Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

I call Members to order.

The first item on our agenda this afternoon is questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Education, and the first question is from Jane Hutt.

Thank you, Jane. The responsibility for the planning of school places rests with local authorities. Local authorities have to keep under review the extent to which their existing pattern of school provision meets current and forecast demand for places and the requirements of a modern curriculum.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. You will be aware that the Vale of Glamorgan Council proposal to relocate Llancarfan village school over six miles away to a new site in Rhoose has attracted widespread opposition to its recent consultation. The school is rated good by Estyn, and it's commended for its use of the rural environment and woodland in which it's located. In fact, Estyn said,

'Pupils make good use of the outdoor learning environment and its wildlife and wooded areas...Staff use the locality well to extend pupils’ experiences, such as pond dipping in the local ford.'

The school doesn't have a significant level of surplus places. The Vale council has announced a new consultation period, with an updated consultation document, as a result of the concerns raised so far, and I'm glad that my representations regarding the lack of community impact assessment are being addressed. Can you clarify, Cabinet Secretary, on what grounds proposals affecting Llancarfan Primary School can be raised with Ministers as there is concern that these proposals will not conform to the school organisation code, and there's a lack of confidence in the consultation process?

Thank you, Jane. As you said, I understand that the Vale of Glamorgan Council has decided to restart and re-issue its consultation because of concerns that were raised about the adequacy of the initial consultation proposal, especially a lack of an adequate community impact statement. I would urge all those that have an interest to make their views known to the council before the close of the consultation on 9 July. I expect all local authorities, when considering school organisation and school closures, to have due regard for the school organisation code and to comply with that code. If there are any suggestions that any local authority is not complying with the code, then I would be happy to receive those representations.

I'm pleased also that this decision is being reconsidered, and I also made representations in writing and by meeting the senior figures in the Vale of Glamorgan Council. I think there's been some confusion locally as to the presumption against the closure of rural schools, which you outlined in the consultation on the revised school organisation code, and I stressed to the council that I thought the proposed revision is likely to become a live document. I think it's received a lot of support in the consultation, and they should be using that presumption at the moment as to what is likely to be the case. Given that this school is in such a rural setting, it seems to me that it should be given due weight even before it formally becomes a requirement in terms of the status of the current organisation code.

Thank you, David. You're absolutely right to say that it is my intention to revise the school organisation code to include a presumption against rural school closures, and to designate a list of rural schools. Work is continuing on those proposals, but the direction of travel of policy in this area is very clear to all 22 local authorities, and I would hope that they would bear that in mind when undertaking any review of school organisation proposals in their own area.

Thank you, Mark. The responsibility, as I said earlier, for the planning of school places rests with each local authority. Local authorities do have to keep under review, as I said earlier, the extent to which their current provision meets the number of children they are statutorily required to educate now and in the future, and the needs of a modern curriculum.

Diolch. I previously raised concerns with you that, in Flintshire, in the past, old and inaccurate data was used in breach of the school organisation code in terms of school closures in Llanfynydd, Flint Mountain and John Summers High School. There are now proposals to close and forcibly amalgamate Lixwm County Primary School, which I hope will be on your list, because it's very much a rural school in every sense of the term. The consultation recently closed. Although it identified a high level of pupils with special educational needs or additional learning needs, it didn't then meet the code's requirements in terms of the matters that need to be reported in the consultation document. It consulted with the school council, but I understand from governors that the initial engagement didn't present them with the option of closure and they were quite relaxed. When the actual options were given to them subsequently, of course they opposed the proposal for closure and amalgamation, and much more besides. I have submitted a consultation response making these points, so you've no need to suggest that I might, but, given your response just a few moments ago, and your response to Darren Millar in the Chamber on 25 April, as I've said quite clearly, my expectation is that local authorities should be working the grain of the new code, with the presumption against rural school closure within it. What action can you now take if a council proceeds with proposed closure in accordance with consultation if the evidence suggests that the content of that consultation did not reflect the current circumstance?

I would expect all local authorities to be designing consultation documents on school closures or mergers that contain accurate information. If they do not, then that simply is not good enough, and if the Member has any evidence that the consultation documents that are currently being issued with regard to the closures that he refers to do not contain accurate information, then I would be very glad to receive that evidence. 

We are working as quickly as we can to publish the new schools organisation code. I'm very pleased to say that the initial consultation had a broad level of support, but there were also responses to the consultation that urged the Government to go even further, and to publish a more extended list of schools. Because it's a consultation, I am minded to take those representations on board and, as a result of that, I have now written to all local authorities and dioceses to indicate my desire to extend the list of schools that we initially consulted on. There is a short, focused consultation, and I hope to publish the revised code and the first ever list of rural schools as quickly as possible.  

Questions now from the party spokespeople. The Conservative spokesperson, Mohammad Asghar. 

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Minister, the growing skills gap, particularly in the field of digital skills, is hindering the ability of companies to find the workers they need. Science is essential for people thinking about a career in areas such as IT, engineering and medicine, but a third of Welsh school pupils shunned specialist science GCSEs, a problem that you yourself have acknowledged. What action will you take to increase the number of pupils, especially girls, studying science in our schools?

Diolch yn fawr, Mohammad Asghar. You will be aware that we are intensely aware of the need to upskill our workforce in areas where employers are telling us that there is a shortage, and that's why we've got this structure called the regional skills partnership, which has been set up to ask those employers to feed into those structures, to say, 'What are the skills that you are looking for as employers?' We know that they've come back to us in every one of the three regional skills partnerships and said, 'Digital skills are really important. We need to drive up the level of those skills'. 

We've now provided a £10 million funding pot for further education colleges to respond to the needs of employers, and digital skills, I am sure, will be reflected in terms of people pitching into that pot and saying, 'This is how we're responding to the needs of the employers.' I know that the education Secretary has done a huge amount of work in terms of driving up the standards relating to digital skills in our schools and that we are working very hard to make sure that the new school curriculum will reflect the needs of the new economy. 

The Welsh Government has a target of 100,000 new, high-quality apprenticeships. I believe that the take-up of apprenticeships in Wales would be incresed if the benefits they can bring are explained to people at an early stage and age also. Good careers information in school is vital, but there are issues with the quality and availability of careers advice, including the lack of trained careers advisers and a lack of knowledge of apprenticeships and vocational training by school staff. What is the Minister doing to improve the quality of careers advice and ensure that apprenticeships are properly promoted here in Wales?

I think you're absolutely right; we need to do a lot more to make sure that people understand that apprenticeships are a real route to quality employment. We have a whole series of initiatives that are helping us to try and engage people, in particular in some of the STEM subjects that you talked about earlier, to make sure that they are responding to what the economy needs. So, we have a whole series of initiatives. One of the best is a thing called Have a Go where we invite literally thousands of schoolchildren in to really test out their abilities to work and to apply themselves in a more practical way with vocational skills. I think that is already having an impact, but we are trying to do a lot more to help the careers service in Wales to make sure that they are imparting the skills that they have to the schools so that they can give the advice that you talk about. 

It is 55 years since the then Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, warned that, if the country was to prosper, a new Britain would need to be forged in the white heat of a scientific revolution. That was Mr Wilson. Today, technological changes are so fast that skills are changing faster than formal educators can keep up with them. By the time a curriculum is crafted and approved by the various bodies and students finally graduate, their digital skills may not have kept pace with the technology. How will the Minister ensure that the educational institutions in Wales keep up with the pace of change in this world?

Thank you. You're absolutely right; it really is time for us to rethink that phrase 'the white heat of technology' and to adapt it to a new age. You're right; if we thought that was going quickly, I think the next phase is going to be even quicker. So, you're absolutely right; we need to have a much more flexible response to the changes that are going to be taking place. So, already, the digital skills that we're teaching our children will be out of date in a few years' time. That's why, first of all, we need to make sure that the people we have in, for example, our further education colleges, are up to speed, up to date, and that they have the right kind of technology and kit within their schools, and we're helping to fund some of that. But also that we underline the importance of lifelong learning, because unless we all start to take lifelong learning seriously, then I think we're going to get into trouble as a nation in terms of how we position ourselves for the future economy.

The Plaid Cymru Spokesperson, Llyr Gruffydd.

Diolch yn fawr. Does the Cabinet Secretary accept that school funding in Wales has reached crisis point?

Llyr, what I accept, because of continuing austerity, is that education is having to work in an atmosphere of restricted budgets. I acknowledge that and that's why I'm taking every opportunity that I can to get as much money to the front line as I can.

Well, I didn't expect you not to recognise as much, to be honest, but the front line is now saying quite clearly that there is a crisis and that we have reached that crisis point. It's leading to increased class sizes, which I know is something that you don't wish to see. It's led to an over-reliance on teaching assistants, who very often aren't properly paid. It's having a detrimental impact on the curriculum, with reduced contact hours, teachers having to teach a broader range of subjects, and some subjects indeed just disappearing altogether.

I'm just wondering whether you have in your mind a minimum level of per-pupil funding in Wales that is necessary to make sure that each child receives a decent education. I'm not going to ask you what it is, but I'm sure you do have, or least I hope that the Government has, some sort of idea of where the line is that we mustn't dip under at all costs. Indeed, at its national conference in November, NAHT Cymru said that school leaders simply don't know if there's enough money in the school system anymore and they called for a national audit of school budgets. I'm wondering whether you would consider undertaking such an audit.

I am aware that it is the policy of NAHT to have a national funding formula. At this stage, I don't believe that that's appropriate. We have a diverse education system in Wales, whether that is delivering education in a very small rural school where the costs, obviously, are higher, or delivering education to a highly deprived community, where we know we need to put additional resources in to support those children. We have, as a Government, tried our very best in the recent budget funding rounds to protect local government spend, because that's where most schools get their resources from, through the revenue support grant. On top of that, I as the education Minister have increased the amount of money going into the pupil development grant, despite the difficult circumstances we find ourselves in. We have also identified money to assist with the reduction of class sizes in those areas where we know it'll make the biggest difference. All local authorities have seen the benefit of that investment. 

But the funding picture is a rather discombobulated one, isn't it, when you look at, for example, the way the Government funds education. Some money goes to consortia and some money goes to local authorities—some of that goes to local authorities through the RSG, some of it goes to local authorities through grants, some goes straight to schools and, of course, we have 22 local authorities in Wales, which, basically, means 22 different formulas and, potentially, a postcode lottery in terms of how much funding is spent on each child depending on where they live.

The reality, of course, is that the education budget has dropped this year. We've seen reports recently as well of sixth-form funding dropping by a fifth in the last six years, and even today reports of £4 million being drained out of education towards the apprenticeship levy. So, do you not believe that it is time to at least bring everybody together—all of the stakeholders: the councils, the consortia, the teachers, parents and pupils—just to look again at how Welsh schools are funded?

Well, Llyr, you're right; there are a number of ways in which individual schools are funded. I continue to believe that local authorities are best placed to be able to identify need in their own local area and respond accordingly. I was very grateful to receive assurances from Debbie Wilcox, leader of the Welsh Local Government Association, that local authorities would continue to prioritise funding in education. Where we have concerns that maybe money isn't getting to the front line, officials are involved in those discussions with regional consortia and individual local education authorities. As I've said previously, if people have concerns about the way in which notional education spend is calculated for the RSG, both I and the Cabinet Secretary for local government have said that we are happy to look at that data. But there is an understanding between us and Welsh local government that that will not be imposed upon them. They have to come to the table to ask that of us, but we stand ready to work with them if they feel now's the time to update the data with regard to calculations for education in the RSG.

UKIP spokesperson, Michelle Brown.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Cabinet Secretary, as you have overall responsibility for the education system in Wales, it's ultimately your responsibility to ensure that public funds are applied properly to the benefit of children and young people in Wales. How do you monitor how educational budgets are being used by local authorities, schools and consortia?

I would refer you to the answer I gave to Llyr Huws Gruffydd. We have in-depth conversations with individual local authorities, with the WLGA and with the regional consortia. If we are unclear that the funding is being allocated in a way that is satisfactory to us, then officials work with that organisation to provide clarity and we act accordingly.

Thank you for that answer, Cabinet Secretary. You'll perhaps be aware that the BBC reported today that approximately £4 million is being taken out of school budgets to pay for local authorities' apprenticeship levies to the UK Government. They're also reporting that while some councils are paying this levy out of the overall budget, 13 of them are paying it out of the school budgets. Amongst councils that are paying it out of the overall budget, their educational budget may well be affected unless the council has ring-fenced it. I know that the apprenticeship levy is a UK tax, and that you and the Welsh Government have absolutely no control over it, but can you tell us what impact that paying that apprenticeship levy is having on school budgets and the staff levels of schools?

The Member is right; the apprenticeship levy is not something that we have control over at the Welsh Government. We have raised, as a Government, our concerns with Westminster on how the apprenticeship levy is working. Officials meet regularly to raise concerns with the Department for Education on issues linked to apprenticeships, and we understand that officials in the Department for Education—[Interruption.] 

We don't need a supporting act from Darren Millar to the Minister. 

We understand that officials in the Department for Education are currently reviewing the operation of the apprenticeship levy and—[Interruption.] 

Sorry, Cabinet Secretary, but we now we have one of your fellow Cabinet Secretaries joining in, so let's stop it and allow the Cabinet Secretary to continue. 

As I was trying to say, Presiding Officer, we are in dialogue with the Department for Education at Westminster regarding the operation of the apprenticeship levy. We have an urgent need to minimise the levy's impact on the apprenticeship programme in Wales. I understand why it is so frustrating that schools find themselves in this position, and that's why we need this programme to be reformed. 

Cabinet Secretary, I'm very glad to hear that you're having conversations with Westminster about the impact of the apprentcieship levy. The additional learning needs Bill has introduced a presumption in favour of pupils with ALN being placed in mainstream schools. This is a move I wholeheartedly applaud. I grew up in an era when people with additional learning needs and disability were effectively segregated from the rest of the population. I really couldn't be happier that it's been consigned to the dustbin now. But at a time when there are increasing burdens on schools—school budgets being hit, as you've described—ALN provision is now in danger of being detrimentally affected, and I'm already hearing reports from constituents that support staff for children and young people with additional learning needs are being cut. However, Wales gets a payback from the UK Government from the apprenticeship levy. So, what discussions have you had with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance with regard to compensating local authorities and schools for the losses they've sustained because of the levy, such as refunding the levy paid, so that at least the schools don't lose out? 

I can assure the Member that I have numerous conversations with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance over my priorities for investment in Welsh education. With regard to special educational needs, I welcome the support of the UKIP Member for our policy of transformation in this area of schools. If we are to raise standards and close the attainment gap, we cannot do that without supporting all of our students who have additional learning needs, and that's why we've allocated £20 million to implement the new legislation that this Assembly recently passed. 

The Welsh Government, regional consortia and local authorities are collectively supporting schools in Montgomeryshire and, indeed, throughout the whole of Wales, to improve educational standards, in line with the priorities as set out in 'Our national mission'. 

Cabinet Secretary, the governing body of Ysgol Bro Hyddgen in Machynlleth is proposing not to have an English language stream from September for the new intake of pupils into reception year. Every child in that year will be taught through the medium of Welsh. I've received a large number of concerns from parents in this regard, and there was a public meeting in Machynlleth on this matter on Monday evening. Of course, parents are concerned about the educational outcomes of their children. So, essentially, the English stream is being removed from the school for this particular year group, and is being done so without full formal public consultation. The local authority is saying this is a matter for the governing body. Is the governing body permitted to do this without a full public consultation? I'd also ask: the next English-medium school is my old school in Caersws, which is a 45-mile round trip, an hour and a quarter extra journey time for a young child in reception year. I'm sure you will agree with me, Cabinet Secretary, that that would clearly be unacceptable. So, can I ask you to examine this situation and provide a Welsh Government response?  

Thank you, Russell. I am aware that the governing body of Ysgol Bro Hyddgen has recently decided to combine the Welsh and English-medium streams at their reception class, beginning in September 2018. As I understand it, this decision was due to the small number of pupils enrolled in the English-medium stream. Powys County Council as well as the school are providing advice and support to parents wishing to discuss the situation in greater detail, and as you alluded to, there have been opportunities for parents to meet. What's really important is to reassure parents that the school will continue to provide a bilingual education for all pupils, ensuring that they leave school fluent in both the Welsh and English languages, and my officials continue to discuss with Powys County Council how this change is occuring. 

Of course, it’s important to highlight that Welsh-medium education can also enrich the education and attainment of pupils and there is unmistakable proof of that. I turn to the other end of Montgomeryshire to ask a question of the Cabinet Secretary on the reorganisation of schools in Newtown. There’s almost £120 million allocated for that purpose and that’s been approved by Government, including the provision of a Welsh-medium lifelong school in Newtown for the first time. I’m pleased to see this transformation in the attitude towards Welsh-medium education in Powys in the Welsh in education strategic plan that's been approved. I’d like to ask the Cabinet Secretary what other steps she’s discussing with Powys council at the moment to increase Welsh-medium education and to build on some of the foundation and the steps already taken positively to date.

Presiding Officer, perhaps I should declare an interest as the parent of three children who attend a bilingual school in Powys and have received their education through the medium of Welsh in the primary sector and are now doing their best to receive as much Welsh-medium secondary education as they can—in some cases it's proving challenging. So, I can attest on a personal basis the benefits that a bilingual education has offered my children. I'm very proud that my daughters can do something that I would only dream of being able to do, and that is to be able to converse fluently in both the languages of our nation. I certainly don't see it as a detriment to their educational achievement—it's been a positive enhancement. I'm very glad that we seem to see, within the county of Powys, a new determination to ensure that those children whose parents want them to be educated through the medium of Welsh or bilingually—that they are pushing ahead with these plans. If we're to reach our Government's target of a million Welsh speakers by 2050, then education in all parts of Wales has a crucial part to play in helping us achieve those targets. I'm glad that Powys is taking the opportunity to respond to the demand that there is in the Newtown area and, indeed, other areas of Powys, for Welsh-medium and bilingual education. 

Thank you, Dawn. School breakfast clubs are an integral part of the Welsh Government’s wider work to improve food and nutrition in school. They are intended to help improve the health and concentration of children in the school day by providing children with a healthy start to that day.

Thank you for that answer, Cabinet Secretary. You may not be aware, but this week Merthyr Tydfil council has started a 45-day statutory consultation period with trade unions around cuts to the vital service provided by breakfast clubs across the borough. There are 150 or so staff who are likely to be affected by this proposed cut; they are predominantly female, part-time and low paid. I think it's important to note that these cuts need to be seen in the context of a local authority that still has areas with levels of deprivation that are amongst some of the highest in the UK, let alone Wales. Given what you've said about the benefits of breakfast clubs, I'm sure you'll agree that these proposed cuts, alongside a cut of £465,000 to the school budgets this year alone, which I've mentioned to you previously, are a threat to the well-being and life chances of local children, some of whom are in our poorest communities. However, since the setting of the budget, the council now seems to have found money for other things, such as grass cutting, which, whilst desirable, I don't think can be as important as maintaining the breakfast club service at its current levels. So, given how important you consider this issue to be, I'd like to know what you would do to ensure that this short-sighted decision is reversed.

Well, Dawn, Wales was the first home nation to introduce free breakfasts in primary schools in 2004 and under the School Standards and Organisation (Wales) Act 2013, local authorities have a duty to ensure the provision of primary school free breakfast continues. I would be the first person to admit that I was highly sceptical of the introduction of free school breakfasts, but actually independent research that was carried out by Cardiff University has gone on to demonstrate, and has certainly convinced me, that the provision of free breakfast actually does have an effect on educational attainment. We need to do everything that we can to ensure that that benefit is not lost to children, neither in Merthyr Tydfil nor anywhere else in Wales. It is disappointing to read reports in local media that there seems to have been a choice made to prioritise, as you said, grass cutting, which I'm sure is very much needed, but it is difficult to understand why that is a priority for this local authority rather than an evidence-based policy that investing in school breakfasts actually helps children do better. That is especially true for children from poorer backgrounds, for whatever reason, whose families may find it difficult to give them the healthy start to the day that they need. 

Breakfast clubs provide children with a healthy and varied breakfast meal, an opportunity for social interaction and support for parents, particularly those who work and rely on breakfast club as a means of affordable and reliable childcare. In a recent report, some parents expressed concern that children were allowed to add sugar to breakfast cereal, some of which may already have a high sugar content. What guideline has the Cabinet Secretary issued to schools about monitoring pupils' sugar intake at breakfast club, please?

The Member will be aware that we have quite stringent regulations around the healthy nature of foods that should be supplied to children in school. We all know the detriment a diet that's high in sugar has for all of us, and I'm sure we would all wish that, if children are partaking in a free breakfast in school, it is of a high nutritional standard and is not one that adds empty calories to their diet.

Diolch yn fawr, Llyr. The capital available for schools next year will be £133 million and match funded by our partners. The twenty-first century schools programme operates a series of investment waves over financial years, with the first wave providing £1.4 billion and the second wave of the twenty-first century schools programme starting in 2019 providing a further £2.3 billion.

Councillors have contacted me, and they're concerned that the councils are only given a month to prepare bids for the capital grant this year, which comes out of the underspend of the previous year, and that those bids have to be on the basis that there is an assurance that they will spend the funding in the current financial year. Now, we've been discussing a shortage of public funding, so it's crucial that we make the best of every penny available. So—I'm sure you share my frustration that this is the situation—what will you do to ensure that councils don't have to scrabble together some plans in order to shift the funds?

Well, clearly, we always want to give local authorities as much notice as is possible for moneys that are available. Sometimes, with the best will in the world, additional resources may become available and in the desire—as I said I wanted to do earlier—to get as much money as possible to the front line, sometimes, we do need a quick decision and a quick submission of bids to allow money to be spent in-year that we hadn't anticipated would become available. I'm not prepared to let perfect be the enemy of the good, and in this case I want the good to be more money to the front line.

Cabinet Secretary, the Welsh Government has put a tremendous amount of capital into the twenty-first century schools programme. You have seen in my constituency Awel y Môr and Ysgol Bae Baglan, which are two brand-new schools operating and three new schools due to be operating in September, Ysgol Cwm Brombil, Ysgol Gymraeg Bro Dur and the new Briton Ferry primary. However, there is an issue on maintenance aspects of some of the schools. Very often, we see that many schools, which are not being proposed for new replacements, are in very difficult times because they are being told that they need £3 million-worth of maintenance done to them. For example, Cymer Afan is one of those that they claim is needing that. What are you doing to assess the cost of the maintenance of the schools so that we can not only get the brand-new schools but also keep the schools that are not to be replaced up to standard?

Thank you very much for that question. There are two things that we're doing. We have made available at the end of the last financial year £14 million to schools across Wales to help cover some small-scale maintenance costs. That's money that became available that we were able to get out to schools as quickly as we could. What's also important to note is that, as local authorities put their bids together for band B of the twenty-first century schools programme—as I said, a programme that will see over £2 billion being invested in our school and college premises—one of the new mechanisms for distributing that money actually does allow for a maintenance contract to be a part of the bid, thus covering maintenance costs for some twenty-plus years after the school is built, and many local authorities are looking at that mechanism for addressing the very point that you talk about. 

Cabinet Secretary, the auditor general looked at twenty-first century schools in the report issued May last year, I seem to remember, and in that, whilst he was broadly supportive of the project and thought money had largely been well spent, he did recommend that some adjustments be made if the funding or approach changed for the next band of investment.

Band B is less focused on reducing surplus places and more on improving the condition of the actual school estate itself, and also increasing community engagement. Can you tell us—? Often, these schools are not just schools, but they're fantastic buildings at the heart of communities. Can you tell us what advice you're giving to local education authorities so that they really are at the heart of the community, and the community locally benefits as much from those buildings as possible and gets value for money?

Thank you, Nick. You raise a very important point. We are investing significant amounts of public money in the creation of these new facilities, and they can't just be facilities that are used during the school day, during the school term—we need to make sure that those facilities are available for the community at large.

Only this morning, I had the pleasure and privilege of opening the new eastern campus in the constituency of the Cabinet Secretary for health. It is a truly, truly impressive building that combines 11 to 16 facilities, but also Cardiff and Vale College facilities on the same campus, and fantastic outdoor playing facilities—a floodlit 3G pitch—and those facilities are going to be available, not just for the use of the schoolchildren, but actually the use of the community at large. And I know that that kind of investment in eastern Cardiff, as I heard this morning, is long overdue and is much, much welcomed.

Diolch yn fawr, Dai. A new transformational curriculum is central to our national mission. The network of the pioneer schools is continuing to work with national and international experts to design and develop the new curriculum and assessment arrangements. We are on track to delivering the draft curriculum for feedback from schools in April 2019.

I thank you for that answer, Cabinet Secretary. Now, Government statistics show that loneliness is endemic amongst Wales's young people. Despite this, the Welsh Government has shown a complete disregard for this issue for years, with not a single statement nor report on youth loneliness being published since at least 2011. Now, equipping young people with the skills to tackle loneliness is vital, so will you commit to ensuring that our schools help young people in the future to avoid the pain of prolonged loneliness?

Thank you, Dai. I'm sure that you are already aware that one of the six areas of learning and experience in our new curriculum will be health and well-being. That will have equal status alongside the five other areas of learning and experience. Presiding Officer, only yesterday we debated at length my decision to include statutory relationship and sexuality education in the new curriculum. Relationships are a key to combating the loneliness that Dai Lloyd just described, and I'm determined that we will have world-leading education in this area in our schools.

Cabinet Secretary, I'm sure you'll agree, as part of the curriculum, having young people understanding what their legal rights and responsibilities in society are, if they're to play a proper role and be prepared for joining society fully as adults—. I wonder what progress, therefore, is being made to develop and incorporate within the curriculum public legal education. Also, I'd ask you, as part of that, under the Legal Services Act 2007, there is an obligation under the legal services board to basically take steps to increase public understanding of the citizen's legal rights and duties. I wonder if it would be appropriate for there to be contact with them as to what contribution they're making towards the issue of legal education amongst our young people. It seems to me the two go hand in hand together.

Thank you very much, Mick. I don't believe we can achieve the four purposes of the new national curriculum without addressing the issues that you raise. I can tell you that the humanities group has received input from a range of experts and stakeholders, including input about public legal education, in the support of its work. The group has developed a draft 'what matters' statement that supports this particular area, which states that learners will understand their rights and responsibilities as ethical citizens, and the importance of ensuring that they respect the rights of others. Learners understand individuals' legal and moral responsibilities and the consequences of failing to act accordingly.

The group continues to share its draft work with key stakeholders with an interest in this area, and that does include Wales's Children's Legal Centre, which, of course, is based at Swansea University.

Cabinet Secretary, in the list of 'what matters' in the health and well-being area of the new curriculum, there's clear focus on learners' own health and well-being, of course, but no learning statement on how pupils might help others look after their health and well-being. You may remember back in  February 2017, Assembly Members supported my proposals for age-appropriate teaching of life-saving skills to be a mandatory element of the curriculum—something you supported before you were in Government. So, now is your chance, if I can put it like that.

If it's not under the health and well-being area, where would you see this proposal, supported, of course, by the Assembly, children and their families,
the British Heart Foundation, St John Cymru and a host of other interested parties, fitting into that new curriculum? I hope you'll be able to come to the Welsh Hearts event I'm sponsoring tomorrow to see just how easy some of these skills are to learn. Thank you.

Thank you very much for the invitation. Unfortunately, I won't be able to join you tomorrow—diary commitments unwilling on this occasion. But I have been fortunate enough to visit schools where the use of life-saving technology, such as defibrillators and emergency first aid skills, has been demonstrated. You will be familiar with Ysgol Penmaes in Brecon, which is a special school in the town. It was great to see staff from the Welsh Ambulances Service NHS Trust working alongside those children to develop these skills. We have written to all schools to encourage them to participate in such programmes.

The areas of learning and experience have not yet completed their work; they continue to receive feedback and to reflect on what will be included within the curriculum. We will wait to see how that develops as we go forward.

Thank you, Lee. 'Our national mission' makes clear that through a new curriculum with a distinct emphasis on the well-being of learners, developments in professional learning and the child and adolescent mental health services inreach pilots, we are taking action to help schools promote and support positive mental health and well-being.  

Thank you. I know the Cabinet Secretary will agree that early recognition is important in providing support for children and young people, and schools sometimes struggle to provide the most appropriate support, both in terms of having the skills and capacity within the school, but also in accessing services in the community and through CAMHS. Mental health charities and schools report that the range of mental health interventions going into schools often isn't joined up and can be confusing. So, what can the Cabinet Secretary do to ensure that the different actors co-ordinate and that there's a clear route to access information and signpost pupils to the support they need?

Thank you, Lee, for that important question. Having recognised the difficulty that some schools can have in obtaining specialist services, I and the Cabinet Secretary for health have been able to join forces and to combine a monetary resource from both of our budgets to joint-fund the £1.4 million CAMHS inreach project that is happening on a pilot basis in a number of areas across Wales. The purpose of that pilot is to understand how best we can support teachers and school staff to support their children and what the most effective mechanism of putting specialist mental health services into schools actually is. We will be reflecting on that pilot with a view to, if possible, if it's a success—and I believe that it will be a success—rolling that programme out further.

As we develop our new curriculum, it'll be important that we are in a position to provide the professional development opportunities for teachers so that they know how best to address some of these issues, and we continue to look at innovative practice across Wales, where we can to see if we can make improvements. So, recently, at the invitation of Paul Davies, I was able to visit Ysgol y Preseli, which has a very innovative approach to promoting children's health and well-being as part of an international research project with Harvard University. The impacts there are very, very real. It's innovative work and I was very pleased to see it. Officials will be exploring whether there is more that we can do in other parts of Wales to build on the experiences of Ysgol y Preseli, where the focus is very much on early intervention and building children's self-esteem, their self-worth and positive attitudes towards their learning and building up their optimism that, actually, they can succeed in school and that, by succeeding in school, they can live a better, happy, healthier life.

Cabinet Secretary, you'll be aware that the Children, Young People and Education Committee have expressed concerns about the lack of resilience amongst children and young people in our schools. But it did highlight, in its recent report on this issue, some excellent practice that is going on in my own constituency in north Wales at Ysgol Pen y Bryn in Colwyn Bay, which you have also visited with me to see the mindfulness programme that is working in that school.

One of the tragedies about that excellent practice is that the pioneer schools that are developing the new curriculum have not attempted to try to access the expertise that is available in that school. What action are you taking, as the Welsh Government, to ensure that where there is good practice, it is being engaged with in terms of the development of the new curriculum, so that more people can benefit from it?

Thank you, Darren. As you say, there is an array of interventions that can be successfully used in school to address pupils' well-being—mindfulness being one that I know is particularly successful in the school that we visited together. Through the pioneer school network and the individual areas of learning and experience, they are taking a range of evidence and advice from expert groups. Now that we're at this stage of the development of the curriculum, I would expect to see a far greater level of interaction between pioneer and non-pioneer schools, working in their cluster arrangements, and I've already received feedback from some schools that were previously critical of a lack of interaction, saying that things are now much better.

I'm not sure if the Member was in the Chamber yesterday to hear me say that, actually, I've written to the Children, Young People and Education Committee offering to organise specific visits for committee members out to pioneer schools, so that this work can be seen by Members on the ground, and I hope that the Member will be able to avail himself of the opportunity to do that. But I want to see as much dialogue as we can between the pioneer and non-pioneer networks.

I would be interested in seeing the pilot that you mentioned—

I'm ever so sorry; it's disappeared.

Okay. I'd be interested in—. Is it working?

Nothing. Sorry. I'll borrow Lesley's—I hope your ears are clean. [Laughter.]

Is it working now? Is that okay?

Yes.

I would be interested in hearing about the pilot that you mentioned in answering Lee Waters, because I’ve been asking, over a number of years, about work in schools in the context of self-confidence, given the work that I’m doing on the cross-party group on eating disorders. On that basis, I’d like to ask you what work you have been doing with the health Minister on the eating disorders framework, which is currently being reviewed. There are workshops happening across Wales. In the last meeting that we had of the cross-party group, there was mention of how important it is to merge health and education in this area, because the sooner that we can see that a young person has an eating disorder, then the less likely it is that things will worsen, if there’s a strong educational system in place to help them not have to deal with the problems that emerge from eating disorders. So, I would urge you to be part of that framework review, if you’re not already, and also to share that pilot that you mentioned today.

Thank you, Bethan. The Cabinet Secretary for health and I recognise that by working together, the impact of our actions will be so much greater. We also recognise that, unless we address a child's health and well-being, especially their mental health, they cannot make the most of their opportunities within the education system to achieve their very best. How can we expect a child who is in mental distress to be able to access a curriculum? And so, we are continuing to see where we can, across our portfolios, work together to make that impact. That's the reason why we are funding the CAMHS in-reach project in a number of local authorities across Wales, so that we can better understand how we can support schools, as I said, to support their children better and have quick access to more specialist services if that is needed. But I will specifically, as a result of your question, sit down with the Cabinet Secretary for health if he is willing to do so to discuss, on this particular issue around eating disorders, what more we can do to join up work in both our departments.

Finally, question 8—Mike Hedges.

Thank you, Mike. Over the 2010-17 inspection cycle, 175 schools received an 'excellent' judgment for either their performance or prospects for improvement, and 21 per cent of schools have been rated as 'excellent' for at least one judgment. I am pleased to see that there is so much excellence in the Welsh education system.

Can I thank the Cabinet Secretary for that response? Will the Cabinet Secretary join me in congratulating Cwmrhydyceirw on achieving 'excellent' in both categories in its recent inspection? Is the Cabinet Secretary considering visiting the school to see some of its excellent practice in action—excellent practice that was identified by Estyn in their report?

Mike, I am always very pleased to see excellence wherever it is in our education system. I congratulate the school involved. It's a testament to the hard work and dedication of the staff within that school and their determination to provide the very best educational opportunities for their pupils, and I would be very happy to visit that school. I would also be very happy to see them at the Estyn annual awards, which take place now every year, where those schools that have received an 'excellent' categorisation are brought together to celebrate and to share good practice.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.

The next item is questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services, and the first question is from Jenny Rathbone.

Thanks for the question. I made a written statement on 11 May about the recommendations of the breastfeeding task and finish group. One of the recommendations was the creation of a national breastfeeding action plan and a strategic oversight group to support delivery. I expect work on the implementation of the action plan to commence in July 2018.

One of the issues of concern is that only 60 per cent of women, at birth, start breastfeeding, and that's down to less than 30 per cent at the six-week check. So, clearly, we have a very steep mountain to climb. There were some interesting points from the task and finish group around a couple of things I'd like to ask you about. One is: one of the reasons why people give up breastfeeding is because of an undiagnosed tongue-tie, so I was very pleased to see that Ysbyty Gwynedd in Bangor have been delivering a tongue-tie clinic led by a midwife since 2005, because that's absolutely crucial to ensure that a tongue-tie is accurately diagnosed and then dealt with very quickly. So, I'd be interested to know what services for tongue-tie exist across Wales, seeing as this seems to be an increasingly common presentation. 

The second point: given the huge disconnect between the numbers who ought to be breastfeeding and the numbers who actually are, and in the context of 26 per cent of children in Wales being overweight or obese, I wondered what engagement the task and finish group had with third sector organisations, because I understand there wasn't anybody from the third sector on the actual board of it. How is the Government now planning to engage with voluntary and community sectors to increase breastfeeding rates across Wales, along the lines that Aneurin Bevan is planning to do with a peer-support group system, which seems to me is required to battle both the resistance and the prejudice against breastfeeding?

Thank you for the comments and the questions. We do recognise that both initiation rates and continuing rates of breastfeeding are not where we want to be and this is not a challenge for mothers; it's a broader challenge for all of us about not just being supportive partners, but actually being more supportive about the environment that is created, where lots of women are put off breastfeeding by the attitudes of other people. So, it is partly about, again, our societal challenge to re-normalise breastfeeding. It is an entirely normal activity and it is a big problem for all of us that it is not seen in that light by a number of people. 

But turning to your two points, on tongue-tie, depending on the definition used, between 3 per cent and 10 per cent of babies have a form of tongue-tie, and I'm pleased that you've noted the good practice example in north Wales. I'm happy to confirm that issues like tongue-tie will be included within the action plan developed. You can expect to see something specifically in there on tongue-tie when that action plan is provided. We will also include something about the role of peer supporters and voluntary groups, to see how they can be further incorporated into service provision. There are a number of people on the expert group who have been directly involved themselves with peer supporters and voluntary groups as well and, in fact, the report does talk about the excellence and good practice that exists. But again, it's the consistency of that support that we want to try and do something about. This has come from a recognition by a number of people that we haven't got to where we want—the task and finish group, a number of people on it—and what we will continue to do is recognise we have a great deal more to do. It's good for mothers, it's good for babies. Ultimately, it's good for all of us.

Nick Ramsay.

Diolch, Llywydd. [Interruption.] Thank you. Diolch. Cabinet Secretary, one aspect or consequence of impending fatherhood is that my colleagues now allocate me every question relating to babies and children and all aspects of children's health. [Laughter.] But I've taken it well. Well, for today, anyway.

Cabinet Secretary, there's been a good scheme in Newport recently: a successful scheme that's encouraged local shops, cafes and the like to display a sticker in the window showing their support for breastfeeding. It might be a small scheme, but within that area it's had a significant effect. Can you tell us what consideration you're giving to building networks with health providers and local communities, so that businesses can show their support in that way and we can increase rates in a natural and progressive way?

I entirely agree with the point you've made, and I'm delighted to see you supporting the point made in this Chamber by Jayne Bryant previously, on exactly the same scheme. It is important that—. The normalisation of breastfeeding is something that businesses have a part to play in, definitely. Some of the things that make me most angry about breastfeeding stories are when businesses have asked people to leave their premises. So, that's part of the challenge for all of us, about making, obviously, the environment right, but actually the points that Jenny Rathbone was raising as well about how you provide support to women, to families, on both their initiation and continuing as well. It isn't the case that this is something that happens easily and naturally for every single person. Some people do need support, and as a not-so-recent father, I recognise, actually, that the support that we got both from the health service and on a volunteer basis made a big difference to our family.

Thank you for the question. The number of occupational therapy training places in north Wales has increased from 12 in 2013-14 to 34 in 2018-19. In addition to the full-time programme, our commissioners are working with Glyndŵr University to consider arrangements for a part-time programme in 2019-20.

Thank you very much. In 2014, the training courses for occupational therapists came to an end at Bangor University and, as a result, Wrexham is now serving the whole of north Wales. Now, there is a recruitment problem in the north-west, and as you know, there is evidence demonstrating that students tend to remain in the areas where they trained, and that is one of the many reasons why Plaid Cymru is calling for the establishment of a medical school in Bangor. Will you look at the possibility of reintroducing a training course for occupational therapists in Bangor, which would also include Welsh-medium training in order to respond to the needs of the north-west?

Thank you for the question. We've actually seen a more than 50 per cent increase in our national training for occupational therapy between 2014 and 2018. So, we're continuing to invest in this group of workers, to recognise that they're good, not just within the hospital sector and a range of sectors, but also within local healthcare too. Interestingly, I had the mirror image of this discussion with representatives about nurse training, where Bangor won the contract to deliver all the nurse training in north Wales, and Glyndŵr no longer provide that NHS training. So, this is part of the challenge about how we go and we commission on an effective, quality basis, training for a range of different professionals. I'm happy to consider how and what we commission again, and how Health Education and Improvement Wales commission the training from appropriate training providers, bearing in mind the needs of the population, and, of course, language need is part of the need, as opposed to preference. So, I do recognise the point that's being made, but it's something that we will consider together with HEIW.

Occupational therapists, of course, are not only performing an important role in the community for the wider population, but they can also offer a service that is an occupational health-related service for the people who work for the Betsi Cadwaladr University Local Health Board. One of the things that has been very concerning in recent days is to see reports of a 17 per cent increase in the number of staff days of absence in relation to stress-related sickness—almost 77,000 days last year, costing over £5 million. What support are you putting in place for front-line staff in our national health service in places like north Wales, where they do feel as though they're firefighting because of the pressure on resources and because of the significant number of vacancies that are now appearing, not just in our nursing ranks but in some of the other ranks too?

Well, I think it's a bit of a stretch to move from occupational therapy to the stress-related absences in north Wales, but nevertheless we are looking at what's happened within north Wales. Actually, part of what's happened is that people are more accurately describing their rates of sickness and the reasons for it, because, previously, a number of people chose the 'other' category, and more people are now actually choosing the reason for that. North Wales has actually had one of the better sickness absence records across the national health service. There are a range of measures in place that are being considered to consider how we better support people who deal with what is, at times, a stressful and difficult job. The First Minister answered this question yesterday. We have a number of initiatives in north Wales specifically about that, and I'm more than happy to write to the Member with a range of those initiatives that the health board are undertaking.FootnoteLink

Questions now from the party spokespeople. UKIP spokesperson, Caroline Jones.

Diolch, Llywydd. Cabinet Secretary, two weeks ago, the former head of the NHS counter fraud service warned that not enough was being done to tackle fraud in our NHS, and that as much as £200 million a year, or 3 per cent of the budget, is being lost because of fraud. The scale is appalling when you consider that, each year, we lose the equivalent of two and a half times the total new treatment fund. What is your Government doing to combat this fraud, given the staggering amount of loss?

Well, we start from a point of basic disagreement, because the research undertaken in Portsmouth is not something that we recognise—or indeed NHS England recognise—in terms of the scale of NHS fraud, and there are a number of suppositions within the research. So, it just isn't a figure that we recognise. We do, though, take seriously challenges about NHS fraud activity. We have a counter fraud unit that works not only in Wales but works with colleagues in England too. Part of what the research was talking about were things that you wouldn't necessarily consider to be fraud. You think about the commercial abuse of some relationships, which is part of what they were thinking about, and, actually, we have a range of legal actions, together with other jurisdictions within the UK, about infringements of patents and about abusing market positions. The Counsel General has to look at some of these issues as well about our position on legal action ongoing, but at present, of course, we're able to do that most effectively because we're able to make the best use of European Union regulations. That, of course, will become more difficult should we leave the European Union in due course.

Thank you for that answer, Cabinet Secretary. I welcome the fact that there is zero tolerance to fraud within the NHS in Wales. Last month, two former employees of a GP surgery in Newport were convicted of fraudulently filing prescriptions and ordered to pay back thousands of pounds to the NHS. Cabinet Secretary, what further steps can be taken to prevent this type of fraud, which costs the NHS millions of pounds? Have you explored whether technology can offer a solution on prescription fraud?

The answer to that is a simple 'yes'. Of course, we take a zero tolerance approach to fraud, but, actually, better use of technology will help to minimise the risks for fraud. In particular, we're looking at e-prescribing, making it easier to prescribe, actually saving people's time, and actually being able to track effectively what's being done by healthcare professionals at various points within the system. Our ability to do that does depend on our continued investment in not just the healthcare records, but actually the ability for healthcare professionals to access that record and be tracked in doing so. That was part of the barrier that prevented our earlier access to Choose Pharmacy. When I chose to invest in Choose Pharmacy, we'd reached a position where both the British Medical Association and community pharmacy themselves agreed on the investment, and they agreed on a method in which the healthcare professionals could be tracked on entering the GP record itself as well. So, actually it's improved our ability to audit and that should help us in our attempts to counter fraud within the NHS.

I'm pleased to hear that, Cabinet Secretary. I have in the past raised the issue of European health insurance card fraud, and at the time you said you didn't believe it affected our NHS. However, journalists working for national newspapers revealed how easy it was to obtain a card in someone else's name. Cards were obtained in the name of Theresa May, Jeremy Hunt and Donald Trump. According to a whistleblower at the NHS Business Services Authority in England, as many as one in five applications are fraudulent. As the card is often all that is needed to obtain treatment, it is believed that this fraud has cost the NHS hundreds of millions of pounds. Cabinet Secretary, how can we be sure that this type of fraud is not affecting our NHS in Wales?

That's an utterly speculative accusation to make—that there are hundreds of millions of pounds being siphoned off—by an unnamed national newspaper looking at a wholly anecdotal exercise. If we want to get stirred and stoked up into this, we can all follow where this leads. I am not at all interested in diverting attention away from the NHS doing its job to properly service the needs of the public and, yes, to properly think about dealing with fraud where it exists, but I'm not going to be led by the nose by a right-wing campaign that is all about our relationship with Europe. Our NHS relies on its relationship with Europe, not just for staff, but the way that we share knowledge, the way we share regulation, medical devices—our exit from the European Union on the terms that are potentially available at present with the chaos in the UK Government would do great and lasting damage to our national health service. That is the biggest barrier, the biggest challenge, to our national health service and our continued relationship with Europe.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Rhun ap Iorwerth. 

Diolch, Llywydd. At the end of last month, Cabinet Secretary, you wrote to all Assembly Members explaining that the party opposite's claim of falling nurse numbers at Betsi Cadwaladr, a claim based on freedom of information data, was wrong. You instead claimed that Betsi, like the rest of Wales, had seen an increase in qualified nurse numbers. Now, we've looked into the Stats Wales figures, and do you know what? Those figures do show that between September 2015 and 2017 Betsi has seen a small increase in qualified nurses, midwives and health visitors. Now, a cynic would say that you deliberately chose September 2015 as your starting point. If we chose September 2014 as the starting point, then the same Stats Wales figures show a decline in the number of full-time equivalent nurses in Betsi Cadwaladr compared with September 2017. Will you accept that things aren't really quite as rosy as you suggested in that letter last month?

My letter was factually accurate, unlike the claims made by the Conservatives. It's interesting that Plaid ride to the rescue of the Tories and look to make common cause with them. The undeniable truth is that we have more registered nurses in our national health service here in Wales than ever before. We invest more in our staff than ever before. I am proud of the record that we have here in Wales. You see a real difference in values between ourselves and the party opposite, and, obviously, in the investment choices we make, in which we choose to support people as well. I'll never pretend that it is an easy exercise to get all the staff that we want, in particular in the times of the twin clouds of Brexit and austerity. But I say to the Member behind me: this Government will remain committed not just to the values of the national health service, but to the need to have the right numbers of staff, and we will do so in these most challenged of financial circumstances.

Let me turn to figures from the Nursing and Midwifery Council. Incidentally, they show EU nurses leaving the UK in droves because of concerns over Brexit—hugely worrying, but that's for another day. The general Welsh data shows over 300 fewer nurses in Wales since 2012-13. Now, cynics might say that what I did there was to pick a starting point to suit my narrative. Its data actually does show a slight increase on last year. But let's take your narrative and my narrative out of it and turn for a more balanced view to the Royal College of Nursing, who say that:

'Overall numbers of employed NHS nurses are static. This does not reflect increased patient numbers, higher patient dependency and higher bed occupancy. The overall numbers can also obscure very sharp shortages of registered nurses and nursing in some specific fields, e.g.
Neonatal nursing and childrens nursing in the community.'

Do you accept that that is a far more accurate picture of nursing in Wales than the complacency that I think you showed in that letter of April 2018?

I'm certainly not going to apologise for taking on Tory misrepresentations of the truth within the national health service. A claim was made in leaders' questions that simply was not true. It is absolutely right that we stand up for the health service and correct the Tories when they get the facts wrong. I'm still staggered that Rhun chooses to align himself with that point of view. It is a fact that we have more registered nurses in NHS Wales than ever before. It is also true that we have a number of areas where there are vacancies and there are challenges, and I've never tried to hide—the idea that I'm complacent about the challenges affecting the future of the national health service is absolutely farcical. All of these challenges require us to be honest and grown up. They also require us to do all that we can in a time when you recognise, as I do, that because of eight years of Tory austerity we have less resource right across public services than we have ever had before. Despite that, this Welsh Labour Government has continued to invest in the national health service—the only public service where we have more staff now than at the start of austerity. That is a measure of our commitment and I will not apologise for the actions of this Government in living our values and protecting the future of the national health service.

It's a damning indictment of your Government, as I say, that, if you are continuing to spend more, we're getting less results in terms of full-time equivalent nursing numbers, as I have factually stated, based on your Stats Wales figures. I am merely aligning myself with those facts as your statisticians put them forward. Now, we also know that the Welsh NHS continues to demonstrate a heavy reliance on nurses working overtime—71 per cent of nurses working overtime at least once a week. That's 16,000 nurses having to go over and above the call of duty every week because of understaffing. Just recently, we heard those BBC figures, based on FOI, that Betsi Cadwaladr lost over 77,000 days to staff experiencing stress and anxiety, which illustrates the problem of overworked staff in understaffed environments. Now, three options for you: you can either send a letter to the BBC saying that they've got their figures wrong, you can repeat what you said earlier that it's not about stress but about better reporting of stress, or you can accept that in recent years Wales has been substantially understaffed with full-time fully qualified nurses, and that as a result the nurses that we have are under unreasonable pressure and patients haven't received the very care your Government admitted could only be achieved through safe staffing levels.

Well, it's a very strange pitch that the Member makes, but I'm happy to say again: we have more registered nurses than ever before in the national health service in Wales. And your comments about overtime and bank arrangements—some people choose to undertake those arrangements. We also know some people are working together in a range of different circumstances. We have a range of measures in place to think about the accuracy and the efficiency of bank arrangements. We're taking on ideas put forward to us by the Royal College of Nursing on having an all-Wales bank. We're taking up the opportunities for e-rostering, because they are better arrangements for people who have their own needs about how they wish to live their lives, but also at meeting the needs of the health service. We are actively recruiting nurses. The 'Train. Work. Live.' campaign is actively going out and selling Wales successfully as a destination for people to come.

I'll tell you—I was in Belfast at the Royal College of Nursing congress, the only UK health Minister to be there with the Royal College of Nursing at their congress, and the welcome that we had, not just from nurses in Wales, but from right across the United Kingdom and Ireland, was significant. They recognised that, in Wales, we do value nurses, we are serious about recruiting and retaining nurses. They also recognised we're serious about promoting reform and making the very best use of people within the nursing family. You could not understate the enthusiasm of Welsh nurses for the environment they work in, their pride in the service, and the fact that they know they have a Government that is on their side. You would not find anything like the same feeling from nurses working in England.

Conservative spokesperson, Suzy Davies.

Diolch, Llywydd. Minister, first of all, congratulations on the new responsibility added to your already very busy portfolio. At the launch of the older people's commissioner's latest impact and reach report, you said that the human rights of older people will be put at the heart of public services in Wales. As some councils are looking at closing care homes or day facilities, are you confident that older people are being appropriately consulted? Because I'm not sure that they are. But then older people don't have the right to be consulted about change that affects their lives in the same way that children do under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. It's a Welsh Conservative policy to further enshrine the rights of older people within Welsh law by placing that due-regard duty on public bodies, not just Welsh Government, and we'd do the same for children's rights as well. Will you be prepared to adopt those policies?

Thank you, Suzy, for that question. I'm delighted to take on explicitly those new responsibilities for older people. It was great to be at that legacy event last week with the older persons' commissioner. My officials, in fact, have met with her, I think, on three occasions over the last month, working forward on a set of proposals to, as she put it, and as I will reiterate here, 'make those rights real'—those high-level rights that we already have enshrined in our legislation, making them real.

I think that's the focus, rather than a grand new shiny piece of legislation. I love bringing legislation forward, but sometimes there's a better, more immediate way to do it. Just to reiterate some of the ways, because some of these are in statutory areas and some in non-statutory—. So, for example, advocacy is key—absolutely critical—to older people. How much does an older person—? If you went out to the middle of Carmarthenshire and said, 'What do you know about advocacy?', I think most people would say, 'What the heck is that? What right is it that I have to that?' So, getting the awareness out there, but also getting the advocacy, both informal and professional, right—. So, we will revisit Part 10 of the code of practice on advocacy, with a view to developing real practical guidance, making those rights real for people and demonstrating due regard to the high principles.

We will, on commissioning, develop a national framework for independent advocacy services for adults in Wales. We will consider introducing a stewardship function for advocacy in line with recommendations from the Public Policy Institute for Wales. There are many more areas, such as looking to the regulations under Part 9 of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 and how we can update those—the guidance that flows from that—to have due regard to the UN principles and, again, making the rights real.

But, I will ask the new commissioner as well, as she comes in, to chair a working group. It's up to the new commissioner what programmes of work they take forward, but I hope the new commissioner would be open to chairing a working group on taking this work forward and making those rights real for older people without the necessity for a grand flagship Bill, but actually making them bite.

I think my response to that is that if you want to make rights real, you enshrine them in legislation and make them enforceable by the courts.

I'll ask you something else now, though. Local authorities are currently in the process of submitting their annual reports setting out how they've used Welsh Government funds to help with respite for carers in their areas, which I think we'd all agree is very important.

These reports, of course, could hold very important information on best practice and good ideas that would run well in different parts of Wales. No-one has a monopoly on good ideas, as both our parties are inclined to say. Can you confirm that these annual reports will be publicly available, to help share good ideas not just between local authorities but with other providers as well? Can you confirm whether the reports will be specific as to the source of money used for providing that respite care, whether it's from the RSG, direct grant funding from Welsh Government, shared budgets with the NHS or any other partnership funding? Following the money in this policy area is pretty difficult, and I'm looking to you, Minister, to help with a little bit of transparency on this.

Indeed. I will check on whether those reports are going to be made publicly available, and I'll write to you and to other Members who are interested on that. On the issue of the traceability of the funding, I'm not sure that they'll actually say whether this has come from information and communications technology—the £3 million being set aside of the £50 million of ICT funding—whether it is from other sorts of funding that are already within the RSG funding, or whether they are within other tranches of funding that are being brought into this. One of the things that we've done for local authorities—at their request, I have to say—is we've given them the flexibility around this in order to actually focus on the outcomes for respite care. In fact, the older people's commissioner made very clear in her 'Rethinking Respite' report that there wasn't sufficient flexibility; it was too hidebound with traditional approaches to respite. Both she and local authorities have said, 'Give us the flexibility—give us the funding, but give us the flexibility'. 

So, I think the thing we need to be measuring is not so much which piece of which funding goes into it, but whether they've actually delivered the outcomes—that there are co-produced packages of respite care flexible enough to cater to each individual that have been delivered. There's the real outcome, as opposed to where the particular tranche of funding came from to deliver that outcome. But, I will write to you on the issue of whether those reports will actually be publicly available.

Thank you for that. On the issue of outcomes, I don't think anyone here would disagree that that's the most important thing, and, in fact, the integrated care fund has had a lot of praise from a number of people I've spoken to. But I don't think the Welsh Government can take its foot off the pedal in helping on transparency so that we can actually understand the budgets that you bring forward every year. To try to move away from that as being unimportant, I think, is not impressive, I'm afraid to say.

What I would like to welcome is your planned establishment, through Carers Wales, of a Wales hub for Employers for Carers, something that, obviously, England's had for 10 years now, and I'm really pleased it's coming here. From some of the discussions I've had with people involved in caring at different levels, it seems to be pretty clear that many businesses don't really understand what the role of a carer is, what their rights are and what kind of support could be offered, as it varies, of course, greatly from business to business and carer to carer, sometimes even within single departments in bigger companies. Welsh Conservatives, as you probably know, would like to introduce a financial incentive for young adult carers to stay in post-16 education or apprenticeships so that they don't lose out on career progression, but we recognise—and I wonder if you agree with this—that some employers offering apprenticeships may be deterred from offering them to young adult carers because of those caring responsibilities. If so, how do you think your hub might help employers see beyond those responsibilities to the highly motivated young person who really wants that apprenticeship? 

I think you're absolutely right; if we are genuinely interested, with the demands in front of us of a diverse workforce, in utilising the skills of every person of all different ages, including those with caring responsibilities as well, then there is a real job of awareness raising and support for employers to actually identify the needs of those individual carers, respond to them, and to enable them to enter the workplace along with caring responsibilities. Now, if a carer is a young adult carer, for example, aged between 16 and 25, as part of their assessment in transitioning forward, it must include an assessment of, for example, current or future transitions that that carer is likely to make into further or higher education, or to training, or to employment, and it must have due regard to what that young adult carer wishes to participate in. So, part of this is working with the individual carer on their individual plans, and then it's also working with employers. There is a big job of work to be done here with employers, particularly small and medium-sized employers, to open up the world of work then for carers, and to work with them on that. But we will take that forward, and I look forward to the work now of the ministerial advisory group on carers as well on taking forward all of the work streams that, Suzy, you referred to there, and feeding back to me as a Minister.  

Indeed. I'll respond, Caroline, if I may, on behalf of the Cabinet Secretary. The Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 sets out our commitment to ensuring the provision of services, care and support for all people, including disabled people, with the key priority being on improving their well-being.

Thank you, Minister. As you're no doubt aware, one of my constituents, Paul Davies, an inspirational paralympian, is struggling to train for Tokyo 2020 because of a lack of support from his local authority social services department. Unless Paul gets the help he needs to attend training sessions, he will not qualify and not only will Wales lose one of its medal hopefuls, but we will be denying Paul the chance to reach his full potential. Minister, if Paul lived in a different local authority, he would be supported, as has been proven in my research. I've almost exhausted all channels here with Paul Davies, who is a bronze medallist already. So, what is the Welsh Government doing to end the postcode lottery in social care, and, on this particular case, will you work with me to find a resolution so that Paul can attend? Thank you. 

Caroline, I think you've probably done a favour in some way by raising it today, because the local authority, who are minded, by the way, to put the very right care and support, not simply for care but also for independent living, and part of independent living also is the ability to pursue sports, hobbies and the lifestyle that everybody should be entitled to—. Now, I know that they are keen to do that. It's difficult for me to comment on the individual case, but I think, in raising it today, both the local authority and the sport governing bodies as well will be acutely aware of the necessity of protecting the lifestyle and the interests of Paul, who has excelled as a paralympian. He looks to do more in the future as well, and we wish him well with that as well. 

Could I suggest that, if you can, with your constituent, you continue to engage with the front-line social services who are trying to devise a package with Paul? It's an ongoing procedure, so I understand. It's highly complex, but they have a willingness to engage with it, and I hope they can come to a point, in line with the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 and in line with that idea of co-producing packages that are agreed with individuals rather than imposed on individuals—I know it's a difficult process—where they come to the right package for Paul that allows him to pursue not only his sporting ambitions, but also that independent style of living. I know there's a willingness from the local authority to do that, so please engage with them. 

In your response there to Caroline Jones, Minister, you mentioned improving the well-being of disabled people, which would, of course, include wider public understanding of some of he barriers that they may face. In January this year, I held a short debate on a scores-on-the-doors policy about disabled access, following a petition from the Bridgend Coalition of Disabled People. At that time, the Cabinet Secretary said he was keen to hear practical suggestions about how such a scheme could work. One of the other objectives of the policy is to nudge businesses into wanting to improve access to buildings. The principal advisers on that, of course, should people with disabilities, but I can see that occupational therapists, either NHS or local authority, who work in reablement, would also have advice to offer here when it comes to the design of those improvements. So, would you be happy to meet representatives of the Bridgend Coalition of Disabled People to learn more about their original idea and to flesh out some of the practicalities? 

Thank you. We have a way of working in Wales that is to do with sitting down with people and working through things together. I'm more than happy to meet. I know Simon well, personally and individually—you do as well, I know. He's a great individual. He's a campaigning fireball, he really is. It is an interesting idea and I think it does have some merit. We need to think it through though and we probably need to talk this through: what is the best approach that will make it a situation where any person with a range of disabilities knows—and he's flagged it up in terms of the food signposting that we do, the hygiene ratings and so on—whether there is some way of doing this? It might be his model or it might be something else, but I'm more than happy to sit down with you and others, and with Simon as well, and talk through what we may be able to do and to avoid any negative unintended consequences. Let's get it right if we're going to take something forward. 

Thank you for the question. The Betsi Cadwaladr University Local Health Board and the Welsh renal clinical network are currently going through a dialogue process with service providers for chronic haemodialysis service. It is recognised that Wales leads the UK in terms of access to renal dialysis in ensuring that over 90 per cent of the population can access dialysis within a 30-minute travel time. In north Wales, we want to see an expansion of the service to further support this approach and continue to improve both access and outcomes for patients. 

Thank you for that answer, but I understand that the renal services are currently delivered either by the NHS, an independent provider or a combination of both. In February, the health board stated that the current independent provider was due to be recommissioned in the Bangor unit and the satellite unit in Alltwen. Following on from this, concerns were raised about potential changes to terms and conditions for staff taken on by whomsoever might win the next contract. Cabinet Secretary, I would like to know if the existing workforce will be guaranteed the same terms and conditions as they previously enjoyed and that patients will continue to receive the same high standard of care that they deserve as close to home as is possible. 

Thank you for the question. I know there have been questions about this broad area previously. I want to reiterate that the opportunity has been taken to look at the whole service to further expand and improve the service to make sure that care is closer to home for a greater number of people. So, patient representatives, trade unions and HR representatives have been invited into the process to develop renal services, together, of course, with clinicians. I'm happy to set out again that all specialist renal services and consultant care will continue to be provided by the national health service. No decision has been made on the final model, but I want to reiterate this very clearly: this Government will not approve the transfer of NHS staff into the private sector. I want to be really clear and upfront about that, because I do know that some members of staff are concerned about their future within the national health service. 

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for that clarification. Under the new arrangements, I think you've confirmed that there won't be any NHS staff moving to the private sector, but if there's any change at all with regard to staff moving from any NHS body to another third party, can you confirm that staff pension rights wouldn't be affected in that regard? Also, there are some concerns about a change leading to patients paying for additional services in Welshpool, and I wonder if you could comment on that. Some of the recreational and medical equipment that has been purchased for the renal unit has been supplied by the North Powys Kidney Patients Association. So, in any change, can I ask what the position would be on the ownership of these particular items? Can I also ask whether patient transportation will be affected in any way in any change?

I'm happy to reiterate the answers that I've given to Joyce Watson to try and deal with the points that you raise. In terms of pension rights, given that this Government won't approve a transfer out of the national health service of staff, the issue doesn't arise. If people choose to transfer and move their employment, that's a matter for them. We can't force people to stay within the national health service; people do move jobs from time to time, as we know, but there will not be a new service provision that requires people to move out of the national health service.

In terms of Welshpool, NHS services will remain commissioned and provided by the national health service. Even where there are partnerships with the independent sector, that doesn't mean that people would end up paying to go and have their treatment; it is an NHS service. So, I really hope that it's helpful to quash some of the rumours and some of the way in which this conversation has run around in areas—it just is isn't possible and there's no tenable reason to think that that would actually happen. To give that assurance to staff and to patients, it won't affect patient transport, it won't affect having to pay for services—it is a national health service—and it won't affect staff being required to transfer out of the national health service. I don't think I can be any clearer than that.

Cabinet Secretary, you just told us that staff and unions are part of negotiations about the future of the service, but I quoted yesterday to the First Minister a letter from staff saying, 

'It's a disgraceful way for a responsible employer to conduct itself in such a process.'

Because they are aggrieved that they have not had the engagement that you're potraying they are having. They say that 

'The staff feel that, throughout this process, the communication has been poor and not undertaken in a timely manner, effectively preventing union representation and causing serious distress and worry to all staff concerned.'

Now, I asked the First Minister yesterday whether he would look into this to give us assurances that this is not the case, or at least that, if it is, it will change. Can you also give us that assurance, please?

I'm happy to do that, because if there has been a problem with the way that staff have been engaged I expect it to be rectified. But I do know that health service trade unions have been engaged in and around the conversation with this service. Again, I say that national health service staff will not be required to transfer their employment; I expect staff to be properly involved, and their representatives, in conversations about their future. If there is a real problem—and I have read the letter from the Welshpool staff—then we will ensure that the national health service employer rectifies the process to make sure that people are properly engaged in the conversation about their future.

I think this is taking away from the success story of renal dialysis services in Wales. We have the best story to tell in the whole of the UK about the quality of care, about the outcomes and travel time. We are in a much better position than in Scotland and in England, and that is because of the hard work of the Welsh renal clincial network, the nursing and additional care staff, including healthcare support workers, who directly deliver this service. I'm proud of the additional investment we're making and have been making in this area since 2009. It's a programme that will continue and patients in Wales will get better care as a result.

Thank you for the question. Our approach to tacking respiratory ill health is set out in the respiratory health delivery plan for Wales, which was updated and republished this January. We continue to invest in respiratory care, and, in Wales, spending has risen from £338 million in 2009-10 to £432 million in 2016-17.

Cabinet Secretary, the Asthma UK survey 2017 found over 300,000 people in Wales living with asthma, thousands of annual emergency admissions and 62 deaths in 2016. Two thirds of the deaths are thought to be preventable with better basic care, and standards of basic care are said to be achieved in over 48 per cent of cases in Northern Ireland but, at the other end of the scale, only 26.1 per cent in Wales. So, what further steps will Welsh Government take to drive up standards in Wales?

I'm happy to recommit ourselves to driving up standards right across respiratory conditions. We'll have more to say on that in the coming months. There's an interesting project led by a number of people about the possibility for a respiratory innovation centre, which I'm particularly excited about. There could be economic benefits as well as healthcare benefits to that. On asthma, the thing about the report provided by Asthma UK is that, given the size of the sample, I wouldn't quite agree with all of the assertions they make about the comparative nature of care being provided within different nations in the UK, but they are broadly right that we could and should improve on healthcare, both at primary care level as well as at specialist level.

We're actually in a position where virtually every general practice participates in the clinical audit for primary care for asthma and COPD. That gives us a good picture of the quality of care delivered locally and areas for improvement. And this is a key area where we're actually improving value, because a number of clinicians have actually looked at the treatments available and they choose what they think is the best value product, which isn't always the highest priced product as well. So, we'll get better value for care, and, of course, in asthma care, we've seen some of the new drugs and treatments available being made available faster here through the new treatment fund, delivering on our manifesto pledge to the people of Wales. So, we recognise we have more to go, but we have a real commitment, and I think really good reasons to be positive about our prospect of improving care outcomes here in Wales in the future.

Cabinet Secretary, we in the Welsh Conservatives launched our urban strategy last week, and we put in place some measures to improve air quality, such as the requirement on all schools and nurseries to have air quality monitoring on their premises. I wonder what sort of conversations you're having with your Cabinet colleagues, particularly the Cabinet Secretary for the environment, to start tackling the blight of poor air quality in Wales in a multifaceted way, as the future generations Act, of course, requires you to do.

I'm happy to confirm that there are conversations that do take place across Government, not just with the Cabinet Secretary, but with the Minister, who leads on the clean air plan for Wales. There's something here about understanding the contribution of the national health service and what we can do both to improve the quality of air, but the way the national health service itself operates. It's the biggest employer in the country; we were talking earlier about the fact that it's the only public service to have an expanding number of staff, and more than 90,000 people are employed by the national health service. So, how people get to work, how we make it easier for them to get to work and how we actually then improve the running of significant parts of the NHS estate are part of what we can do, as well, of course, as thinking about the consequences of poor air quality in terms of health service need.

I visited a fantastic example of looking at the way in which we reduce our footprint in actually having a smaller number of movements on and around hospital sites recently in St Woolos, looking at the new Sterimelt innovation, which is actually converting some of the equipment used in hospital theatres and converting it into larger blocks that can then actually be used for 3D printer filament. So, that's actually a really good way to have put a waste product, that was previously going to a landfill with lots of lorry movements on and off, previous to that technology—reducing the number of lorry movements needed to do that. Now we actually have that product turning into a different, useful product. And the good thing is it's been developed by a company in Wales, still based in Wales—I should say, Presiding Officer, within my constituency—but we actually have a real opportunity to see that go into a more useful product to be delivered again through the national health service.

Thank you for the question. GP services are a core component of primary care and the delivery of a sustainable health system. Our drive for continued improvement is backed by the nearly £43 million primary care fund that is driving change and innovation across Wales, including, of course, Pembrokeshire, and £4.69 million of the fund in 2018-19 has been allocated to Hywel Dda for their plans for service sustainability, better access, and to deliver more services locally.

Cabinet Secretary, Hywel Dda university health board has recently approved the application to close St Clement's surgery in Neyland in my constituency, which will have a huge impact on patients at the surgery who will now have to travel to Pembroke Dock for treatment and incur financial costs due to travelling over the Cleddau bridge. In light of these circumstances, can you tell us what discussions you've had with your colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport—who's in his place at the moment—given that the Welsh Government has committed to abolishing the tolls on the Cleddau bridge, so that patients in my constituency will not have to incur financial costs for accessing vital GP services?

I'm sure the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport will be happy to outline the progress this Government is making on the Cleddau bridge in due course. In terms of general practitioner and primary care services within Neyland, I recognise the point that the Member makes, and there are ongoing conversations to consider which services can still be provided within that area to reduce the need to travel to other parts of the health board area for further treatment. So, we'll continue to work alongside the health board, as required, to help them, but this is actually a choice that the group itself has made about closing a branch surgery, and that's within the rules in which general practice operates with this significant independent contractor. But I'm confident we'll still be able to deliver a significant range of local healthcare services within the Neyland area to reduce the need for anyone to travel to Pembroke Dock, including before the time when we make further progress on the tolls.

Well, I'm afraid the vision that you've set out is not the reality in Pembrokeshire for access to GPs. In the last two months, I've had constant updates from Hywel Dda health board about the lack of availability of GPs over the weekend. Only last week, a Narberth constituent contacted me after having phoned her GP surgery 82 times before she got an appointment. My discussions with my constituents about the Hywel Dda health reorganisation proposals have really turned around the fact that there's an informal rationing system for GP access now in both Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire that relates to making it blinking impossible to get hold of a GP and to get an appointment. When will you actually do some strategic work to ensure there is sufficient GPs in Pembrokeshire, but more than that, that we have a proper out-of-hours service provided by GPs so people don't turn up at A&E and report inappropriately to that area?

There are two points there, aren't there? There's the point about access in hours and the work that's being done in making sure people get to see the right healthcare professional. Sometimes that will be a GP, other times it will be a physiotherapist, an occupational therapist, or a nurse, or a pharmacist, or a different healthcare professional. I'm pleased to see that in both the north and the south Pembrokeshire clusters, they're investing in those different staff to provide that wider service.

I don't recognise the point you're making about deliberate rationing to make it impossible for people to see a healthcare professional. I do recognise, though, there are localised challenges that really do exist in different parts of the country where access is difficult; I recognise that exists around the country. There are also parts where access isn't a challenge. It's part of the negotiation we're actually having with the British Medical Association on changing the contract for the future, because they too recognise that access is a real cause for concern, with doctors themselves recognising the unhappiness of staff who are placed in that position.

In terms of out-of-hours, we're actually rolling out the 111 service; it's across part of the health board area already, in Carmarthenshire, and that will help us to have a more robust and sustainable model of out-of-hours provision. But I do recognise there are challenges in this area too, and actually, what hasn't happened, of course, is the taxation changes made that the Member for Llanelli has raised on more than one occasion, and that is actually putting people off. Conversely, though, of course, the steps that we have made, and will continue to make, on GP indemnity insurance will help to provide more people to work in the out-of-hours service, because actually, not resolving that issue is a bar to people working in both out-of-hours and in-hours. So, there are good reasons to be positive, although not complacent, about the future.

Thank you for the question. Hywel Dda university health board is currently consulting on proposals to transform community and hospital services across mid and west Wales. I expect the health board to follow the process set out in the guidance for engagement and consultation on changes to health services and to encourage it to ensure the public has every opportunity to participate in the process in traditional and more non-traditional means as well.

Thank you very much. As the Cabinet Secretary knows, there's a lot riding on the results of this consultation, and from the countless conversations I've had, awareness is low, and it's fair to say there's a degree of suspicion that the health board have made their mind up in advance. They've only printed 10,000 copies of a quite hard-to-follow questionnaire, and they're making no envelopes available. I've been contacted by a constituent from Cross Hands last week who wants me to ask you whether or not you'd ask the health board to write to every household in Hywel Dda to make sure that they're aware of the proposals and encouraged to take part.

The health board are holding drop-in sessions, but their session in Llanelli yesterday had fewer than 100 people turn up. And a public meeting I supported, along with Nia Griffith, two weeks ago, had over 200 people turning up and the health board refused to send anybody along to engage in a dialogue and explain to people what the proposals were. Would the Cabinet Secretary ensure that Hywel Dda understands that if they want to take the people with them, they need to engage openly and be seen to be engaging openly?

I do recognise the point the Member is making, and of course, in addition to the traditional paper consultation exercise, there is the challenge of having drop-in sessions, which they've decided to run, where they've got extra sessions that they're putting on through the rest of the consultation period, which doesn't close till, I think, the second week of July. And there's a challenge about whether they will attend public meetings or not. I would expect that there will be members of the public who are also members of the health service who are engaged in those meetings in order to provide a clinical view on it.

What I do recognise is that in social media, and in terms of social media use, they have got a range of clinicians talking about the proposals. I don't think I'll be asking Hywel Dda to write to every household. Part of the challenge is about what you do and how far you go. The cost in actually requiring every consultation to go out, and the return on that, I'm not sure is a sensible one, but I do recognise that they need to take up opportunities to recognise where people aren't being properly reached. I don't think anyone could pretend that there's a low public profile about changes to healthcare proposals in west Wales, but I'm more than happy to sit down with you, if there are specific proposals, to try and look at what could be done to improve the way in which the health service engages with the public and to ensure that Hywel Dda takes up every reasonable opportunity to engage with the public.

And finally, Paul Davies.

Cabinet Secretary, you're already aware of my outright opposition to this consultation, given that all three of the health board's options will actually result in Withybush hospital being downgraded to a community hospital with no accident and emergency facilities. Now, given that you, as a Government, will not intervene specifically on this matter, why will you not, at the very least, confirm that funding will be allocated for all three proposals, so that people can be sure that these proposals are realistic in the first place? If you can't do that, then I put it to you that this consultation is an absolute farce.

Well, I just don't accept that at all, and Paul Davies revealed his position at the outset: he is opposed to any change. And look, that's a position for him to take and for him to explain. This is a consultation that the health board are running that takes seriously the challenges it has and will have in the future. I don't have a view on any of the three options that are available, because I may have to make a choice. I can't therefore confirm that I'm going to fund any of the three options because I put myself in the position where I can't then be a decision maker on what is, potentially, going to be my responsibility. It is also entirely possible that, during the consultation, if it is a real consultation, that some of the options may change. So, actually, you'd be asking me to sign up to funding something that may not be the actual proposal at the end of it, otherwise there would be no consultation—[Inaudible.]—potentially changing or refining any of the proposals.

I go back again to the example of Gwent. Healthcare in Gwent changed significantly because of the clinical futures exercise. It brought together staff who agreed on a broad model and it brought together a wide range of public stakeholders as well. That still took, though, a process to have not just a view about the future, but then to develop a business case for changing the hospital estate as well as community services too. And what has now happened is that this Government has invested in the Grange university hospital to deliver the final piece of that vision that will also require changes to the way that other hospital services are run in other other sites, and most significantly of all, a change in the way in which local healthcare is delivered. Over 90 per cent of our healthcare interactions are within local healthcare. We spend nothing like 90 per cent of our time discussing local healthcare in this Chamber or otherwise.

I will do what I said I would do at the start of this term. I will provide the space for the national health service and the public to have a consultation, a conversation about the future of healthcare and the necessary changes that we all recognise would need to be made when every single party in this place signed up to the parliamentary review. We knew there would be difficult choices to be made at the end of it. I am not going to walk away from potentially having to make a choice, but this is a consultation for the public to be involved and engaged in, for staff to be involved and engaged in, and I look forward to seeing the outcome of that very public consultation.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary.

Item 3 on the agenda this afternoon is topical questions. The first topical question this afternoon is to be answered by the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport. Russell George.

Yes. Transport for Wales will manage the Wales and borders rail services contract, putting the passenger at the heart of what they do to ensure a customer-focused service.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. The Public Accounts Committee yesterday published a report on the Circuit of Wales project—and there is a link here, Deputy Presiding Officer—which deliberately focused on two very specific areas of scrutiny. The first was the Welsh Government's managerial approach to ensuring that the Circuit of Wales project delivered value for money, and secondly, the Welsh Government's decision-making process that ultimately led to the scrapping of the Circuit of Wales scheme.

Now, that report identified specific failings in relation to the Welsh Government's method for ensuring value for money, including confusion in relation to the complex web of supplier relationships and overall approach to protect management that could have exposed the Welsh Government to undue risk. So, can I ask what new and specific measures were put in place by Ministers, and followed by officials, in order to guarantee that the procurement process to award the new franchise delivers the highest possible value for money for taxpayers? And can you assure us that, like in the case of Circuit of Wales, similar stringent measures have been put in place to protect the Welsh Government from the possibility of legal challenge, following the completion of the tendering process?

There have been some concerns expressed about the transparency in the current process. Now, the Department for Transport publishes the specification that they are asking people to bid against, and on announcement day, they always give an overview of what the new contract will contain, and they have the same 10-day challenge period also. I'd appreciate any comment on that.

Also, 12 months ago, you stated that the benefits of the new franchise would be felt by passengers immediately, and last week, the First Minister stated that improvements resulting from the new franchise would take years. For passengers' sake, I wonder if you could clarify who was right.

And very finally, when do you plan to bring forward a statement to the Chamber, an oral statement, with regard to the new franchise following today's announcement?

Can I thank the Member for his questions? I'm very pleased to inform the Member that, in the last 24 hours, I've spoken with a number of UK Government Ministers who've conveyed their very warm congratulations on what is seen as a huge success for the Welsh Government and for work between Governments in making sure that we can award the next franchise, which the Member, based on a report that his own committee produced, identified as a heroic ambition. That ambition today is being delivered.

But the Member is wrong in a number of respects concerning the process that is being followed right now and in the next 10 days. We have to operate, to law, a 10-day standstill period during which we cannot comment, nor can the preferred bidder. That's because it gives time for the non-preferred bidder to raise a challenge if they so wish. I would dearly love to begin unwrapping the presents today, but the Member and everybody else, including me, will have to show patience over the next 10 days.

I also take issue with the Member for linking today's announcement to a report on the Circuit of Wales project, and specifically with the press release suggesting that individuals within Transport for Wales are not able to manage the franchise because of that very issue. I should point out to the Member that the same officials have delivered record inward investment, they've delivered record employment and they've delivered a record number of business births. They delivered Aston Martin, they helped Cardiff Airport stay open, they helped deliver CAF. They've helped deliver the Newtown bypass. I have every confidence in those officials. I've every confidence in Transport for Wales, and given that they and we have delivered on our heroic ambition today, I think all Members should have confidence in Transport for Wales.

Thank you. Adam Price.

Cabinet Secretary, I can understand why Tory Ministers are congratulating you for slavishly following their privatising agenda, but the fact that we are now poised to hand over responsibility for our national railways to a French-Spanish consortium of transnational corporations is surely not a source of celebration. It's a source of regret and political soul-searching by the Labour Party. Surely, your own manifesto, which I think, Cabinet Secretary, you had a hand in writing, promised that you 

'will deliver a new, not-for-profit, rail franchise from 2018'.

Now, anyone reading that would assume that this is going to be a state-run operator. Well, of course, it is state-run, except it's not the Welsh state—it's majority owned by the French state. The current one, of course, is majority owned by the German state, so I suppose that's some form of progress—is it? Because, what, effectively, we're doing—we are binding the hands, not just of the next administration, but the administration after that, and, indeed, the administration after that.

So, can I ask you, Cabinet Secretary, you have promised—[Interruption.] Can I ask you, Cabinet Secretary, you have promised that the next Labour Government that you're always talking about will change the Railways Act to enable the Welsh Government to have the power to have a public sector operator, so have you done what the Scottish Government has done and introduced a break clause in the contract so that you can, at the earliest possible opportunity, ensure that you deliver on what you promised to have—a not-for-profit operator?

Can we also ask as well, in the event that the contract is handed back, as has happened in a number of cases, will the Welsh Government be the operator of last resort? This is the third time I've asked you that question, Cabinet Secretary, so I would appreciate if you could respond.

I'm pretty astonished by the Member's cheap opportunism today, given that the Member knows full well that the Railways Act 1993 prevents public sector bodies from coming forward to bid directly for a franchise. I'm astonished, because his own Members of Parliament, including his own MP, worked with Labour MPs to bring about an amendment in the Wales Bill, but sadly that amendment was voted down.

I really am tired of the rather hysterical hyperbole relating to this matter. I reflect back on 16 August last year—a very special day for different reasons—when the Member was predicting that we would never be in this place today of having awarded it and would never be in this place that the process that he and his colleagues on the committee had described as heroically ambitious would not be completed. He said that the responsibility for transport should be taken from me, but I'm pretty confident—I'm pretty sure that had the Member been standing where I am today, announcing what I am today, having delivered what everybody around him described as being heroically ambitious, his parliamentary colleague would be starting a petition for a grand bronze to be commissioned in honour of the prophetic son. I'm equally sure that the Member would sign that petition. I can assure the Member that after the standstill period of 10 days, all details will be released. 

I have noticed the press release that has been issued by Plaid Cymru today saying that the bidding process has been flawed from start to finish, and yet the same Member who has this quote attributed to him is part of a committee that described the process as being heroically ambitious. There's something of a schism here. I would agree with the latter, given that we are at the point today of having been able to announce the preferred bidder. The press release goes on to say that it's inexcusable that there should only be a one-page written statement. The whole reason why it's a one-page written statement is that we have to have, by law—not by style, by law—a standstill period. So, I ask the Member, in return: given that it's not a matter of style, that it's a matter of law, would he want to break the law? Would he want to jeopardise the future of the franchise? I can only conclude, I'm afraid, deputy Llywydd, that the Member would prefer the current franchise to continue.

David Rowlands.

No, sorry, Llywydd. I'm sorry.

No? Oh, sorry. Vikki Howells.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Cabinet Secretary, I welcome your statement today, and the south Wales Valleys I think are a hotbed of rail expertise, with many small and medium-sized enterprises engaged in rail engineering, in construction and other maintenance services, with employers who are locally based and often very highly skilled as well. Now, many of these tell me that they spend up to 80 per cent of their time working outside of Wales, with employees living away from home for long periods of time and therefore spending their money outside of the local community as well. Clearly, there are huge economic benefits to be had if companies like these are able to bid into contracts through Transport for Wales, and that local workforces can therefore spend their money more locally. So, my question to you is: what plans does Transport for Wales have to ensure that smaller, local rail companies are able to access some of these contracts and not be submerged by the big companies in this sector?

I'm very pleased to respond to the Member, and I recognise her keen interest in the procurement process and in ensuring that it delivers not just improved rail services but improved economic opportunities, particularly for small and micro-sized businesses in her constituency. I'm pleased that we are currently in the process of identifying opportunities for infrastructure development partners who will work on the south Wales metro. That work continues. I'm confident that we'll be able to ensure that a significant degree of spend in this game-changing project will be delivered for Welsh SMEs, including those in her constituency.

It feels a bit like this Government is lurching from one shambles to another. The Welsh Government has today awarded a £5 billion rail franchise to the majority state-owned French rail company Keolis, and Spanish infrastructure corporation Amey—both for-profit, multimillion-pound international corporations.

Now, I'd like to pick up on a question that has been asked, but hasn't yet been answered. Can the Cabinet Secretary explain how this decision squares with the commitment on page 20 of the 2016 manifesto, on which he was elected, that said a Labour Welsh Government,

'will deliver a new, not-for-profit, rail franchise'?

I believe he even wrote the manifesto. Before there's any claim that the involvement of Transport for Wales will mean that this is a not-for-profit operation, can I just remind him that Keolis made a profit of €313 million in 2016? I think they would be quite surprised to hear that they will not be making a profit from this contract.

Of course, the Cabinet Secretary will argue that his hands have been tied by the Wales Act 2017, and as I'm sure he will remember, Plaid Cymru did not support that legislation. He voted in favour of the Wales Act, however, in the full knowledge that it would preclude him from delivering a not-for-profit franchise. The Scottish Government, under their settlement, can procure a public sector operator. Why has the Welsh Government failed to obtain the same deal as their Scottish counterparts?

The Cabinet Secretary has claimed—

Are you coming to a—? Can you wind up please?

—this for-profit railway will deliver benefits for passengers. Does he accept that it will deliver fewer benefits than a not-for-profit railway? If not, why then did he commit, on multiple occasions, to deliver a not-for-profit railway?

There are many more questions, Dirprwy Lywydd, but I will finish with this. Today, the Labour Party are holding a debate in Westminster on nationalising the railways. His party leader has spoken of a people's railway. He stood on multiple manifestos, promising to deliver a not-for-profit railway. How, therefore, can he justify doing the exact opposite of his party's priorities that he was elected to deliver? Do you—

No, I'm sorry; you've gone on far too long. I'm sorry; that was far too long.

Can I thank the Member for her questions and her speech? I assure her that we have gone as far as possible in delivering on the manifesto pledge, ensuring that where we can operate concessions on a not-for-profit basis, we will do, but ensuring as well, through the competitive dialogue process, that we have an astonishing deal for Welsh passengers. And that's what's of most interest to the people out there—the people who wish to have a relevant debate in this Chamber on the future of services.

I must reiterate the point that her Members—and by the way, I've never served in Parliament—but her Members, behind her, sat on a committee that signed off a report that described this process that you are now criticising as 'heroically ambitious'. Now, the people of Wales can only therefore conclude that, across this Chamber, Members agreed that the way that the Welsh Government was going about procuring a new operator and developer and partner would be heroically ambitious for the people we serve. Today, we have delivered on that, and this is only just the beginning.

I can understand your annoyance at the posturing of Plaid Cymru over this matter, but you probably take some satisfaction from the recognition that what Plaid Cymru say is true, to the extent that we desperately need a Labour Government in Westminster because it's the only way that we will actually be able to abolish section 25 of the Railways Act 1993, which prohibits public ownership—and, of course, the hypocrisy of the Tories, who have nationalised the east coast railway. It's the third time they've re-nationalised it because every time it goes into the private sector, after the private sector fails it goes into the public sector, makes a profit, they privatise it, it loses money, it goes back into the public sector. So, there's total hypocrisy there. But we desperately need that Labour Government in Westminster to do that.

What I was going to ask you, though, Cabinet Secretary: of fundamental importance is the workers in the industry. To what extent have you been able to engage with the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, with the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen and with the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association—the people who will actually be required to work in and to deliver that—that their position will be protected with guards and so on, and on the extent to which they actually welcome this initiative so far? Also, within Transport for Wales, which I very much welcome, coming into Pontypridd to help regenerate the town, to what extent is there the flexibility within the system, when Jeremy Corbyn is Prime Minister, when we have a Labour Government in Westminster and we've abolished section 25, to bring this and the rest of the railway network into public ownership, with the Labour Party as the only party that is actually able, capable, of delivering that?

Can I thank the Member for his question? The Member is absolutely right. We've worked closely with the RMT and ASLEF and perhaps I can offer some assurance to the Member, and to other Members on opposition benches, who have raised the question of whether the unions support our decision. Well, let me read what Mick Cash has said:

'RMT policy is for a national integrated railway under public ownership, and the Welsh Government has made it clear that this is their aspiration as well if they did not have to work under the pro-privatisation legislative straitjacket imposed by the UK Government.'

He went on to say:

'However, RMT welcomes the fact that despite these constraints the Welsh Government has committed to keep a guard on every train alongside other commitments to work with RMT to protect jobs and conditions of rail workers in Wales.'

This is Welsh Labour working with the unions, working with passenger groups, and delivering the very best for the people of Wales.

Thank you very much. The second topical question this afternoon is to be answered by the Minister for Housing and Regeneration. David Melding.

Thank you. Dame Judith's report, although focused on England, provides a robust basis from which to work here. We've moved quickly to take this important work forward and I've today announced my intention to establish an expert group to develop the recommendations into detailed and practicable changes for Wales.

Can I welcome that initial response there? As you know, the review concluded that indifference and ignorance led to a race to the bottom in building safety practices, with costs prioritised over safety. It was also said that a new standards regulator should be the centrepiece of a reformed system, but the use of combustible materials was left unclear. Flammable insulation and cladding products are currently being stripped from hundreds of high-rise homes in England, and also some in Wales. Yesterday's announcement from the Welsh Government that it would fund the replacement of cladding on three Newport tower blocks is very much to be welcomed in this regard.

As you know, on 27 February we asked for a statement on the progress that is being made with the cladding safety tests in high residential buildings in Wales. I should say that we must remember those in the private sector here, because I know you'll probably have something very specific to respond to in terms of those in the social sector that are considered at risk. But do you agree that this group needs to resolve the situation very quickly? We need a clear statement on the removal of flammable cladding materials and there should be, in my view, an immediate ban on their use in new construction until we can be absolutely sure about their safety and appropriate use.

Thank you very much for those questions. I agree with you that the report is an extremely sobering read in terms of the changes and the breadth and depth of changes that we need to be making in terms of the regulatory system for high-rise buildings here in Wales. Although the report was very much focused at England, we take it very much in a Welsh context too, because of the very clear similarities in our regulatory regimes across the border.

I'm very pleased to be able to say today that, although Dame Judith did deliberately avoid making any comment on banning any particular materials, we're keen to address this matter, and subject to a legally required consultation we will move to ban the use of combustible materials in cladding systems on high-rise residential buildings. I say 'subject to a consultation' because it is a requirement of the Building Act 1984 that we consult with the building regulations advisory committee on that. But I hope that today I'm sending a very clear message that we will not welcome the use of these combustible materials on buildings in Wales.

Ever since the Grenfell Tower disaster we have worked really hard in order to establish where our high-rise buildings are in Wales. We've now got to the point, or we did quite some time ago, where we've managed to identify every single one of those buildings, and we've taken a casework approach, developing an individual relationship between Welsh Government and those building owners and the landlords of those buildings in order to ensure that we're sending out the correct and detailed safety advice that those buildings need. In Wales we differ slightly to England because of the scale here. We have just over 100 high-rise buildings, so we've been able to take a casework approach, keeping that business in-house, whereas across the border in England, again because of the scale, it's been led on a local authority basis. So, in terms of the cladding that failed the large-scale BRE tests, there are 12 in the private sector in Wales, and we're working with those landlords on that in order to ensure that that cladding is removed and replaced. As you've mentioned, yesterday, we were able to provide funding for Newport City Homes in order to replace the cladding there.

Addressing the cladding issue is only part of the picture. We've been very clear that building owners and landlords must work very closely with experts in order to undertake a review of the safety and of the status of those buildings, because we've been very clear that every building is an individual building and should be treated as such. I think that's really recognised in chapter 8 of the Hackitt report, which says that there should be a golden thread running though buildings so we can understand, from the concept of the building right through the lifetime of the building, any changes that are made to that building. I think, although Dame Hackitt is very clear that her report should be seen in the round, actually, that was one of the chapters that really stood out to me as something that can really make a big difference.

Thank you for putting the question down today. I think we need to ask if the system is now fit for the future. It was clear at Grenfell that risks were not taken as seriously as they should have been and that safety was put on a secondary footing to cost in some key respects. I'd like to ask how the £400 million announced by the UK Government for cladding removal and building upgrades in England will affect Wales. Is any of this money going to be spent in Wales? And, if not, will there be a Barnett consequential for Wales? What is the latest assessment of the potential cost to Welsh local authorities of replacing cladding and carrying out any necessary safety upgrades? I note your announcement with regard to Newport, but I understand that no similar announcement has been made to assist Cardiff council in carrying out work on their six tower blocks.

Could you give us an update on the current situation regarding private tower blocks? I know you've mentioned it here briefly already, but you issued guidance and wrote to local authorities asking them to make the necessary assessments. So, what is your view on the problems that leaseholders face and those in private developments more generally? There hasn't been any action in terms of private dwellings from the UK Government, aside from urging developers and owners not to pass on the costs. However, this issue has now found itself in the legal system and one group of leaseholders have been ordered to pay the costs to replace cladding in Croydon instead of the building developer and freeholder, with residents facing costs of up to £25,000 each.

This may be an issue for some of the flats here in Cardiff, such as Prospect Place, where there's a new management agency called Warwick Estates, which is basically the residents' association because Bellway has now left the scene. Many residents in private tower blocks are going to be facing huge uncertainty over who is responsible for fire safety upgrades, and this will continue when and if fire safety standards are increased in the future. So, have you made any assessments of the potential costs to upgrade private dwellings in Wales that have failed any tests? Will there be money put in place for the current flats and any new builds also? What would be the difference in tack in relation to the current flats that are in existence and any new builds that are in existence?

I'd like to finish by saying that I was very, very concerned over the weekend to hear that, in the flats that I've mentioned previously in my question, some of those particular flats did not even have fire alarms in them, in this capital city. When we've had this whole focus on flats and safety, it's preposterous to me to imagine that those flats did not even have fire alarms. So, I would urge you to go back to talk to the private landlords in this instance and to exemplify the severity of the situation, because lives will be at stake if they do not up their game.

Thank you very much for those questions. You started off by saying that concerns weren't adequately addressed, and it's absolutely right; it seems that the concerns of the residents of Grenfell weren't listened to, and they were raising those concerns over a long period, which is why it's so important that, in the Hackitt review, the voice of residents comes through very strongly as something that needs to be developed. I think in Wales we certainly have good tenant engagement in our social hosing sector, so there's lots that we can learn in terms of how we can develop that. As we know from the debates that we've had over previous legislation, on the Regulation of Registered Social Landlords (Wales) Bill, for example, tenant engagement is something I'm particularly keen to develop, and the Hackitt review tells us why that's really important.

The £400 million was identified by the UK Government from its departmental budgets and it specifically is for the social housing sector, so there won't be any consequential funding to Wales as a result of that. So, equally, we were able to find £3 million from my departmental budget in order to ensure that Newport City Homes was able to replace the category 3 aluminium composite material cladding. We have specifically targeted this funding at that ACM category 3 cladding, which was the cladding that failed the large-scale tests, and we've mirrored the approach that has been undertaken in England.

I have to say that Dame Hackitt did engage very well with the Welsh Government and stakeholders during the production of the report, and the Cabinet Secretary for the environment and I had a briefing from Dame Hackitt the day before the report was published. But it is a matter of regret for us that the report wasn't shared with Welsh Government ahead of its publication. I think that would have been a useful thing to do, given the fact that we are so involved. I appreciate it's a report aimed at the UK Government, but, equally, our contexts are so similar, and our engagement has been so regular, that it would have been appropriate, I think, for us to share it so that we could discuss our respective announcements on the same day and to give residents the kind of reassurance that they need.

In terms of private sector buildings, I do share your concern. Again, as I said in response to David Melding, every building is different, so there'll be issues of responsibility that might be different within each building. There are changes to the building that might have taken place since it was built, for example—who undertook that, what are the warranties and so on? So, there are various issues that will need to be looked at. But I'm very aware that this is a stressful time for residents within the private sector. There are a number of court cases that have been taken forward in England, which might give us some idea of case law, but, again, this is very much on an individual basis for those buildings.

In terms of new builds, I would hope that we will move very quickly in terms of the future of the regulatory regime. The First Minister has asked me to chair an expert panel, which will look to make recommendations to Welsh Government on how we will take this issue forward in future. I wouldn't want to have any delay in that, so I would expect that group to be reporting with the way forward by the end of the year. So, new-build buildings in future, subject to any changes that we would need to make in terms of regulation and so on, would be built to those new standards. 

Equally—the report is very clear that that golden thread for new buildings has to be robust, but, actually, we need to start looking back at existing buildings in terms of the materials used, the changes made to those buildings and even are the buildings what was originally proposed in the design phase. So, I think that there is a lot of work for us to be taking forward, and it will be a lot of work over a long period, but, equally, we'll have to prioritise upfront the issues that are going to make a difference in terms of the safety of residents.  

Finally, and briefly, John Griffiths.

Yes, Minister, I very much welcome your announcement of the £3 million for the recladding of the high-rise blocks in Newport. If Welsh Government hadn't provided that funding, it would have adversely impacted on necessary new development, as well as improvements to existing stock and, indeed, their environments, so thanks very much for that.

Would you join me, Minister, in recognising the timely action of Newport City Homes in responding to the terrible tragedy of Grenfell and the challenges that posed in terms of the retrofitting of sprinklers, engaging very closely with tenants and, indeed, working very closely with Welsh Government?

I thank you very much for that, and I would absolutely commend Newport City Homes on the work that it's undertaken immediately following the tragedy at Grenfell and since. They've taken robust action in terms of the building itself—so, introducing that sprinkler system, for example, but they've also been very clear in terms of tenant communication. I know that they knocked on every single door of the tenants within their three blocks to talk to them individually about the issues to provide them with reassurance, but also to give tenants the opportunity to ask any questions that they might have. They also had some drop-in sessions, for example, and provided some written material, which I know our fire safety advisory group did hold up as being exemplary, and we shared that with others to show an example of how a complex issue and a really concerning issue can be communicated in a way that is understandable to all tenants and provides strong advice and information but without doing so in a way that causes undue alarm to the tenant. I was really pleased to visit Newport City Homes to talk to some of the tenants, and they were very complementary about the service that they'd had from Newport City Homes, and also felt that the new sprinkler system, for example, was a visual and tangible sign that their safety was very much being accounted for. 

Thank you very much, Minister. 

Item 4 on the agenda is 90-second statements. The first this week is Jayne Bryant. 

This week is Dementia Action Week. It's predicted that by 2055 there will be over 100,000 people in Wales living with dementia. It's vital that as a nation we increase our awareness and understanding of dementia to break down stigma and support people to live well in their communities for as long as possible. Dementia is not a natural part of ageing. The disease doesn't discriminate. It doesn't care who you are and could happen to any of us. A dementia diagnosis isn't only difficult for the person affected, but for everyone close to them. The Alzheimer's Society Dementia Friends is the biggest ever initiative to transform the way the nation thinks, acts and talks about dementia. It aims to help people to understand what it might be like to live with dementia, and turn that understanding into action.

In 2015, this Assembly committed to becoming dementia-friendly. To date, only half of us have done the training. It's time that we fulfil the pledge for all 60 AMs to become dementia friends. This will be a bold step towards making us the world's first dementia-friendly Parliament. The training takes just over half an hour, and I would encourage everyone here to do it. And we shouldn't stop there. We should encourage our own offices and those in our communities to do the training. Life doesn't end when dementia begins. With support, people can live well with dementia, so every action counts.  

Thank you. Second up, Jack Sargeant. 

Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer. John Atkinson, Courtney Boyle, Philip Tron, Kelly Brewster, Georgina Callander, Olivia Campbell-Hardy, Liam Curry, Chloe Rutherford, Wendy Fawell, Martyn Hett, Alison Howe, Lisa Lees, Megan Hurley, Nell Jones, Michelle Kiss, Angelika Klis, Marcin Klis, Sorrell Leczkowski, Eilidh MacLeod, Elaine McIver, Saffie Rose Roussos and Jane Tweddle: they were the 22 innocent people who were tragically killed at the Manchester Arena attack a year ago yesterday; 22 people who decided to go to the concert to have a good time. Some of my friends were actually at that concert, but they were fortunate enough to return home to their families that evening; others were not. I'm sure, whilst I'm standing here, I speak for everyone in this Chamber when I say to the families of those that lost their loved ones that evening that we do stand with you, and our wholehearted sympathies are with you during this difficult time. 

Deputy Llywydd, Wales will remember them, and, in the words of Liam Gallagher, the 22 will live forever. Diolch. 

Thank you. Simon Thomas. 

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. The DPJ Foundation was founded in July 2016 following the death of Daniel Picton-Jones. Daniel had suffered with his mental health and sadly chose to end his life on 5 July 2016. The DPJ Foundation was born from the struggle Daniel faced in getting support in a rural area and in the isolated occupation of farming. His wife, Emma, has campaigned ceaselessly to overcome the stigma of talking about mental health matters, particularly among men. These difficulties are compounded by access to mental health services in rural areas, and the reticence of many farmers, who can mend anything with some binder cord and some perspiration, to seek out help when faced with mental illness.

I was very pleased to host Emma Picton-Jones here at the Assembly recently, and to share her message with those who are concerned with mental health in rural Wales. The DPJ Foundation now offers a 24-hour counselling service in Pembrokeshire, and Emma's work is opening up discussion of these issues among farming unions, agricultural bodies and voluntary organisations. Now, in Daniel's name, people are being supported in a way that he felt he wasn't able to be, and, because of Emma's work, more and more people are realising that it's okay to talk.  

Thank you very much.

The next item is a statement by the Llywydd, update on the establishment of a youth parliament for Wales. Llywydd. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. My intention this afternoon is to update Members on the election of the first youth parliament for Wales, and particularly to inform Members that next week at the Urdd Eisteddfod we will launching the voter registration campaign for the first youth parliament election. This parliament will give a national democratic voice to the young people of Wales and will enable them to note and raise awareness of the issues that they choose to discuss. 

The registration period will be open to all young people in Wales between the ages of 11 and 18, and will be open from the end of May, which is next week, until mid November. In September of this year, young people will be able to put themselves forward to stand for election. The election, which will be online, will be held over a period of three weeks in November, with the intention of holding the first meeting of the Welsh youth parliament in February 2019.

Sixty youth parliament members will be elected, forty of which will be elected by a first-past-the-post system through an electronic voting system in each of the 40 constituencies in Wales. Twenty of them will be returned by partner organisations to ensure that diverse groups of young people are represented in the parliament.

As far as we are aware, our parliament will be the first youth parliament to democratically elect its representatives at its inaugural election, and that's an incredible achievement.  

I’m sure that every Assembly Member here today will be as eager as I am to ensure that young people in their constituencies and regions are made aware of the exciting opportunities presented by this initiative. A wide range of resources will be made available to you to facilitate the work of promoting and raising awareness in your areas. We do hope that you will promote the parliament from next week onwards.

Many national youth organisations and young people have helped to shape our plans and have agreed to continue to support us on our journey. I want to put on record my heartfelt thanks to them for their ongoing dedication and for sharing their expertise that will undoubtedly play a pivotal role in ensuring the next phase of the project is a success.

Now, the hard work begins. Through our work with schools, colleges, youth groups, representative groups and key individuals, we want to reach as many young people as possible. I am confident that the engagement programme that our education and youth engagement team has developed will inspire young people who face real or perceived barriers to take part in this process.

As a nation committed to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, implementing such an ambitious project is a significant development for us. Article 12 of the convention of the UN on the rights of the child sets out the right of children and young people to express an opinion and for that opinion to be taken into account when decisions are being made on any matter that affects them. 

In the context of our work as a legislature, establishing a youth parliament ensures that we are discharging our duties to the voters of today and tomorrow—to each and every citizen in Wales—and each and every one of them will have a stake in our democracy here in Wales.

Diolch. I have a number of speakers. Can I just ask every speaker if they can just have a short introduction to their question and then we'll see how we go? But there are several speakers who would like to speak on this important issue. Darren Millar. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Could I thank the Llywydd for her statement today? She'll recall that it was back in October 2016 that as an opposition party we put forward a debate on the establishment of a youth parliament. I want to pay tribute to colleagues in all parties that have supported this initiative. Indeed, I should also put on record our thanks to the Children's Commissioner for Wales, of course, for the huge role that she has played in helping to persuade all of us of the importance of establishing a youth parliament. I think it was just a few years back when the UN stated that Wales was one of only six nations in the world without a youth parliamentary body, so I think it is an important step that we have taken as a National Assembly, and I'm delighted that you as Llywydd have taken up this important issue and moved the wheels forward so that we are now at this stage where people will be able to register to vote. It is clearly very important that we give children and young people a say in politics and that we engage them in the democratic process, and I think that the education that is going to sit around the youth parliament will certainly help to promote participation in the future.

Can I just ask a few questions? The campaign for the children and young people's assembly, which produced its report 'Assemble for Wales' a number of years ago, said that 92 per cent of young people were in favour of establishing a youth parliament but that 85 per cent of people were also in favour of it having a statutory basis. I wonder whether there might be an opportunity, with the legislation that the Llywydd has indicated may come forward from her office and from the Commission in the future, to give this youth parliament a statutory basis so that we have to have one in law at all times again in the future, because I think that that would give some confidence to young people that we are serious about the way in which we engage with them.

You made reference to 20 partner organisations that are going to help to make sure that we've got a diverse representation on the new youth parliament. Can you tell us what those organisations are? I assume we'll be able to have a list of those so that we can try to engage with them as Assembly Members and encourage people to present themselves as potential candidates for appointment to the youth parliament. Can you also tell us how the youth parliament is going to be resourced? We clearly need to make sure that it's got adequate resources if it's going to be a success. I assume that we, as a National Assembly, through our budgetary processes, have made the necessary resources available for this immediate work, but clearly we need to also make sure that they've got sufficient resources in the future so that, when it's convened, it can convey those messages back to us and other parliamentarians at a UK level too. Thank you.

Thank you, and I'm pleased that all political parties here have supported the development of electing our first senedd ieuenctid—youth parliament. The children's commissioner, as you've said, has been critical in pursuing and advocating for the role of a youth parliament here, and the children's commissioner has worked with us in developing the detail on this, as have many of her young people's networks and young people themselves who work with the children's commissioner in providing us with advice right along this process. 

It's not our intention at this point to give the youth parliament a statutory basis. I'm aware that some are advocating for that, and that's an issue, I think, that we'll look at into the future. But let's start and establish our first youth parliament and not allow the potential of putting it on a statutory basis to delay the establishment of the first youth parliament. We'll keep that under review into the future.

Just to clarify on the 20 additional members to the 40 from constituencies, there will be 10 partner organisations that will elect two each and put forward the names of two members each. It will be for those partner organisations—young people's organisations; they can be national or they can be local—to put their names forward as suggested partner organisations. We will have criteria then to decide who those partner organisations will be for this first youth parliament, and I'm hoping that, between me, the children's commissioner and, hopefully, the Chair of the children's committee here in this Assembly, we can select the 10 most relevant, innovative and representative partner organisations for the first senedd ieuenctid.

Resourced by the National Assembly, by the Commission, a budget has been set aside for that purpose. It is £65,000 for this year and will be £50,000 for non-election years into the future. It is a significant resource for us, but, of course, for young people to take part in an assembly, they will need to be able to travel from the various places throughout Wales where they represent to the Assembly and be properly looked after in that context of being elected members to the very first senedd ieuenctid—youth parliament. 

May I thank the Llywydd for her statement? Clearly, we warmly welcome the fact that this youth parliament is about to come into existence and we will do everything we can to support the efforts to facilitate that and to ensure that it does happen, because this does need to be a tool to empower young people in Wales, as I’m sure it will, and many of us have argued that we do need to empower the voice of young people within democracy.

We as a party have been arguing for bringing down of the voting age to 16. We’ve also argued for strengthening citizenship education in schools through the new curriculum, and this will be another opportunity, I believe, to help raise awareness and provide opportunities for young people to participate. But I’m not happy to stop there. I not only want to see this parliament discussing and developing ideas and proposing policy; I want the influence of this youth parliament to be felt beyond the benches of that parliament—on these benches and elsewhere.

Therefore, I will ask my first question: how do you believe that the youth parliament will be able to feed formally into the proceedings of committees and debates here in this Parliament? Will we see reports produced? Will there be an opportunity for members of the youth parliament to address this Parliament or Assembly committees? I do think we need to formalise these processes in order to truly empower young people in this context.

And the second question that I have is: we are talking about a broad age range, from 11 to 18, and there is a risk, of course, that the voices of the older cohort within that group might drown out the younger voices, so what processes will be in place to ensure fairness and equality, if you like, for the younger children on that spectrum? Thank you. 

Well, I agree entirely with what was set out by Llyr, namely that what we want to achieve here is to empower young people to be able to state their voice clearly on any subject that’s of interest or priority to them. And, so, the question is: what will be the relationship between the youth parliament and our Parliament and the different committees in the Parliament? I think that it’s not me, or everyone here—we won’t have the answers for that, but the young people in the first youth parliament. And I think that, as a matter of principle, we should allow those young people to decide on how they want to influence our policies, how they want to influence our processes, and what kind of engagement work that they want to do with the different committees and the legislation that is going through this place. All I will say is that I hope that we, as Members and committees, and as a Government, will all be open to collaboration and to listening to our young people.

It is an interesting question about whether the younger people will be over-influenced by the older people. My experience from this place—the older Parliament, if I can call it that—is that the younger people aren’t drowned out by the older people in the older age range. I do sense that that won’t be true in the youth parliament as well. I do hope that everyone, from the outset, will be treated equally.

I, too, would like to give a really warm welcome to this statement today. It is really exciting to see the progress that's been made and the scale of the proposals that will enable our young people to have a genuine voice in this new youth parliament. I'd like to thank the Presiding Officer and her team for all their work on it, because I know the scale of the logistics of this has been very challenging, but also to thank the young people up and down Wales who have contributed to bringing this to fruition today. I am really pleased that part of these plans involves proposals to have the young people from the partner organisations, because, as I've said previously, while it's great that we've got young, confident, articulate people in Wales, we have to make sure that this parliament is a voice for all our young people, including our most disadvantaged, and I'd be very honoured to play a part in that. 

I've just got a few questions. The first is: for young people who are out there now thinking, 'Well, is this something that I should be putting my name in for?', what avenues are there for them to get further information and to ask those questions that they may need in order to take an informed decision on it? I'm also assuming that, just as we have excellent opportunities for training and professional development, there'll be things put in place for the young people who are successful to support them in doing this very new and important job. I would associate myself with Llyr's comments about the need to look further and beyond this to embed the role of young people as far as we can in our practices here, and I'd be grateful for your assurance that that's something that you'll keep under review. 

And just finally to say: would you agree with me that it is incumbent on all of us now in this institution to do everything that we can to promote this initiative and to ensure that as many young people both sign up to vote and consider standing for this new institution that will genuinely finally give young people a voice in Wales?

Thanks for your co-operation to date on this and the role that your committee has played, also, in advocating for this development. Thank you also for recognising the scale of what we have in front of us. This is an electronic register with an electronic vote for all 11 to 18-year-olds in Wales, and therefore the logistics of this is a significant venture for us as an Assembly. We need the support of all Assembly Members here to be part of the promotional activity around the registration to vote, and then hopefully inspiring young people as we come across them, or know of them, or partner organisations in our constituencies and regions, to be developing this idea in their areas so we become advocates for this in our various areas.

Our outreach work—our educational programme—is now geared up to working with schools, colleges and young people's organisations throughout Wales to be promoting the opportunities that are becoming available. But on the point that you make, Lynne, in terms of there will always be young articulate people in all our constituencies and regions who will see this and grab it and want to go for it straight away, we want this assembly—this young people's assembly and parliament—to be representative of all. Therefore, the 10 partner organisations that elect under-represented young people—people who don't traditionally have an obvious channel to find their way into this kind of opportunity—that we enable those young people to be elected to the first young parliament here in Wales.

Then, of course, when they're elected, 11 to 18-year-olds—young parliamentarians—do need to be supported in their work. That work will be in this Chamber. The intention at this point is to have three meetings over a two-year period in this Chamber, but that's not all the work that a young parliamentarian will be involved in. Much of that will be regionally working with other regionally elected Members, reporting back to young people in their areas and discussing policies with young people in their areas, and they will need to be supported in that work. So, very much of the focus of the educational and outreach work that this Assembly has done in the past that we're familiar with will now be prioritising the work of supporting the 60 young parliamentarians, but also their relationship with younger people more widely in their communities.

So, is it important that, as a result of this statement today, and the opening up of the registration as of next week, all of us become champions of the new youth parliament in Wales and hope that many people register and many people get interested in becoming members.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd, a diolch, Llywydd, for your statement today. You mentioned that there has been cross-party support for the idea of the youth parliament in the past and that, indeed, remains the case. UKIP continues to be supportive of the idea. You recognise that there are many challenges and issues facing young people in Wales today, and having a regular channel of communication between the Assembly on the one hand and a kind of youth wing of the Assembly on the other can be no bad thing. Now, I appreciate that we have had previous youth fora like Funky Dragon, which did carry out some valuable work, but which didn't strictly constitute a youth parliament, so we are heading towards something new.

I was going to ask you, Llywydd, how you see the youth parliament taking shape in the future, but, of course, you did make the point earlier that one of the things you want is the parliament itself—the senedd ieuenctid, to give it its alternative name—you want that body to itself make the suggestion of how they see their role, going forward, which I think is a very good idea. So, that may limit you in what you can say on this point, but if you do have any more clarity of your own on how you envision the youth parliament going forward, that would be interesting for us to hear today.

You also mentioned the importance of diversity, which is something we also have to bear in mind, and you mentioned, I believe, an engagement programme. So, if you have any more to tell us about the engagement programme, that would also be useful.

We do have something that's about to take place on the equalities and local government committee, which is an inquiry into disengagement from politics of various groups. I believe that one of the themes we are addressing is a general theme of disengagement from politics of the young, which was a suggestion that initially came from Jack Sargeant, whom I notice is here, so he may well expand on this. But I just wondered if our inquiry may actually help in the work you're doing with developing the senedd ieuenctid. So, I await further developments. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you for the support of UKIP for the establishment of the senedd ieuenctid and for the issues that you've identified there, and in particular the issue about the relationship between the youth parliament and our Parliament. As I said earlier, it is for the youth parliament to decide on its own priorities and its own ways of working and how it wants that relationship to happen. But I think the important point in terms of committees, this Chamber and Government as well, is that when you are undertaking work where you want the views of young people, or wish to have the views of young people, you make the offer to the youth parliament to discuss, and they may decide, 'Oh no, we're not interested in that at all and we don't want to offer any view into that. We have a different priority', at least the channels of communication are open on both sides. But it will be for the youth parliament to decide on its own priorities.

The fact that the committee you sit on is doing that work on disengagement of the young in the political process is an interesting coincidence of timing and I'm sure that the young people who'll be elected to this first youth parliament will be interested in sharing their views. They are probably the engaged young people, but they will know of many around them who are not as engaged as they are. So, I hope that it's a two-way process between the youth parliament and this Parliament on how we influence each other, and especially how young people get to have a direct influence on the legislation and the policy and the debates that we hold here in this Assembly.

Thank you. Jack Sargeant.

Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I start by thanking the Llywydd for bringing forward this truly important statement today? And thank you, Gareth, just briefly, for the mention there. The local government committee work and the inquiry that's going to take place is crucially important to understanding the reason why people are so disengaged with politics and I think cross-party within this Chamber, we do need to understand the reasons behind that. Needless to say, as the youngest Assembly Member here in this Chamber, I'm always pleased to hear steps taken forward to engage with the younger generation and our future generations. I was particularly pleased to hear the Llywydd mention that the younger generation within this Chamber aren't over-influenced by the older generation. I can see Bethan Sayed smiling there as well, so that's good.

I'm conscious of time, so I will try and hurry this up. I just want to pick up on a couple of points. Firstly, on campaigning and consulting, would the Presiding Officer agree with me that the youth parliament should have the structures in place that allow it to represent the views of young people across Wales and its Members, stakeholders and local decision makers as well, and at the national and international level, for example maybe rolling out a manifesto outlining their brief, beliefs and aspirations as a parliament and as the representatives of their areas?

Secondly, I'd just like to say the youth parliament could also be a great opportunity for training and recognition. So, would you agree with me that training programmes could be run by the youth parliament to empower young people and engage young people with the skills, knowledge and confidence to bring about culture change—real-life culture change?

So, once again, very briefly, because I know other Members might want to speak, I'd like to welcome the statement from the Llywydd this afternoon and I look forward to the next process of establishing the youth parliament for Wales. Diolch. 

Well, thank you for that. You're our youngest Assembly Member, Jack Sargeant, and I hope you'll be the greatest champion for ensuring that people of your generation and slightly younger than your generation are interested in becoming members of the very first youth parliament here, but, equally, I hope that the oldest amongst you here as well are also big champions of electing into the youth parliament.

You raise a really interesting prospect of the youth parliament developing its own manifesto, its own set of policy ideas for it to pursue, but also to pursue with us, as the Parliament, as well. As I've said earlier, it'll be for the youth parliament to decide on how it does its work, but I'm sure it'll want to reflect on discussions that it has with us as elected Members. I'm sure there will be a very early relationship struck between the constituency Assembly Member for Alyn and Deeside and the constituency member for Alyn and Deeside in the youth parliament, just as there will be for the rest of us. So, having that dialogue regionally and on a constituency basis will be important in the relationship that develops between us as Assembly Members and them as young parliamentarians.

Ensuring that the work that we do with our young parliamentarians, that there is training and support for them, and that they then can become champions in their own areas for political engagement, for developing the next generation of parliamentarians, those that will follow them as well, and the work that they do within their schools and colleges as well—that all opens up a political discussion and engagement that we haven't had in Wales with young people. And that all of it can be possible with the establishment, the election, of our very first youth parliament here—.

I’d like to welcome this statement today. When I was elected in 2007 as the then youngest Member—Jack and Steffan have taken that from me since then—I immediately started campaigning for a real youth parliament for Wales. I respected the fact that Funky Dragon was in operation, but I wanted something parliamentary in this Parliament, so that there was a separate structure and so that young people could feel that they could be more critical of Government rather than them being funded directly by Government. They could then scrutinise Government and criticise it, and I very much hope that the confident young people elected to this parliament will be able to do that.

This isn’t a negative concern, but I did want to ask the Llywydd a question on political parties. When I stood as president of the student union in Aberystwyth, there was no requirement for young people to state which party they were involved with. On occasions, some people won elections that perhaps they wouldn’t have won if they had put a party name forward on the voting slip. So, I would like to understand: if there are young people who are members of political parties—which I think is a positive thing because they are clearly politically active—how are we going to be aware of that? How will those young people be made aware of the political or ideological agenda that is driving some of these young people and encouraging them to stand? I think that’s important, so that young people who are voting online understand exactly what they are voting for.

On the issue of online voting, I’d be interested to learn what we, as a Parliament here, could learn so that we can institute online voting in future. I brought a short debate forward, years ago now, in this Parliament, on trying to change the way we deal with voting in order to encourage more people to vote in an online system. After all, we bank online, and we do a great deal online, but we can’t vote online for this Parliament and this Parliament’s elections.

The final question I have: I’ve heard what you said in terms of working locally, but I want to understand more about that, because I think what’s very exciting about this opportunity is how these young elected members can work with local groups, and work with environmental groups or local campaign groups, in order to inspire young people in future to stand as members of the youth parliament, and also to think about how they could then develop and stand for this Parliament. What’s important is that this Parliament has diversity in terms of age and all sorts of other things, so that we can be strong representatives of what is happening here in Wales, and the same is true for the youth parliament. Therefore, I support what’s happening here, and I hope it’ll be successful.

Thank you, Bethan. It is delightful that some of the younger Members that we have here in this Senedd have led the debate on ensuring that we have a youth parliament. I am grateful to Bethan and others who have ensured that that discussion has stayed at the top of the agenda, and also to state that the youth parliament will have their own opinions—diverse opinions—and that they’ll be free to have their own opinions, and for those opinions to be uncomfortable and unexpected for us, as Members of the Assembly or the Government, on whatever point or subject that they choose.

The fact that there is an electronic voting system is very exciting. I’m really pleased that we’ve succeeding in establishing that. How long will it take us to establish an electronic voting system for general elections for local government and national Government here in Wales? That’s an issue that’s beyond the scope of my statement this afternoon.

In terms of the involvement of young people with political parties, when we consulted young people about the youth parliament, there was a strong opinion expressed in that consultation that they didn’t want the political parties to claim ownership of this youth parliament, or even to hijack, almost, the youth parliament. So, we haven’t created a system that promotes that—[Interruption.]

Trying to prove your youthful credentials there, David Rees. [Laughter.]

Anyone who registers to be a candidate for the youth parliament will put together a very brief manifesto, and they will outline, very briefly, their priorities, and then they will have the right to expand on that in that summary, then, in terms of their interests, their subject interests and their political interests, and their values, and so forth. That will be for them to decide at that point.

And then our intention is that we give an opportunity to the members to meet regionally—logistically, that is much easier to do at times—so that they can do more detailed work with youth groups and other groups, and to develop ideas that emerge from their areas and regions as well, so that we do the work that's not just about meeting in this place three times over a period of two years, but is more broadly framed than that, and gives a much fuller opportunity for those young elected members.

Thank you, Llywydd.

Item 6 on the agenda this afternoon is a debate on the Petitions Committee's report on petition P-05-785, 'Suspend Marine Licence 12/45/ML to dump radioactive marine sediments from the Hinkley Point nuclear site into Wales coastal waters off Cardiff'. I call on the Chair of the committee to move the motion—David Rowlands.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. On behalf of the Petitions Committee, I welcome the opportunity to introduce this afternoon’s debate on this petition and our report on the evidence we received. The petition we are discussing was submitted by Tim Deere-Jones, and received 7,171 signatures. It relates to sediment that will be dredged from the Severn estuary close to the site where the Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant is currently being constructed. As all Members will know, this petition has sparked a significant level of interest and debate.

By way of background, EDF Energy has, via a subsidiary company, applied for a marine licence to dispose of the dredged sediment elsewhere within the Severn estuary. Because the site chosen—the Cardiff Grounds—is on the Welsh side of the channel, the licence was considered and issued by Natural Resources Wales.

It is important that I address up front some of the timing challenges that the Petitions Committee has faced during our consideration of the petition. We first considered the petition during November 2017, although, as I will cover later, the marine licence had, in fact, been issued several years earlier. It was also our understanding that the dredging operations could be set to take place within a relatively short space of time. As a result, we gathered evidence as quickly as we were able to. This included sessions with the petitioner, EDF Energy, NRW and CEFAS—the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science—who conducted the analysis of the sediment. The committee also received and considered a significant volume of written correspondence. This is all documented in our report on the petition, which was published on 14 May. 

During their evidence, EDF informed us that the dredging was due to take place this summer. Therefore, in order to enable this debate to take place in a timely fashion, the committee chose to report the evidence we have received at the earliest opportunity. Because of this, we have not had the luxury of time to draw conclusions or produce recommendations. I hope that this overview provides the necessary context to Members and anyone watching proceedings today.

I would also like to briefly thank everyone who provided evidence to the committee. We appreciate the fact that the people and organisations we consulted recognised our timescales and made their time and expertise available to us within them.

I will now turn to the evidence that we received. May I say at the outset that, as a committee, we have sought to deal with the petition and the wider issue with the seriousness required? We have also sought to give priority to the scientific evidence received and, hopefully, to avoid alarmism or sensationalism.

In 2014, NRW issued a marine licence for the disposal of the sediment. The original application had been submitted in 2012, and it is worth noting that, at that time, the licensing process was managed directly by the Welsh Government. Therefore, the licence was handed over from the Welsh Government to NRW during its consideration. The licence issued contained a number of conditions, including a requirement that samples of the material had to be taken and analysed, and that NRW have to be satisfied that it is suitable for deposit.

The petition was driven by concern that this testing had not been sufficient, and that the sediment could be radioactive as a result of over 50 years of operations at the existing Hinkley sites. The primary concerns of the petitioner related to two elements of the testing: the depths to which samples had been taken and the methodology used for analysis. 

I will address the depth of sampling first. The petitioner was concerned initially that samples had only been taken up to a depth of 5 cm. However, this was not correct. The committee heard that samples were taken and tested in 2009, 2013 and 2017. Some of the 2009 samples were taken up to a depth of 4.8m. The agencies involved in the testing have stated that they found no greater concentration of radioactivity at depth, and that led them to conclude that no further analysis of samples below the surface was necessary.

We were also informed that a key aspect of the testing process is a calculation of the dose that the dredging crew or the wider public could be exposed to from the material. However, during our investigations it emerged that a dose calculation had not been conducted on the 2009 samples. We requested that NRW ensure that this was addressed. This request was accepted and NRW informed us in late March that the dose calculation had been conducted retrospectively and had concluded that the material poses no radiological risk to human health or to the environment.

Nevertheless, the petitioners have continued to pose questions about the sufficiency of the testing. These include the number of samples taken at depth in 2009—which we understood to be five—and the fact that this exercise has not been repeated since.

The Petitions Committee considered that additional testing may provide further public reassurance. We wrote to NRW in January to recommend that they request the licence holder to arrange for further samples to be taken and analysed. They asked EDF to consider this on a voluntary basis, but this was rejected by EDF on the basis that the scientific evidence already demonstrated that the material is not radioactive. NRW also expressed the view that further testing was unnecessary and it was not something it could revisit through the licence or its conditions. Though we accept that the primary reasoning for additional testing was public reassurance rather than scientific necessity, the committee regrets that this recommendation was not taken forward. 

Moving on to the testing methodology itself, we considered a range of concerns about the testing carried out and, in particular, the range of radioactivity tested for. Full details are contained within our report and Members may be relieved to hear that I will not go too deep into the technical information during this contribution. The concerns amount to uncertainty over the limits of the gamma ray spectrometry techniques used, and the number of results that had previously been reported. Based on the previously published information, the petitioner had questioned whether all radionuclides had been tested for, or only those that had been reported as returning positive results. It has also been proposed—and confirmed by CEFAS—that the technique used could not directly identify alpha and beta forms of radiation.

However, the committee has received assurances from EDF, NRW and CEFAS that the testing and analysis has been carried out to the highest international standards, and that these are conservative in nature. We have also been told that the testing would have identified any gamma-emitting radionuclides present within the samples, and that the results were used to derive readings from other forms of radiation that are not directly identifiable using this technique.

A number of other concerns and questions have been raised and have received answers during our evidence gathering. These points are covered in our report and I am sure many will be covered during the rest of this debate.

In summary, our consideration of this petition has not resulted in a meeting of minds between those with concerns over this issue and the organisations and agencies involved. I think it would be fair to say that it was never likely to. Of course, we are reliant upon the scientific processes and the agencies that oversee them, as well as those who have responsibilities to protect our health and that of the environment.

I am sure that the level of concern and opposition demonstrated by the petition is a source of regret to those agencies. I hope that the evidence gathered by the Petitions Committee during our deliberations has helped to answer some of the questions that have been raised about this issue. We have made every effort to accurately report the evidence we received, and I also hope that people with an interest in this issue will read our report and perhaps find answers within it. All the evidence we heard is also published on the Assembly’s website for people to scrutinise.

Our understanding is that the dredging remains set to take place this summer, but that EDF are awaiting the conclusion of these processes at the Assembly. I feel it is right to acknowledge that. I will end my opening remarks there and I look forward to listening to Members' contributions this afternoon. Diolch yn fawr.

David Rowlands gave a very good summary of what we've been through. I think that he understated it when he said there wasn't a meeting of minds between the petitioners and EDF. I think they probably started off very far apart and didn't get one inch closer during the whole of the discussion that took place.

I will start off with what EDF's view is. They say they're one of many companies over many decades that have been dredging sediment in the Bristol channel and depositing it at licensed disposal sites at Cardiff Grounds. The sediment, they say, that they are dredging in the Bristol channel is typical of the sediment found anywhere in the Bristol channel, and as such it is no different to the sediment already at Cardiff Grounds. They say the sediment is not radioactive by law and poses no threat to human health or the environment. And they say the sediment has been tested by the independent body CEFAS in 2009, 2013 and 2017, including comprehensive sampling at depth. 

There is no question about the integrity and independence of the testing carried out by CEFAS, which carries out work to the highest international standard, and is an executive agency of DEFRA. Natural Resources Wales received the latest sample from CEFAS in December 2017. After consultation with independent experts, including Public Health Wales, on 27 March 2018 Natural Resources Wales concluded that the sediment poses no human or environmental risk. The view from Natural Resources Wales in March 2018 was that the sediment from the dredge sites has been tested thoroughly by independent experts and there is no risk from the dredged material to people, the environment, or the wildlife that lives there.

Will the Member give way?

Certainly.

Of course, I've had many representations and concerns raised by constituents, and one point relates to the recent sampling and analysis that you refer to. It has been raised with me that it doesn't necessarily establish the safety of deep-dredged material. So, I just wonder, from your consideration as a member of the committee receiving evidence, do you consider that further sampling of deep sediments is necessary?

'Yes', is the answer. I'm going to come to that in a few moments, but, yes, I desperately do. I'll just finish off the first part.

Taking the naturally occurring and artificial radioactivity together, the levels are so low they pose no danger to human health or the environment—that's the view of EDF.

Following on from what Jane Hutt said, why is there a problem? We've been told it's all safe and that there are no problems. Why are my constituents contacting me? I'm sure Jane Hutt and others representing the area around Cardiff are getting their constituents contacting them. Why are we debating this today if it's all safe? Many members of the public are unconvinced, and not just those who have signed the petition. Lots of people have stopped me on the street and asked me about it. People talk to me when I go out about it. It's a matter of general concern that mud is being brought from opposite Hinkley point and brought back here. EDF have told us all these things about how safe it is, but people are unconvinced. The vast majority of people that I've met are unconvinced. They have concerns over the movement of the mud.

So, what I'll ask, and it's what I have asked at the Petitions Committee—. We've had all these groups together, CEFAS, Natural Resources Wales, EDF, all agreeing this. What I asked in the Petitions Committee, and I ask it here, is: can the data be made available to academics? Can we have an assessment of the mud by academics? Can samples be taken as requested by the academics? People have got a greater trust in academics, who have got nothing to gain by looking at these things, than they do in the official agencies of Welsh Government and British Government. That might be unfair to the official agencies, it might be unkind to the official agencies, but that's the view of my constituents and, I'm sure, the constituents of others: they'd like somebody outside to come to have a look at it.

If it is safe, then the above must be carried out to reassure the public. If it's not safe, it should not come here. We cannot resolve this today—we're just going to have a debate and a discussion about it—but it's a scientific question; it needs a scientific answer, it needs people to be testing it. It needs, in academic parlance, a peer review.

Can I urge the company to have an academic peer review of the data and methodology and that any additional samples that are requested by the academics are provided? I think that the only thing that's going to reassure my constituents, and, I'm sure, the constituents of others, that it's safe is if external academics who are not part of what one of the people who came to see us saw as a little group of people who all work closely together—. One of the people who came said that people move around in jobs between the three organisations. They actually want people who have not got an interest in this, who they feel they can trust. And the only way that we can do this is by having external academics, so I would really urge that EDF bring in the academics. They say there's nothing to hide—let's prove it. 

Can I thank David Rowlands and his Petitions Committee for the diligence with which they've worked and produced this report? I'm also grateful to Tim Deere-Jones, who took the trouble to meet with me and brief me on the campaign. 

I sit, as does Mike, as the Chair, on the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee, and, of course, we have had discussion of these matters and received evidence. Also, we hold the Cabinet Secretary to account and we have discussed these matters with her. 

The position of the Welsh Government, NRW and EDF Energy, the company, which you might expect, is that there isn't a difficulty here in terms of the safety of the operation that's being undertaken. The Cabinet Secretary stated on 29 September that, and I quote:

'it is important to note, the licence is not for the disposal of nuclear waste. The material licenced for disposal is sediment dredged from the Severn Estuary.'

End quote. And I don't think the Welsh Government has changed its position at all. NRW stated that they are confident in CEFAS's competence and believe that

'there is no need to consider licence suspension.'

That, again, is a direct quote from NRW. The CEFAS assessment raised no concerns, quote, 'regarding the level of radiological contamination'. Indeed, they said that what was present was equivalent to eating 20 bananas a year, 10,000 times less than an airline pilot's annual dose and 750 times less than the average dose received by a resident of Pembrokeshire due to radon. Consequently, radioactivity has been found to be so low it equates to not radioactive in law—all these by robust internationally accepted methodologies.

Now, if we do have a wider problem—

Would you give way?

Just a moment. I do think we have a problem regarding the public understanding of these issues and the engagement with the public, and I will address that. But if we are going to ride roughshod over the established norms of scientific internationally accepted practice, as is conducted by states all over the world, then we're in a very, very difficult position, and I do urge Members to bear that at the forefront of their minds.

I will give way, if you still want to intervene.

Yes, I'm doing a comparison, really, between what has happened in Kosovo, with the mud there, as a result of the weapons used, where they tested via gamma spectrometry, alpha spectrometry and also plasma-mass spectrometry. Unfortunately, all EDF have done is just one of those, so there are several plutoniums that it is impossible to detect with the testing that EDF have undertaken—they've only done alpha spectrometry.

Well, my understanding of the evidence is that that internationally accepted methodology could have detected the need to examine specifically for the other contaminants that you have referred to. And you've put that on record, and it is for others now to point to evidence if it so exists. 

Can I just say that we've already heard that the data has been made available to the campaign? Now, I do understand there's a problem about interrogating that data because of software issues, but the basic—

Would you give way again? 

Just a moment. But the basic transparency of sharing of the information cannot be contested. Again, I think we should do something to ensure that it can be then interpreted by as wide a range of people as want to look at it, but it is not a closed procedure.

I know you're interested in this issue very deeply and you will make your own contribution, but if you want to intervene again, this last time.  

Thank you, but, in terms of transparency, the raw data was not transferred; it's been disposed of. That's a fact. 

Well, my understanding is that it's been acknowledged by the campaign to have been given over to the campaign. Now—as I said, I understand the issues. I know time is now racing on and I just need to make a few essential points, because there has been a discussion about the methodology. I am not a nuclear scientist—I'm not a scientist of any description, unless you count political science as a science, and I'm not sure I would. But I think the point we need to look at is: are the internationally accepted norms robust? And, if they're not, you need to show very strong evidence of that, otherwise there's very little we can do in this Chamber that we can have much confidence in if we're going to have such a doubting attitude to the data that is out there. But, you know, my mind is open and if people can show that there are problems with the methodology then, of course, we should look at them. 

The issue of the material being analysed at depth—I certainly think it would have reassured the public more if this had been done, and it was requested and I do think that those that want to proceed with this licence did miss an opportunity to reassure. They did that on the grounds that it wasn't scientifically necessary, and that has not been challenged by the likes of NRW, as we've heard. But I think those that are involved in these operations do have a duty to consider how the public are likely to react and interpret such an action. 

And then, on this whole issue of the data and the methodology that is used, again, I do think it's up to the likes of the companies involved, NRW and the Welsh Government to help people interpret these matters in a way that they can draw justified inferences from, remembering that they're not experts either, or at least most of them are not, and these things do have a big impact. 

Can I conclude, Llywydd, by just saying that I do think the petitioners have done a great public service here in that we're discussing this? We've undoubtedly scrutinised this whole matter in much more depth than we would otherwise have done. So, I think it's important that we recognise the worth of these civic groups that take a lot of time and trouble to look at these matters. And I'm certainly open to any new evidence should it be brought forward, but at the moment I think it is my duty to say that, as far as my examination of these matters, they do meet the standards that have been set by international norms, and, until I see evidence to the contrary, I think we have to proceed on the basis that those matters have been fully tested scientifically and that we can have confidence in the licence that's been awarded. Thank you.      

I will speak briefly about the work that we did as a committee. I'm grateful to the clerks and the team for their work in putting a report together, and doing that in a short time. It's important that we do remember what that timetable was. The licence was approved back in 2014 following an application two years before that, if I remember rightly, but this didn’t come to the public’s attention, not broadly anyway, until autumn last year, with the work supposed to start on moving the mud in a couple of weeks from now. But the fact that those concerns haven’t been raised until late in the process doesn’t make those concerns less valid. And that’s what my starting point was in terms of considering this issue.

I congratulate the campaigners for the forensic detail of the evidence and their analysis of the evidence that they had. The evidence that they gave us as a committee was a great contribution to our work, and I hope that that evidence is reflected in the report that was summarised by the Chair.

Now, the outcome of the work that we did—at least, I thought—was that there was scope to do further work and have further inquiries in order to give assurance to people that all the possible information is in our possession and that that information has been presented fully. There has been discussion about the nature of that information and how accessible that information was. And I did suggest that more testing could be done, particularly on the depth, because there was concern about that. What CEFAS said was this:

'If that is a requirement to allay public perception, we would be very happy to do that.... We could make it more transparent in terms of how that assessment is done'.

If they proposed that there was a more transparent way to do the assessments, then we should have capitalised on that opportunity, I think, to move ahead in the most transparent way possible.

NRW said on 30 January that they had asked the licence holders to consider doing more sampling at depth on a voluntary basis. On 27 March, despite that, NRW let us know as a committee that the licence holders had rejected that idea. Now, I do appreciate and I hear what David Melding has said, that the licence holders are arguing, and have argued consistently, that there isn’t a scientific argument for doing more tests, and that they have confidence in the science. But, with such a contentious issue, one would imagine that the licence holders would have welcomed the opportunity to operate as openly as possible. There was a window for doing more testing and I think they should have taken advantage of that.

Two final points: I also regretted the fact that Cardiff Council had chosen not to push for more tests. There is genuine concern among many people about this and if it had been possible to respond to those concerns in any way then we should have looked for an opportunity to do that. I think that several key partners would need to collaborate to push for further testing, and I think the decision by Cardiff council did weaken those hopes.

Finally, there is nothing that comes to Wales from this agreement to put 200,000 cubic metres of mud from Hinkley in our waters. That raises fundamental questions for me. My fellow Member, Simon Thomas, can go into more detail on that in due course, hopefully.

Thanks to the Petitions Committee for bringing today's debate. As many people have said, there is a lot of public concern about this issue. Evidence for that is the 7,000-plus people who have signed this petition. So, I think it's entirely right that we are debating this subject today here in the Assembly.

Public knowledge of the science behind this may be limited, but we do have to allay public fears and there has to be a transparent process and it has to be more transparent than what we've had so far, I believe. We are increasingly living in a world of experts. These experts have certificates and they have letters after their names and, in most cases, I don't doubt that these experts do possess a lot of knowledge, but we have to ensure that, as a society, we don't topple over into a technocracy. Experts making decisions on matters that have wider public interest need to be held to account by the public.

Decisions that carry a major public impact need to be open and transparent, and big companies, and particularly public utility companies like EDF, need to ensure that their procedures are transparent. What this petition seems to be focusing on is testing and the quality of EDF's testing procedure. Now, EDF say that their testing procedures are fine, but they are a commercial concern, so they would say that, wouldn't they? What the petitioners seem to want is a more transparent testing regime.

What we haven't had thus far is an environmental impact assessment. Mike Hedges, who knows probably a lot more about the science behind this than I do, is talking about an independent academic review, and the independence, as he put it, is the crucial factor. I think these are perfectly reasonable things to ask for, if only to allay perfectly understandable public anxieties and actual public fears. Two constituents of mine came—well, they didn't come to me on this point, I have to agree, but they raised this issue and this was many weeks ago, possibly months ago. The wording of what they said to me was something along the lines of, 'What's all this about the nuclear sludge they're going to be dumping in the Bristol channel?' Well, I don't know whether 'nuclear sludge' is in any way an accurate term. As David Melding said, I'm no scientist, but it is an indication of the public concern over this. EDF say they have been using the Cardiff Grounds for disposal of dredging material for years, but I believe not this kind of material. Is this material purely a benign heap of mud? Is it anything akin to nuclear sludge? I don't know, but the public do need to know and we do need to have some kind of independent review. Thank you. 

Thank you very much. Julie Morgan. 

Thank you very much for calling me to speak in this debate, and thanks very much to the petitioners for bringing these important points to our attention. I'm not actually on this committee, so I wasn't present to hear some of these discussions in detail, but I have certainly been approached by many people in my constituency and by different petitioners.

In a fairly short contribution, what I'd really like to say is that I feel that the depth of concern is there and that people have not been reassured by the responses that have come from NRW and that have come from other agencies. It does seem to me very important that we do absolutely the maximum we can to ensure we know what is in the sediment that is being dumped so close to us here in Cardiff. So, I would certainly support the recommendation of the Petitions Committee that there should be further samples taken, and I would speak in support as well of Mike Hedges's contribution, because I think that it is our utmost duty to keep our population safe and that we should do all we possibly can to ensure that everything we can do is done.

I do think that the independent academic research would be a way forward. I certainly accept what David Melding has said—that at some point you have to have a trust in what agencies may say that are giving genuine scientific, independent views—but I don't really think we're actually at that stage from what I've heard. I think there is a clear case for having further samples taken, and I hope that that will happen. 

Thank you. Janet—[Interruption.] Can I just address the public gallery? It's great that you're here, it's great that you're taking an interest, but please, you cannot shout out. I don't mind you clapping, but we can't have any shouting out because that does disrupt our proceedings. So, it's great that you're here, it's great that you've got a real interest in this, but please don't disrupt our proceedings. Janet Finch-Saunders.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm really pleased that this actually has found its way to a debate here in the Siambr of the National Assembly for Wales, because, as has been pointed out, 7,171 signatures came in on this petition. Now, I know it's been said that we are not environmental scientists or marine environmental scientists. I'm an Assembly Member, but I'm there to represent my constituents. I'm also, in the more corporate working of this Assembly, there to represent any constituent, due to my membership of the committee, who I feel has some valid and just considerations that need to be taken into account. I have been a little bit disappointed by NRW's approach to this committee and the reluctance, in some ways, for us to have the information provided for us so that we could actually formulate a report that was based as much as possible on real evidence.

Now, the marine licence for the disposal of sediment dredged as part of the construction of a water cooling system for the new Hinkley Point C power station was issued by NRW to NNB GenCo, a subsidiary of EDF. The petition called for the suspension of the licence under either section 72 or section 102 of the marine Act, arguing that the environmental and human health risks have not been adequately researched and the data used to analyse these is incomplete. In determining an application for a marine licence, section 69 of the Act requires both these risk categories to be taken into full account. Powers over the issuing and enforcement of this licence lie with NRW following the vesting of these powers in April 2013. However, the initial applications were made to the Welsh Government prior to this, and despite what many would think would be clear reasons to request one, an independent environmental impact assessment was not asked for at this time.

Further issues raised by the petitioner include the testing methodology, scope, and concerns over the deposit site. In considering this petition, the committee took evidence from the petitioner, EDF energy, NRW and the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science—CEFAS—who undertook the test sampling, and it soon became apparent to me that there was no question that there hadn't been sampling; the question and concern was around the depth of the sampling taken. It's my understanding—I don't know whether, Neil, you could confirm—that the actual evidence that we've been seeking was actually taken in 2009, and we're now in 2018, and it worries me that companies of this size would be bothered about going back and doing more sampling.

There is general dispute between the petitioner and CEFAS as to the adequacy of the testing undertaken. Tests were carried out in 2009, 2013 and 2017, but, again, I revert back to the earlier date for the actual depth. However, the petitioner, along with Friends of the Earth Barry and Vale, have expressed serious concerns over the types and numbers of radionuclides reported on. This was conceded by CEFAS in relation to gamma-emitted radionuclides, and they noted that they had only reported on the three that had returned results above a minimum threshold, but accepted the point that, in future, they could make it more clear in reporting which ones were also present but below official detection limits.

Additionally, concerns have been raised, as we've mentioned, regarding non-gamma emitters, alpha and beta-emitting radionuclides, which CEFAS confirm that they did not test further for, given that the generic first-tier assessment indicated that these doses were well below the international recommended limits. Of concern, I think, was the refusal in January this year by the licence holder to undertake further additional sampling and testing at depth following a request by NRW. Now, they do represent the Government and they represent our people. This request was made at the demand of the committee and as a result of the petitioner's concerns that not enough samples had been taken. Further, the issue of other chemical contaminants within the sediment was raised, and I, for one, was concerned to note that EDF reported that those at the Hinkley dredge site were above the CEFAS action level 1, so within the scope to undertake further investigation. This amounts to 'quite a small breach', in the words of EDF, yet Friends of the Earth Barry and Vale suggest that no further consideration has been made of these contaminants.

Deputy Llywydd, NRW provided assurances that they would not give the licence approval unless they were fully satisfied that the material was suitable for disposal, yet despite the very obvious public concerns on the matter, including by us as Assembly Members, they formally discharged condition 9.5 of the marine licence in March this year. I would, therefore, endorse the calls by Mike Hedges AM, and Julie Morgan as well, to seek to use section 102 of the marine Act to put a pause on this licence until further adequate testing has been carried out and a full public consultation undertaken. If these companies have no concerns, if they want to restore public trust—

Are you winding up, please?

—in this application, and if they want to restore the trust of the Petitions Committee and some of our Assembly Members, I think it is incumbent of them to do further testing.

I speak to echo what has already been said by Rhun ap Iorwerth and some others. I’m very grateful to the petitioners and the Petitions Committee for a very detailed report on these issues, and I would also refer to the correspondence with the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee and with the Minister on these issues.

I would just like to start with the fact that this debate, despite its importance in the Assembly, cannot change this licence. This is a licence approved by NRW, but the Minister does have the power to intervene in this process, and I hope that the Minister will have listened to the debate and will do what she feels is appropriate.

I want to speak about something that hasn’t been mentioned to date, namely the fact that we have so little control over our natural resources that we have to accept this mud from the other side of the Severn to be dumped on the Welsh side. It highlights how little power we have, and the petitioners have done the Assembly a great service even in highlighting that fact. Now, if it happened on the mainland, if it wasn’t at sea, then the Cabinet Secretary for Finance would have a great interest in this issue, because anyone disposing of mud in this way would have to pay a tax, a landfill disposals tax—a new tax established under the new finance authority here in Wales. Anything in terms of construction on that land would mean that you would have to pay for the disposal of that waste. It’s part of the founding principles of environmental law—it’s the 'polluter pays' principle. That is one of them.

The fact is that we share responsibility for the Severn with England, so there is a joint responsibility that we should shoulder, of course, in looking at what is an area of special conservation—a matter that hasn’t been referred to as of yet. So, for me, there is a founding principle here. Why don’t we deal with our seas and use offshore disposals in the way that we deal with disposals on terrestrial land? It does underline how deficient the whole process has been, that something has been outsourced to a body that was newly established by the Welsh Government without any democratic accountability for that decision. In that regard, I would echo what has already been said.

So, it really is a very important petition, I think, because, setting aside the issue of radioactivity, which I'll address just in a second, this essential issue is one of lack of control over our own natural resources, and being forced, in effect, to take the spoils from a new nuclear power station—which I personally oppose, and therefore not very keen to take anyway—but not having any control about how we make those decisions here in our Assembly. It's really underlined how difficult it is to enact our sustainable management of natural resources under the well-being of future generations Act and our environment Act. It's really underlined how little control we have over our own natural resources and protecting future generations.

But I do want to conclude by saying this: in my mind, that in itself is enough to persuade me to have at least a pause on some of this until we understand better the impact on our environment and better understand some of the testing that's been called for by other Members here. But I also want to say this: I do think it's very important that when we discuss these issues, we do not talk about things that don't exist. I haven't seen any evidence that the mud itself is radioactive or dangerous, and that's not something that I've raised in this Chamber. To me, it's an essential principle about who controls our natural resources and who decides what happens in Welsh waters. And that should be a decision for this Parliament and for this elected Assembly, not a decision for a quango or an outsourced body. That's my complaint here.

I also want us to have, in an independent Wales, which I want to see one day, trust in our institutions, trust in our scientists, and trust in the way we do public science in Wales. Some of that trust has been lost because not enough people have been open with each other, but some of it's lost because people, when they see evidence that they don't like, simply think there's a conspiracy theory at work. That is not the case. The case here is that we have contentious spoils from a contentious nuclear power station, which I think we must treat in the calmest, most rational way. Who decides whether this gets dumped in Welsh waters? Is it a private company, decided by a quango, or is it this Parliament? I say it's this Parliament and I say we should make that decision.

I would like to thank the Petitions Committee for their report and the 7,171 people who raised the petition regarding marine licence 12/45/ML. I, like the petitioners and thousands of other people across Wales, am deeply concerned about the plans by the French nuclear energy company to dump irradiated sediment off our coast. The south Wales coast is a very important ecosystem—home to a wide variety of flora and fauna. The coastline in my region is home to several of the world’s top beaches. We should be taking every action in order to protect this important part of our ecology. We saw licences granted to dredge sand that destroyed our beaches, entertained the idea of building a vast offshore windfarm that threatened to endanger a school of harbour porpoise, and now they're content to allow 300,000 tonnes of potentially radioactive sediment from England to be dumped just off our coast.

I know that, according to the licence holder, the sediment from the nuclear power station has been tested and deemed to be no threat to humans and not classed as radioactive under UK law, however there are concerns that that testing methodology was not sufficiently robust. The testing methodology only looked at the top metre of sediment and only looked at gamma particles. Research conducted elsewhere shows that higher concentrations of radionuclides are found at depths greater than 1 metre. We also know that there are 16 times more radionuclides produced by nuclear reactors than were tested for.

The sediment surveys tested for caesium-137, cobalt-60 and americium-241, but what about plutonium or curium? Why were these not tested for? What about strontium or tritium? Do these radionuclides not carry a risk to human health? Of course they do, but they were not tested for, and nor were the 50 other radionuclides known to be present in discharge from these old nuclear power plants.

In these circumstances, we should be adopting the precautionary principle. Until there is a thorough scientifically robust, independent safety inspection conducted on this sediment, the licence should be suspended. If the report categorically deems the sediment to be safe for humans, wildlife and the environment, then consideration may be given to grant a licence. But until then, we risk doing untold damage to our ecosystem, threatening the viability of some of the world’s top beaches like Rhossili and Three Cliffs Bay.

I plead with the Welsh Government: order more testing, don’t risk our amazing beaches, don’t endanger our wildlife, put Wales first. 

There are people demonstrating outside today, and I was the only Assembly Member to attend. I know that the campaigners found that very, very disappointing. In total, there are over 100,000 people who have signed various petitions about this. I'd like to start with an indisputable fact, because by allowing the 300,000 tonnes of mud from outside Hinkley Point to be dumped in Welsh waters, we are enabling the UK and Chinese Governments to build a nuclear power station. 

Now, Plaid Cymru is completely opposed to nuclear power, because if we look at very recent history—Fukushima, Chernobyl, and further back, Three Mile Island—we're always told that nuclear energy is safe, but accidents keep on occurring. I'm glad to hear that there is opposition from Plaid Cymru to this proposal today. I'm also happy to give way if, maybe, Rhun ap Iorwerth would like to give a clear statement opposing the new nuclear reactor in Ynys Môn. No? That's—

I think I've told you before—

That's loud and clear—

I decide who gives way and who takes interventions. You carry on with your speech, and I'll decide on the interventions.

Okay. Well, it's a fact that the dumping of mud will allow the nuclear power station to be built, so what is Wales getting out of it? What are we getting out of this deal? The answer is a big fat zero—dim byd, nothing, nada, nothing at all. So, England is dumping its nuclear mud on Wales, and this Government is accepting it—this Labour Government in Wales. I'm almost speechless. How can that be allowed to happen? If it's so safe, dump it in the Thames. If nuclear energy is so safe, locate those reactors in the south-east of England.

Now, let's look—[Interruption.] London. Let's look at the precautionary principle, as mentioned earlier, because according to the European Commission, the precautionary principle can be invoked when the full risk is not known. Now, the truth of this matter is that nobody—nobody—in this Chamber knows if this mud is safe. Nobody knows. It's worth repeating that the testing was done below 5 cm, 300,000 tonnes of mud, and just five—five—samples taken in 2009, and that the raw data has been disposed of, as I said earlier. Only gamma testing was done. Now, scientists advise me that some types of plutonium don't give out gamma. And if you look at Kosovo, the testing done in the mud there—they've done three types of testing, which are alpha spectrometry, plasma mass spectrometry and the one type of spectrometry carried out on the mud outside Hinkley Point. So, what is good enough for Kosovo should be good enough for Wales.

Also, if you look at the figures on the data given from 2009, Natural Resources Wales are wrong, they're simply incorrect, because if you look at the data, it's there in black and white: there is an increase in radioactivity the lower you go. If you look at the data from 2015, if you apply the difference, then you could be getting beyond the de minimis above safe levels. I met with Natural Resources Wales in September and, to be perfectly frank, they could give me virtually no answers to the questions I posed. They knew nothing about the testing regime and they knew nothing about where the mud was going to end up. It's deplorable that the agency looking after the environment in Wales has no expertise—no expertise—in these matters. If this material is unsafe—and I say 'if' it's unsafe—those particles will travel 10 miles inland—10 miles inland.

So, I think it's very reasonable—reasonable—to say, 'Retest the mud.' It will cost £100,000 out of a £40,000 million project. It's absolutely a reasonable thing to ask, and I ask that the Minister directs NRW to suspend the licence until retesting is done. It's a perfectly reasonable thing to ask. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you. Can I now call the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs, Lesley Griffiths?

Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'd like to start by thanking the Chair, and the members of the Petitions Committee for their work in producing the report and also Members for their contributions to the debate today. I, of course, acknowledge the concerns raised, and I'm very keen the public and this Chamber are reassured on this matter. I very much welcomed sight of the report, which set out the significant evidence that is being considered by the Petitions Committee. I note the committee have carried out a thorough review with key delivery bodies and experts throughout, and I'm grateful to all who've engaged in the process, including Natural Resources Wales, who are the marine licensing authority in Wales. They issued the marine licence for the disposal activity and they continue to be responsible for it, including ensuring compliance with the conditions imposed on the licence.

I must be mindful of the Welsh Ministers' role in relation to marine licensing appeals, and as such, it is not appropriate for me to comment on specifics of marine licensing decisions. The marine licensing determination process provides for a thorough and robust assessment of proposed activities, including consideration of the need to protect the marine environment and human health. I can assure everyone: all marine licence applications are considered in line with legal requirements set out within Part 4 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 and the Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007—

Would you give way, Cabinet Secretary?

Yes.

Would you accept—I am advised by scientists; I'm not a scientist—that some kinds of plutonium will not be identified by the beta testing? Very simply, why wasn't the alpha spectrometry done, and the plasma mass spectrometry, as in Kosovo, on the mud?

I'm reassured that CEFAS, who carried out this assessment for NRW, are working to the highest international standard, and that's what reassures me.

I very much welcomed David Rowlands's comments that the committee sought to give priority to scientific evidence and to avoid alarmism and sensationalism, and he said that CEFAS, EDF and NRW are reassured, again, that the tests are carried out the very highest international standard. The evidence in the report shows that Natural Resources Wales have made their determination based on expert advice, in line with the radiological assessment procedure developed by the International Atomic Energy Agency. I note that all the tests and assessments carried out by NRW and their experts in this specific field concluded the material is within safe limits and poses no radiological risk to human health or the environment. I also note from the report and the committee's consideration that the issues raised by the petitioner have been given significant consideration, and clear evidence has been provided to support the conclusions made in relation to this disposal activity. So, I want to be very clear and reiterate this point. I'm very keen for this clear message to be communicated fully to the public: NRW have determined, based on expert advice, that the disposal activity poses no radiological risk to humans or the marine environment.

Will the Cabinet Secretary give way?

Yes.

From what she's said, I might take that to understand that she does not expect any further testing or any further process to be undertaken by NRW before this material can be deposited in Welsh waters. Is that a correct understanding of what she said?

There is no scientific basis for any further testing or assessments to be done, so I think if they did that, that would set out a very dangerous precedent.

NRW have made information available on their website, and I hope, again, this provides reassurance on the robustness of the decision-making process undertaken. I have listened very carefully to the points raised today, and as I stated at the outset, I do acknowledge concerns. Welsh seas and coasts are a real jewel in our crown, and we strive for them to be recognised for being clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse. It's very important, as a nation, we are able to balance the need to protect our marine environment, to protect human health and deliver sustainable use of our seas.

As Members are aware, I've consulted on our first Welsh national marine plan, and this builds on the strong progress we're already making in the stewardship of our seas, supporting our goal of delivering good environmental status of the marine ecosystem. We're making a significant contribution towards the ecological coherence of the network of marine protected areas, whilst protecting and enhancing the marine environment through both the management of pressures and a robust consenting regime. So, although I'm unable to comment specifically on this matter, I note the committee's report, and I will ask Natural Resources Wales to review the way they've communicated the messages in relation to this marine licence and the decisions made.

I think David Melding's point about engaging with the public much more clearly is very important, and I think there are lessons that we can learn for future decisions and the sharing of information, particularly those that are technical in nature, to ensure that those clear messages and outcomes are well understood by all. Diolch.

Thank you very much. [Interruption.] I have asked the public gallery to be quiet and not interrupt any more of our Assembly business. If you carry on shouting out, I will ask you to leave.

Can I call on David Rowlands, please, to reply to the debate?

Diolch, Llywydd. Before I make my final comments, I wish to acknowledge and thank the clerking team for the work they have done under pressure of time. So, I do thank them for that. And can I thank the petitioner for bringing this petition forward? It has made us scrutinise the whole procedure with regard to nuclear power dumping, and I do thank you for doing that. I also thank the organisations and agencies who provided evidence to the Petitions Committee. Lastly, can I thank the Members for their contributions to this debate? As there have been so many, I think that the best way I could deal with this is to summarise what most of the AMs have said in their contributions.

They brought out the concerns with regard to the transparency of analysis procedures, and called for it to be far more transparent when these agencies are doing their work. Many also called for a pause in the proceedings and for further samples to be taken. There were also concerns about the types of radioactivity testing and, of course, Neil McEvoy was very adamant about that and, I think, very cogent in his arguments with regard to that.

If I can move to the comments by the Cabinet Secretary, who acknowledged public concerns, but asserted that the tests were carried out under the rules of the International Atomic Energy Agency to the very highest standards. She asserts also that there were no scientific reasons for new tests to be carried out.

To conclude, whilst I hope the committee’s deliberations and today’s debate have aired some of the issues raised by this petition, I recognise that nuclear power and its by-products are emotive issues. Therefore, a range of views are inevitable. This, of course, is a healthy part of a functioning democracy and, given the risks and safeguards associated with nuclear processes, the concerns that have been expressed are entirely understandable. Ultimately, we have heard that the granting of marine licences is the responsibility of Natural Resources Wales, and they have told the committee and this Assembly that they are satisfied that there is no risk to human health or the environment. As a committee, I believe we are content that all the evidence received was provided in good faith, and that the various agencies who have been involved in this process have discharged their functions according to the processes and standards required.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd, for the opportunity to discuss this issue today. Diolch.

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

Item 7 on our agenda this afternoon is the debate on the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee report, 'Wales' future relationship with Europe. Part one: a view from Wales', and I call on the Chair of the committee to move the motion—David Rees.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. It's with great pleasure that I move today's motion in my name and open today's debate on the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee's report on Wales's future relationship with Europe. As you highlighted, it is part one, and there's more work to be done.

Before I begin discussing the content of the report I would like to place on record our thanks to all those who gave evidence to this inquiry. In particular, our thanks go to those who submitted written evidence, to Aston Martin and Toyota for hosting our visits to see their business operations and to understand the concerns that they have about their future relationship for the automotive sector, and also to all those who came to our stakeholder conference, where 28 different organisations were represented. I also wish to put on record our thanks to the clerking team and all the support staff to the committee whose work always allows us to undertake and produce the reports to the levels we hope to do. Without them we would be in deep trouble, and I'm sure that every committee Chair would agree with me on that point. I'm grateful, too, to the Welsh Government for the way in which it has engaged with us on this subject.

I would, however, like to place on record my disappointment at the failure of the Secretary of State for Wales to respond to my letter enclosing the report, which identified a number of areas where we would welcome more detail from him. As we move forward, it is vital that the UK Government engages meaningfully with this Assembly to ensure an outcome that is to the benefit of all four nations of the United Kingdom.  

Dirprwy Lywydd, Wales has always been an outward-looking, internationally engaged nation. It is fair to say that some had feared that the decision to leave the European Union was a rejection of this proud tradition. However, as this report highlights, these fears were unfounded. We are clear that whilst Wales is leaving the EU, it is not leaving Europe.

Dirprwy Lywydd, whatever the eventual outcome of the negotiations between the UK and the EU may be, the last 45 years of co-operation and integration is an exemplar of how, working together, we can benefit from a strong partnership. Our report looks at Wales’s future relationship with Europe and reaffirms the view that Brexit should be seen as a realignment of old relationships together with the beginning of new ones.

Turning now to the report itself, Members will see that it is an extensive and authoritative contribution to the debate on what this nation's future relationship with Europe should look like. I know that many of my colleagues on the committee will have particular themes and issues that they will wish to pursue in their contributions. I therefore intend to keep my remarks to some of the broader themes within the report.

We make a total of 18 recommendations to the Welsh Government about where it should focus its influence when it comes to shaping the UK’s negotiating position, and Wales's future relationship with the EU after Brexit. I am grateful to the Welsh Government for accepting all 18 recommendations—12 directly accepted and six in principle—and I look forward to hearing the contribution from the Cabinet Secretary this afternoon when he rises to speak.

Our first set of views and recommendations look at access to the single market and arrangements for the UK’s future customs arrangements. Irrespective of events in the Houses of Parliament or the UK Government on these matters, our report is based upon the evidence we received and the views of Welsh stakeholders. There was a clear sense from the evidence that the most important aspect of the relationship between Wales and the EU concerns trade. It is therefore vital that the future relationship provides frictionless—yes, frictionless—trade, free from tariff and non-tariff barriers.

Furthermore, we note in our report that the evidence overwhelmingly prioritises the maintenance of equivalent regulatory standards over regulatory divergence from Europe after Brexit. In particular we heard specific concerns from the farming, fisheries and food sectors in relation to our future trading relationships. The challenges posed to those sectors by the imposition of new non-tariff barriers after Brexit, such as plant and animal health checks, could jeopardise the export of Welsh lamb, beef, shellfish—something that I am certain nobody here wishes to see.

Turning to customs, we note in our report that a new customs arrangement with the EU, which broadly mirrors the current arrangements, could help to reduce the risks of customs delays at our borders and ports. As time passes, and the need for urgency becomes all the more acute, it is imperative that the UK Government brings forward credible proposals on the UK’s future customs arrangements with the EU. It is vital that this issue is resolved in a way that gives certainty to businesses on both sides of the Irish sea and both sides of the English channel. Unfortunately, we are still seeing a Government in Westminster that cannot agree on a way forward on this matter and it is only creating more concern amongst Welsh stakeholders with regard to the nature of our future relationship with the EU.

Our report also covers immigration and the issue of free movement of people. We recognise in our report that this was an important issue for many during the referendum campaign. But we also identified the role that EU citizens play in delivering our public services and working in our private businesses. We welcome the importance pleased on securing an early agreement on the future of citizens' rights by the Brexit taskforce, the European Parliament and the UK negotiating team, and welcome the phase 1 agreement in that regard.

Looking ahead, we want to see clarity from the UK Government on the timescales for moving to a future immigration system at the earliest opportunity. I personally hope that we don't see this delayed beyond a time when the decisions are made on a final deal reached between the UK and the EU. 

Dirprwy Lywydd, as I say in the foreword to the report, the last 45 years of co-operation and integration cannot be lightly discarded. And a key theme to our inquiry was the need to ensure continued co-operation and involvement in certain EU agencies and programmes after Brexit. We consider it important that the Welsh Government maps out which European agencies it has identified as important in terms of continued involvement after Brexit, and I look forward to hearing from the Cabinet Secretary when we may get that detail of that mapping exercise. We have also identified some agencies ourselves, particularly the European Medicines Agency and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, which the Welsh Government did respond to in its response to the report. To that end, it is critically important that the UK Government seeks clarity now on whether the EU is prepared to offer associate membership of these bodies to the UK, or a type of relationship that can exist afterwards.

We also note the important and valuable role that co-operation in the fields of education has played, most notably through the Horizon 2020 and Erasmus+ programme. We believe that it would be mutually beneficial for Wales and the EU to continue to collaborate in these areas post Brexit. Moreover, we welcome the references made to potential co-operation in the areas of research and innovation by the UK Government, the European Parliament and European Council—all are saying that this should be prioritised in the negotiations.

The final theme of the report looked at Wales's future relationship with both formal and informal networks after the UK leaves the EU. Many of our stakeholders raised the importance of continued participation in these networks after Brexit. In evidence, they highlighted to us the unique and valuable role in terms of policy learning and collaboration that involvement in European networks can have across all those sectors. As a committee, we are proud of the positive impact, in both directions, that such engagement has had in the past and we hope to see these links grow from strength to strength in the future.

However, we also recognise that as a consequence of Brexit, Wales may have a diminished role in many of these networks in the future. This is not something we want to see and we hope that both the Welsh and UK Governments, and wider civil society, will take steps to mitigate the risks of this diminution where possible in the future. In our report, we heard about the important role assigned in the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions Cardiff declaration to the development of relationships not only through networks but directly with individual nations, regions and cities in Europe. We fully acknowledge the important role these relationships will play in future and hope to explore the issue further as we go into part two of our work.

When looking to the future, we cannot ignore Wales's relationship with our nearest EU neighbour, Ireland. Having considered the impact of Brexit on trade between Wales and Ireland during our report on ports, we also recognised the importance of this relationship with a call, in this report, for the Welsh Government to ensure it continues to strengthen and grow that relationship after Brexit.

It's also important to us as a committee that equalities and human rights are safeguarded in any future relationship. To that end, we call upon the Welsh and UK Governments to ensure this as we leave the EU. I am pleased to note the House of Lords agreed an amendment to the EU withdrawal Bill that sought to enshrine the European charter of fundamental rights in UK laws. I hope the House of Commons accepts that amendment.

Finally, Dirprwy Lywydd, we have one overarching message to our friends and partners across Europe: Wales has a proud tradition as a nation that looks outwards to the world, and our report is intended as a helpful contribution to the discussions that are beginning in earnest on our future relationship. We also look forward to exploring how the Welsh Government, civil society and we as a National Assembly can build these links and grow these relationships in the future. I look forward to updating Members about that work in due course. Diolch yn fawr.

In accepting our report’s recommendations 1 and 4, the Welsh Government reiterates its position:

'that we must maintain full and unfettered access to the Single Market and we remain to be convinced that being outside a Customs Union with the EU is in our interests, at least for the foreseeable future.'

However, as we heard from policy think tank Open Europe in Brussels, it would be strange if the UK was in the customs union. Like Turkey, the EU would negotiate trade agreements with third parties without the UK at the table. They also said that if the UK is in the single market, it would have to accept all the rules without being able to vote on them. And, as the UK’s deputy permanent representative to the EU told us, the EU 27 Governments now have a better understanding of where their own economic interests, and those of their own sectors, lie, regarding access to the UK market.

We therefore need a special and different solution, rather than simply something done before. It is in our mutual interest to get this right. For instance, the representation of the German state of Bremen told us that 10 per cent to 15 per cent of the GDP of all of Germany’s 16 states is exposed to the UK market.

The Canadian embassy told us that 70 per cent of their cross-border trade with the USA is carried by trucks, with security clearance programmes for trucks and drivers and an eManifest programme for goods, delivering, quote,

'a very efficient and speedy system'.

Turkey has a customs union agreement with the EU, whilst remaining outside the EU. Switzerland is neither in the single market nor the customs union, yet Turkey’s frontier is far more heavily policed than the Swiss one. In fact, 10 times as many people travel between Switzerland and the EU as do between the island of Ireland and the UK. Switzerland’s border is crossed by around 2.4 million people every day. Switzerland sells more than five times as much per head to the EU than Britain.

The European Parliament’s constitutional affairs committee commissioned a report, ‘Smart Border 2.0—Avoiding a Hard Border on the Island of Ireland for Customs Control and the Free Movement of Persons’, from the former director of the World Customs Organization, Lars Karlsson, who has visited 169 countries, worked in more than 120 of them and seen more than 700 borders. Published last November, this proposes a customs co-operation model, combining advanced data exchange and new technical components, including a new trusted trader programme, a new trusted traveller scheme and a different approach to security and safety. He said that

‘delivering almost frictionless borders is real, not science-fiction for the future,’

and that

‘we are not talking of massive infrastructure, like houses and border crossings.’

He also said that

‘a new generation of smart borders after Brexit would give Britain an extra advantage’

on the world stage and make the UK a ‘very attractive trading partner'.

Will the Member give way?

Of course.

Is he aware that this would be far easier to implement on the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland border than it is in Switzerland? The Member mentioned that 10 times the volume of people cross the Swiss border, but, in terms of goods, the figure is around one hundredth of the amount of goods crossing the Northern Ireland border as crosses that Swiss border.

Yes, and I think it's essential that we work with the whole of the population on both sides of that border to give them the assurances they need, where some people are trying to, I think, make them more concerned than they need be.

In accepting our recommendation 2, the Welsh Government states that it is

'working with the UK Government to protect Wales’ international reputation for high animal welfare, environmental and food standards which must not be sacrificed through allowing cheap imports.'

As the UK Brexit Secretary clearly stated in February, the UK will not seek to lower legal and regulatory standards in order to compete with the European market, and he proposed a system of mutual recognition. Further, the UK Government has said that it will match the current EU budget that supports farming and rural economies, but we do need to see more of the annual £350 million currently coming to Wales under the EU’s common agricultural policy going to the front line.

Whilst welcoming the phase 1 agreement in respect of rights for EU citizens in the UK and UK nationals living and working in the EU, our report noted concerns that uncertainty may be having an effect on the number of EU and EEA nationals leaving the UK, referring, for example, to evidence from the British Veterinary Association and the Royal College of Nursing Wales. The UK Government has made clear its continued commitment to meeting the workforce needs of our economy and society, and a post-Brexit White Paper is now expected before the summer recess in July on this matter.

Like Senna the Soothsayer in Up Pompeii!, this place sometimes seems to be full of prophets of gloom preaching, 'The end is nigh'. Well, contrary to the predictions of the doomsayers, it’s time to make Brexit work for a Wales in Europe, but not the EU, as part of an outward-looking and global UK.

May I thank the Chair, David Rees, for his wonderful opening, which gives a great summary of this report, which is also a wonderful report?

I am speaking on behalf of Plaid Cymru today as Steffan Lewis isn’t here, and he, of course, was a member of the committee as the report was being drawn up. As I wasn’t a committee member—I was just a weak substitute for Steffan, having attended just one meeting—I want to use my contribution to discuss the recommendations specifically, and the Welsh Government’s role from here on in in delivering these recommendations, and also how the Government can realise the will of this Assembly in terms of our views on what Wales’s relationship should be with the European Union in future.

Recommendations 1 and 4, without giving the exact wording, of course, call for full membership of the single market and the customs union, because that’s the only way we can deliver what these recommendations call for. I’m pleased to see that the Government, in its response to these recommendations, has made a strong case for remaining in the customs union. The UK Government is tearing itself to shreds on the question of the membership of the customs union, and, although the Labour Party in London have offered a solution, namely the creation of a new customs union, what the Labour Party seeks to deliver as part of the new customs union, namely that the UK Government should have its say on any new trade deals and that Britain should also be exempt from state-aid and public procurement rules, is unprecedented. There’s no precedent for that because, as we’ve already heard, Turkey is in a customs union with the European Union, but they are not represented in any trade negotiations and neither are they exempt from EU competition rules. So, we’re yet to see any reasonable proposals either from the Government or the opposition in Westminster.

Recommendation 10 notes that:

'If no agreement on Horizon 2020 and any successor programmes is reached between the UK Government and the EU, we recommend that the Welsh Government explores ways in which it could provide continued support for Welsh institutions to collaborate with European
counterparts after Brexit.'

This is one of the main points that the Welsh Government should focus on in order to ensure that businesses and universities in Wales have access to some of the main research and development projects on a global level. It’s uncertain as yet what the UK‘s relationship would be with Horizon Europe, which is the successor programme to Horizon 2020, which will be far greater in scale and will be worth €96 billion compared to the €77 billion being spent on Horizon 2020. It’s possible that we will have full access to all streams of the programme, but we have to pay a high price for that.

I'll go now to revert back to recommendation 2, and I quote directly from the report:

'We recommend that the Welsh Government in its engagement with the UK Government calls on them to ensure that the interests of the farming, fishing and food industries are safeguarded during the withdrawal process.'

Well, good luck with that I say, because that recommendation is going to be a challenge for Welsh Government now, because, following the legislative consent vote on clause 11 amendments, Welsh Government has conceded control of that agenda, conceded leverage, as powers in these devolved fields will be frozen for seven years and can be changed without our consent here in Wales. As the Assembly's own legal advice states, and I quote directly, the EU withdrawal Bill

'as amended will still allow the Assembly’s competence to be restricted without its consent, and the inter-governmental agreement does not provide watertight assurance that this will not happen.'

As the agricultural expert Professor Tim Lang stated in this week's external affairs committee in response to a question from Jenny Rathbone, referring to the legislative consent vote here on 15 May, whilst Scotland stood firm Wales is now, and I quote, 'assumed to be steamrollable', end of quote—steamrollable indeed, and marginalised.  

I'm really pleased to take part in this debate today and welcome the support from the Welsh Government for this report, evident in the very positive responses to the recommendations. I particularly welcome the Welsh Government response to recommendations relating to our participation in EU networks, both formal and informal, to ensure there's continued access to these networks for the benefit of civil society and non-governmental organisations.

I'm sure Members will have noted the evidence from Cardiff University and Mudiad Meithrin about Welsh civil society's engagement on the EU civil society landscape, and this opens up access not only to transnational working policy development of mutual benefit to Wales and the EU, but also access to important funding streams. 

I was pleased to engage a team of who I called 'EU funding ambassadors' in a former ministerial role—Hywel Ceri Jones, Grahame Guilford and Gaynor Richards—who identified a wide range of centrally-managed EU funds and other funding streams and networks available to Welsh organisations. I hope that their work and their report and recommendations are still a valid source of intelligence and guidance, informing and supporting those networks as we transition from the EU. 

There is deep concern about the adverse impact of the loss of funding streams, particularly, which have enabled our partners in the public, private and third sectors to engage in transnational networks. In response to recommendation 14, it's helpful to learn that Welsh civil society will be able to access the European transition fund as indicated in the Welsh Government's response to the report. lt's also welcome to see that there'll be longer term support arrangements indicated in the response, and I hope we as a committee can engage and contribute to the shaping of those arrangements after the transition period. 

Like David Rees, I'd like to commend to the Assembly today the importance of recommendation 18 in our report, which asks the Welsh Government to call upon the UK Government to protect the human rights and equality standards that Welsh citizens have benefited from as citizens of the EU. In the evidence, we took account of a range of Wales-EU bilateral relationships, including not only environmental but equality networks and interests. The report cites evidence from Chwarae Teg, when Natasha Davies highlighted the role of EU membership in safeguarding and advancing equalities and human rights, and told us there should be 'no rolling back' of these rights post Brexit. Stonewall Cymru backed these concerns, reminding us that EU law has guaranteed rights that could be undermined with a potential risk to LGBT people in the future.

It's important, Dirprwy Llywydd, that we recognise we have a responsibility and an opportunity to safeguard and develop our role as an outward-looking, internationally-engaged nation. We must not be a bystander as phase 2 negotiations proceed. It's vital that we work together and that the Welsh Government backs our efforts in the committee to encourage the EU and its institutions to engage with governmental and non-governmental organisations in Wales as we transition to Brexit. 

Much of civil society in Wales is engaged in innovation through social action, very often backed by EU funds, empowering the most vulnerable members of our society, strengthening and promoting equalities and protecting our environment. So, in conclusion, I hope this report does justice to all those who are at the forefront of civil society upholding human rights as well as those who inform and guide us on the crucial evidence we have received as a committee as we seek to represent them and give them a voice in this crucial stage of EU negotiations and future transitional periods. 

I think it's a credit to the external affairs committee that, despite the very strong feelings that there are on the issues involved in relation to the European Union, it consistently produces fair, balanced and authoritative reports. I'd like to commend, in particular, David Rees on his chairmanship of this committee and the way that he has directed its work. I particularly agree with the point that he made right at the start of his speech this afternoon, that Wales is leaving the EU but it's not leaving Europe. We're often, on this side of the argument, characterised as Little Englanders or Little Wales-ers or whatever and wont to have a kind of laager mentality, concentrating purely upon Britain, but of course Brexit gives us an opportunity to concentrate on the wider world as well as on maintaining our links with the European Union.

One of the problems that we have, I think, in producing reports of this kind is that the evidence that is received, generally speaking, tends to be from producer interests, and producer interests generally tend to favour the status quo because, of course, they're dealing with what they know and what they've experienced and they want to maintain that in order to continue the regime under which they currently operate. The future is unknown, it is uncertain—even though there may be bigger opportunities under a different regime—but those are not known at the moment and therefore there is a certain amount of speculation involved. But I personally believe that Wales has nothing to fear from even a 'no deal' situation, should that turn out to be the result of the current negotiations. I do think that the UK Government has made it very, very difficult to get the best deal for Britain by its constant flirtation with this idea of some kind of a customs union. That plays right into the EU's hands, because if the EU thinks that we're desperate to maintain existing institutions and existing ways of trading with one another, then they have no incentive at all to enter into a different kind of trading relationship, which would be better for us on all grounds. 

The EU policy of negotiation of sequencing, as was described by Yanis Varoufakis, who's the Greek finance Minister with huge experience of dealing with the EU Commission over the attempted solution to Greece's debt problems—. He pointed out the danger of not taking the future trading relationship into account at the same time as all the other aspects of our relationship with the EU and the need to negotiate it. That has maximised the amount of uncertainty that has been caused and is merely a continuation of the project fear campaign that we enjoyed throughout the referendum campaign and which is still in full spate.

It's very important, I believe, that we don't make a fetish of the customs union advantages. I think we ought to keep in perspective what exactly is the nature of the trade that we do with the EU. If we didn't have a trade agreement, how much difficulty would Welsh firms have in selling into EU markets? We start, of course, from the position where we have not just regulatory alignment with the EU, but we are actually under the same regime. So, if, in future, there is going to be any regulatory divergence, that is a discrete issue that will be discussed, with all its pros and cons, at that time.

But as regards the tariff regime of the EU, I think it's important to point out that, if we weren't able to enter into a free-trade agreement with the EU, the tariffs that would apply to Welsh producers in general would be very small. Agriculture is a different case altogether, but in the case of manufactured goods in particular, these are very small. The document produced by the Welsh Government, 'Trade Policy: the issues for Wales' is very explicit on this. If we look at Annex A on page 23 of this document, the areas of trade that are of greatest interest and importance to Wales are things like electrical goods and telecoms, miscellaneous manufactured products, miscellaneous base metal products, miscellaneous chemical products. All of those have potential tariffs of less than 5 per cent. Vehicles are a different case again. That's in general about 10 per cent, but we have to remember that, if we are subject to tariffs on our exports to the EU, they of course are subject to the reverse, and as we have a significant trade deficit in the United Kingdom with the European Union they would be the ones who would end up worse off. If we were to leave the EU without a trade deal, the tariff income to the United Kingdom from the EU would be something like £13 billion a year, whereas the tariff income to the EU would be only £5 billion a year. So, we would be very much better off.

Nobody who has any common sense wants to see trade barriers or tariff barriers between Wales and the European Union, and it's in everybody's interest that we continue to trade as frictionlessly as possible, but the ball is in the EU's court. They're the ones who are actually imposing the impediments and making the difficulties in coming to a sensible deal. I regret that the continuation of the project fear campaign is making it much more difficult to get the commonsense deal that absolutely everybody who has the interests of Wales at heart wants.

Thank you. Can I now call the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Mark Drakeford?

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'd like to start by thanking the committee for all its work in helping to consider this very important discussion, namely the relationship that the UK will have with the European Union in the future after Brexit. Many of the Members from different parts of the Chamber generally have the same opinion. As David Rees said when he spoke at the outset, Wales is leaving the European Union but we shouldn't leave Europe. But, in practice, this principle will be developed by the broader context in this report. In the brief time that I have left today, Deputy Presiding Officer, I can't present the Government's answer to all of the committee's recommendations, but that response is available to Members in our written response, which was published on 21 May.

I will start, however, with the first series of recommendations, because they go to the core of our call for securing a Brexit that puts the needs of jobs and the economy first.

Essential to that, Dirprwy Lywydd, are discussions over the UK's future customs relationships with the EU, and we continue to push for full and unfettered participation in the single market, simply because it is vital to Welsh interests. Sixty per cent of identifiable Welsh goods exports go to the EU, and this figure in 2017 rose to over 77 per cent for food and drink exports and 90 per cent for exported lambs. The imposition of any tariffs on non-tariff barriers would be very disadvantageous to Welsh businesses, placing them at a competitive disadvantage to EU-based competitors.

The EAAL report asks us to press the UK Government for preferential market access to safeguard the interests of farming, fishing and food. So excited was Dr Lloyd at that prospect that he repeated a series of canards to go along with it. We know that we have to continue to make the case for the interests of Welsh farming, fishing and food and for credible proposals for future customs arrangements in every available forum, and the report adds weight to the case for a positive evidence-based approach to our future economic partnership with the European Union. Customs arrangements are central to that prospectus. The UK Government's claims that future customs partnerships or maximum facilitations or innovative solutions will minimise disruption to the UK's economy simply do not stand up to scrutiny. It's not to say that they don't have a contribution to make, but the idea that they will solve the problem and solve the problem, most crucially, on the island of Ireland simply is not credible. We will continue to urge the UK Government for those more credible customs proposals, both formally through the existing Joint Ministerial Committee architecture and in bilateral discussions to protect the Welsh economy, because Wales needs to stay in a customs union. The evidence, as David Rees said, points unambiguously in that direction.

Dirprwy Lywydd, the report makes a series of recommendations that revolve around future practical arrangements between the UK and the EU. In line with recommendation 6, for example, we continue to make the case that Welsh businesses, Welsh public services and Welsh universities rely on our ability to attract people from beyond our own borders to make their future here in Wales. To cite just two examples: all meat inspection occupational vets in Wales—every single one of them—are non-UK, EU graduates, while more than a quarter, 27 per cent, of those employed in Wales's food and drink production sectors were born in the European Union. 

The committee's report highlights the emphasis being placed upon citizenship rights by the European Parliament Brexit taskforce, and rightly points out that agreement on this issue is in everyone's interests. The Welsh Government will continue to engage with the UK Government on timescales for the publication of its long-awaited immigration White Paper, in the hope that it will present a credible proposal, allowing businesses and others time to respond and adapt to any future unwelcome restrictions. The UK Government's performance in this area has been especially uncertain. The immigration White Paper was originally scheduled to be published in the summer of last year. That was delayed to the late autumn of last year and then put off even further to the end of this year. The migration advisory committee was commissioned to produce a report by September of this year. That at least held out the possibility that policy would be informed by evidence. I now see reports that the new Home Secretary intends to publish a White Paper in August, making a mockery of all the efforts that so many businesses and others have made to provide information to the migration advisory committee exercise.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I turn now to what the report says about the essential issues of public protection and public health arrangements after Brexit. As the committee recognised, pan-EU co-operation is vital to Welsh security and prosperity. In health, disease does not recognise national borders. The report highlights the unequivocal benefit that the UK's continued membership of, or involvement in, agencies relating to the field of disease prevention and public health in Europe brings for all concerned. If any future deal reduces the scope for Welsh NHS collaboration with the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, for example, it could cause delays in reporting and disease tracking, hamper outbreak response, reduce the effectiveness of pandemic preparedness planning and response, and lead to significant intelligence gaps for infectious diseases. 

Of course, our interest in continuing co-operation with the EU goes well beyond health matters. Innovation services, for example, also hugely benefit from access to EU agencies and programmes, allowing cross-border collaborative research and partnerships that enable Welsh research institutions to play their part on the world stage. The report makes a number of recommendations in support of continued Welsh investment in key EU programmes and networks. But Government support of these recommendations in principle simply reflects the unknown nature of some of the important technicalities that surround membership eligibility. We just do not yet know, for example, if sub-national state investment in some future EU programmes will be allowable post membership. That's why, in our response, we emphasise the advantages to the whole of the UK of a UK Government effort to secure participation in the successor programmes to Horizon 2020, Erasmus+ and so on.

In the meantime, and in order to support the participation of Welsh organisations in European programmes and networks, the Welsh Government has established the European transition fund. This resource, supported by an initial input of £50 million by the Welsh Government, will allow us to support future engagement following the conclusion of the transition period. The fund will be developed in partnership with Welsh businesses, public services and other key organisations, of the sort identified by Jane Hutt, for example, in civil society in order to provide support that is targeted and tailored to the needs of beneficiaries. I hope, Dirprwy Lywydd, that we will announce very shortly the first tranche of projects with more to follow in coming months.

Let me say this very clearly: the Welsh Government will continue to work to protect jobs and businesses in Wales during the negotiations on leaving and during the transitional period, and beyond that in any trade relationship with our international partners.

This picture is moving quickly, and this will continue over the rest of the calendar year and beyond. I have no doubt that the committee will maintain its interest in this area and I look forward to continuing to collaborate with the committee in the important work that they do. 

Thank you very much. Can I now call the Chair of the committee, David Rees, to reply to the debate?

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I thank Members who took part in today's debate for their contributions, and particularly the Cabinet Secretary in his response. Perhaps I'll deal with his responses first. I'm very pleased that he has basically supported all that we're saying in the report and recognises what we are saying as important issues that we need to address as a nation, both here in Wales but also as a UK as well.

I agree with the point about principles. I understand the unknown technicalities that may arise because there's still so much uncertainty that exists until we know more detail on a final agreement. I appreciate that, but we still need to make sure those issues are pursued in our pursuance of, actually, a final agreement that works for Wales, and I think that's what we would want you to do for us, Cabinet Secretary. I also very much appreciate the European transition fund you highlighted and the allowance of funding towards the organisations that Jane Hutt raised to allow that future engagement with Europe. That's critical because so many organisations have opened up those relationships, and we want to make sure they continue with those and benefit from them in the future. It's very important for that.

I'll go on to a few of the Members, and I'll deal with Jane's first because it's the easiest one. Jane clearly highlighted the loss of the funding streams, and I think the Cabinet Secretary has said that it will give us some comfort to know there are opportunities there for that to come through. But it's for the longer term picture, because that's only, as we know, a transition fund and not necessarily the long term, so we need to look at that. And we still don't know what the UK is going to do about replacing European funds and to allow that type of engagement. So, that's something that we still have, and it is important. I know Jane will continue to highlight the agenda for equalities within Wales, and wider, to ensure that what we have gained under EU we do not lose.

Dai Lloyd—and can I point out that Steffan has made a huge impact on our committee, and I know his enthusiasm for looking at the relationship of Wales not just with the EU but the wider world as well, and I look forward to his return as soon as possible to the committee? Can I just correct you? You actually said that recommendations 1 and 4 were full membership of the customs union and single market. No, they didn't say that; they actually said we wanted, basically, a customs arrangement that would allow us similar agreements, and where we would have, again, unfettered access to the market. So, it's not the quite the same as the terminology you used. I just wanted to make that clear. On your issues, we do need to ensure that we do some collaborative programmes. Framework programme 9, which is a Horizon 2020 follow-on—that money needs to be utilised in Wales; we need to have access to it, our universities need to have access to it and our research industries need to have access to it, so it is important that we continue to explore that. And whilst the Cabinet Secretary talked about UK issues, it is still important that Wales looks at every opportunity we can to get engaged in that type of programme.

Neil Hamilton, can I say thank you for your kind words, first of all? It might be the nicest thing I'll say today. But, yes, you are right; producer interests are given in evidence and they are concerned about change, because they're concerned about their profitability, they're concerned about their future, they're concerned about their workers' livelihoods. There are issues that worry them when they don't know what's happening—understandable. So, that is important. We can't hide that. I don't believe it's project fear; I think it's just simply reality. Where are we going? What is happening? I think that is the issue. You say they don't think too much about customs arrangements. I'm sorry, but businesses are telling us quite the reverse. They do want to know about customs arrangements, they do want to know about the tariffs and they want to know about the non-tariff barriers. They need to know where they're going.

We were talking on Monday in our committee and people were saying that farmers in particular are not talking about what's happening next year; they're talking about what's happening in five or six years' time about what they are planning, how they're going to diversify their arrangements, their businesses, in five or six years—they need to do it now. So, that uncertainty is a problem for them. You say that no-one wants barriers—I totally agree—and that the ball's in the EU's court. Can I remind everybody in this Chamber that the EU are more concerned, at this point in time, about the multiannual financial framework and the next seven-year period than they actually are with Brexit? They're looking at their budgets, which they know are within a limited scope without UK funding, and they are deeply concerned about that. We have probably, with Brexit, gone down the list dramatically in the last six months. So, you might say that it's in the EU's court, but don't think that they're worried about us; they have other issues that they're really dealing with, and they need to look at that. I always try and produce balanced reports as well.

Mark highlighted customs, as you might've expected him to, and a special solution that suits the UK. I understand that. He talked about trucks and technology between the USA and Canada. Can I just highlight and remind him of what the chief executive of HMRC said today in the Brexit committee in Westminster? The 'max fac' solution being proposed by the UK Government will cost £20 billion a year to businesses and take, probably, five years to fully work. That is what the chief executive of HMRC has said today. So, this idea that we can have a technology solution tomorrow is not realistic, and that is being said not by me, not by business, but by the person who's actually talking about collecting it—[Interruption.]

No. No interventions, because the Member is out of time. He's going to wind up now.

I'm going to wind up. So, Dirprwy Lywydd, we will continue to scrutinise the actions of the Welsh and UK Governments in the months ahead. As the Cabinet Secretary said, this is something that is flowing; it is continually moving. We've enjoyed today's debate. We are able to make significant contributions to the national conversation on this and we will continue to do that.

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

We now move on to item 8, which is a debate on the Children, Young People and Education Committee's report, 'Flying Start: Outreach'. I call on the Chair of the committee to move the motion—Lynne Neagle.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I’m very pleased to open this debate today on the Children, Young People and Education Committee’s report on the outreach elements of the Flying Start programme.

Flying Start was introduced 11 years ago and is regarded as one of the Welsh Government’s flagship early years programmes. It is delivered by local authorities within defined geographical areas and is considered one of the Welsh Government’s top priorities for tackling poverty. The programme has four key elements: free part-time childcare for two to three-year olds, an enhanced health visiting service, access to parenting support and access to early language development support. The programme targets areas according to measures of relative disadvantage, including the Welsh index of multiple deprivation, free school meals and the proportion of children under four in households receiving income-related benefits. Flying Start therefore seeks to support the most disadvantaged families, communities and young children. Its services are universally available to all children under the age of four in the areas in which it runs.

In 2014, outreach arrangements were introduced in response to concerns that basing entitlement to the service on a family’s postcode was resulting in the exclusion of many children who were in greatest need of support. The outreach aspect of the programme was created to enable local authorities to deliver the four core elements of Flying Start to a small percentage of their population living outside designated Flying Start areas.

We chose to undertake a focused inquiry on the outreach element of Flying Start last year because respondents to our 2016 consultation on the first 1,000 days of a child’s life highlighted concerns about the programme’s reach. Whilst they supported the aims of Flying Start, they were concerned that the geographical targeting of the programme had the potential to create further inequality, by excluding a significant number of children living in poverty. In light of this, we agreed to take evidence on how effective the existing outreach work is and whether the programme should be developed to increase its reach. I would like to take this opportunity to put on record my thanks to all those who contributed written and oral evidence to this important piece of work, and to recognise the hard work of all the dedicated staff delivering Flying Start services across Wales.

So, turning to the detail of our report, we wanted to establish to what extent local authorities were using the outreach option to support children outside Flying Start areas who would benefit from its services. While we found that local authorities were making use of this flexibility to reach children outside the areas, we were disappointed to discover how limited capacity was. Betsi Cadwaladr health board highlighted that, in some counties, as few as five children would be in receipt of these outreach services due to financial constraints.

We were pleased that the light we shone on the issue of limited outreach capacity led to an increase in the flexibility to allocate funding to outreach services. During the course of our inquiry, the Minister announced that local government would be able to spend up to an additional £2.84 million on outreach with immediate effect, the equivalent of 5 per cent of the annual Flying Start budget. Nevertheless, as a committee, we remain to be convinced that 5 per cent flexibility is sufficient. With the majority of children living in poverty falling outside defined Flying Start areas, we recommended that the Minister consider extending the outreach funding flexibility beyond the 5 per cent to allow the programme to reach those most in need.

We welcome the Welsh Government’s confirmation in its response to our report that it will explore with local authorities the full implications of any further funding flexibility. We also recognise the benefits associated with geographically based programmes, not least reduction of stigma, increased socialisation and the creation of a sense of community among participants. However, it remains a matter of concern to us that, according to Public Health Wales, nearly two thirds of people who are income deprived live outside geographical areas that are defined as deprived. As such, I would welcome further detail from the Minister on the nature of the work being undertaken to assess the suitability of the 5 per cent cap in advance of the next draft budget. I would also welcome more information about the consideration he is giving to the rights of those children unable to access either Flying Start or the childcare offer if they live outside the relevant postcode area and have parents who do not work.

As a committee, we recognise that good scrutiny involves not only considering how much resource is available for a piece of work, but what effect that resource has once it is in place. To that end, we considered the work undertaken to assess the impact of the £600 million invested in Flying Start since 2007. What we found can be summarised in three key points. First, there has been extensive evaluation of Flying Start, but not specifically in relation to the outreach element. Secondly, there is a lack of data about take-up of each of the services within the Flying Start programme. Thirdly, the nature of outcomes expected from a programme like Flying Start is not easily quantifiable. They are, by their nature, longer term and difficult to isolate from other services and support provided.

The evidence we received suggested to us that more needs to be done to demonstrate the benefits of the programme. While we acknowledge information provided by stakeholders about the progress made by children who've received Flying Start support, and the fact that the programme is valued by those who are able to access it, many Government-commissioned evaluations struggle to provide empirical evidence of impact. With such a significant amount of investment made in Flying Start, we are keen to see clear evidence of its effect. While we welcome the Welsh Government’s assurances that it is looking at different ways to show the direct improvements Flying Start is making, we are keen to ensure that this work is monitored closely. We believe that this is particularly important given the large amount of money invested in this annually, with just under £80 million allocated in this financial year alone.

We are pleased that the Welsh Government has now asked local authorities to develop and collect, as part of a pilot, a consistent set of data about Flying Start children. Furthermore, we are pleased that this pilot will include the collection of data about whether children are receiving support via outreach Flying Start services or within a postcode area. We also welcome the Government’s acceptance of our request for regular updates to be provided on the data and evaluation strengthening work currently under way. We are, however, disappointed by the rejection of recommendation 6, and remain concerned that data on outreach is not collected at an all-Wales level. We believe this needs to be addressed if value for money and impact are to be comprehensively assessed, and urge the Welsh Government to reconsider this.

We welcome the Welsh Government’s agreement to provide the update requested in recommendation 7. We believe it is important for the Welsh Government to illustrate how it has monitored and reviewed the effectiveness of front-line Flying Start services, the reach of the outreach element of those services, and the availability of staff to support the programme. The last of these points is particularly important given the evidence we received about difficulties recruiting health visitors into the Flying Start scheme. We were told that this is particularly acute due to grant-based—and therefore short-term—Flying Start contracts struggling to compete with the more stable contracts offered by programmes such as Healthy Start Wales.

As with a number of the other inquiries we have undertaken during this Assembly, we are committed to returning to our findings before the next election. In our report, we commit to revisiting our inquiry in a year’s time. Our aim in undertaking this follow-up work is: to consider the evaluation and data collection processes emerging from the Welsh Government’s work in this area; to assess whether the recent revisions to outreach funding allocation are being used, where they are being used, and whether they are having a positive effect on front-line services and their reach; to reflect on whether the programme as currently structured remains appropriate in terms of overall funding allocation, services provided and criteria for entitlements; and to consider the outlook for health visitor recruitment, given concerns about capacity.

I look forward to hearing the Minister and other Members’ views on this important topic, and would like to close my opening remarks by thanking committee members for their contribution to this inquiry and their commitment to following up on the implementation of our recommendations. Thank you.

I congratulate the Chair on her exemplary introduction to the report, making clear what the policy background is to the area before moving too quickly to the areas of controversy and recommendation. Thank you.

I would like to initially say that the trade-off between a universal programme and a targeted programme is one that the Assembly has discussed in many other areas—quite recently, in our committee, on free schools meals and the targeted grants. I understand the Welsh Government's position that it is easier to deliver a programme in a targeted geographical area where the recipients can easily get to where the service is being provided, and that the universal nature reduces stigma and encourages more people to join and benefit without feeling they're being singled out. 

The 2.5 per cent for outreach has now gone up to 5 per cent. I think that's sensible and agree with the committee's conclusions. I think we were unanimous that the Welsh Government should consider expanding that further, but some of that money is being spent on kids who've been in the area, are midway through a programme, benefiting from it, and their parents move outside. It would seem extraordinary just to cut off the programme at that moment of the address change when the children may be benefiting from it.

I would ask the Minister to look at one other area, perhaps, to recommend to local authorities, but also to facilitate: allowing spending on out-of-area outreach programmes to be done on a basis so that we can judge whether the programme is working. And, yes, you can look at areas where it's available compared to areas where it's not, you can look at kids who are part of it compared to those who are not, but often you will find that the characteristics of families who engage are different to those who do not, so it will not necessarily be reliable.

Within the area, people have a right to benefit from it. Outside, it's a much smaller sum; many more people who want the programme can benefit from it. Will the Minister look at actually facilitating randomised controlled trials that will actually give us good evidence as to whether the interventions work? For instance, a number of people come forward who would like to benefit if they can and the sum that's available in the new budget, if it does go up, can then be allocated—. Are you seeking to intervene, Minister? Wonderful.

Thank you for giving way. Within the flexibility that's currently there, it's interesting to note that there are places like Swansea that are targeting it on particular groups outside of the Flying Start areas, such as the Traveller community and so on. The difficulty with monitoring the effectiveness is that the longitudinal data that you look for to see the lifelong outcomes—how do you do that? How do we come back in six months or 12 months? But it is an interesting area, because some of the benefits of these early interventions, wraparound interventions with families that most need it, may not be seen until they're in their teenage years, in their 20s and their life opportunities have been opened up there. That's the challenge, and I know he understands that.

But some of the benefits are likely to be seen in the early years at school if there are reliable benefits, and I think getting it into the SAIL system will improve the opportunities for researchers very clearly. But Welsh Government has spent £600 million on this in the last 11 years and describes it as a flagship programme. Given that scale of investment, the level of assessment and understanding as to how anything really works is not, if I may say so, good enough. The evidence from Government describes the 'robust' evaluation, but I think on page 6 it's more accurately described as the 'Evaluation evidence suggests' rather than 'shows'. It accepts that the evidence is qualitative. And, actually, can't we do better than just qualitative evidence when we've spent £600 million? The fact that children are getting better in their communication, reading and counting—well, you would expect that at that age in any event. The question is: is that pace greater than that of children who are outside the programme? The fact that almost all parents interviewed 'felt' that it had a positive impact is not a sufficient evidence base if you are spending that sum of money.

I'd like to look particularly at the parenting aspect, because Welsh Government has 100 pages of guidance to local authorities on that, and it includes an appendix B: approved list of evidence-based structured group parenting programmes. There is evidence for some parenting programmes that they do work, really good academically robust evidence, but this list of 20 different programmes: three of them haven't been evaluated at all; three of them have got the top four-star rating from the National Academy of Parenting Practitioners, now the National Academy for Parenting Research, and are very good, but five of them have only the two-star rating, and what that means is that the programme is not especially good. And if Welsh Government is putting this amount of money into a programme like this, surely we want to be putting it into areas that have been evaluated and shown to work.

I ask the Minister to have a closer look at this list of parenting programmes in particular but also to work with the Early Intervention Foundation set up by Graham Allen MP and to look at their February of this year 'Evaluating early intervention programmes—Six common pitfalls, and how to avoid them'. There is really good advice there as to how Welsh Government could improve what it's spending in this area and make sure that it's being spent as well as it could be.

I’m going to pursue a similar course in terms of this tension, and that was essentially what we were dealing with in this report—this tension between how you focus resources in order to have the best possible impact. We’re seeing this not only in Flying Start, but in other programmes. Do you restrict support to certain geographical areas or do you target a certain demographic or a group of people wherever they live? Essentially—and that’s reflected in the debate so far, I think—that was the tension that we were grappling with. And I have to say, and agree with what the Chair said at the outset—that the greatest disappointment for me was how few did benefit from the outreach in some local authorities. I refer to one local authority where only five children benefited from the outreach aspect. If you're going to try and do it both ways, and have some sort of balance, then I would expect a better balance to be struck as a result of that, because the outreach element is supposed to be a way of shifting that balance and addressing that lack of balance, and, clearly, in some areas that isn't happening as we would like to see it happening. And as we've heard, two thirds of the people with income problems live outwith the Flying Start areas, so there is a clear problem in that regard.

It's a fact that the Government, of course, has increased the cap on outreach expenditure, up to 50 per cent of the budget, during the inquiry, and that, in and of itself, has been an admission from the Minister and the Government that the balance wasn't as it should have been—that it wasn't appropriate and that it wasn't sufficient. And the committee's first recommendation asks that question as to the rationale underpinning that. Okay, if you accept that there's a need for a change to that balance, why 5 per cent? Why not 7 per cent or 10 per cent? And I know that you made reference, if I remember rightly, to the fact that that is the figure that can be vired from one programme to another, but I do think we need a better rationale that is based, perhaps, on the suggestion of piloting, trialling or trying different models in different areas, so that we can have confidence that that model or that figure is appropriate and robust.

On occasion, we have to accept, despite how crude geographical boundaries can be, with a few methods to ameliorate some of those crudities, I think we have to accept that it isn't perfect but that it's the best we may have. I certainly think that's the consensus with something like the PDG, the pupil development grant. Some have said that basing that on who qualifies for free school meals is a crude approach, and isn't sufficiently smart, but when you ask what could come in its place—well, everyone looks at each and say, 'Well, yes, that's maybe the best approach we have', and on occasion, we may have to accept that. But without that rationale underpinning the 5 per cent, I still struggle to feel that it's not a figure that's just been plucked out of the air. And I certainly want to see more impact than we have seen to date.

Now, I am encouraged by some aspects of the Government's response to these recommendations, particularly the talk of a commitment in the national strategy to creating a more interlinked and responsive system that will give a central role to the unique needs of all children. So, there is something there, I think. I'd like to hear the Minister expanding on what he means when he talks about creating one early years system that is local and national, but also that every service would collaborate and pull in the same direction. We would all support that, and it's possible, in getting that right, that that in and of itself can give us more flexibility in terms of how these services are disseminated to wider areas. If everyone is pulling in the same direction, then people may have more confidence to push those boundaries, rather than relying simply on geographical boundaries.

You also talk of an intensive building project with two public services boards that are going to look at the options. Well, that sounds to me as an opportunity to pilot various approaches. So, I'll restrict my comments to those, I think, given that the clock is against me. But I would return to this point that, at the heart of this report, there is this argument as to where we strike that balance. There wasn't a desire to go back to the geographical boundaries in the report. There wasn't a desire, truth be told, given the issues surrounding stigma and so on, to go entirely in the other direction. The question for me is: where should that balance be struck? 

I want to raise a particular matter, Dirprwy Lywydd, which I've raised before as part of this work, that relates to my constituency of Newport East, where the postcode element of eligibility for provision, notwithstanding the outreach element that partly addresses that limitation, has still resulted in two communities that are very similar—social housing in Moorland Park and Broadmead Park in Newport—having very different access to the Flying Start programme.

So, there is a Flying Start base in Moorland Park—in the Moorland Park community centre, in Newport East—and the Moorland Park social housing area has access to the provision. But Broadmead Park, which is alongside, doesn't have that access because of the postcode eligibility criterion. Although there is that outreach element, it isn't sufficient to enable that disparity to be sufficiently addressed. So, I do ask Welsh Government to look again at that element of the programme because what we discovered was that there was spare capacity in the facility in Moorland Park community centre, so the staff were in place, the facilities were there, which would enable them to help more children and more families, but they weren't able to do that because of that postcode limitation. So, I think it's a stark illustration of not the best use of capacity and resource, and it does need to be addressed.

I'd like first to thank all the people and organisations who gave evidence to the committee as part of our inquiry, and also to the committee clerks who do such a sterling job of supporting the committee's work. 

In the opening of its response, the Government says:

'We want children from all backgrounds to have the best start in life.'

We do all want that, but the question is whether Flying Start, despite the flexibility that the Minister has tried to introduce, is the best way to provide that support. There are some children in non-Flying Start areas who do need this help, but are not getting it because they happen to live in the wrong postcode. Even the most affluent areas have pockets of poverty, and the children living in them are having their needs ignored. So, it seems to me that using geography as the criteria to offer this support does seem to be rather a crude tool to use.

Replying to recommendation 2, the Minister says that there are ongoing considerations of the additional flexibility for outreach given to local authorities, and I would really, really be interested to see the Minister come back and report on that investigation to the Assembly. I think its findings may well be very interesting. I'd also be very interested to hear the Minister's view of the relative pros and cons of geographic targeting versus other ways of targeting the funding to achieve the desired outcomes of Flying Start.

Of course, Flying Start may well be effective in making a positive difference to some people's lives, but without proper evaluation of both the need for the initiative, the level of outreach and its outcomes, we can't be certain if we're reaching everyone who needs the help, and if we are, how effective that help actually is.

I get the point about reducing the amount of reporting that local authorities have to do, but if Welsh Government is giving flexibility to local authorities, why not collect the data to assess whether the strategy of offering flexibility instead of reforming Flying Start is an effective one? In his response to recommendation 1, the Minister seems to have fulfilled the recommendations by giving an explanation of the process, but the processes described seem a little bit 'guesstimate-y' of the necessary percentage of the flexibility, following discussions with some, but not all, local authorities.

I'm concerned that that process doesn't seem to have been based on a solid evidence base, and so there's the concern that the chosen percentage will still not be sufficient. The Minister says in the response that there will be further discussions with local authorities, but which local authorities will those be, if not all of them, and what will the process be for adjusting the percentage? I would hope that it would be quite a logical evidence-based process. I'd be interested to hear what the Minister sees as the benefits and disadvantages of the method he's using for assessing whether the current percentage of flexibility and funding for outreach is sufficient.

It's all very well asking for feedback from the people who are taking part—it's a very worthy exercise and you're going to get some good information from that—but we really need a proper evaluation of the needs of those who aren't able to take part, to see if they should be able to take part in Flying Start, and what the costs and logistical implications are going to be. And to that end, it's regrettable that the Minister has rejected recommendation 6. Not gathering Wales-wide data isn't really an excuse not to monitor whether there's too much regional divergence. Surely Welsh Government's role is to oversee the system and reduce unnecessary divergence between regions. How else can you monitor regional divergence and make sure everyone who needs Flying Start is able to access it, and that no family's falling through the net, as is probably happening at the the moment?

Many people will be concerned that cash-strapped local authorities are unlikely to perform many functions or offer services that they're not even measured against or monitored on. So, surely, by rejecting the idea that local authorities should report any changes to service provision may well be a signal to them that Welsh Government are not fully committed to Flying Start and it's okay for local authorities to take their eye off the ball on this initiative. I'm really, really sure that that's not your intention, Minister, but how are you going to prevent local authorities from taking the excuse to give themselves a little bit of leeway? We deserve to know that the project's being effective, but more importantly, Welsh families who need help, regardless of the geographical area they live in, deserve the best that you can do for them.

So, finally, without proper monitoring and evaluation, we can't be certain that people are getting the help they need, and I would urge the Minister to accept the recommendations he has rejected and fully accept, not just in principle, all the other recommendations of the report. Thank you.

I read your report with interest, as I'm not a member of the committee, but I used to manage a Sure Start programme, so I have a particular interest in the importance of outreach. I was a bit disappointed, then, when I read it that you didn't focus on the effectiveness of outreach within the geographical borders of Flying Start, as that, to me, is one of the most significant issues when assessing whether or not Flying Start is reaching those in greatest need.

I appreciate that both midwives and health visitors have statutory duties and, indeed, powers to engage with pregnant women and babies and toddlers, and therefore some universal contact has to be assumed with all mothers and babies in the area; however, the most marginalised families will be unlikely to engage with Stay and Play, parenting skills workshops and the like unless there is deliberate effort made to bring them along. And I don't know, from reading this report, whether this is happening.

But, we know that there is a wealth of research that families suffering from ante and postnatal depression, mothers who’ve had previous adverse childhood experiences and those who are in an abusive relationship are far less likely to engage in services designed to break down the isolation and loneliness that can go with being a parent. It is much easier for those without additional challenges involved who are more likely to engage. So, this remains a question in my mind and I'd like to hear from the Chair, in their summing up, what emphasis is being placed on this, because I think this remains a big question mark in my mind.

The emphasis you put on outreach to those who're outside the Flying Start area, while laudable in some respects, is in danger of diluting the service that is being delivered to people in the most deprived areas that Flying Start is targeting. Yes, lower super-output areas are a very crude way of doing things; it's a planner's delight because it gives you equal portions, but it doesn't respect the nuances of individual estates. In my own Flying Start areas, I've got half an estate, quite an impoverished estate, that's not in Flying Start and the other half is. I've got a new private housing development, in the main, in the Flying Start area and very deprived communities outside it. So, it's not a perfect way of devising things. Nevertheless, it's what we've got and I strongly support the Government's targeting of support to the most deprived communities.

I think it's perfectly sensible to provide some continuity of support to children who have to move out of Flying Start areas, because one of the aspects of being deprived is that you move more often; you are more mobile; you are likely to be going to several schools rather than just one. And I would expect a child with enduring needs, whether they're in a Flying Start area or not, if they're moving from south Wales to north Wales, that they will be referred on to the relevant professionals who're going to understand the support that this family needs if they have to move.

I think, also, allowing Flying Start teams to target particular communities of interest, such as refuges, homeless hostels, Traveller communities, asylum seeker children—in my area—would all benefit from Flying Start support, and that, I think, is sensible—to have that level of flexibility in the programme. And I think, clearly, the points made by John Griffiths about Moorland Park and an adjacent area, if it's within walking distance for these other families to go to the Moorland Park area, I don't understand why that isn't happening now, given the increased flexibility has been in place since last year. But, for my mind, the Peckham principle still has to apply, which is that there is no point having a service that is not within pram-pushing distance of a family who don't have access to a car, and often don't even have the bus fare to travel beyond that.

I particularly look forward to recommendation 7, to allow us to have more information about the benefits that have been got from this £600 million investment. Because we still don't have an answer. I agree with Mark, in that it is very tentative, the educational evaluation that was done. We still don't know whether there is a measurable and beneficial outcome in educational attainment, and we need to. Is Flying Start defying the Education Policy Institute evidence that says that poor bright kids do worse than dim rich kids unless we have the appropriate interventions—mainly around high-quality integrated early education? So, I look forward to the outcome of the rapid review and will keep an eye on this in the future.

I have Flying Start areas in my constituency, areas such as Churchill Park, Graig-y-Rhacca, Lansbury Park, the Park estate in Bargoed, Senghenydd and the Trecenydd estate, and I've seen those benefits—what the Chamber might have described today as 'anecdotally'. I've seen the benefits of Flying Start.

My only contribution to the debate over recommendation 6 would be that understanding an impact of a programme makes it easier in the long term to defend, and therefore having that understanding and building that understanding makes it easier for those who believe in the programme to defend it at a later date. I think at the back of my mind is Communities First, and some of the debate that happened over that. So I think it's important that the Minister's able to provide as much evidence as possible, whether that's longitudinal data or all-Wales feedback. I would like a bit more discussion, I think, in the Minister's response, on recommendation 6, and I think Members around this Chamber have reflected that today.

Also, in response to recommendation 7, the Minister's reaffirmed the Welsh Government's commitment to an update to the committee in October with reservations, but I think that again demonstrates the committee's desire to continually pursue this quest for information about this programme, and those of us who believe in it strongly feel that it will actively protect the programme.

Flying Start outreach has a particularly important role to play as the Welsh Government rolls out its manifesto pledge of free childcare for three and four-year-olds for working parents across Wales. I note the children's commissioner called for the childcare offer to be extended to non-working parents, which, if you turn that on its head, would mean effectively extending Flying Start to working parents as well, and extending Flying Start universally, which would be, again, notwithstanding the information issue, a wonderful thing to do in my view, but it was a very specific manifesto pledge that was offered, and the funding constraints are far too severe to do this, and therefore I think the report is working within those constraints of outreach. If we had more money, we wouldn't do this, but the constraints of outreach mean that we have to do it this way.

What will be crucial is that we ensure that Flying Start is provided to all those who are eligible and all those who need support get it and don't miss out.

I'd like to thank the Chair, Lynne Neagle, and the Children, Young People and Education Committee for undertaking a valuable piece of work and shining a light on this aspect of the Flying Start programme. I also note with interest the response from the Welsh Government. One of the driving forces for being in politics, I would hope, for everybody in this room, is to help in whatever way to eradicate poverty within our communities, however much worsened this has been through the ongoing UK austerity agenda. We know that Flying Start and its groundbreaking outreach programme makes a vital contribution to the Welsh Labour Government's national strategy 'Prosperity for All', which strongly identifies the early years as a priority area. I do wholeheartedly welcome the internationally recognised good practice of Flying Start, both in Islwyn, where I've seen the difference on the ground in the council estate that I live in, and throughout Wales, and I welcome the specific work of the committee on this aspect of the programme. 

Flying Start, as we know, is currently being delivered to over 37,000 children under four years of age living in some of the most deprived areas of Wales via a place-based mechanism. That equates to around 25 per cent of all children under the age of four in Wales. It is right that a place-based approach, with flexibility around lower super-output areas, which does take into account sub-ward level data, is used around the WIMD data. So, will the Cabinet Secretary expand on how Welsh Government can effectively offer a sensible level of monitoring of the programme, without adding burdensome bureaucracy? Because this programme has had clear discernable outcomes for families in poverty, and there is often an inclination to seek immediate hard outcomes with such programmes, and it's always difficult to measure the softer outcomes of self-esteem and confidence—often not in place for many years to come. 

So, I do believe, to speak across the Chamber, if I may, that it is right to ask the parents, and also to write to the Welsh Government seeking to reduce the reporting burden on local authorities, and that Welsh Government has reduced and streamlined, as has been asked for many times with this programme, and that—[Interruption.] I haven't got time, unfortunately. This was widely welcomed and called for during this programme roll-out. So, finally, can the Cabinet Secretary then outline how we can work smarter to achieve even more in this groundbreaking measure, alongside our partners in local government, without adding to their already data-heavy workload, but better targeting all those in need across Wales?

Thank you. Can I now call on the Minister for Children, Older People and Social Care, Huw Irranca-Davies? 

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Dirprwy Lywydd. Thank you very much indeed. Can I thank, first of all, all those who have contributed to the debate today, those on the committee and those who weren't, but also to committee members and the Chair as well for turning a forensic light onto this? This is a flagship programme. It is, as I think has just been remarked, remarked upon internationally as evidence of good practice in family and early years intervention, and I have to say that the Government stands four-square behind it. But the committee has allowed us an opportunity, I have to say, to look at it, particularly on the outreach element, and see, 'Well, could we do things differently? Could we evaluate it differently? Could we do things better?' But let me just put the context of this—Llyr and others turned to this—the context of what we're doing in Wales, compared to what's happening over the border—. No, I'm not doing this for a political reason, but I notice that the Pre-school Learning Alliance, the Sutton Trust and Action for Children have looked at what's happened with the closure of around about 1,000 Sure Start centres, which are a similar model over there, which at one time themselves were groundbreaking and landmarking. The founder of the Sutton Trust, Sir Peter Lampl, said:

'Good quality early years provision makes a substantial difference in the development of children especially those who come from the poorest homes. It is a serious issue that the services that Sure Start centres offer are much more thinly spread than they were'. 

So, it comes to this question of the balance between focusing down on to targeted groups, recognising that there will be some outside, and then: can you make the funding that is currently available—because there is no magic money tree—stretch a little bit further, along with the other programmes that the Welsh Government supports and provides as well, including Families First, team around the family, et cetera, et cetera? Can we also pull those into the support as well?

The programme is based on sound evidence that shows that investment in the early years of children from disadvantaged areas will have an improved impact on their health and their educational outcomes, and longer term, this investment improves the life skills and ultimately narrows that gaps in outcomes for those living in poverty. Hefin, you were absolutely right in saying, where these have been established for a long time—it isn't only anecdotal; I've got one in my patch that's been 13 years going—we know that for the children and the families who benefit from Flying Start we have tangible outcomes, such as the narrowing in the educational attainment gap between those and families of more affluence living outside. So, it's not only anecdotal, but we do need to do more, and I'll turn to that in a moment.

Evaluating evidence already suggests the programme is making a real difference. In the recent qualitative evaluation—and qualitative is good, by the way; it's not weak, it's good research—parents identified a range of improvements in the children's development, and that included talking, reading, counting, as well as improved behaviour and attitudes. The Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists in Wales concurred with my view, and they said that when considering the impact of Flying Start on educational outcomes, those children supported by the programme being able to achieve the same outcomes as children outside of areas of high deprivation can itself be deemed a measure of success. And I agree with that.

Whilst Flying Start is indeed the Welsh Government's flagship early years programme, it's not the only intervention. The support targeted at improving children's early years outcomes comes from other interventions as well—so, that whole family approach through Families First, which focuses on early intervention, prevention, providing tailored multi-agency support to families with children of all ages. This programme is making a real difference itself, improving those life chances, helping families become more confident, more resilient, more independent.

The Healthy Child Wales universal scheduled health visiting and school nursing contacts, for every child from nought to seven, will be available across all health boards by October, with enhanced intensive interventions delivered to those families and children with increased levels of need. And, of course, as we know, all children in Wales have access to the foundation phase, and our enhanced childcare offer for working parents of three to four-year-olds is currently being rolled out. All—all—of our early years programmes are intended to support children and their families to bring about the best long-term outcomes, but we do want to go further.

Now, reflecting the commitment in the national strategy, an extensive programme of work is under way to explore how we can create that co-ordinated single early years system at the local and the national level. So, we are working, via an intensive co-constructed project with Cwm Taf Public Services Board, to explore options to reconfigure the system for the early years. We'll learn from this, and we'll develop and share the ideas around this more widely in due course.

As I've said, Flying Start is a key component in delivering this vision. I therefore very much welcome the decision by the Children, Young People and Education Committee to hold the inquiry into Flying Start outreach. My written response to the committee's report I can't go through in the time available, but it sets out my detailed reply to the report's seven recommendations, and, as you know, I've fully accepted or partially accepted all but one of them.

Let me turn to that, because a few people mentioned it, and, actually, with different views on it, curiously. Because recommendation 6 was requesting additional monitoring—regular monitoring reports—detailing any revisions to service provision by local authorities. We couldn't agree to this—we did consider it, but couldn't agree to it—for increased monitoring reports on potential regional diversion in approaches to intervention resulting from the additional flexibility that we're now giving, because that additional flexibility has been requested from local authorities. They've also requested at the same time, 'Can you please not increase the burden on it while you're doing it? Can we have the flexibility and let us get on with it?' So, our commitment is to reduce rather than increase the reporting burden on local authorities. Over the last 12 to 18 months, we've been working with those local authorities to reduce and streamline the amount of data to lessen the burden, focusing on what data is considered necessary to produce the annual Flying Start statistical bulletin. But I have instead agreed to address this as part of our next evaluation update to the committee, okay, so we will come back to that.

Now, Flying Start is over a decade old. In some places, like my own, there are examples of where it's 13 years old, going on 14 years old. It is, therefore, an opportune time to reflect on its many successes as well as to review the current early years landscape, in which the programme is a key player. Indeed, at the end of 2017, I agreed that my officials should undertake a review of Flying Start to ensure it remains fit for purpose as we move forward into its second decade.

We want to build on the considerable achievements of the programme and learn from what works, not least how we can deepen the partnership, the collaboration and the multi-agency working across sectors in support of young children and their families. Fundamental to this is the need to work with those on the ground delivering Flying Start to ensure that their expertise, their experience, is brought to bear as part of this review. It is vital that any changes are fully and thoroughly considered and well managed, so we learn from where this is working well and we develop models of good practice to share more widely. Work is progressing well on this, and I anticipate being able to update Members on the progress of this review later this year.

The committee's inquiry and report are, therefore, very timely and a helpful contributor to this wider review. Your findings have provided a helpful insight into the specific element of outreach, which is an important part of what makes Flying Start the vital programme it has proven to be. Just on that outreach element, whilst the upgrade—the extension—to 5 per cent happened during the committee process, I think we'll have to look at how well different areas are using that, and whether they're fully using it as well. John, your point is interesting—I think it's worth going back, looking at individual areas, and Members should go back and say, 'How are we using this locally? How are we doing that flexibility that the Minister has given?'

But the outreach element does provide a degree of flexibility for local authorities to provide support to children and their families and targeted groups with identified need living outside designated Flying Start areas. And it also provides continuity of support to children and families moving out of those areas, or to bridge the gap to receiving other services provision.

So, in conclusion, Dirprwy Lywydd—diolch yn fawr—we will use the review of Flying Start and the work to reconfigure the early years system to explore options available around outreach. The committee's recommendations will form part of this work, and our review, including any further flexibility around outreach, must be underpinned by this deep collaboration with local authorities, learning from good practice and ensuring there are no unintended consequences regarding the overall integrity of this landmark programme that is so well regarded internationally. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Thank you. Can I now call on the Chair of the committee, Lynne Neagle, to reply to the debate?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and can I thank everybody who has contributed to this debate? It's been an excellent and very useful debate, much of which has reflected some of the tensions that are apparent in the report, really. Mark Reckless began by talking about the trade-off between universal and targeted provision, and that is something that is very much at the heart of this report.

Mark, along with a number of other Members, expressed concern at the rejection of recommendation 6, as did Michelle Brown and Hefin David. I think the Minister will have heard today that there is clearly a view that, although we don't want to increase the burden on local authorities, we do need to get more information on how this money is being spent.

Llyr Gruffydd highlighted that friction, again, but also the committee wanting to know more, really, about how the 5 per cent has come about, and that is one of the issues that is the heart of this really—around how we're actually evaluating what the need is and what we're doing with the very significant spend that is involved here.

John Griffiths referred to an example that he used during the inquiry around the fact that Moorland Park families do benefit from Flying Start while Broadmead families, just across the road, can't. Jenny was frustrated about why they couldn't just walk across the road to use them, but the fact is that they're not funded to have that provision, so that's why they can't. But it's a very graphic example of where the system is falling down and what we need to try to address.

Michelle Brown spoke about the geographical tensions again, but also the issue of evaluation, which has been really key to our consideration of this report. It is undoubtedly the case that there have been lots of evaluations, but we still don't really know as much information as we need to know, and that's why the initiatives that the Minister has announced, which will, hopefully, refine some of that information, will be really valuable.

Jenny Rathbone talked about the importance of the outreach element of Flying Start within the Flying Start designated areas. Well, the committee inquiry wasn't intended to look at that. It was a very focused inquiry on what we are doing outside the geographical areas, but what I would say is what you've highlighted about midwives and health visitors is very important, because because the programme only measures the number of people who have contact with health visitors, and everybody already has a health visitor if you've got a child, we are not getting to the heart of the data, so we don't know how many other families have taken up the speech and language assistance, how many have taken up parenting, and that is the kind of information that we need to get to find out how many families are benefiting from this programme in the round. 

Thank you, Hefin, for adding to the concerns about recommendation 6, which the committee has been clear we'd like to see the Minister look at again. 

Rhianon Passmore spoke very positively about her experience of Flying Start in her area, and I have also seen that in my own patch, and I feel as conflicted as many other people, really, because you know that so little of our money is targeted geographically in Wales, and that's important, but you also recognise that we need to make sure that those families who really need it can benefit as well.

Can I thank the Minister for his response and for his engagement with the committee and his ongoing commitment to do that? We will be returning to this, and we are optimistic that some of the measures that he's announced will, hopefully, get us the information that we are looking for, bearing in mind that these aren't easy things to actually evaluate. How can you also evaluate what it would be like if Flying Start wasn't there? So, we've got families that are doing as well as families in more affluent areas and that is, undoubtedly, in some part down to Flying Start.

Can I just close, then, by thanking all the Members of the committee for their continued support and engagement on this and also by thanking our excellent clerking and research team, who, as always, have been absolutely brilliant? It's been an excellent debate, and I'm sure the whole committee is looking forward to returning to this and to ensuring that that very significant spend is delivering for all our children in Wales. Thank you.

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

And we now move to the short debate. I call on Nick—. [Interruption.] If you are going out the Chamber, can you go, please, quickly, or I shall ask you to stay and listen to the short debate? I now will call Nick Ramsay to speak on the topic he has chosen. Nick Ramsay.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Can I firstly say that I started planning this short debate before my own paternal situation changed, so I'm not motivated purely by self interest in bringing some of these issues to this Chamber today?

I principally want to talk to you today about the Dads Can project in south-east Wales, which I first became aware of when I visited Monmouthshire Housing Association's headquarters earlier this year and got the chance to meet the excellent, dedicated staff based there. One of those, Katie Double, the Dads Can co-ordinator, introduced me to the project, its hopes, its aims and its success story. Katie is a passionate advocate for fathers everywhere and I know that there are—I can see you waving, yes—other members of the Dads Can team from Monmouthshire housing in the gallery today, so thank you for coming. Can I also say that this isn't about down-playing at all the necessary support that is out there for mothers? It's about filling a gap in support services where we think a gap exists. With statistics demonstrating that three quarters of suicides are by males, one in three children grow up without a father, divorce rates cost every taxpayer approximately £1,500 a year, and 15-year-olds are today more likely to have a smartphone than a father at home, Dads Can goes a long way in supporting families to become more stable and more cohesive.

The project primarily aims to address the gender inequalities experienced by dads through helping them to achieve a brighter future and to become positive role models in their children's lives. Dads Can reduces the impact of traumatic events experienced by families. Adverse childhood experiences create an increased risk to children's future development, and therefore the project focuses on breaking this generational cycle through emotional support and embedding positive behavioural change. The project uses a coaching approach to support dads in identifying solutions to problems they face such as low self esteem, mental ill health, relationship breakdown, access to children and negative lifestyle choices. A network of support has been created through peer mentoring, role modelling, advocacy and brokering relationships with local support providers. They also provide advice and guidance and opportunities to access family enrichment programmes.

Times are changing: traditional modes of masculinity have been replaced in favour of a more equal society. However, in many spheres, the role of fatherhood has too often been overlooked. Through providing support in non-judgmental and safe environments, dads are able to open up and discuss their problems, which they may not feel comfortable addressing in other fora. Now, as a result of services being often understandably mother-focused, some dads can feel isolated during their child's early years, so it's no surprise to find that a quarter of fathers experience depression in the first year, which almost always goes undiagnosed. Early years services are predominantly provided by females, creating a female-orientated environment—again, understandable in many respects, but this does mean that some dads find it difficult stepping into that environment. Dads Can's work of co-delivering some of these sessions means that dads have had effective engagement in these programmes.

The project works in partnership with a local law firm, which has provided over £30,000 pro bono legal advice and representation to fathers in my constituency in south-east Wales. A quarter of fathers involved have gained or improved access to their children over the past year thanks to the initiative. Dads Can has received queries from across south Wales and even as far as London. What's become obvious is that, when fathers feel that they have nowhere else left to turn, they often turn to Dads Can. Just to go through some of the statistics—only a few: 94 per cent of dads have reported they feel more confident and better supported because of the scheme; 84 per cent feel that they have a better ability to influence their futures and manage change; and 79 per cent have now effectively engaged with other providers due to the intervention of the project at Monmouthshire Housing. 

The work not only provides a helping hand to fathers and their families, but much time is also spent running peer mentoring group sessions in the community, supporting other initiatives such as developing forest school sites, doing tasks such as gardening for the community, and also restoring historical woodland areas, such as dry stone walling, for instance, in the Wye Valley. In fact, on my most recent outing with the team, I was with a group of dads and their children who were planting bedding plants at a farm just outside Abergavenny. I even did end up doing a little bit of gardening myself, although, because I was in a suit, it did look highly inappropriate and, dare I say, a bit naff. If you're wondering why I had stains when I came into the Assembly afterwards, it was from my gardening experience. Next time, I shall go equipped with jeans and wellington boots.

Here are a few things that dads and partners have had to say about the scheme. Dawn Moore, first of all, from integrated family support services:

'I found Dads Can a very useful project for fathers who do not know where to start with support and are often reluctant to engage with support. Having a service dedicated to dads helps overcome stigma, it supports them to link up with other services, and ultimately can only help in supporting them to be better fathers for their children.'

Kay Perrott, from ETLP solicitors:

'Without a project like this many fathers are left with nowhere to turn and without the vital support that they desperately need.'

And dad, Ben Beynon, he said:

'This organisation means so much to me. If it wasn’t for Dads Can I wouldn’t have anyone to talk to in confidence for support morally and emotionally.'

The scheme has been recently recognised for the difference its progress has made across the Gwent area through being selected as a finalist for the UK housing award 2018 in the category of outstanding approach to equality and diversity. In fact, this debate was postponed from its previous scheduled slot, because I know the whole team were in London for that event, having been nominated for that. So, that was the reason why it was postponed. ITV news also recently covered the story and I was pleased to give an interview to them about my experiences talking to the team and also talking to the dads who have received so much support from it.

So, the project has gone from strength to strength in a very short space of time. It's been an immense success story to date, and I've been pleased to be involved with it, but what of the future? And this is where you come in, Minister. As well as already having spoken to you about the scheme—'Oh no', he says—up until now, I know you've been positive towards it. There are a couple of things I'd like to ask you in concluding this short debate. The funding for the project comes to an end early next spring. There is an application for a successor programme in the pipeline, called Family Man—not Family Guy, I hasten to add, but Family Man. That, I think, is already looking like it will be a very positive project for the future and an excellent successor to what we've seen hitherto. So, Minister, can I ask you to look favourably on successor programmes to projects like Dads Can so that the positive benefits of the past two years can be preserved moving into the future? 

Also, I think it would be beneficial if the Welsh Government looked at ways of building on the good practice that's been achieved and developed in my neck of the woods, so that other areas of Wales may also benefit from these types of projects, successor projects and similar schemes, whatever form other parts of Wales may want to look at implementing. 

In conclusion, Presiding Officer, I've been very pleased to be involved with this project to date. I very much hope it's success will continue and we can go on providing dads in Monmouthshire and across Wales with the support they and their children need now and in future. 

I didn't hear you indicate a minute to anybody. Did you propose a minute to somebody? 

Yes—Neil McEvoy. I'll still give him a minute of the debate.

Neil, okay. Yes. Neil McEvoy, then, a minute. 

Thanks. Yes, I'd just like to congratulate those involved with the project up there and also Nick for raising this as a short debate. I think there are huge gaps in provision. I get men in my office traumatised by many events that they go through. There is no provision for those men, especially those who are victims of domestic abuse because there's just nowhere for them to turn. Many of them are excluded from their children's lives. Schools will routinely exclude dads—routinely—they won't get school letters, they don't know when the concerts are, they don't know when parents evening happens. Equally, doctors surgeries will routinely exclude men and refuse them information on their children, and some A&Es have done that as well. This is all factual, based on actual casework and experience. There's a lot of, I would say, institutionalised discrimination against dads.

I'll say this now with a very personal comment about me being a dad as well. I grew up in the 1970s on a council estate and I was the only brown face around in those days, and I got very used to being called certain things and being treated in a certain way. And in my adult life, I got very accustomed to being treated, as I said, in a certain way, even in employment situations. But what I've experienced as a dad makes a whole lifetime of racism pale into insignificance with the discrimination that I've faced by simply wanting to be a father. So, I'm really glad that Nick has brought this up. I would thank, actually, those up there campaigning and carrying out these kinds of projects.

These kinds of projects are crying out for funding and you've got other charities, like Both Parents Matter; they do great work. We need to start to discuss this issue of the value of fathers and the ability for dads to play roles in their children's lives without the prejudice that I sometimes encounter in this building. Thanks. 

Can I now call the Minister for Children, Older People and Social Care, Huw Irranca-Davies?

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, and thank you, Nick, too. I'm pleased to respond to this short debate. One of the pleasures of being children's Minister is to meet children and their parents in all parts of Wales. I know that the vast majority of parents—like myself and you too, Nick, and others—want to ensure the best possible outcomes for their children and that they work hard to support them. 

Now, the points that you've just made on the importance of supporting dads in their role were very well made. The organisation Dads Can will be pleased that they've got a champion here in this Welsh Parliament to highlight their achievements, celebrate their work in this Parliament of Wales and to advocate as well, as you've just done, for their future ambitions as well. It's lovely to have them in the gallery here this evening. 

Now, we know that parents come from many different backgrounds, cultures, beliefs—families come in many and different and varied forms. But research tells us one very important thing they all have in common is that they are the greatest influence on their children's lives. The evidence, indeed, also shows that dads who are interested and supportive of their children can make a truly positive difference to their outcomes. These children are more likely to have better language development, higher educational attainment, fewer behavioural problems and be more all-round resilient. Advances in neuroscience have shown the significance of positive stimulation and nurturing from mums and dads during the first 1,000 days of brain development. And in their school years, a dad's involvement has a big impact on a child's achievements and ambitions.

Supportive dads and mums also have a key role as a buffer against adversity. Without protective factors and the support from a strong and nurturing parent, those stressful, traumatic experiences that do occur during childhood—adverse childhood experiences, which Nick has referred to in the work of Dads Can—may cause problems both immediately early on and later throughout life.

And the couple relationship, whether, quite frankly, parents are together or apart, is also an important factor. When conflict between parents is not resolved, it can put a child's mental health and long-term life chances at risk, but we also know that where it's handled well, the adverse impacts are minimised. That's why supporting families and parenting are at the heart of our agenda as a Government. And as Members here will be aware, one of the five key priority areas in the strategy 'Prosperity for All' is early years. And key to this is the role of all parents—mums and dads. We want children from all backgrounds to have the very best start in life, to reach their potential and to lead healthy, prosperous, fulfilling lives. So, this financial year, I've committed £325,000 to support our parenting 'Give it Time' campaign, and the campaign provides good-quality information to help parents develop positive parenting skills, through the website, Facebook, the digital advertising and a range of materials. And we're not telling parents, by the way, how to raise their children; what we're doing is promoting positive parenting strategies and providing tips even on handling specific issues like toddler tantrums—we've all had them; as a parent myself—potty training, and so on and so on. And parenting support, we know, the evidence shows that it can give both mums and dads a greater understanding of child development and provide ideas of how to praise and reward their child, how to set limits, how to handle misbehaviour, and without resorting, I have to say, to physical punishment.

Supporting individuals to adopt positive parenting styles is an integral part of both our Flying Start and the Families First programmes. But, sometimes, parents are unable to live together, and we know that parental separation affects many children and their families across Wales. Private law cases involving separating parents often involve disputes over child-related arrangements—for example, where the child should live and who he or she should see. It is important that families are provided with support when parental separation occurs in order to help them remain focused on the needs of their child rather than the dispute between themselves. And the child always has to be at the centre of our concerns. We fully support the principle that a child is entitled to a meaningful relationship with both parents following family separation where it's safe and in the child's best interests. And supporting the couple relationship, whether they're together or apart, is very important. It's why it's a growing feature of our family support programmes. Last year, we provided funding to train the family support workforce so they're better able to embed parental conflict support in the wider services for families.

Now, while local authorities have responsibility for deciding the precise nature of local service delivery, we do expect them to be steered by our parenting support guidance, which places an emphasis on services that work holistically for the whole family. The focus of our guidance is not only on what parenting support to provide, but also on how it should be provided. It includes practical strategies for accommodating the particular needs of fathers. And, as Nick has outlined, they can, for a variety of reasons, be less engaged than mothers in family support, sometimes for the reasons I've outlined already. So, the guidance, therefore, gives practitioners lots of ideas for engaging fathers, which are based on published research from fathers themselves as well and from practitioners experienced in working in the field with dads. We expect local authorities to actively promote family support services to dads and support their engagement. And there are some really good examples of where they're providing dedicated groups specifically tailored to the needs of dads. So, in Swansea, for example, they have a supportive dads programme, and they have a dads community group, very much in the style, actually, of the Dads Can project that we're discussing here tonight. And recently, I congratulated Swansea on receiving a Royal College of Midwives award for their excellent Jigsaw project. It's a joint Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board and Swansea local authority project, jointly funded through Families First and Flying Start, and it provides women and their partners, during pregnancy and until their child's third birthday, with support. It's been hugely successful in increasing, for example, rates of breastfeeding, reducing rates of smoking, and it has also reported a number of families no longer needing support from statutory services. So, it's win-wins all around.

But local authorities, Nick, have responsibility for deciding the precise nature of local service delivery, depending on local circumstances and identified needs within their own areas. So, with that in mind, and hearing the strong representations that he has made this evening, and the celebration of the work of Dads Can, I urge the Member for Monmouthshire to liaise with the local authority to understand whether Dads Can, or similar projects, could help meet the needs that they have identified in their area. 

To conclude, Deputy Presiding Officer, I want to repeat that I appreciate the importance of the work that mothers and fathers do, and that's why the Government is providing a variety of interventions to support them in delivering this crucial work. I am entirely committed to ensuring that we continue to provide the best possible services to families the length and breadth of Wales.

Thank you very much, Nick, for bringing this to the attention of the Senedd.

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