’s interests are not marginalised in the new constitutional arrangements that emerge in the UK.

The current inter-governmental relations are governed through the JMC—the Joint Ministerial Committee. We heard how the JMC needs to improve the way it functions, with some witnesses calling for a complete overhaul. We agreed with those who told us that there is a need to strengthen inter-governmental relations, not just between Wales and England, but as part of a four-nation approach, where each nation is treated with parity. Successive UK Governments have not sufficiently renewed the machinery of Government to respond to the changed relationships between Governments after devolution. This has left serious question marks about how the JMC will deal fairly with the emerging challenges as the UK leaves the EU. So, the need for fundamental reform is clear and pressing. In our view, the best option would be to adopt a completely new approach to inter-government relations in order to provide the institutional strength and durability needed to face the challenges ahead.

The First Minister’s proposal for a UK council of Ministers to replace the JMC has considerable merit to it and would address many of the concerns we heard in evidence. In effect, it would be a forum of national Governments working collectively in the best interests of the United Kingdom. It would provide the shift required to ensure we have proper shared governance, including over areas that have been co-ordinated at a European level. We therefore considered the First Minister’s proposals to be the most coherent long-term solution to resolving concerns about inter-governmental relations. However, an essential and pragmatic first step would be to strengthen the existing JMC structure, and that was our first recommendation. We believe that this could be achieved by ensuring that JMC plenary fulfils the functions of an annual heads of Government summit and by adding new committees to the existing JMC format to cover the single market and trade, and, in particular, to agree on common frameworks.

Our second recommendation again reflected the views of parliamentary committees by placing inter-governmental relations on a statutory footing. This could be achieved by, for example, amending the UK Government's EU withdrawal Bill, currently in the House of Lords. In the longer term, post-Brexit, we recommended that the JMC should be subject to fundamental reform so that it becomes a UK council that is a decision-making body with an independent dispute resolution, arbitration and adjudication mechanism. Alongside these changes, we believe the memorandum of understanding between the UK and devolved Governments—including the devolution guidance notes—should be subject to a thorough overhaul involving collaboration between all Governments of the UK. This should aim to establish shared governance around the machinery that supports the delivery of effective and fair inter-governmental relations.

This brings me to another issue that is absolutely fundamental to effective inter-governmental relations, namely the understanding of devolution by civil servants in Whitehall. Numerous witnesses pointed out the poor knowledge and understanding of devolution that exists in parts of Whitehall, despite some laudable efforts to remedy the situation by successive administrations. We believe that it is unacceptable that the level of understanding of devolution across Whitehall is often poor, that understanding of Welsh devolution is particularly poor in certain key departments, and that attempts to remedy this have been inadequate. The approach of Whitehall civil servants was perhaps best captured by one witness who told us: 

'I should say that I’ve never thought that there was a sort of malevolent reason to ignore Scotland and Wales. I think it was just more of a benign neglect.'

This approach to devolution may stem from the conflict that currently exists within the existing constitution of the UK, where the UK civil service in effect supports the UK Government in its role as the executive for the UK and England. Certainly, we felt that internal Whitehall civil service apparatus supporting devolution as described to us is complex and muddled. It is a matter we intend to take up further with the UK Government in due course.

The same rationale applies for improving inter-governmental relationships and applies to the engagement between the Parliaments that form an integral part of our constitutional machinery. It is clear that there is a need to extend the engagement between committees and between Parliaments. If these parts of our democratic institutions work better together, then there is a better chance that the voice of Wales will be heard across the UK, our collective views acted upon and the fabric of the UK constitution strengthened.

In looking to see how this need for greater, formalised co-operation could be taken forward, we recommend that the Llywydd should seek to establish, with the other Speakers and Presiding Officers of the UK legislatures, a Speakers' conference. Its aim would be to determine how best to develop UK inter-parliamentary working, with a particular regard to scrutinising the impact of withdrawal from the EU on the constitutional framework of the UK. We therefore consider the main role for such a Speakers’ conference to be in relation to developing a framework for inter-parliamentary relations. There will be clear benefits to having a cohesive and structured forum for joint discussion between Parliaments undertaking scrutiny, where information can be shared and respective Governments can be held to account. However, we also see merit in the Speakers’ conference having a role in relation to inter-governmental relations, to assess how they are developing at this crucial period in the evolution of the constitution of the UK. And this should include assessing, in particular, the UK Government’s response to the first four recommendations of this report that I've set out.

This is a radical initiative to support sustainable constitutional reform and it is not without precedent. It is a way of bringing the nations of the UK together and kick-starting the process of post-Brexit constitutional reform that we consider essential to the future hegemony of the United Kingdom. There have already been positive moves to improve parliamentary co-operation. In this Assembly, we have forged important relationships with committees in the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Scottish Parliament. In addition, the creation of the Interparliamentary Forum on Brexit, which I attend with David Rees, has been a very positive and constructive development. We believe it has the potential to be a valuable precursor to the strengthened parliamentary relationships and structure that will be essential within the UK once it has left the European Union.

Whatever inter-governmental changes or adaptations emerge in the future, it will be important for the National Assembly to continue to hold the Welsh Government to account, and it is our view that the approach adopted in Scotland between its Parliament and Government provides a sensible model that could be adopted in Wales. On that basis, we recommend that the Welsh Government enters into an inter-governmental relations agreement with the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee to support the scrutiny of Welsh Government activity in this area.

As our report demonstrates, the UK’s constitutional arrangements are likely to be put under considerable pressure over the next decade. The UK will have to adapt its internal arrangements to ensure that a consequence of leaving the EU is not a greater centralisation of power in London. New inter-governmental structures will have to be in put place. And it makes no sense to suggest that the structures we have in the UK now, while part of the EU, should be the same after we have left the EU.

The Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, in constructive collaboration with other parliamentary committees across the UK, is playing an active role in helping to shape a constitutional framework fit for the new challenges we face, and in so doing will help strengthen the voice of Wales in the family of nations that make up the United Kingdom.

Can I commend the work of our Chair, Mick Antoniw, his predecessor, Huw Irranca-Davies, and the whole secretariat, particularly the clerk? I think this is an excellent report. It's succinct, and I think it's already had some impact and leverage. But it requires an awful lot of effort to produce something as powerful as that, and to draw some sort of reasoned argument out of the whole range of discussions we had and the opinions that we heard. We were greatly helped by the citizen panel and by the expert panel, and I think we can honestly say that our report was materially affected by both those contributions. And that really should be the way committees work, I think, when we reach out and engage.

I think the consequences of leaving the EU are always going to have profound ramifications for the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom. They're not insuperable problems, but they are definitely challenges. And I think we can be proud in Wales that we've done our bit to face them, and come up with a range of very constructive proposals to make the British constitution both more balanced and stronger. I think, for me, if we do nothing, there is a danger that the greater role for UK governance, especially in terms of policy making in England, over things like the environment, agriculture, and other issues that, at the moment, are part of the EU's policy architecture—that that inadvertent, I think, dominance that's generated in England could close some of the options and the spaces for policy development in Wales and in Scotland, and in Northern Ireland, indeed. And that's the thing that we need to guard against. It may be inadvertent, but if that danger is not faced, and effectively checked, then we will end up with considerable damage being inflicted on the devolved settlement.

I think the resources of Whitehall are always going to be a great benefit, potentially, for the rest of the United Kingdom, for the devolved Governments, but they have to be used in partnership, and they cannot be used to impose agreements that don't have genuine consent, and this has to be at the heart, I think, of developing the frameworks that will be required in the UK, and how they will be run, and how open, accountable and amenable to proper parliamentary scrutiny—all these things will be necessary for good, strong government.

Mick has already addressed the issue of the JMC. Can I say that the JMC will continue to be important, especially in negotiating trade agreements? And I do hope that it will work a bit like the JMCE used to work—that is the JMC Europe. When it was preparing for work in the European councils, it would develop a speaking note, with all the officials from the various parts of the United Kingdom, and sometimes then would permit Ministers from Wales and Scotland to attend, and sometimes to speak, and that's the type of participation and partnership that I think we expect.

In terms of developing the JMC so that it does itself have a function of a ministerial council, or a ministerial council is actually constructed afresh, I think it needs to be properly resourced, it needs to have effective work plans and agendas, and it may have its own officials. And, again, it's going to have to work on the basis of shared governance models, and some form of dispute resolution mechanism, when that is needed, but, overall, have the necessary institutional strength and rigour to allow the type of joint working and partnerships that we will need to be properly constructed.

I think, in terms of inter-governmental working, we do not want to replace the relatively closed system of the EU with a closed system in the UK for shared governance, and Governments can slip into this all too easily. The legislators of the UK will need to thoroughly scrutinise as well.

And this brings me finally, Deputy Presiding Officer, on to the idea of a Speakers' conference. Devolution is approaching its twentieth anniversary. I think this will be an excellent time to look at inter-parliamentary relations, with the Speakers of the United Kingdom—all four of them, I think—getting together, and convening a conference. There's a proud tradition of a Speaker's conference—and that used to be just the Speaker of the House of Commons then, of course—convening a conference to look at major constitutional matters. And so I think this idea has much to commend it, and I do hope that you and the Presiding Officer may find that you're able to advance this particular recommendation, and speak to your colleagues in the other parts of the United Kingdom. Thank you very much.

It’s a pleasure to participate in this debate on this wonderful report, which has been produced by the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee. And may I echo the thanks to our current Chair, Mick Antoniw, to Huw Irranca-Davies, our Chair for the first nine months, and also to the clerks and researchers who have been working very hard behind the scenes to produce this masterpiece? Because the gestation period was lengthy, as they say, and, of course, as Mick has just said, certain aspects changed over time, and the report has therefore changed to reflect that, and has been strengthened as background factors have changed.

We started by taking evidence on the Wales Act 2017, and, of course, it's true to say that during scrutiny of the Wales Act 2017 we asked the Secretary of State, Alun Cairns MP, to appear before our committee on four occasions, and he didn't appear once. That gives you some background of how Westminster views committees of this place. And Alun Cairns still denies that we have lost substantial powers due to the Wales Act, although we all know in this place that we are rushing through the Public Health (Minimum Price for Alcohol) (Wales) Bill before we lose the power to legislate in that area on 1 April. April fool indeed.

So, in losing powers through the Wales Act, we also see that we are losing powers through the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, although Alun Cairns also denies or rejects that. With all of these negotiations about leaving the European Union, it's clear, as Mick Antoniw said, that Wales has been on the periphery. Our Government has been put to one side, there are decisions being taken and we are not happy with those decisions. Even with issues that are important to Wales, such as the devolved issues—when they are discussed, we are not part of those discussions, and that's why it's crucially important that our first recommendation in this report is that we strengthen the JMC. We heard yesterday that that joint committee hasn't met since January 2017. It needs to be strengthened, it needs to meet, and it needs to reform how it works—and not just work as the voice of London and the voice of Westminster, but as an equal voice for all Governments in these isles. We gravely need to change that, and that's the basis of our first recommendation and recommendations 2 and 3.

Once this European withdrawal Bill is done with we need long-term planning for the JMC so that it becomes a council for the United Kingdom that makes decisions on the basis of equality—all Governments and all Parliaments respecting each other on the basis of equality. That doesn't happen at the moment. It's about time it did happen, and that is why we desperately need to change the system of the JMC, because it's an insult to our nation at the moment that we are losing these powers and nobody is doing hardly anything about it. We are trying to do something about it, and, to be fair, our Government is trying to do something about it, but people aren't listening and they deny that any problems exist. That isn't fair and it is disrespectful of what has happened here in the context of devolution.

Of course, we need better collaboration between committees of this place and committees of our other Parliaments, and we also need to scrutinise Ministers from elsewhere in this place. That's why we make recommendations to that end in our report.

But to conclude, we desperately need to reform the governance of the UK. Yes, the excuse now is that we are leaving Europe, and I note that UKIP Members, who caused this mess of leaving the European Union, aren't in attendance to listen to this debate on how we are trying to resolve this mess. But finding ourselves in this mess, we need to change the way in which Parliaments in these isles respect each other, and collaborate with each other, because at the end of the day, it's not just Westminster who are to decide everything.

There's been a great deal of talk about turning the clock back, hasn't there? But devolution has also happened. There was the referendum we had here in 2011 insisting on legislative powers for Wales. We need to respect the outcome of every referendum, not just the last referendum. Thank you.

Can I also thank Mick Antoniw for his report and your predecessor, Huw Irranca-Davies, and also thank all the members of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee for this important report? I think the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee is an example of very robust cross-party working, and I've seen that in terms of the reports that have come through. It's vitally important if we're going to have influence on the UK Government and, indeed, to follow through with these recommendations. I'm also very glad that we engaged the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee, chaired, of course, by David Rees. We exchange as two committees and we work together, particularly on issues relating to the European Union. So, I think this report adds to the body of evidence that is emanating from these two committees, which are very important in terms of preparing for and gauging the impact of Brexit and future relationships that are crucial at UK inter-governmental level.

Yesterday, we heard about the latest JMC(EN)—the European negotiations JMC— proposals about devolved administrations. It was disappointing to hear from the Cabinet Secretary—although he was wanting to be constructive and positive—when he said that they came to a JMC meeting and there was no paper in advance of the proposals, which, of course, are proposals that have a very unfortunate centralising intent with the power of veto over key devolved responsibilities. And, of course, that has led to us progressing with our continuity Bill, whereas the Cabinet Secretary was hoping that negotiations could lead us forward, so that would not have been necessary if our amendments, and indeed the amendments of the Scottish Government, had been accepted. But I think this is an example of why we have got to look at these inter-governmental relationships and how disappointing it is that they aren't more robust in these important times.

I will say—hopefully it's helpful—to give my evidence and experience of being a former member, as a Minister, of JMC Europe, which of course—and I think the Cabinet Secretary has also recognised this—has been a very constructive model. Because in terms of JMC Europe, which was a regular event that I attended with Ministers from the Scottish Government, the Northern Ireland Executive and with UK Government Ministers, our officials all met well in advance of these meetings, agendas were planned and we often had trilateral and bilateral meetings before the JMC took place. And, of course, we were discussing issues like preparations for the forthcoming European Council and major issues where the UK Government was asking for our views, as devolved administrations, as to the impact of the agenda issues. I think there's a lot to be learnt from that. Why isn't that model being adopted for JMC(EN) as well—your all-important European negotiating JMC?

Also, I'd have to say that during our time as a member in Europe, often devolved administrations' Ministers were asked to go to EU councils. And even at one time, I remember being the only Minister available from the countries of the UK because there was a UK general election. So, they were very happy—the UK Government—for me, as an education Minister, to go to an education council on behalf of the member state, which of course was the UK Government. We must learn from that. Why can't we build on the good, positive, respectful relationships that were developed?

So, I just want to welcome the report, particularly the recommendations about JMC plenary. Not only must we strengthen it, but we must actually make it work. I think, yesterday, the Cabinet Secretary said it hadn't met for many, many months—meetings were postponed and not organised. This is entirely the wrong situation in terms of where we should be now. We need to make it function. All of the recommendations that the committee has made are so important in that it should have decision-making powers; it cannot just be a talking shop. It cannot be something—. There is much stage management, obviously, of these events, in bringing key people—Prime Ministers and First Ministers—all together, but it should have that kind of decision-making clout. It should have recourse to independent dispute mechanisms, adjudication mechanisms and arbitration as well.

I was very interested that, in the evidence from Rhodri Morgan—and I'm very grateful that the Chair put that acknowledgment of a former First Minister in his foreword—because Rhodri also said that there should be an independent resource-allocation mechanism, an independent mechanism in dispute over resource allocation. Well, of course that was critically important. Gerry Holtham said that was crucial in his recommendations in the Holtham commission. We know that in terms of dispute over resource allocation, that was crucial. Maybe you discussed that and felt that you couldn't go that far in terms of the committee.

So, I think 'Securing Wales' Future'—. Of course, we do often go back to that; it's not that long ago, that White Paper, which of course was developed between the Welsh Government and Plaid Cymru. It was very clear then that we needed a new set of robust, transparent and accountable relationships at UK level. And the Council of Ministers, of course, is the way forward, and of course our First Minister had already suggested that we should have that arrangement, that inter-governmental arrangement.

So, I would just say today that this is a cross-party report, which I'm sure we will endorse and there will be a strong backing from the Welsh Government. We are signed up to it; what about the UK Government? Where was the Secretary of State for Wales? How are you going to take—? How are we—? It's not just you; it's not just the Welsh Government. How are we as an Assembly, as a Senedd, going to ensure that this is taken forward? Of course, we can make the first step with securing a Speakers' conference to move forward these important recommendations in this report. 

I call on the Counsel General, Jeremy Miles.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm very pleased to be able to respond to this report and I want to thank and congratulate the committee for producing a detailed and meaningful analysis of the current situation in terms of inter-governmental relations and inter-parliamentary relations, and for a clear statement of the reforms that are needed in order to put these relations on a firmer footing. It's my pleasure to confirm that the Welsh Government agrees with the set of recommendations, which are very convincing, from the committee. I'm going to focus the majority of my comments on the recommendations for improving the relationships between Governments, but I also want to talk a bit about the relationships between the Parliaments, and about the broader context for inter-governmental relations.

In April, the majority of clauses of the Wales Act that Dai Lloyd mentioned will come into force, noting a new chapter in our status as an Assembly. Many of the chains that have prevented us from being able to make decisions on our own issues will disappear increasingly after that, and we'll be able to become a full Parliament and decide how many Members we have, how they should be elected and who should have the right to vote.

But meeting the goal of becoming a Parliament of course requires more than simply a focus on name and numbers, as we all know. We should have the confidence, as well, to test the parliamentary procedures and ways of working against the best equivalent examples anywhere in the world. And it's incumbent on us, as well as tackling the high-profile reforms, to look at the machinery that underpins scrutiny, challenge, legislating and executive action, which the committee referred to in their report, as we become a new Parliament. If we grasp those challenges, it will put us in a strong position to contribute as equals to building on the relations between Parliaments and Assemblies across the UK, and we support the committee's imaginative recommendation for a Speakers' conference to focus on that particular issue.

However, I want to focus on the relationships between Governments. Everyone agrees inter-governmental relations are important, but all too often that's looked at in the context of problem solving, or managing disagreement, or issues that need to be resolved. That's an essential part of the picture, but it's not all of it. Good inter-governmental relations should also be about more than managing our differences; they should be about identifying and addressing the policy challenges that we share across the four administrations of the UK. No-one has a monopoly on good ideas or good policy development, and no-one has all the answers. So, inter-governmental relations also need to be about sharing best practice and working together where it makes sense to do that, and that can only benefit the people that we serve.

Devolution itself, of course, has contributed significantly to policy innovation across the UK, and that hasn't been about taking on powers in an abstract, in a vacuum. It's about using those powers, yes, from a position of principle, but also a position of pragmatism, so that the powers we have are deployed in a practical way to improve the lives of people in Wales. And it's the same consideration with this, with the constitutional architecture, if you like, how Governments relate to one another. This is not an exercise in constitutional lawyering, but in developing a way of working and a basis of principle that supports the Assembly and Government in using the powers that we have in a way that we feel best suits Wales. That was implicit in the comments that Mick Antoniw made.

So, turning specifically to the committee's recommendations, we entirely agree that the JMC plenary needs to start fulfilling the functions of the annual heads of Government summit that it was, in fact, initially conceived to be. We also agree that we need to add new committees to the existing JMC format. We called for exactly that in our recent trade policy paper a few weeks ago. And we agree that the memorandum of understanding needs a fundamental overhaul. It has not been updated since 2013, and a great deal has happened, as we know, since then. It simply does not address the new circumstances of Brexit. We'll be pressing for agreement on commissioning an overhaul of that at the next JMC plenary. Jane Hutt, in her comments, referred to the significant shortcomings in the current arrangements, so we need to tackle those.

So, we agree that improvements can be made in the short term; however, it's clear that, in the longer term, the existing JMC structures will not be able to bear the weight that Brexit will place upon them. So, we welcome the committee's call for a UK council of Ministers, which echoes the proposals we set out in 'Brexit and Devolution' for a council of Ministers, as David Melding referred to in his contribution, which would be able to make binding decisions with an independent secretariat and an independent adjudication mechanism for disputes that can't be resolved by any other means.

The constitution of the UK after Brexit can't just stumble on in the way it's doing at the moment—imbalanced, ad hoc and informal. So, we have also said that we should look at how we could place inter-governmental relations on a statutory footing. The committee's report notes and endorses, of course, the recommendation made by a number of parliamentary committees for such a statutory footing, and we think further work would be needed to work through the implications of that, but we fundamentally agree with the committee's recommendation.

Finally, in respect of recommendation 8, I can confirm that the Welsh Government is happy to discuss with the committee the content of an agreement on inter-governmental relations. In doing that, we'll want to consider carefully the agreement between the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government to which the committee refers in the report.

I want to conclude by recognising that both our proposals in 'Brexit and Devolution', and those of the committee in this excellent report, are challenging and perhaps a little frightening for the UK Government, but we are in uncharted territory now. The constitutional catalyst, which Brexit represents, has created a new dynamic that is going to further change the way in which Britain is governed. The constitutional history of these islands has generally been piecemeal, rather than part of a coherent vision, and the romantic interpretation of that is that it has stood us in good stead. I'm not at all sure that that is the case.

The UK Government needs to recognise it can't keep trying to muddle through. It needs to commit to a root-and-branch review that will put our system of inter-government relations, and the UK constitution itself, on a firm footing for the future. The Welsh Government is ready to be a partner in that process of change, and the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee's report adds to the chorus of calls for such a review. I hope the UK Government will soon begin to listen and embark upon a journey of reform that will enhance the constitutional resilience not just of Wales, but of all parts of the United Kingdom.

I call on Mick Antoniw to reply to the debate.

Thank you. Well, firstly, I thank the Counsel General on behalf of the Government for the very positive response that's been made to what is a very radical report. I'd like to thank all the speakers who have contributed, and I won't go through them one by one because I think all the comments made have been positive and made a significant contribution to, really, the steps that have been taken and are being taken across all the Parliaments to actually look at a way of making the constitution of the United Kingdom reformed and actually work.

And in particular, the reference to a Speakers' conference, because I believe, Llywydd, with your pursuance of this matter, that this is a radical but, as I say, a not-without-precedent step. It also enables us to pull together the views that are coming from all the constitutional committees, cross-party committees, that have one sole objective, and that is: in the post-Brexit environment, how do we ensure that we have better governance, how do we replace the changed governance that we have? And I think that is the particular strength. I say 'not without precedent', because, as discussed by the Counsel General earlier, there was a 1920 conference on devolution, a Speakers' conference. Unfortunately, its findings were never discussed in the House of Commons. Otherwise, devolution might have taken place much, much sooner.

But one of the recommendations was not only in terms of the short term and the longer term reform, but also the capacity of the Speakers of all the Parliaments of the United Kingdom to actually pursue what we all know needs to happen, and that is that there has to be a consideration of the whole of the UK constitution, a UK constitutional convention of some format. And also to look at and deal with the 'elephant in the room', as it was described by John Morris so many years ago, and that is the English question as a fundamental part of resolving the relationships on a permanent and sustainable basis. 

For those who say there may be fear about these proposals coming from Wales and so on, all I'd say is these proposals haven't just come from Wales. We are endorsing, effectively, proposals from all around the UK, and perhaps I'd refer back to the comments from the great Welsh MP Cledwyn Hughes in 1973, during the Kilbrandon report, when the issue of the English question was raised and he answered the Prime Minister as follows. He said:

'Is the Prime Minister aware that we who belong to the Celtic fringe will do all we can to protect the English interest in this matter?'

This is a matter that is of benefit to us all, of concern to us all, for the future. I'm very grateful that such a positive response has been received from Government. I look forward, Llywydd, to you taking, hopefully, the steps forward to engage with the other Speakers of the United Kingdom and to call the Speakers' conference and to kick start this constitutional reform process.

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

The next item is the Welsh Conservatives debate. Before we begin the debate, I'd like to remind Members of the sub judice rule set out in Standing Order 13.15. The north Wales coroner opened an inquest on 13 November 2017 in relation to our late colleague Carl Sargeant. This inquest has been adjourned, but remains active. Members must not, in this debate, make any comments that may create a risk of prejudice to the inquest.

To open the debate, I call on Andrew R.T. Davies to move the motion tabled in the name of Paul Davies and Rhun ap Iorwerth. Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I rise to move the motion in the name of my colleague Paul Davies on the order paper today that:

'Calls on the Welsh Government’s Permanent Secretary to publish, with appropriate redactions to ensure anonymity of witnesses, the report into her investigation on "whether there is any evidence of a prior unauthorised sharing of information—i.e. a 'leak'—by the Welsh Government of information relating to the recent Ministerial reshuffle", as described in recent media reports.'

I would hope that this motion today will gain the support of the Assembly, because it merely seeks to do what we as Assembly Members time and time again expect in our role, which is to scrutinise organisations that have had an allegation levelled against them that has been inquired into and a report complied. It is our duty as Assembly Members then to exercise that role of scrutiny over the organisation to understand the events that led up to the accusation, the methodology that put the report together, the conclusions, and, ultimately, whether any actions need to be taken. That, to me, would seem to be a pretty reasonable request of anyone that had published a report that, sadly, no-one has had a chance to see.

Obviously, the events that have led to the publication of this report have been a matter of great public debate and interest. I have to say, in the 11 years that I have been an Assembly Member, I don't think—in virtually every cordon that I've gone to, people have spoken about the events around the Cabinet reshuffle, which doesn't normally, in Welsh political terms, gather that much interest. But, because of the tragic circumstances that flowed from it, obviously people have taken a great interest in this particular aspect.

I don't propose to talk about any of the other inquiries that are currently ongoing. I don't think that it would be at all appropriate to do that. But we do know for a fact that the Permanent Secretary's report is there sitting in Cathays Park, we do know that the investigation has been completed, but what we do not know is how the outcomes were arrived at and, in particular, any recommendations that might flow from that report to tighten up any future scenarios that might lead to such consequences.

I do believe that we need to reflect on the evidence that is before us, in particular when we look at the comment around the reshuffle that, as I've drawn attention to before, via social media, via text messages, via comment from commentators, are there for all to see. I could offer any one of 101 different examples of such comment. These comments were all referring to sources that were putting information into the public domain for speculation, for conversation, that alluded to people leaving that Government, people coming into Government. Indeed, most people expect, around Cabinet reshuffles and around politics in general, that there is this chatter and there is this debate, shall we say, and very often people want to try and show their worth by pretending to have, or actually having, information to hand to show that they're connected to the process. I could quote any one of a number of tweets here. One says:

'Told by sources that Carl Sargeant @wgcs_community losing his job'.

That was a tweet from a journalist. I could go on then to a lobbyist that talked about the predictions of what the new Cabinet would look like, which talked of:

'2 Cabinet Members to leave, a promotion or two and 3 of the 2015 intake in. And possibly a little extra surprise.'

All of that was actually informed information, as I understand it, which, when you look at the events around the Cabinet reshuffle, came into reality.

We've also had evidence given only today, for example, from a leading figure from a previous Government that did talk about a lobbying company, Deryn, actually having that information and saying that 'the key issues I have given in evidence to the leak inquiry'—he said that he's given this evidence to the leak inquiry—'were that journalists had told me that they had received a text from the Deryn employee well before the reshuffle announcement stating that Carl Sargeant was to lose his job.' A Labour AM, now confirmed as the Member for Llanelli, told the Assembly Labour group on 9 November that he had received a text on 3 November in advance of the reshuffle stating the same, but without specifying who sent this. Some MPs were told in advance of the reshuffle being announced that Carl Sargeant would be losing his job.

These are all in the public domain. That's not something I have commented on and put out myself; it's not a comment attributed to me. Those examples were all there, and, again, that's why I, and many others I'm sure, would like to understand the methodology and the reasoning of how the Permanent Secretary arrived at the conclusions in her report.

Just before the recess, this half-term recess, it was perfectly appropriate, as the First Minister's spokesman saw fit at that time, to refer to the report, to say in a BBC report, that the message, when he was talking about text messages around the time of the reshuffle:

'This message was investigated as part of the leak inquiry which found that no leak from the Welsh Government took place. We cannot comment further.'

It seems that, when they choose to cite the report, to obviously talk to journalists, they can do it—i.e. spokespeople for the Welsh Government—yet when we, as Welsh Assembly Members, wish to have sight of that report, we are denied that opportunity. Indeed, in First Minister's questions, when I was here at the end of January questioning the First Minister on the report, I was told that I was seeking to 'out' people who had given evidence to that inquiry. Far from it—at the end of the day, that would be the last thing that anyone would wish to do. Where people have requested that confidentiality, that confidentiality, as the motion specifies this afternoon, should be respected, and should be guaranteed in fact. 

But I would ask, and I think it's the leader of the house who's responding to the debate this afternoon, if I'm correct in assuming that—. Because one of the things that did come up in the exchange between me and the First Minister at the time was that the First Minister did state in his reply to me that people were asked—and I quote him directly here:

'People are asked to give evidence confidentially.'

So, I would be grateful—. Was that a prerequisite to all witnesses before they gave evidence, that the evidence would be treated confidentially? Because that does seem quite a condition to place on that evidence, in the sure-fire knowledge that you would then have a reason not to make that report available. I'd seek clarity on that statement, please, if it is the leader of the house who is responding to this debate this afternoon. 

I have, since the First Minister's questions of 30 January, written to the Permanent Secretary expressing my concerns around the answers of First Minister's questions of that day, in particular around the evidence that was gathered by the inquiry and subsequent Welsh Assembly written questions that have come back indicating further sources of information that I sought clarity about, to see whether they were also included in the inquiry. My letters of 30 January and 31 January have gone unanswered to date. Again, I do not think that is a satisfactory position to be in, one month nearly after those letters were sent, that I have to date—. I haven't even received an acknowledgement, I have to say, and so some form of acknowledgement or response would be appreciated.

Hence that's why we're standing here today debating this very subject, because I cannot even elicit a response from the Permanent Secretary to letters that I have sent over a month ago. Indeed, in that intervening month, I've had written questions back from the First Minister when I have asked about the guidance around this inquiry and, indeed, the guidance that prohibited the publication of the report. The First Minister referred to the established procedures around leak investigations that are well understood by the civil service, and have been cited by the Permanent Secretary as reasons not to proceed with publication. And I still have not received my request for sight of those regulations, and how those regulations have been interpreted, and that was at the beginning of February. 

This is a highly sensitive and emotive subject. It is one of four reports. I believe that we need to set the precedent as an Assembly that this report should see the light of day, and we as Assembly Members do have the right to look at that report, understand that report and its conclusions. That is a basic right, I would say. As a legislature and as an Assembly, we should be voting in favour of this motion this afternoon to make sure that we set that precedent and that report is made available to us as Assembly Members. Nothing less will do, and I urge Members in the Chamber today to support the motion that is before you, and ultimately allow the sunshine of transparency to shine on this report as a basic prerequiste, so that we can set the precedent for further reports that we know will be coming before us once the QC and the James Hamilton reports have reported as well. That is why I urge this Chamber to support the motion that is before you.    

I rise to support this motion. I think there's an important principle at stake here. The findings of this inquiry are a matter of public interest and are important, as we've heard. As a result, in my view, it should be made public, with the caveats that have already been mentioned on the need to redact names and so on and so forth.

Now, it has been uncomfortable to have to go back and look at the Nolan principles; those seven principles that are we are all to adhere to. I'm sure that we all read them every night before going to bed, but they are very pertinent in this context, because openness is one of those principles. Openness: it's simple. It's simple: we should operate and make decisions in an open and transparent manner, and we shouldn't withhold information from the public unless there are legal reasons for doing that. Well, that is one principle that is at risk of not being adhered to in this context.

Leadership—showing leadership is another principle. Holders of public office should promote and support these principles through leadership and by example. We must show that leadership and lead by example in terms of openness. It also states, by the way, that 'leadership' means being willing to challenge bad practice, which, unfortunately, is what the opposition parties are having to do in the Chamber this afternoon.

Without openness and transparency through the publication of this report, the public's perception naturally will be that there is something to hide. In the absence of the publication of this report, I do feel that, at the very least, there should be an opportunity to have an extraordinary meeting of the Committee for Scrutiny of the First Minister in order to scrutinise this process and the actions of the First Minister, otherwise, where is the accountability? Where is the accountability? Accountability—do you remember that? That is another of the fundamental principles that we all in public life should adhere to, and without that I fear that we will be doing a grave injustice to those people who have put their trust in us to represent them.

Now, I was shocked a few weeks ago by the slightly patronising way in which these votes were described—that they are advisory votes that don't commit the Government to take action. Of course, that is true, but I saw that line appearing once again from a source in the media this morning. It does raise the question as to where this leaves democracy, where it leaves democratic accountability, and our role not just as opposition parties, but each and every one of us as Members of this institution. Hearing comments such as that makes me even more determined to ensure that the First Minister should be accountable through a scrutiny committee or through any other means. If the report isn't published, then there is a failure of the test. If there is no sufficient accountability in the Chamber, then that test has also failed. Therefore I do feel that we have to look at a scrutiny committee having an opportunity to consider this.

I will conclude by echoing a point that I have made in the past.

It's a broader point that I'll conclude with about the ministerial code and its relationship, or actually its non-relationship, with the code of conduct for Assembly Members and the role of the standards commissioner. It's been said before: many of us feel it isn't right that the First Minister is judge, jury and executioner when it comes to the ministerial code. My fear on this is that there will always be, when you have a hirer and firer in charge, an element of politics and personalisation, which could get in the way of some of these processes. I'm not saying it happens all the time, I'm not saying it's at the forefront of those considerations, but it's there. Maybe way back in the background, maybe subconsciously, the risk is—and it's a real risk—that it is there. So, we have two parallel regimes, one presided over, as I say, by the hirer and firer, which is bound to carry some of that personalised context and political context, and another that is wholly independent, which is our own code of conduct as Assembly Members and the standards commissioner. I would much prefer that we had one standards regime for all of us.

The standards committee is actually revisiting the code of conduct following recent events and we're already, after just one evidence session, getting a clear message back from a number of external organisations and interested stakeholders that the current landscape is confused, it's complicated. Where do you go? Do you go to the standards commissioner? Is it in relation to the code of conduct? Do you go to the First Minister's office? Is it in relation to the ministerial code? Is it a party-political issue? Expecting complainants to navigate their way through all of that makes it, of course, much less likely that those people with genuine concerns and complaints actually pursue them. That's the last thing, I'm sure, we'd all want. So, what message is withholding this report sending out to those people and other people? Is it right that we have a regime where the First Minister is effectively asking the questions and answering his own questions? I don't believe it is. If Carwyn Jones has nothing to hide then he should have nothing to fear from publishing that report. 

I rise to support this motion this afternoon and it's difficult to see how anybody could, in good conscience, oppose it. What possible argument could there be for not wanting to publish this report with all its limitations and redactions? In a previous incarnation, I had a responsibility on behalf of the UK Government for issuing public interest immunity certificates, which meant that you kept something confidential for reasons of national security or other important national interest consideration. There is no such consideration that could conceivably be advanced to justify the maintenance of secrecy in relation to this report. I can see that there are reasons of Government insecurity why they would not wish to see it published, but there can certainly be no reason of national security that would justify the continuation of secrecy.

Now, that's not to say that I think that we will learn very much when this report is published. I've had experience of inquiries into leaks, or alleged leaks, from Government on many occasions in the past and internal inquiries never, ever get to the truth of them. The truth of the matter here is that senior civil servants are not, by nature, trained to get at the truth in inquiries of this kind. We don't know how far and wide the Permanent Secretary's inquiries have gone. We don't know to what extent she applied some kind of forensic zeal to the evidence that she was able to examine. When these things are conducted behind closed doors, these pieces of information, which enable us to evaluate how deep and detailed the inquiry has been, simply don't become available. So, I'm not expecting anything very much to arise from this and, indeed, the series of inquiries that have been set up have been deliberately designed, I think, not to enable us to get to the truth.

Otherwise, if we had had an overarching inquiry that was undertaken by an obviously independent person, such as a Queen's Counsel, then we might have got somewhere, but given the multiplicity of inquiries and the different terms of reference, all set by the Government, which is itself being investigated, apparently, we are not likely to get at the truth. Permanent secretaries are not by nature trained to be sleuths, nor are they particularly adversarial in the skills that they bring to the task. That's no criticism of the Permanent Secretary in this case or, indeed, in any the other case; that's merely a matter of fact. And consequently, she's not, with all her abilities and obvious strengths, best fitted to carry out the task with which she has been entrusted. The one thing we do know is that secrecy is the shield of injustice and the handmaiden of abuse of power and I can see no reason why, in this particular instance, this inquiry's result should not be published.

We know that, unfortunately, in the Labour Party at the minute there are all sorts of internal shenanigans going on—I don't want to go into them in any depth in this debate because it would be beyond the terms of reference of what we're here discussing. But there is a nastiness that from time to time enters politics in other parties as well, and I think that what we're dealing with here is an example of that and we should all, actually, want to get to the bottom of it. I've been on the receiving end of similar kind of treatment more than once in the course of my political career and Governments of the day never ever want you to get to the truth. And it isn't necessarily the Ministers themselves; it often people who are exceeding their authority thinking that they're doing something that their Ministers would approve of who are responsible. The whole special adviser system itself is geared towards this. It's usually some staffer who is responsible for this kind of bile that is poured out upon the body politic. I've seen it in the Conservative Party, and I think we're now seeing it in the Labour Party as well.

And so, I hope, in the course of this debate, the seekers after truth, the tribunes of transparency, the rooters out of injustice in the Labour party—in the Labour group in this Assembly—will come to our aid and say that for them, and their party too, they do want to get to the truth of this matter, that they do want the reputation of Government to be sustained and, indeed, enhanced and, more to the point, that they want to see this Assembly as the tribune of the people of Wales get to the truth of this matter and establish its own reputation as a true representative of the people and the representative of truth and justice.

I never wanted to have a role in this story. Carl Sargeant was a valued colleague of mine and I remain deeply upset about his death. But as my name has been mentioned, I believe I should give my own account. I am certain in my own mind that the text message I received was gossip on the day of a reshuffle. As Andrew R.T. Davies has accepted in his opening speech, there's often chatter around the reshuffle and that's how I treated the text. It was not from an official source and, in fact, I didn't treat it seriously until I saw the statement Carl himself issued later that day. I didn't pass on what I heard to any journalist, but told my colleagues at the first opportunity of the text message I received and I gave evidence to the leak inquiry as requested. As I said, I never wanted a role in any of this, and I believe I've acted properly.

There have been calls for me to say who sent me the text message. I have not done so and I will not do so, because I don't wish to contribute to a trail of breadcrumbs that can lead to the identification of any of the people who came forward. I understand the frustration that more information from the report has not been published, but I think it is right that the full leak inquiry report will now be considered by the independent inquiry. It will be for Paul Bowen QC to weigh the significance of all this and judge whether the way this information was handled is relevant to the events that followed.

The opposition parties are pushing for a redacted version of the report to be published, but even a redacted version poses a risk that the anonymity of the complainants will be jeopardised. And, Llywydd, the women have been forgotten in all of this. We will never be able to fairly test their allegations. That is neither fair on them, nor fair on Carl. But at the very least, let's not make the situation worse by directly, or indirectly, threatening their right to anonymity. This whole tragedy has become the subject of political game playing and I want no part in it. There are two more inquiries, and an inquest, yet to report. These processes need to be allowed to complete. Diolch.

I'm not pleased to have to take part in this debate this afternoon at all, and it's with a heavy heart that I rise to participate in it. I'm sorry that the previous speaker feels that this about political point scoring; it's not at all. This is about, in my view, a need to get to the truth about what happened, a need to understand the processes that the Permanent Secretary has been through, the scope of her investigation into the allegations of a leak of the information from the Welsh Government prior to the reshuffle taking place—and I don't think we have any answers at the moment. In fact, I think that the statement that was put out by the Permanent Secretary on conclusion of her work gave rise to even more ambiguity, actually, about what happened. I don't think that I can have confidence in the outcome of that piece of work because of the statement that was issued. I think that the Permanent Secretary owes it to the Welsh Government and owes it to all Members of this Assembly, and the people of Wales, to share as much as she can about the way in which her work was conducted so that we can have some confidence in those processes.

This has been the only time while I have been a Member of the Assembly—and there have been many reshuffles that have taken place—where I have seen information about Cabinet appointments trailed in this way; I have not seen it before. Of course we see speculation from time to time, of course we do, but I think the impression that is out there in the Twittersphere, and on social media, and, indeed, some of the comments that we've heard from journalists since this particular reshuffle took place, make it absolutely clear that there was not just speculation taking place, there was information being shared prior to the reshuffle, prior to that information even being shared with those people who were being appointed, and those people who were being dismissed from the First Minister's Cabinet. I think that that is a great shame and we need to understand precisely what has happened.

We know that the Permanent Secretary made it clear that there were no unauthorised leaks, in her words, but we don't know whether she considered the evidence from Twitter, which, of course, was dismissed by the First Minister rather flippantly, I have to say, because, let's face it, many people have been taken to court because of things that they have said on Twitter, and actually convicted of things. So, I think it's really important that we don't dismiss this evidence that is out there, and we need to understand whether the Permanent Secretary agreed with the First Minister that that was not evidence, or whether she actually incorporated it within the scope of her work. Like you, Lee Waters, I don't want people to be named and shamed, as it were, in terms of anybody who may have made allegations; that's not the purpose of today's debate at all. We simply want to understand how we can have confidence in something that has taken place, and at the moment, it's very opaque indeed.

Now, I do welcome the fact that the Welsh Government has made it clear that the QC-led inquiry will have a copy of this report. I think that's entirely appropriate, given the scope of the work that Paul Bowen and his team will have to do. 

Will the Member give way there?

Of course.

I'm grateful. I understand the point he's making, and I understand the point that Lee Waters was also making, but the problem I think for us as an Assembly coming together is that the Bowen inquiry, as I understand it, still has no agreed terms of reference. It certainly has no timetable that we understand, and it layers another perspective on top of the perspective of this report, and therefore it will be increasingly difficult to understand the point that he's been making, whether there was an authorised sharing of information in advance. That will be lost if we just put it into another inquiry, which we still don't understand the purpose of.

That's right. And, of course, it's the job of this National Assembly to hold our Government to account, and that means all parts of the Government, not just the political parts, but, indeed, the functioning parts—the officials who lie behind the politicians who we debate with here in this National Assembly Chamber. I have to say, I think it was very discourteous of the Permanent Secretary to make statements on the outcome of her inquiry, her work, her investigation into this leak, without actually presenting a formal statement to the National Assembly, to Assembly Members. We had to read about the outcome of this in media reports.

Now, I'm sorry, I just don't think that that is acceptable, and I think we need to better understand, and I think she needs to make herself available to speak to Assembly Members, whether that's privately or in an Assembly committee of some sort, in order to give an account as to how she conducted the inquiry. I think that would be useful. Let's face it, we, as Assembly Members, have private documents shared with us on a regular basis in terms of our committee work and other things that we do. It should be perfectly reasonable, I think, to have the Permanent Secretary appear before a panel of Assembly Members, whether that's the standards committee, or whoever, I don't know, but we need to get to the bottom of what happened, we need to understand how this information got out into the public domain before those people who were being dismissed from the Cabinet actually knew about it.

So, it's an incredible discourtesy to this Assembly not to see a copy of the redacted report. There are redacted reports published by the public sector all of the time on very contentious issues, including things such as the Tawel Fan issue in north Wales, where patients' details were shared—redacted without names. And I think we need a copy of this report in the public domain too.

I call on the leader of the house, Julie James.

Diolch, Llywydd. This Government completely agrees that there is a purpose in being both open and transparent in these matters. But the general framework of the law for approaching this question is very clear. Where the publication of information is likely to prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs generally, or any investigative process, then there is a public interest assessment about whether to disclose or whether to withhold disclosure.

Clearly, if a leaked report were to be published, this could prejudice future leak inquiries by undermining confidence in the process of the investigation, and individuals being less prepared to provide evidence. If that were to happen, it would not be in the public interest. Whereas here, there is the additional element of ongoing inquiries, there are further potential risks to the overall integrity of the process—[Interruption.]

I'm very grateful for the leader of the house taking the intervention. One simple question, which I would like the Permanent Secretary asked, and you may have asked this on behalf of the Government to the Permanent Secretary, is: has she approached any of the witnesses to ask whether they are content with their information being shared in a redacted way that protects their anonymity?

This is about more than just this leaked report; this is about the integrity of future investigations and future leaked reports.

Whereas here, there is the additional element of ongoing inquiries, there are further potential risks to the overall integrity of the process if information is put in the public domain on a piecemeal basis. This is, however, in operational terms, a matter for the Permanent Secretary. She has confirmed that a copy of the leaked report will be made available to the Queen's Counsel conducting the independent investigation. That is the right process to follow in this matter, in our view. Diolch.

I call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Llywydd. The brevity of the Government's response will be noted and people will come to a judgment, I'm sure, about whether that afforded this Assembly the proper courtesy.

I conclude this debate by speaking in favour of today's motion, a motion tabled to seek maximum transparency around the questions of if or how specific information was shared prior to the recent ministerial reshuffle. The leak inquiry by the Permanent Secretary concluded there was no unauthorised sharing of information regarding the reshuffle, but in order to seek maximum transparency, we believe that we require the publication of the report as a whole. I believe that argument has been laid out very clearly across the political parties in opposition this afternoon. 

Which questions were asked? We need to find out. How were conclusions reached? If there was no unauthorised sharing of information, was there authorised sharing of some information, which would, by definition, not be a leak? Alternatively, if it was found that no sharing of information took place at all, what sparked the speculation regarding the reshuffle? I don't believe we've had a November reshuffle before, not in recent years, certainly. Was this investigated?

Publishing the inquiry report would be a clear way to seek answers to such questions and to provide the transparency that we need. We need total confidence—we, as the public in Wales, as much as us as parliamentarians—in the outcome of the inquiry. Looking at the wider picture, what we're seeking here, all of us, surely, are means, whatever they need be, to strengthen confidence in the systems and procedures of Government and, indeed, of this Assembly.

Members will note that the motion refers to redactions. My party's view, and it is a view we've heard elsewhere, is that those redactions are absolutely essential to ensure anonymity of witnesses, and we're satisfied that even a redacted report could help to draw us out of this cycle of endless questions that never seem to be given satisfactory answers.

Will you take an intervention?

Certainly.

One thing that could easily be prepared would be a statement of the methodology that was used, and detail on the scope of the evidence that was considered, without naming anybody or any pieces of evidence. We're just in the dark about everything.

Yes, I agree, and that reflects the comments I made earlier about needing to know how questions were asked, what questions were asked and how conclusions were reached.

Key questions still remain unanswered about the circumstances surrounding the reshuffle. I've seen texts this week, which I understand will be made available to the QC-led inquiry into events leading up to Carl Sargeant's death, showing he believed he knew that reshuffle was coming. Those messages between Carl and a friend correctly predicted the reshuffle would happen. But how had speculation reached that point?

I worked for nearly two decades as a political journalist. I've got a pretty good idea how a flake of speculation can grow into a large snowball. But how was one Cabinet Secretary in this case seemingly and so firmly identified as one whose time in Government was to come to an end? We are some way short of finding answers to such questions, and a vote today to publish the Permanent Secretary's reports could, perhaps, go some of the way to giving us those answers.

I'm grateful to you for taking the intervention, and I note the comments from the leader of the house, responding on the Government's position on this, but it's a complete contradiction to the answer that the First Minister gave to me in First Minister's questions on 30 January, where he said—and I've got the Record here in front of me, and I've read it while you've been speaking. It says quite clearly the only reason for not publishing was to keep the confidentiality of the witnesses. It did not make any reference to the QC inquiry, it did not make any reference to prejudicing further inquiries, and so that is why the motion talks of redactions. This is the second change of message we've had from the Government bench on this important inquiry. Do you share my disappointment at that change of direction that the Government have indicated here again today?

I certainly do, and you make the point correctly, of course, that redactions do get around the issue that was raised by the First Minister initially.

I'll conclude. I do hope the Assembly will support this motion today. I'll make an important point—if today's motion is supported, Government should act on the Assembly's will. I remind you of a recent comment from a Welsh Government source,

'Opposition day votes are—in many ways—meaningless. They aren't binding and don't have any bearing on government policy or delivery.'

This is not acceptable on any occasion; it's certainly not acceptable today. As parliamentarians, I hope we all want the fullest possible public explanation for the events that have taken place. We know that the various other inquiries are taking place, including that of the independent adviser into whether the ministerial code was breached and the QC-led inquiry. Those investigations—those questions are not in the remit of today's motion, but I do hope that greater transparency can, somehow, be achieved around all of those events. 

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

We therefore come to the Plaid Cymru debate on broadcasting, and I call on Siân Gwenllian to move the motion.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. Our motion today is one that would begin the journey towards devolving broadcasting, and all we are asking for, if truth be told, is a commitment to looking to the practicalities of devolving broadcasting to Wales and reporting back to the Assembly within a year. So, as the Labour amendments delete that simple request, we will be voting against them.

Plaid Cymru is highly ambitious for Wales and believes that decisions about Wales should be made in Wales—broadcasting, in the case before us today. But, of course, we recognise that not everyone is convinced by this, so today we are seeking consensus to at least consider these issues further over a period of 12 months. And I personally would be very disappointed if we didn't achieve that today. A vote against our motion would suggest that everything is fine in broadcasting in Wales. Well, that simply isn't the case.

In a period of uncertainty and dispute because of Brexit, the devolution of broadcasting is more important than ever in order to ensure that Wales has a voice. A combination of lack of plurality in Welsh media and decline in broadcast hours is a barrier to political debate, and therefore a barrier to democracy itself. The fact that the majority of people receive their news from providers in England hinders political education, with those providers focusing entirely on London, and showing a complete lack of understanding of devolution. It's no surprise, therefore, that a third of people who were questioned in a survey last year believe that the UK Government still runs the health service in Wales.

There have been a few positive developments, with the BBC and S4C starting to provide new content on new platforms that appeal to new and younger audiences. Golwg360 and nation.cymru do offer valuable provision online. But many broadcasters have cut their broadcast hours for Wales. In 2015-16, the English-language output on the BBC was 641 hours, which was a reduction of 21 per cent from 814 hours in previous years. There were cuts of 30 per cent in ITV programming, and that was more than in any other area of the United Kingdom.

Another concern is the London Government's plans on the regulation of commercial radio. That could lead to even less variety, and although the UK Government does accept that we must ensure that news continues to be provided on commercial radio, they make no mention of Welsh news.

If I turn now to S4C, certainly we need to secure stable and adequate funding for our only Welsh-language channel in order to secure a viable, relevant and successful future for future generations. Almost four years ago the Silk commission recommended the devolution of powers to fund S4C to Wales. In the meantime, a month from the new financial year, we are still awaiting the Euryn Ogwen Williams review of S4C. It is encouraging that S4C is working on improving content and providing content on new platforms, but the fact that the channel has been through a period of financial uncertainty over a period of many years makes planning for the future very difficult and extremely challenging.

Now, no-one doubts that funding of S4C post devolution will be challenging, because so much of this is subsidised by the licence fee. But what we're asking for today is an inquiry into that, to look into the possibilities around this, to look into the feasibility of devolving powers over broadcasting and to look at the various options, including the funding options. We must also bear in mind that S4C is crucially important in economic terms, as well as culturally, with every £1 invested by the channel in creative industries in Wales worth £2.09 to the economy. According to the Hargreaves review of the creative industries in Wales, without S4C Wales may not have had any independent television companies at all.

I conclude with the words of Elfed Wyn Jones, who has just completed a week's hunger strike for the devolution of broadcasting. I do believe that Elfed has summarised very well, in these words, the situation that we're currently facing. Elfed says this: 'I hope that my actions will demonstrate how grave the need is to have control in Wales of broadcasting. It's going to be difficult, but in thinking about what this will deliver for the people of Wales—better democracy, clearer information and a strengthening of the position of the Welsh language—that would give me the strength to battle until I achieve my objectives. I accept my responsibility to take action, and I hope our politicians will take their responsibilities just as seriously.'

It's time Wales had a voice, and for us, as people, to have the national conversations to improve the way our country is governed. I look forward to other contributions in the Chamber this afternoon, but I urge you all to support our motion so that we can have this important debate that is so necessary in Wales today.

I have selected the six amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call on the Minister for Culture, Tourism and Sport to move formally amendment 1, tabled in the name of Julie James.

Formally. Thank you, Llywydd.

I call on Suzy Davies to move amendments 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, tabled in the name of Paul Davies.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. I move the amendments. It's a shame, in a way, that we're not waiting to have this debate until the middle of the year. I understand why—because of the decision of Elfed Wyn Jones—but it would have been useful to have considered the Euryn Ogwen Williams review on the future of S4C, and to have a period of observation of the BBC's delivery of its portrayal obligations—

I wonder whether the Member will take an intervention for one moment.

Certainly.

Just to give you an assurance, from the Government's point of view, we will be tabling a general debate on communications, with a particular view on the report on S4C, when that is timely, once we've received a copy of that report that we're still awaiting.

Well, we look forward to that because I'm sure there will be an opportunity to re-consider these issues at that time.

Maybe you could respond to this. Would you agree that it's a good idea to have a period where we can observe the BBC's delivery of its commitments on the portrayal of Wales? Because I believe that these proposals, and the proposals at a UK level for the regulation of the radio market, need to be scrutinised to some extent before we look again at the devolution of broadcasting. Because it is a matter of discussing these issues once again, isn't it? I have no problem with the content of the Government amendment, but if it's passed, then it will replace our amendment 2. That amendment, like point 6 in the original motion, talks about time frames. In reality, I'm not too concerned about a particular time frame, but there is virtue in nailing the Welsh Government to a timetable to formulate a report so that we can resolve this question. I remain to be convinced that devolution will resolve the problems with public service broadcasting, as some people would hope it would. That's why amendment 2 talks about 'viability', rather than the 'feasibility' in the original motion.

We have discussed the financial implications many times before. The complaint is that the UK Government underspends on public service broadcasting in Wales, particularly S4C. The Welsh Government, who also complain that it's being underfunded, will somehow find enough money to put this right. I don't think that transferring the statutory functions from DCMS to the Welsh Government will make a significant difference, and we will see nothing more than a different Government saying that their proposals are sufficient. We agree with the Minister's views, as set out in amendment 4.

In terms of ITV Cymru Wales, I'm not criticising the quality of their work in saying this, but it appears to me that the Wales-only licence has done nothing at all to deal with the issue of the reduction in hours. In a multiplatform world, there's a question as to whether these well-known private companies will be seeking licences with public service obligations if Welsh Governments of the future are too directive in their approach. Should we be concerned about that? Well, that's a question we need to consider.

The situation is different with the BBC, of course. It is funded through the taxpayer and everyone can be sure that this Parliament will be scrutinising the BBC and its new commitments for the nations and regions. The Welsh Conservatives have regularly asked for joint accountability as referred to in the Government amendment, and the culture committee has already taken full advantage of this situation, despite our lack of financial responsibility over that particular organisation.

Would devolving broadcasting help us to understand our devolved nation better? Well, I'm not sure. From what I see at the moment, Wales still doesn't fully understand devolution after 19 years. Is that because our broadcasters in Wales are misleading or misrepresenting what is happening here? I don't believe so. The heart of the problem is that people in Wales choose to receive their news and current affairs from media from outwith Wales, over many platforms. This is where they don't hear about Wales, they don't see Wales being represented and enjoyed—with the usual exceptions of Doctor Who, and so on—and they don't enjoy programmes produced in Wales.

Would devolution change that situation? I'm not sure. It's already a multiplatform world, and my fear is that devolution would give an excuse to the media in London to ignore us entirely in all forms. That will do nothing to help the rest of the UK to understand devolution. It will do nothing to inform the many people in Wales who don't choose Welsh media to receive information. I'm not sure that this would lead to an improvement of the situation under the devolution of broadcasting. That's my view. Thank you.

It's my pleasure to take part in this very important debate, and I thank Siân Gwenllian for her clear leadership at the outset. Of course, the Plaid Cymru motion calls for investigating the feasibility of devolution of broadcasting to Wales. I said that slowly because that is quite a simple motion. It's not the most radical idea that has been proposed here—just investigating the feasibility of devolving broadcasting in Wales.

Like Siân, I congratulate Elfed Wyn Jones, who was here on the steps of the Senedd yesterday, who had been on a hunger strike for a week to call for the devolution of broadcasting. He reflects increasing demands for this to happen. The Brexit vote showed how little Welsh people know about current affairs in their own country. Wales does benefit from being in the European Union, and it accepts more money into Wales than goes out. But there wasn't much talk of that during the Brexit referendum campaign, or the fact that 200,000 jobs in Wales depend on our membership of the single market. London news: that's what the majority of people in Wales receive. We have to investigate, with great effort sometimes, to find anything out about Wales, and important details such as those I've just mentioned.

Our Welsh newspapers, our local papers, are contracting, as newspapers are everywhere. There's no mention of Wales on the BBC Radio 2 service, which is the radio station that has the most listeners here in Wales. No mention of Wales. S4C was established and that was a great boost, naturally, back in 1982. That was a great boost to our nation, to our identity, and to our culture. But we need much more. Wales is here for everyone, whether they speak Welsh or not. S4C is superb, but we need more to promote the self-respect of 3 million people, and to promote the development of an entire nation.

Because on daily matters, not just such as Brexit, but the health service, for example—as Siân has said—a third of Welsh people don't know that health has been devolved to this place for nearly 20 years. I remember that during the strike of doctors in hospitals in England last year doctors in Morriston Hospital in Swansea also thought that they were on strike, and were looking for the closest barricades. Now, often, I am one to look for a barricade, but it was inappropriate in that case, because there were no strikes in Wales, but many people didn't realise that at all. There are many other examples of publications in London creating a story in Wales even though they're not relevant to us at all, not just in health, but in education and all kinds of other areas that have been devolved. People should know that by having their news here in Wales, broadcast here from Wales.

So, to close, we insist that we hear the truth about our country. We insist that we at least investigate the feasibility of devolving broadcasting. It has happened in other countries—in the Basque Country, for example, it's happening very successfully. It's happened with S4C—we need to develop that. We need to devolve broadcasting fully.

There is a story to be told of our nation. We suffer—as we heard in the earlier debate—with the governance of the UK, relating to Brexit, the lack of respect that there is for our nation and the lack of respect that there is for our Government here in those negotiations. We want to build on the success of the existence of S4C in a political climate that is very fragile, where the survival of our nation itself is under threat. Ultimately, we insist that broadcasting is devolved. Thank you very much.

Thanks to Plaid for bringing today's debate. We in UKIP agree with many of Plaid's points today. We lament the cuts to the budget of S4C and also the cuts to ITV Wales's broadcasting hours—both English language and Welsh language broadcasting in Wales need adequate provision—but we don't go along with Plaid in their demand for the devolution of broadcasting.

We feel that there have been a lot of successes in film and tv production in Wales in recent years. I believe that two of the most successful BBC productions in terms of export markets currently are Doctor Who and Sherlock, both made in Wales—I think Doctor Who was mentioned earlier in the debate. For economic reasons, we—

Gareth, would you take an intervention?

Yes, sure.

We're all pleased that Doctor Who is produced here in Wales, but, actually, looking at the content, it could be produced anywhere. I'm not asking for bilingual Daleks or anything, but just a mention of Wales would be handy.

That's an interesting intervention, Dai. I refer in the speech to what you said last time we debated these subjects, which was a debate brought by the culture committee, and I do actually return to the points you just made, so I'll expand on them a little bit later.

I think, for economic reasons, we do need to get as much production as we can located in Wales, and as many jobs in film and production created here as we possibly can. We don't want to jeopardise those aims by going towards the devolution of broadcasting, which could ultimately lead to less production being carried out here. That is the possible problem with going down the devolution route.

I mentioned just now that we debated these issues a year ago, when the Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee brought a similar debate, and Dai made some interesting points. He complained that there was no real portrayal of Wales in the broadcast media. He talked about what he just mentioned again: having production of Casualty and Doctor Who here in Wales is all well and good, but these programmes don't actually attempt to provide us with a picture of Wales. He memorably summarised on that occasion by saying that he didn't want bilingual Daleks, but he did feel that the hospital in Casualty should have bilingual signs. The problem is that Cardiff and BBC Wales—we successfully lobbied for the production of Casualty to come from Bristol, which is where it was being made originally. Casualty had already been going for more than 20 years before it switched to Wales. It's actually set in the fictional city of Holby, in the fictional county of Wyvern, which is supposed to be in the west country of England, so it would be a bit odd if they now started to feature a lot of Welsh speakers or if they had bilingual signs on their walls.

As for Doctor Who, we could have bilingual road signs now and then in Doctor Who, but the trouble—

Will you take an intervention?

Sure.

Thank you for taking an intervention. I think we're getting off the point here. [Laughter.] I'm not sure I agree with Dai about the bilingual signs in Casualty either, and I'm delighted that we have a strong broadcasting sector in terms of its economic potential, but what about the potential for strengthening the way that we talk about ourselves as a nation and generate through broadcasting that debate on our future as a nation?

Well, I suppose the point that I've raised, or I've tried to raise, is, 'Does one thing impinge on the other?', so that may be what we need to consider. 

Now, we do have this—. Right, Doctor Who, we could have bilingual road signs in Doctor Who, but, obviously, we're not going to go there. They go to planet Mars. It's clearly not supposed to be set in Wales. 

So, we have this perceived problem of programmes being made in Wales not being specifically about Wales, which is what we've been talking about, but it is questionable, I think, if a massive percentage of people in Wales will be really interested in watching programmes made about Wales, which is a point that Suzy Davies touched on earlier. After all, since the 1970s we have had things like Radio Wales and Radio Cymru, but it's still a fact that today more people in Wales listen to Radio 1 and Radio 2 than they do to Radio Wales and Radio Cymru. There is an old saying that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. You can provide these services, but you can't force your listeners to listen to them. 

Now, these issues are not new by any means. In the 1970s we had issues where people in south-east Wales had to choose whether to tune their tv sets into the Mendips transmitter or to Wenvoe. I grew up in a household in Cardiff where we were tuned into the Mendips, so that the Welsh channels were all fuzzy and we didn't really watch them. So, we had BBC West instead of BBC Wales, meaning that we watched Points West from Bristol as our evening news programme, rather than Wales Today, which sounds ludicrous today, but that's what we did and that's what many other people did, too. 

So, the thing is that you have your Welsh-speaking areas in the west of Wales. [Interruption.] Yes, you have Welsh speakers in Cardiff, too. But the point is that east Wales is culturally not too dissimilar from England. Culturally speaking, people in south-east Wales and north-east Wales have virtually no separation from people in north-west England and south-west England. Now, with the advent of devolution, as well as digital tv, you might have thought there would be more of a Welsh cultural focus in Wales. But digital tv means you're not restricted to just a handful of channels, so people are watching all sorts of things. It's not just that more people in Wales are watching Eastenders and Coronation Street instead of Pobol y Cwm; you've probably got more people in Wales watching The Walking Dead than Pobol y Cwm, so we may slowly be becoming a cultural colony of the USA. 

So, these are the problems we are having to grapple with in the modern world. I don't think you can hamper film and TV production by having greater Welsh Government involvement in broadcasting. There is a potential problem of too much state involvement in the media.      

You do need to bring your contribution to an end now. I've been very nice. 

We may ask for different portrayals of Wales, but an old adage is that no good art was ever created by committee. Thank you.

I call on the Minister for Culture, Tourism and Sport, Dafydd Elis-Thomas. 

Thank you very much, Llywydd. It's a pleasure to contribute to a debate on broadcasting, because it's been a pleasure of mine over many years to be responsible for legislating on broadcasting in Westminster. And I want to make it entirely clear that I remain of the view, personally, and as a Minister, given my experience over the past four or five months, that this isn't the time to start to talk about devolving broadcasting partially, or to consider devolution of any part of broadcasting, to Wales as part of the development of the devolution settlement, because the nature of the economy and culture of broadcasting and, more importantly, all of the digital communication platforms available, and much of that industry in the bay in Cardiff—that industry is of necessity one that has operated and developed not only through regulation within the UK, but also through regulation at an international level. 

The Government's made its position entirely clear in the amendments to the motion on what we want to secure in terms of broadcasting in Welsh and English being sufficiently funded, and concerns about cuts to S4C. But we are just as firm in the view that we need to be able to make the case about the economy and the effects of communications more generally, together, within the United Kingdom.

ITV Cymru Wales continues to play a crucial role as an effective alternative to the BBC, and we do believe that introducing an amendment that recognises that public service broadcasters should be more accountable to all Parliaments within the UK is a crucial part of our work. That’s what I have been pursuing as Minister with overview of broadcasting, which is non-devolved, and that, namely, is to increase the accountability of broadcasting and communication institutions of the UK to this Assembly and, through that, to the viewers and listeners of Wales.

We are working hard as a Government to ensure that the BBC’s new charter gives a mandate to the BBC to deliver far more to the people of Wales, and the BBC now has appropriate accountability to the National Assembly for Wales. As we as a Government prepare to appoint a member of the Ofcom board to represent Wales for the first time ever, we are aware that these arrangements pave the way for us to have a very real influence as a Welsh Government on the communications structure more generally in the UK.

Siân Gwenllian to reply to the debate.

Thank you very much. I have to say that the lack of ambition of the Minister is very disappointing. He doesn’t want to even have the discussion, not even wanting to see what’s possible, not even wanting to look at the options—

If I may respond, clearly, if opposition parties win this debate by rejecting the reasonable amendments today, the Government will consider how we respond to the Assembly’s decision. So, it’s not true to say that we wouldn’t consider any decisions to look at this further. But that isn’t the Government’s stance at the moment.

Exactly. That’s what I’m saying. The position of the Government is not wanting to have the discussion, not wanting to see what’s possible—[Interruption.] Yes, because those are the amendments that have been tabled. The amendments that you’ve tabled delete what we and the opposition party want, namely to have the debate, and that’s very disappointing. And I have to ask: where did the Dafydd Elis-Thomas that we remember—where has he gone?’

He's sitting here. [Laughter.]

I thank Suzy Davies for explaining the purpose of your amendment. I do see the sense of what you’re saying, and, even though it’s weaker than our motion, we are willing to support that if necessary, because you’re calling for the debate as well through your amendment.

The Minister has said that the Government does intend to hold a debate on broadcasting in the future. Well, well done. But, at that time, we will continue to press for the devolution of broadcasting, because, basing a debate around the Ogwen review, that’s neither here nor there. Guto Harri himself, one of the members of the board, has said that we shouldn’t expect too much from that, and has said that it’s nearly irrelevant now, anyway.

This morning—and I’m concluding now—I was in St Fagans with the Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee, and I saw the history of Wales being interpreted very skilfully there. It’s time for us now to interpret our contemporary life and our democracy ourselves, and it’s time for us to be leading our national conversation here in Wales. So, I hope that you can see your way to at least supporting the desire to have the debate. That’s all we’re asking for today.

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will defer voting under this item until voting time.

That brings us to the Plaid Cymru debate on continuing membership of the customs union. I call on Leanne Wood to move the motion.

Diolch, Llywydd. I move this Plaid Cymru motion in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Our motion comes when Wales needs to articulate a clear stance on the customs union as the negotiations on EU withdrawal proceed. This is a question that affects Welsh jobs, it affects the future of Welsh ports, it affects the nature of the UK's border with Ireland, which is also the Welsh border with Ireland. Make no mistake: the position of Wales in the UK on the customs union is critical not just to our own economy, but to the future of the Irish peace process and institutions as well.

Now, Plaid Cymru has placed a lot of emphasis on the benefits of the single market, but Wales needs the customs union as well. As things stand, the Westminster Government intends to remove Wales from the customs union. This paves the way for an extreme Brexit based on undercutting, deregulation and lower standards.

This week, the UK opposition party has clarified that it would seek a customs union with the EU. The Plaid Cymru motion makes it clear that we support Wales and the UK's continued membership of the current EU customs union as opposed to a new customs union. This is more than mere semantics. Membership of the customs union allows the UK to trade freely in all goods across Europe. Crucially, membership of the customs union gives the UK access to over 50 countries outside the EU. A bilateral customs union with the EU, on the other hand, which is what the UK Labour Party is advocating, is essentially an undefined free trade agreement that will give us access to a limited set of goods. For instance, Turkey's—

Will the Member give way?

I'll finish my point. Turkey's customs union is incomplete as it doesn't include agricultural goods. In a customs union, we will not be able to automatically secure additional market access via EU FTAs with third countries. These third countries will, however, have access to our markets, and that is a disadvantage.

Does the Member accept that being a member of the EU customs union also requires being a member of the EU and of its legal structures, and ignoring the referendum result and how Wales voted?

No, I don't accept that point, and I'll explain why shortly.

We also, in this debate, need to consider the crucial question of climate change. How can it be good from a climate change perspective to be travelling more goods from even further countries? That trade with closer markets must be protected if we're serious about tackling climate change. Now, I was already anticipating the question, 'Can you be in the EU customs union if you're not an EU member state?' The answer to that question is, 'Yes, you can'. The EU customs union is made up of EU member states and, importantly, includes some territories that aren't in the European Union, like the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. And, in terms of negotiating a new customs union, it's already been stated by the EU that the UK cannot get a deal as good as we've got now. 

Can I intervene, please? What's the difference between a customs union and the free trade area?

The customs union refers to the travelling of goods, and the single market as a whole looks at goods and services. So, the customs union is just specific to goods.

Why is the Welsh Government failing to align with a UK-fudged Labour position? We know that in the joint White Paper, as Rhun ap Iorwerth pointed out yesterday, every single positive reference to the customs union is to the existing EU one, not to a new, bespoke customs union, which does not yet exist and will have to be negotiated into being. Now, we may be used to the Welsh voice going unheard, but we do have the ability to speak out as an Assembly and to put pressure on both the Government and the opposition at Westminster, and that pressure is strongest when we can all speak as one. The recent shift by the UK opposition is too little to protect the Welsh national interest, but there could be further shifts on both the opposition and the Government benches as the debate continues. So, let us today endorse an Assembly majority position in favour of the EU customs union to uphold that Welsh national interest.

I have selected the two amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call on Mark Isherwood to move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Mark Isherwood.

Whether people voted leave or remain, they now want to see a Brexit deal that works for a global UK. The UK Government is therefore committed to delivering control of our money, borders and laws while building a new, deep and special economic and security relationship with the European Union. Plaid Cymru's motion today shows that they're instead continuing to try and frustrate the Brexit process. The same could be said of the First Minister's narrow and continuously recycled suite of arguments. The ambiguity of the UK Labour position, outlined by Jeremy Corbyn this week, adds further to the confusion. So, let us be clear: remaining in the customs union would limit the UK's ability to reach new trade agreements with fast-growing economies and to develop new ways for poorer nations to trade their way out of poverty.

Our amendment, therefore, proposes that this Assembly

'supports Wales and the United Kingdom’s agreement of a new customs arrangement between the UK and the EU, with customs requirements that are as frictionless as possible'—[Interruption.]

I'll finish the quote and then bring you in.

'Building a new, economic and security relationship with the EU whilst enabling the UK to enter new trade agreements internationally.'

David. 

I thank the Member for taking an intervention. I listened to his opening comments about the customs union, and I also listened to the comments he just made about what the declaration of this motion is—about supporting the agreement. Can you tell me what agreement has been reached yet on a relationship and exactly what this 'special relationship' actually means?

I didn't use the term 'special relationship'. This is what the next stage—. He knows from the evidence we've taken on the committee that we're just starting stage 2 and the full negotiations outside the EU can't begin until we've actually left—formally left—the EU. But there's going to be a transition period, as you know, which will further smooth that process.

With groundhog day regularity, Carwyn Jones has scaremongered about the borders between Northern Ireland and the Republic and the UK and the island of Ireland; we heard more about that from the leader of Plaid Cymru today. We must support access to the EU single market but to remain in the single market and customs union would mean that we had effectively not left the EU at all. In reality, the Prime Minister confirmed last December that the common travel area with Ireland, which had been in operation since the 1920s, would be maintained and that both the UK and EU had pledged that there will be no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. She's also warned Brussels today against its demands that she signs up to legal commitments preventing a hard border in Ireland, even if that means customs checks between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.

The chief executive of HMRC—Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs—has consistently advised Ministers that there will be no need for physical infrastructure at the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic under any circumstances, and last November's report 'Avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland for Customs control and the free movement of persons', written by leading customs expert Lars Karlsson for the European Parliament Committee on Constitutional Affairs, identified measures introduced to create low-friction borders across the world and proposed a technical solution for the border on the island of Ireland and for the future of movement of persons and goods between the EU and the UK.

After Jeremy Corbyn backed UK membership of a customs union, pro-Brexit Labour MPs described this as a betrayal of voters, and Frank Field MP accused the leadership of treating voters as 'thick', yet pro-remain party figures said that Mr Corbyn hadn't gone far enough. By supporting a customs union, Mr Corbyn appears to be ripping up UK Labour's manifesto and threatening to prevent the UK from signing economy-boosting, job-creating free trade deals around the world. However, in not committing Labour to membership of the EU customs union, Mr Corbyn's statement is actually ambiguous enough to mean anything, where the EU itself has consistently stated that you're either in the customs union and bound by its rules or outside it.

The First Minister frequently scaremongers that UK exit from the single market and customs union would generate a regulatory race to the bottom, and we heard more scaremongering from the leader of Plaid Cymru to the same effect today. However, the UK Brexit Secretary clearly stated last week that the UK will not seek to lower legal and regulatory standards in order to compete with the European market, and proposed instead a system of mutual recognition. Last month, former UK international trade Minister Lord Price told the Commons that Britain has already agreed free trade deals in principle with dozens of non-EU countries ready to take effect the day after Brexit. Economic reality mocks the Brexit gloom in this place. UK production output increased by 2.1 per cent in 2017, with manufacturing providing the largest upward contribution. CBI reports show that Britain's record on job creation is set to continue in 2018 and that volumes, profits and hiring are on the up in Britain's services sector. And builders merchants' sales have completed another year of growth—4.8 per cent.

So, instead of trading on scare stories, we must take back control of the narrative and offer the public hope. The UK and Wales voted for legal and constitutional independence from the European Union. It is our duty to deliver it.

I follow, once again, the spin of the Brexiteers, as we heard during the debate on the referendum, but there we go. Can I thank Plaid Cymru, actually, for bringing this debate forward this afternoon? Because it is providing us an opportunity to highlight the risks that face us as we leave the EU without any form of agreement on how we trade with our existing partners in the future.

Now, I know Plaid Cymru fought to remain in the EU in the referendum, as did I. We fought hard, but unfortunately, I wish the vote had been in our favour. Perhaps the realisation of the consequences and complexities of leaving the single market that are now in the media being highlighted would've helped us at that time. However, it didn't, and the difference, perhaps, that we have now is that I wish to respect the majority of my constituents and their views, and perhaps the majority of theirs—although I know the Llywydd is in a different position, because her majority was slightly in a different direction—whilst we protect our economy and the fundamental rights that we have had by being in the EU. It's therefore disappointing, actually, that the focus of today's debate by Plaid Cymru is more based upon the semantics of 'the customs union' and 'a customs union', as we've just heard from the Conservatives as well, rather than the need to secure the outcomes that will protect our economy and the welfare of our citizens.

Let's go back to the important question of what would leaving the customs union actually mean to us. I think that is important. On the face of it: customs checks at EU borders, including the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. I know that it's something that Theresa May has said that she doesn't want, and keeps saying that she's working to ensure that it doesn't happen, but we've also highlighted the question of custom checks at our ports. I know the Member for Ynys Môn has often referred to this point in his contributions in the Assembly, and I'd ask Members to re-read the external affairs committee's report on the impact on Welsh ports and on Welsh businesses as a consequence. It is something that you perhaps need to refresh your memories on.

We heard the comments from the Conservatives' spokesperson that technology will solve the problems: checks through smart technology, number plate recognition software, using authorised trusted traders, and maybe even Boris Johnson's concept of congestion charges being equated to customs checks—who knows?

Will you give way?

I'm more than happy to.

Are you therefore rejecting the report written by the leading international expert Lars Karlsson for the European Parliament on this, and also the continued advice being provided by the head of HMRC, who I suspect might have a little more technical knowledge, even than you, on this matter?

I thank the Member for that, but when I met with individuals who represent businesses in Europe, they were not looking for the softer solutions, because they didn't know which direction they were going in. Therefore I do believe that technology will eventually get there—not tomorrow, not next year, but probably in about five years' time, and that's a long while to wait to try and do some trade with European Union nations.

Anyway, let's go back to the issue. If we want to look, perhaps, at how border checks work, go to Norway—we've mentioned Norway many times in this Chamber—and look at Norway's customs service. It has been expanded in recent decades to address the issues, but they still have difficulties in actually managing the borders. For example—and I do apologise to Norwegians if I get this pronunciation wrong—at Svinesund, which handles 70 per cent of the cross-border flows of commercial traffic between Norway and Sweden, all commercial traffic—all commercial traffic—is stopped. Every bit of it. Checks are made on both goods and drivers. Now, that's the relationship in Norway. These delay lorries. They delay the operation and therefore the just-in-time agenda will be delayed as a consequence. It might not be very much; it might be, as some say, an average of four minutes. Some lorries will be delayed longer. You put four minutes on per lorry in Holyhead and see the queues you'll get. You put two minutes on in Dover, and the recommendation from Dover port is you'll have a 10-mile queue. That's the reality of what customs union failure will do. 

Will you give way?

Yes, Adam.

I just wonder if you can clarify one point about 'the customs union' versus 'a customs union'. Can we both agree there can only be one customs union, by definition, because it involves a single geographic entity with a common external tariff? So there could only be one customs union in the EU.

I don't agree with that, because a customs union—if you're going to define it—will be a union on customs arrangements between organisations, and therefore you can have different versions of a customs union. So, I—[Interruption.] No, you've had your chance. You've had your chance. So, no. I disagree with you, okay? 

You've just described a free trade agreement.

That's what you want to call it. It's up to you, but I disagree with you.

Can I go on? Because it's important. We also must remember that UK businesses and firms are far more integrated into European supply chains than Norway's, so again there's more of a problem there. Now, it was mentioned by the Member for North Wales for the Conservatives that there's been a lot of scaremongering about the border between Northern Ireland and southern Ireland. Well, actually, the traffic between Norway and Sweden has 40 roads—40 roads—causing those difficulties. There are 270 across that border, let alone other flows between other European nations and the UK. Therefore, there are far more challenging effects as a consequence of the reality of managing those border arrangements, because what we don't want—and I'm sure no-one in this Chamber wants this—is damage to the peace agreement in Northern Ireland. Therefore, we don't want those border arrangements to be in place.

Llywydd, I appreciate that time is going on, but I want to comment on this point finally. I actually took the decision to go and see those Brexit papers last week in the Wales Office. I know some other Members have been there, as I saw their names in the book that I had to sign. I put my phone away, it was locked up, because that was what had to happen for me to see them. But I remind the Members on the benches to my left that that document, which is actually a set of PowerPoint slides, really, reminded everyone—and it was commissioned by the UK Government, and they didn't like the answers they got—it highlighted the impact upon the Welsh economy of leaving the EU as a reduction of between 2 per cent and 10 per cent of GDP. The fact is that it's 2 per cent if we were members of the EEA, which is unlikely to be happening, because then—well, it's been highlighted again. So, it would be a big difference.

They also showed that the sectors that would be hardest hit are many sectors that are important to Wales. So, the UK Government has evidence that argues that remaining in the or a customs union is far more beneficial to the UK economy than simply following the ideological doctrines that drive the hardline Brexiteers and the fears that Theresa May has of them. It's time they came wide awake. It's time those Brexiteers in the Cabinet came to the conclusion that the people and economy of the UK are far more important than their ideological beliefs.

The Chairman of the external affairs committee just complained that this is a debate about a semantic distinction, but the semantic distinction was one that was introduced by his party, of course. That's the whole point of this. But I think I can help him, actually, to reinforce the point that was made by Adam Price a minute ago. On the European Commission's own website, it says that

'The Customs Union is a foundation of the European Union and an essential element in the functioning of the single market. The single market can only function properly when there is a common application of common rules at its external borders. To achieve that, the 28 national customs administrations of the EU act as though they were one.'

That is the whole point. That is the point of a union in this particular instance. Now, I've taken a different view both from his party and Plaid Cymru on the merits of remaining in the European Union, but I'm with Plaid Cymru in their interpretation of this debate in this respect: that what the Labour Party is now putting forward is incoherent and it's a sticking plaster to try to cover over the disputes within their own party on the question of whether we should remain members of the European Union. Nobody seriously believes the European Commission is going to have a special customs union deal for Britain. They keep telling us that cherry-picking is not allowed in relation to the single market or the customs union. It's take it or leave it—whatever they put forward to us. So, the Labour Party proposals are a non-starter, and I simply don't understand how any intelligent person in the Labour Party could believe that this is serious.

Jeremy Corbyn is very worried about the EU's rules on state aids, the EU's competition policy, and its rules on procurement, but he has to accept that the EU's rules on each of those vitally important areas, which relaxations could enable the Labour Party to realise some of its policy aspirations, are just not on offer from the European Union. What I really don't understand about those who think that we should be members of the customs union or a customs union but we're not going to be members of the EU is why they want to outsource the international trade policy of the United Kingdom to people who are not responsible ultimately to our voters and not responsible to our UK Parliaments in their various jurisdictions. This is utter absurdity to me.

I can see there are arguments for remaining inside the EU, although I don't share them, but I can see no argument whatsoever for being outside the EU and allowing other people to legislate for us and have no say or vote in their decisions. The common external tariff is changing all the time, every month, and sometimes in very significant particulars. For example, the tax on oranges—the input of oranges into the EU has gone up from 4 per cent to 17 per cent in the last few years. This applies to all sorts of goods that are listed in this very complicated document, which sets out what the tariffs on different products are. Surely, we want to be able to decide for ourselves what taxes are going to be imposed upon products, particularly food products and other staples of daily life—clothing, footwear and so many things that affect the spending power of people on low incomes. What I don't understand about the position of Labour and Plaid Cymru is that the common external tariff, as it applies in practice, is generally against the interests of the third world or developing countries—whatever we like to call them—against the interests of ordinary people, and particularly those who are on low incomes. This is what they seek to defend. If they had been Members of this Assembly or Members of the United Kingdom Parliament in the 1840s, they would have been defending the corn laws. I give way.

Thank you. Do you now, then, acknowledge that, without a form of customs union—or the customs union—there will be a tariff tax on goods that are exported from Wales?

No, not at all. It would be up to the United Kingdom Government to decide whether it wants to impose tariffs or not. For example, the common external tariff of the European Union applies a tax of 4.7 per cent on umbrellas having telescopic shafts. It applies a tariff of 1.7 per cent on swords, cutlasses, bayonets, lances, scabbards and sheaths. It applies a 15 per cent tariff on the import of unicycles. This is the absurdity of the complexity of the 12,561 items that are listed in the—

Will the Member give way?

I give way.

Is he aware that, on average, every time a woman buys a bra, she has to pay a tax of £1 to the European Union, even though we don't produce any bras in this country?

I entirely agree. [Interruption.] I think we must really keep this in perspective in any event. The average tariff that applies to goods being imported into the European Union is about 3.5 per cent. There are specific sectors that are affected more than that: motor cars, as we all know—10 per cent, and agricultural products are a special case, very often, even in free trade agreements, as has already been pointed out, and are exempted in the case of Turkey. But the proportion of the economy that is accounted for by these areas of production are almost vanishingly small. Agriculture, as we know, is only 2 per cent of the entire gross domestic product of the country. If we want to support farmers and farm incomes, we can do that in many other ways than imposing taxes on the import of goods, if we want to, but ultimately, it's a question of democracy.

It's up to us to decide, ourselves, as an independent country, what tax, if any, we want to impose upon the import of goods from other countries. Why should we impose an import tax of 17 per cent on sports footwear, for example, from the far east? Why do we want to have a tax on the importation of oranges, which can't be grown in the United Kingdom? There are so many absurdities of this. When you outsource the power of legislating for taxation to a body to which the British people have no power to control, then this is what will happen. We don't know, from one week to another, what the European Commission is going to do in this area. So, fundamentally, this is a question of democracy, and I can't understand why a party like the Labour Party, of all parties, which is devoted to the principles of democracy, and came into existence to defend the interests of working people, should now be throwing that to the winds and being followed so enthusiastically by Plaid Cymru.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport, Ken Skates.

Diolch, Llywydd. In our recent trade policy paper, which was published on 2 February, the Welsh Government set out its position on the customs union. In essence, we are not convinced that leaving a customs union with the EU is in our interests. Our position is mirrored by the Scottish Government, which in its publication 'Scotland's Place in Europe' also puts forward its case for the UK remaining in both the single market and—let me emphasise this again—a customs union. When the UK leaves the EU, it will cease to be a member of the customs union.

Will you take an intervention? And I apologise if it's premature and that you're going to explain, but what has changed since the White Paper that we produced jointly, where clearly it was the current European Union customs union that we sought to pursue? 

Absolutely. Look, at the time of producing the White Paper, we made it absolutely clear that issues around the customs union were far more complex than was the case with single market participation. Over the last year, I think it's fair to say that we've gathered far more evidence and talked to a range of experts and stakeholders, and this has led to greater understanding of the continued participation in the customs union and the implications. But, you know, the Scottish Government have also reached this same conclusion—that when the UK leaves the EU, it will cease to be a member of the customs union, which is an integral part of the European Union's legal order. In our view, it's inconceivable that the European Commission could, or would, agree to negotiate with third countries on behalf of the UK once we have left the EU. It's thus impossible for us to remain part of the customs union. But if there is any evidence that exists that suggests that the European Commission would agree to negotiate on behalf of the UK once we've left the EU, then I'd welcome that evidence. The UK could, nonetheless, negotiate a new customs union with the EU as part of our post-Brexit arrangements, which would involve us retaining the common external tariff. Taken with a firm commitment to continuing to work within the regulatory framework of the single market, this would enable goods to circulate between the EU-27 and the UK on much the same basis as today.

A number of stakeholders, and I think, personally, probably the most interesting of which is the British Irish Chamber of Commerce, have put forward proposals that would see the EU and the UK negotiating new free trade agreements in parallel with one another. And this, I believe, would have attractions not just for ourselves, but also for the EU-27, and should be, in my belief, a firm objective of the UK in the forthcoming negotiations. I do not believe the UK has presented sound economic evidence or a cost-benefit analysis to justify its preference for a rupture with the single market and customs union in order to pursue the doubtful prospect of great new bilateral free trade agreements elsewhere across the globe. Indeed, the recent leak of UK Government Brexit analysis confirms that new trade deals could not compensate for the economic damage done by following the Government's red lines of leaving the single market and the customs union. If the UK Government pursues its policy of leaving the single market and the customs union in favour of a wholly independent trade policy, this will risk the imposition of non-tariff barriers and tariffs, which will be no doubt deeply damaging to the Welsh economy.

Our trade paper, supported by a Cardiff Business School impact study shows that the Welsh economy is best protected by retaining full and unfettered access to the European single market, and membership of a customs union. Research confirms our analysis that a hard Brexit would have devastating consequences for Welsh jobs and communities, reducing the economy by between 8 and 10 per cent, which is the equivalent of between £1,500 and £2,000 per person in our country. Certainly, we do respect the democratic decision of the people of Wales to leave the EU, but we don't believe that the people of Wales voted for Brexit in order to be less well off. Staying within a customs union with the EU is the best way to safeguard that. So, let me be absolutely clear, we, like the CBI and many others, believe that the evidence is unequivocal—that the interests of Welsh businesses, Welsh communities, Welsh families, Welsh workers, are best served by being in a customs union with the EU, at least for the foreseeable future, and by continuing to participate in the single market from outside the EU.

Without such a commitment, I think it remains deeply unclear how the issue of the border in Northern Ireland could be resolved, regardless of what opposition Members may assert. This issue still has the potential of leading to the unravelling of the entire EU-UK negotiations. This is a position that we have advocated in our White Paper, 'Securing Wales' Future', which was jointly authored with Plaid Cymru, and it remains our position. It's the position that sets out our amendment to the motion.

I call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to reply to the debate.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. Thank you for all the contributions to this afternoon's debate. You know, Cabinet Secretary, there's so much that we agree on on this matter, but I would really like to know, and would welcome an intervention or a lengthy letter, as you wish, whether there are other elements of the White Paper that you are now distancing yourselves from.

Let's remind ourselves of the title of that White Paper, 'Securing Wales' Future'. I think, above all, that should be the duty of us in this National Assembly for Wales, to secure Wales's future and to press for those actions that will stand Wales in good stead, post leaving the European Union. And, yes, as always happens, we're accused of wanting to frustrate the will of the people, that this is somehow a bid to stop Brexit. There are people across three parties in this Chamber who don't want to be leaving the European Union. I certainly don't. But this motion, as with so many of our actions in this party, and joined by other like-minded Assembly Members, is about trying to address the pragmatic and face the reality that, as it stands, we're on a trajectory to leave the European Union and we have to do everything within our powers to make sure that that departure is in Wales's interest. 

We believe, in this party, that post Brexit we should be a member of the single market. We believe in this party that post Brexit we should be a member of the customs union, the only customs union that can protect Welsh agriculture, that can save Welsh jobs, can stop the port of Holyhead in my constituency from being choked—it hasn't got the room for the checks on lorries. And I thank Dai Rees for so eloquently speaking in favour of our motion this afternoon, because that is, in effect, what you were doing. I understand that a line has now been laid out by the leader of the Labour Party on a customs union, and you are dutifully following that line, but let's focus on what we need to secure in order to make sure that Wales's interests are served as we move forward. 

There are people complaining about being bound by European rules. What on earth is wrong about being bound by rules that actually work in our favour—in favour of Welsh jobs, in favour of Welsh communities and the Welsh economy? Support the motion.

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will defer voting until voting time.

Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I move to voting time. 

The first vote is on the Welsh Conservatives' debate on ministerial reshuffle—the Permanent Secretary's report. I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 25, 26 abstentions, none against. Therefore the motion is agreed, as tabled in the names of Paul Davies and Rhun ap Iorwerth—just to correct myself.

The next vote is on the Plaid Cymru debate on broadcasting, and I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 12, one abstention, 38 against. Therefore the motion is not agreed.

A vote now on amendment 1, and if amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Julie James. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 29, no abstentions, 22 against. Therefore amendment 1 is agreed.

I therefore call for a vote on amendment 3, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 41, no abstentions, eight against. Therefore amendment 3 is agreed.

I call for a vote on amendment 4, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 50, no abstentions, one against. Therefore amendment 4 is agreed.

I call for a vote on amendment 5, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 51, no abstentions, none against. Amendment 5 is therefore agreed.

I call for a vote on amendment 6, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 43, no abstentions, eight against. Therefore amendment 6 is agreed.

I now call for a vote on the motion as amended.

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 41, no abstentions, eight against. Therefore, the motion as amended is agreed.

The next vote is on the Plaid Cymru debate on continued membership of the customs union. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour eight, no abstentions, 43 against. Therefore the motion is not agreed.

I now move to a vote on amendment 1. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 17, no abstentions, 34 against. Therefore amendment 1 is not agreed.

Amendment 2. I call for a vote on amendment 2, tabled in the name of Julie James. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 26, no abstentions, 25 against. Therefore the amendment is agreed.

I therefore call for a vote on the motion as amended.

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 27, no abstentions, 23 against. Therefore the motion as amended is agreed.

Point of order—Paul Davies.

Diolch, Llywydd. I raise this point of order under Plenary business. In light of the fact that this place has just voted in favour of today's joint debate between the Welsh Conservatives and Plaid Cymru, calling on the Permanent Secretary to publish her recent report into the leaking of Welsh Government information, I'd like to seek clarification from you, Llywydd, on the status of today's vote. Given that this Parliament has now voted in favour of this motion calling for greater transparency, I therefore ask for your guidance on whether this vote, on behalf of the people of Wales, should now be respected.  

Thank you for that point. Any vote of the National Assembly is important and has effect and it is for the Government now, of course, to decide how it chooses to respond, but I would expect it to take seriously any resolution passed by this Parliament.  

Our next item has been postponed and therefore that brings to a close our discussions for today.