Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

I call Members to order. 

The first item on our agenda this afternoon is questions to the First Minister, and the first question is from Helen Mary Jones. 

The UK Government budget did nothing to repair the damage inflicted by nearly a decade of cuts to our budget.

I, like, I'm sure, many Members in this Chamber have received a great deal of correspondence from local government leaders particularly, most recently from Emlyn Dole, leader of Carmarthenshire County Council, about the pressures on local council budgets because of the consequences both of your draft budget and of the Westminster Government budget. You did, I think, commit to the councils being, I think, first in the queue should there be any additional resources for Wales from the UK budget. When are the councils likely to see the money that you've promised?

We hope to give informal indications within the next fortnight. It's not the case that every single penny of consequential will go to local government, but they are very much in our minds, and, as I said, they are first in the queue. We understand the difficulties that they face. We've had to take, of course, very difficult decisions in terms of what we have not been able to do, in order to make sure that the cut in local government funding wasn't as severe as it otherwise might have been, but those discussions are ongoing and we want to see what we can do in order to help local government, although it will still be tough. 

Well, First Minister, looking on the bright side, the UK Government's budget will see an extra £551 million coming to Wales over three years, an average uplift between 2015 and 2020 of over 4 per cent in real terms. Can I concur with the question and issue raised by Helen Mary Jones about the local authorities? We also know that around £26 million of that money from the UK budget is a result of the UK Government's extra support for businesses, reducing business rates for businesses with a rateable value of up to £50,000 by a third. We know Welsh businesses have been crying out for greater support here. Will you give a commitment to use that consequential money to further reduce the burden on Welsh businesses?

Well, let's knock down that £550 million-odd consequential that's been alleged there. I can say that more than half of the funding that was announced had already been announced. It's money that has already been spent. It's been spent on pay and pension decisions. There has been a cut of £32 million from the money originally pledged as part of the NHS seventieth anniversary celebrations. So, it means that our consequential in reality this year is somewhere in the region of £60 million in revenue and £2.6 million in capital. Well, thanks a bunch for that; that's marvellous. So, once again, a magnificent example of spin by the UK Government that's not borne out by actual figures. What I can say to him is that we are awaiting the exact details of the business rates relief fund that's proposed in England, because, so far, those details have not been made available. 

First Minister, we know that the Welsh Government has a proud record of supporting small businesses here in Wales with generally a more generous package of rate relief, and has supported more small businesses than anywhere else in the UK. I note that, in the recent UK budget, the Chancellor announced additional rate relief for small retail businesses in England, who will see their rates cut by a third for two years from April 2019. What analysis has the Welsh Government given to how it can respond to this to make sure it still offers a generous package of support that meets the needs of small businesses in my constituency of Cynon Valley and across Wales?

The Member is right to say that we are committed to supporting businesses in Wales. We have provided in the course of this year around £210 million of rates relief to support businesses and other ratepayers. Those reliefs are available to all those ratepayers who meet the criteria. We note, of course, the Chancellor's announcement. We have yet to see what that will mean in terms of a consequential. We do not know either how that system will actually work in England. When we have those details, of course, we can give the matter further consideration. 

We've worked with our higher education funding council and Welsh universities to understand the impact of potential changes to EU student recruitment. Of course, universities as autonomous institutions will be undertaking their own assessments and developing contingency plans for a range of scenarios.

Thank you for that answer, First Minister. With only weeks left for the Brexit negotiations to be concluded, we're still faced with continuing and huge uncertainty in so many areas, including our higher education system. I'm told that applications from EU students are down across Wales, but, for those EU students actually accepting places at the University of South Wales, which of course includes Merthyr college in my constituency, the figure is some 33 per cent. There's no doubt that this is going to impact on university and college finances, the sustainability of jobs in the sector and on many local economies. So, do you share my concerns about these recent recruitment figures, and what more can we do to help our university sector through this period of uncertainty?

Well, through working, as I said, with the higher education funding council, we're assessing what the effects will be. It is right to say that we have seen 22 per cent fewer EU domiciles placed at Welsh providers for 2018-19. We will, of course, continue to press the message that Wales is open for business and is an attractive destination for students, with well-ranked universities, quality teaching and affordable living costs. But there's no doubt that there is a feeling amongst students not just from within the EU, but from outside, that the UK in some way is not welcoming as far as students are concerned. For years, I listened to people from the Indian Government, for example, and those representing them, saying that they felt that their students were not welcome in the UK any more, and now we're seeing that perceived lack of a welcome being extended to other nationalities as well. But, as far as Wales is concerned, we welcome the brightest and best, wherever they're from.

Official figures show that Welsh universities saw the biggest drop in the United Kingdom in the number of applicants from the European Union between 2017 and 2018. Applications from EU students fell by 10 per cent in Wales, compared to a 2 per cent increase in England and a 3 per cent increase in Northern Ireland. Given that Brexit will affect the whole of the United Kingdom, why is it that Welsh universities have performed so badly in attracting students from EU countries compared to England and Northern Ireland? And, First Minister, what is your Government doing to reverse this trend in Wales, because this is a devolved area?

Well, there's no doubt that the changes in student finance policy will have had an effect. It was very generous, of course, for EU students; that's not the case any more in the same way. That may well be part of the reason why we've seen a decline in Wales, given the situation with our own student finances. Those changes, of course, were made following an independent review. It is, though, encouraging to see an increase in EU applicants to Welsh universities for early deadline courses, which include most medicine and dentistry courses—that's to commence study in 2019. But, of course, we will continue to work with our universities in order to make sure that it's understood that Wales is an attractive place to study.

I think many Assembly Members have given the context of Brexit and how that may impact EU students and also those coming from further than the EU. But, looking at the current situation, there are no Welsh universities in the top 10 across the UK for EU student numbers, so that is something in the here and now that we are not performing well on. Yes, your Government has confirmed that EU students will continue under the same rules until 2019-20, but I want to understand what you are going to be able to do after that point. An announcement that covers only the next financial year might not be sufficient enough for those students who are planning their future careers, be it within the EU, or beyond that. So, what can you do to encourage them to see Wales as a viable place for them to come and study?

Well, we established the higher education Brexit working group over two years ago. That was established to share intelligence and to provide advice to the Welsh Government. We work with our universities, of course, to make sure that their voices are heard abroad, and of course to ensure that they are able to market themselves abroad. Now, within Europe itself, until last year, the only two offices we had in the EU, outside of the UK, were in Dublin and in Brussels. That's changing, with Paris, with Dusseldorf, with Berlin opening; there will be others in southern Europe in the future. I would anticipate those offices being available to higher education institutions, to help them to promote their message in important European markets, and of course to assist students to find out more about Wales.

Questions now from the party leaders. The Plaid Cymru leader, Adam Price.

Thank you, Llywydd. Twice over the past few weeks—in a Confederation of British Industry conference and in an interview with Guto Harri—you have referred to the increasing numbers of successful Welsh businesses that are selling out to companies outwith Wales. You said that you  want to follow the mittelstand system in Germany, where indigenous companies grow and develop from small companies into medium-sized companies, rather than being sold. Have you made an assessment of the length and breadth of this problem? How many medium-sized Welsh businesses have been taken over during the past 12 to 15 months?

No, but what I do know is that we need to change the culture as regards businesses in Wales. The tradition of mittelstand in Germany is an exceptionally strong one, and there is a tradition there where companies continue to manufacture and don’t sell out to other companies, but that hasn’t been the case in Wales. This is an old problem. One of the things we were considering at one time was whether we could reopen the Cardiff stock exchange. By now, of course, most are digital in nature. The reason we were looking at the feasibility of that was to ensure that more companies or businesses from Wales would consider being listed on that stock exchange, but, by now, I would say that that’s no longer relevant.

Culture change is the thing for me, to ensure that more businesses from Wales think, ‘Right, we want to grow. We want to stay as we are', and to not always think, 'We must sell out to a larger company'. This is not the case in Ireland, and neither is it the case to some extent in Scotland. So, a change of culture is what’s important.

In terms of the scale of the problem, perhaps I can provide the First Minister with some information. Since the summer of last year, the civil engineering company Alun Griffiths from Abergavenny has been sold to Tarmac. Gap Personnel from Wrexham, one of the five largest recruitment companies in Britain, has been sold to Trust Tech from Japan. Princes Gate, from Pembrokeshire, one of the eight largest mineral water companies in the UK has been bought by Nestlé. Even in your own constituency, there are two substantial Welsh companies that have been bought by foreign companies recently: Harris Pye engineers, a company like Alun Griffiths, with a turnover of over £100 million, was purchased by Joulon from France, and Aircraft Maintenance Services has been purchased by the American company JBT. There’s been some talk about the missing middle. At this rate we’ll have nothing left soon. So, can you confirm whether your Government made any request to the market and competitions commission to prevent any of these sales, and do you accept that one of the problems is that the bank of Wales currently doesn’t have the financial capacity to fund the management buy-outs at the necessary scale? One or two of these deals would take all of the bank's annual funding, so isn’t it now time to look at what’s being offered in Scotland, which is a far greater fund and which could ensure that we are in a position to offer alternative options to these companies rather than being sold?

Well, it’s true to say that you have examples there of the culture that we have. People tend to retire and sell out, rather than thinking about ensuring that the company can carry on. So, the next question is: what can we do about this? So, I think I would like to consider what’s happening in Scotland to see whether there are any lessons that we can learn from Scotland, because it’s one thing to say that we must change the culture, but we have to find ways of being able to do so.

Is part of the problem the overemphasis in terms of Government policy on inward investment? Two years ago, you referred to attracting Pinewood to Wales as one of the main successes of your economic policy. Yesterday we heard that only 20 per cent of the proposed economic benefit has actually come to pass. Your economic director said that more transparency in this case would have been useful, but in this case and in the case of Aston Martin you have refused to be transparent because of commercial confidentiality. You argue that you need to strike the right balance between indigenous development and inward investment, but how can we judge if this balance is right if we don’t have the figures?

Now, of course, we need a strategy for overseas companies, but rather than writing blank cheques for white elephants, wouldn’t it be better for the Welsh Government to look more at safeguarding the companies that we have? To this end, does the Government intend to respond to the European Commission inquiry into the merger of ThyssenKrupp and Tata, which could mean the sale of the Trostre site? And, remaining with Llanelli, can I ask specifically when the Welsh Government became aware of Schaeffler’s intention to close the plant in Llanelli? And as there uncertainty about Brexit is noted as one of the main reasons for that decision, to what extent has Jeremy Corbyn’s opposition and the Labour Party’s opposition to membership of the single market contributed to this decision?

Well, there were a number of questions there. As regards the last one, I don’t think that any contribution has been made by Jeremy Corbyn in relation to Schaeffler, to be fair. I heard this morning about Schaeffler. I wasn’t aware of the company’s plans prior to that. Overseas companies are crucial to the economy of Wales. We know that. Aston Martin will be crucial. Pinewood has secured millions of pounds of investment in the Welsh economy, and it's something we shouldn't be afraid of. But there is a point as regards in what way can we ensure that more companies from Wales grow, because, it's true to say, if a company has their headquarters in a particular country, they tend to stay there. So, that's the challenge. I don't think that we need to make a choice; we have ensured that the bank of Wales is available to assist and support companies in growing. And we also want to ensure that it's possible for those companies to prosper, and also to collaborate with international companies. We know that international companies not only employ their own people, but they are all important in terms of employment in SMEs in Wales that ensure they sell products to them.

I remember, in the days of the WDA, they had no interest whatsoever as regards small businesses. Everything was concentrated on inward investment. Of course, that's very important, but we must ensure that the pyramid that we have, where we have a lot of small businesses, very few large businesses—that that pyramid grows over the years in order to give Welsh companies the confidence that they can grow and expand and that they can stay as they are.

Leader of the opposition, Paul Davies.

Diolch, Llywydd. First Minister, as you may know, this week is International Stress Awareness Week and November is Men's Health Awareness Month. Considering that over 63 per cent of adults and over 55 per cent of children in Wales are waiting longer than four weeks to access mental health treatment, and given that the Equality and Human Rights Commission believe that getting timely access to mental health services should be a top priority, why isn't it a top priority for your Government?

Well, I would argue that it is. We've seen huge improvements, for example, in ensuring access to mental health for children and for adolescents, and also emphasis made on ensuring that counselling is available rather than clinical intervention at an earlier stage. We have the Mental Health (Wales) Measure 2010, of course, which I would argue is a unique piece of legislation that improves access to, and delivery of, mental health services. It's driven improvement since its implementation in 2010, it does provide effective and helpful services at an early stage through the local primary mental health support service, and it ensures that those in need of specialist services receive the highest quality of care and treatment.

There are many other things I could refer to, of course, such as, for example, the 'Talk to me 2' strategy to help prevent suicide and self-harm. That strategy, of course, is overseen by a national advisory group. So, I would argue, in fact, that services in Wales have much improved over the years, and that's recognised by the amount of money that we've invested in mental health.

Well, First Minister, clearly, it's not a top priority for your Government, otherwise these people wouldn't be waiting so long. When your Government laid its budget last month, there was no clarity on how you would improve Wales's mental health service provision. This is in huge contrast to the UK Government, who made clear its decision to invest further in the NHS to support those with mental illness in its budget.

Now, First Minister, I know you like talking about England, so, as a result of the Chancellor's announcement last week, the UK Conservative Government is implementing a new mental health crisis service, with comprehensive mental health support available in every major A&E. It's introducing children and young people's crisis teams in every part of England, it's introducing more mental health ambulances, it's introducing more safe havens in the community, it's introducing a 24-hour mental health crisis hotline—all of this, but not on this side of the border. It's becoming clear that mental health provision in Wales is falling behind that of England and other parts of the United Kingdom. Will you now be exploring some of these measures and looking to implement them here in Wales?

What he's suggesting is, in some ways, what we're doing already; he seems not to know that. Can I say that the last published data shows that we are meeting the targets for assessment and interventions on an all-Wales basis? Over 184,000 people have been seen by local primary mental health support services in Wales since their introduction as part of the Measure.

I can say, in terms of crisis care, well, we introduced the Wales mental health crisis care concordat in 2015. That's been successful in significantly reducing the use of police custody for people detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. We continue to work with local health boards, with local authorities and police authorities across Wales to support front-line services that are most likely to be the first contact for people in mental health crisis. We're improving out-of-hours and crisis care; that's a priority in the mental health transformation and innovation fund, which is supported by £7 million of additional funding by the Welsh Government, and, as part of that, we've committed over £1 million this year for a range of approaches to improve support, including liaison services, crisis support and street triage. And, a priority, of course, for our mental health crisis care concordat assurance group is to better understand the context of crisis presentations, and we are developing the data to support this. England is playing catch up.

Not at all. This is just absolute complacency from you and your Government, as usual. We know that, without timely treatment, a person's mental health, just like any other condition or illness, is likely to worsen. Time and time again, children and adults have to display a serious level of illness, often to the extent of harming themselves, before they can access timely services. But, sadly, it's clear that your Government is failing to drive forward the comprehensive sea change that our mental health services desperately need. Even when proposals were put in front of you by the Assembly's Children, Young People and Education Committee on how to improve the dire state of preventative mental health services in Wales, you refused to take on board the majority of those recommendations, even against the wishes of some of your backbenchers. So, can you tell this Chamber today why did your Government refuse to accept those recommendations, supported by Members of all parties, and why, in spite of a 4 per cent real-terms increase in the Welsh budget in 2015 to 2020, you are not sufficiently investing in mental health services in Wales to bring down the unacceptable waiting times for people with mental health conditions?

We are investing in mental health services in Wales. All the data show the improvement that is there. He didn't listen to the answer I gave, did he, for the second question—I gave him a number of answers to his question illustrating what we were doing in Wales. So, let me try, if I can, to help him further. We know that prevention is important. It's why it's a key theme, along with early intervention, in 'Together for Mental Health', and that includes a focus on non-clinical support. We have the healthy and active fund, launched in July by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services and the Minister for Culture, Tourism and Sport—that is a partnership that delivers an integrated way in which we can introduce a well-being bond and a challenge fund for sport. During phase 1, £5 million is available to invest over three years, with the aim of improving mental and physical health by enabling healthy and active lifestyles, with a particular focus on strengthening community assets.

The Cabinet Secretary also recently announced our investment of £1.3 million for Mind Cymru and the British Red Cross to deliver social prescribing projects across Wales—they'll help to deliver evidence for social prescribing for mental health issues to support our future—[Interruption.]—I know that he didn't expect this answer, but he's going to get it—to support our future actions in this area. We recognise, of course, the impact of adverse childhood experiences on our life outcomes; that's why we funded the ACE support hub. This is a centre of expertise to increase understanding of adverse childhood experiences and resilience. And we continue, finally, to support the Time to Change Wales campaign to end the stigma and discrimination faced by people with experience of a mental health problem in Wales. Phase 3 of that campaign will run for the three-year period from April, jointly funded between health and social services, economy, transport and Comic Relief.

I think I've illustrated very, very strongly the commitment of this Government to mental health issues and have illustrated the commitment that, financially and politically, we have made. And I'm glad that the party opposite has decided to catch up.

Leader of the UKIP group, Gareth Bennett.

Diolch, Llywydd. First Minister, for the next financial year, it has been forecast that just over half of the Welsh Government's entire budget will be spent on health. However, when we look at opinion polls, it's clear that the Welsh people don't think that the NHS is working in Wales. In May 2014, after 15 years of the Welsh Assembly, the BBC and ICM Research asked people if having the Assembly had led to an improvement in the NHS, a decline, or had made no difference. Less than one in four people believed that it had led to an improvement. Health is clearly a vital area for your Government and for the people of Wales, but do you think that spending 50 per cent of the whole budget on health is sustainable, and are the Welsh people getting the health service they deserve?

Well, if he's suggesting that spending 50 per cent on health isn't sustainable, he is advocating another model. Now, if he's advocating another model that includes a reduction of coverage or the introduction of an insurance-based scheme, then I'm willing to hear what his ideas are. I'm sure he can explain those to the people of Wales. We have shown the people of Wales that we have continued to spend the money that's needed on the health service, despite, of course, seeing enormous cuts—£4 billion in real terms of cuts—over the past eight years from the UK Government. And I know full well that, if you ask people in England what are their views of the health service in England, you're likely to get very similar results to those in 2015. And, since 2015, things have hugely improved: the new treatments fund that's been launched, the fact that we have, of course, targets, more targets, that have been reached—if we look at ambulance response targets in terms of red calls, they are being reached, and that's a sign of the commitment that we have made to the health service.   

Clearly, your assessment of your Government's performance isn't really shared by the people of Wales, but one key issue that is clearly having a detrimental impact on the NHS is health tourism and immigration. [Interruption.] Yes. The UK Government has estimated that treating health tourists costs up to £300 million a year. There is also the pressure caused by mass immigration. The Office—[Interruption.] The Office for National Statistics stated that, in 2017, there were 280,000 more people migrating into the UK than migrating out, so 280,000 more people having access to our NHS. That's more than the population of Swansea. So, First Minister, do you accept that uncontrolled immigration has played a major part in the huge crisis in our NHS?

Well, my experience of people who have come to the UK is that they are young, fit and vigorous. They don't put much pressure on the NHS because they are net contributors, tax-wise, and they take very little out as a result of it. Let me give him an example of health tourism: the doctors who work in our NHS, the nurses, the physiotherapists, the medical staff—all of whom have come to Britain to work within the national health service. The national health service could not exist—could not exist—without being able to access the medical expertise of doctors, nurses and others from other countries. Yes, I think health tourism is a good thing because it makes sure our people stay well and alive.

Yes, First Minister, I thought you would do you your usual thing and trumpet on about all of the foreign nationals working in the NHS. And, of course, you normally add how Brexit will be threatening the health service. However, BBC research revealed that, as of September 2016, just 2.5 per cent of all NHS staff in Wales are from the European Union. In fact, more than 93 per cent of staff working in the Welsh NHS are from the UK. If you are really worried about filling the gaps, then you should be asking yourself, 'Why are we not training more British people to work in the NHS?' Yet, again, your side is condemning me for mentioning uncontrolled immigration. However, this year—[Interruption.] This year, a Migration Watch poll found that 73 per cent of—[Interruption.]—73 per cent of voters support the goal of immigration being reduced dramatically. This also includes a majority of Labour voters. Is this not another case, First Minister, of you being out of touch with the Welsh people in general and, even worse, out of touch with your own Labour voters? 

Well, we win elections on this side. I don't know about you over there, but your group has gone down quite significantly since you first arrived in the Assembly. I know you have a rotating leadership scheme within UKIP. But let me say one thing to him now: people will be amazed at his dismissal of the contribution of those from outside the UK to our health service. Even on his own figures, he says that 7 per cent of those working in the NHS are from other countries. Is he saying that they shouldn't be there because they are the wrong skin colour or they're from the wrong part of the world? I don't care where they are from. What I care about is that they make people well. I don't care where someone was born. What I want to make sure is that somebody has the expertise to treat cancer, to treat heart disease, to perform operations in orthopaedic wards. That's what I care about. I could not care less about their background, as long as they are providing services for our people. Take the blinkers off your eyes, open your eyes to the world, and stop thinking that, somehow, anybody and everybody who lives in this country from a migrant family is in some way not welcome.

Every single person, as I've said before in this Chamber, is the descendant of an immigrant—every single person. It's simply a question of when our families came. In some ways—. UKIP don't seem to recognise that, but take the blinkers off and stop saying to the people of Wales, 'We want to get rid of doctors that make you well because of our own strange political—and often racist—dogma.'

Tackling air pollution in Wales requires a multi-pronged approach. As part of the clean air programme, the Minister for Environment has established an air quality evidence, innovation and improvements project that will, amongst other things, consider the practical application of WHO guidelines for air pollution in Wales.

I'm sure you'll join me, First Minister, in deploring the fact that 90 per cent of the world's children are now breathing toxic air as a result of our collective failure to safeguard our environment.

We know that air pollution kills more people than road traffic accidents, and the British Lung Foundation published data in the last 10 days highlighting that there are 57 health centres and three hospitals in Wales that are in areas that exceed the safe air pollution levels. Unfortunately, 26 of them are in Cardiff, including the five most polluted, which are in my constituency, where the PM2.5 levels are just well above WHO guidelines. Will you, as a Government, consider adopting the WHO guidelines as the bible that we need to adhere to? And how does the Welsh Government think that this ought to be informing City of Cardiff Council’s transport and clean air green paper, which considers, amongst other things, charging for people entering a clean-air zone as one of the measures that they are considering?

Well, on 24 April, the Minister announced the package of measures that will improve air quality throughout Wales. We have the clean air Wales programme, the clean air plan for Wales, the Welsh Government supplemental plan to the UK’s for tackling roadside nitrogen dioxide emissions, with a clean air zone framework for Wales as well. All these are issues that will help Cardiff council in terms of developing its transport and clean air strategy. I know that paper has set out the issues for the city as it grows, and the potential options for the future. What are they? Well, there are a number of opportunities to significantly change transport within the city. Charging is one possibility. That would be a matter, of course, for the council. But, of course, we see the development of the south Wales metro, improvements in cycling—and I’m glad to see Cardiff taking that forward now at a good rate—improvements in the walking infrastructure, and, of course, further roll-out of the nextbike cycle-hire scheme. So, yes, more work to do in the future, but, obviously, there are schemes already in place now that will look to help in the future as well.

First Minister, this is a very serious issue. When the Public Health (Wales) Bill was going through its passages in the committees, we had some very compelling evidence from many companies and organisations about how we could tackle air pollution and how we could improve the quality of air. Your Government chose not to take those recommendations forward, despite some of the committee recommendations. Given the severity of the World Health Organization's report, can I ask you if you intend to revisit the Public Health (Wales) Bill? And will you ask your Minister to review, again, the evidence that we took, and the recommendations we made, to see if now might be a more appropriate time for your Government to actually take action?

Well, the concern we have about the World Health Organization guidelines is that they are based solely on scientific conclusions about public health aspects of air pollution. So far, so good. But they don’t consider the technical feasibility or the economic, political and social aspects of achieving that. And this is where we have to have a balance as a Government. There is no doubt at all, for example, that air quality in Port Talbot would be mightily improved if there was no steelworks there, but nobody would seriously suggest that that is a reason, then, to see the end of steel production in Port Talbot. And yet, we know that the steelworks inevitably—despite, of course, the fact that it's improved hugely over the years in terms of the reduction of its carbon footprint—will always be a polluter in that way. So, the balance we seek is a Government is, of course, to promote, for example, more sustainable forms of transport, and we're doing that through the south Wales metro, working with local authorities like Cardiff to do that. But, of course, there will be—. If the guidelines were incorporated into Welsh law, that might well create many problems in terms of the economy and jobs if we weren't careful.

'Planning Policy Wales' and technical advice note 21 on waste provide a comprehensive framework for assessing proposals for waste management infrastructure in Wales. And we, of course, support the implementation of overarching waste management policy that's contained in 'Towards Zero Waste'.  

Thank you for that answer. TAN 21, as you've just outlined, covers waste disposal, but, unlike opencast, where, since 2009, coal mines have to be built more than 500m away from homes, there does not appear to be a rule on distance of incinerators from houses. I've an incinerator planned for the Llansamlet area of Swansea that is close to both houses and a school. Will the Welsh Government consider a distance from houses and schools for the building of incinerators and amend TAN 21 accordingly?

Well, there'd have to be a scientific basis for doing that—as to why 500m would have a beneficial effect. But what I can say, of course, is that incineration and co-incineration are subject to the stringent protective requirements of the industrial emissions directive. They've been incorporated into Welsh legislation for a number of years and they include requirements that there should be strict emissions limits for potentially polluting substances; there are monitoring requirements and operating conditions that are applied through environmental permits issued by the environmental regulator. I can also say that, if there are adverse impacts, of course, on amenity or the environment, and they cannot be mitigated, then planning permission, of course, can be refused on those grounds.

First Minister, back in March of this year, the environment Minister indicated that, in relation to the incinerator in Barry, the Government were minded to have an environmental impact assessment undertaken. The Government informed the developer back in February of this year that that was going to be the case. To date, the Government haven't instructed that environmental impact assessment to be undertaken, at some eight to nine months' waiting, given that the Government at the time in March were 'minded'—when are we going to move from 'minded' to instruction that the environmental impact assessment will be undertaken? Can we have a date from you?

Well, the Minister will be making a decision shortly. If I could write to him with a date to give him some idea of what the timescale might be, I will do that. But the Minister will be making a decision about the need for an EIA at the Barry biomass plant—perhaps if I write to the Member then with more details in terms of the timescale.

Caroline Jones.

Question 5, Dai Lloyd.

Well, we continue to be open to ideas to find an alternative way to see tidal lagoon technology delivered in Wales. The Swansea bay city region has established a taskforce to find an alternative funding model for a private sector-led tidal lagoon product.

Further to that, First Minister, I have to say that I was disappointed to hear recent statements by the leader of Swansea council, as he mentioned that he thought the best way of delivering the lagoon in Swansea was to leave it to the private sector entirely. In his view, the private sector should do the design work, find the investors, build the project and maintain the tidal lagoon, but there is no certainty, of course, that this will happen. If the Welsh Government is truly committed to introducing a tidal lagoon in Swansea bay and then developing the renewable industry in Wales, why don’t you lead the way on this agenda and create a national energy company for the people of Wales?

There is a taskforce, and we have representation on that taskforce, and a bid has been received for additional funding from the taskforce itself in order to consider another study as regards the way forward, and of course we are considering that at present to see whether it is possible to fund another study to see which model would be best for the area.

Well, considering the criticism of the UK Government from that particular source, the comments made by the leader of Swansea council referred to by Dai Lloyd, I think that's quite a turnaround from the comments that were made by him, and, indeed, your Government, when it was the UK Government that was responsible for a decision on viability for the lagoon. Do you agree with these comments, or are you still offering £200 million of taxpayers' money in order to support such a project?

Well, the reality is the UK Government controls the market. The UK Government controls the strike price, it controls contracts for difference. We control none of those things. The UK Government could have committed to Swansea bay, but it failed to do so, as it did with electrification to Swansea—it didn't do that even, though it was able to find £1 billion to give to Northern Ireland.

This problem arises as a result of a lack of commitment from the UK Government. It was their scheme. We were willing to work with them. It is right to say that we would consider a loan or equity investment to support the lagoon, but the UK Government were not prepared to offer a contract for the difference, and that's what stymied the original plan. But we will continue to work with Swansea council and others to see if an alternative plan can be brought forward.

Decisions on the allocation of additional funding will be made by the Welsh Cabinet in the usual way.

We look forward to hearing those details in due course, if not today. But the First Minister did say to the Member for Cynon Valley earlier that she's right to say the Welsh Government offered support to business. He didn't repeat her perhaps more questionable claims that it offered more support than anywhere else in the UK, or that more businesses in Wales received support than elsewhere. He said that he didn't know what the Barnett consequential was. The number we have is £26 million over the coming two years. Can he tell us whether Welsh business will be getting that type of support, as will be available to their competitors in England?

And the Member knows full well that picking out one consequential doesn't give the full picture, because our consequential comes as part of a block. As part of that block, there will be some things that will be additional and some things that will be removed, because of a consequential cut in funding in the equivalent department in Whitehall. So, we have to deal with what is there in the block, but, of course, we will, over the next week or so, look at how the extra money—although it's nowhere near close to what was described—will actually be allocated. 

Our policies to support the economy across Wales, including Bridgend, are set out in the 'Prosperity for All' national strategy and in the economic action plan.

Thank you for that answer. I know we've both been very disappointed to have heard of the Bridgend Ford plant's situation recently where staff were told to take a week off and to stop producing the Land Rover engines. It's news that many had been dreading, not just families and staff, but of course, employees in the supply chain. You'll also know how disappointed we all were when you didn't get a chance to meet Ford bosses when you were last in the United States, but perhaps you can tell us now who have you spoken to in the company following the recent development and have you been making provisional plans for a support package for employers and, indeed, supply chain employees, in the same way that you did for Tata Steel, should Ford think the unthinkable?

Well, I spoke to their government affairs person on Thursday. I asked her a number of questions. She provide me with assurance that this is a temporary issue. It's out of Ford's hands and to do with Jaguar Land Rover, and much of it is to do, ultimately, with Brexit at the end of the day. So, Ford are major suppliers of JLR. Because JLR are in the position that they are in, then Ford have had no option but to take the action that they have, even though that action—I've received complete assurance—is temporary.

Now, of course, Ford remains the largest private employer in the Bridgend area and celebrated the production for the first Dragon engine last month. It's completely new. The production line necessary to produce it was supported by the Welsh Government, so, I'll be visiting the factory next week on 14 November to celebrate the production of that new engine, and we'll continue to work with Ford, as we have for many, many years, to ensure the plant's future in Bridgend.

We made clear our commitment, and we've demonstrated through our policy and funding decisions, our support to the most vulnerable in our society and, of course, to ensuring that everyone lives in a home that meets their needs and supports individuals and families to flourish.

Thank you, First Minister. The Children's Commissioner for Wales, Professor Sally Holland, has said that the provision of secure homes for vulnerable children is inadequate in Wales. And this issue has been raised frequently with your Welsh Government. In the last year, 20 welfare placements were made for our Welsh children, yet half of these were placed in England. Indeed, BBC Wales reported on a teenager who was placed in a secure children's unit some 250 miles away from their own home. First Minister, this is not acceptable. So, why has your Government not acted upon these previous concerns, and what are you doing to ensure that vulnerable children can access the facilities they so badly need so much closer to their homes where they originate?

The problem is the lack of devolution, because, of course, secure welfare provision is currently managed on an England-and-Wales basis through a network of 15 secure children's homes. We do look to work with the UK Government's Department for Education and the Ministry of Justice as to how best to reconfigure youth justice provision, but this is another example of why justice needs to be devolved, to avoid a situation where we are entirely dependent on departments in London to provide services in Wales. And that is something, certainly, that I'm sure will be a matter for discussion over the next few years.

Reduced funding for Welsh Women's Aid has impacted upon their ability to provide dedicated support for children accommodated in refuges, and this is no surprise. Across Wales, services have seen a 14 per cent reduction in funding from local authority children's services and the Families First grant programmes. Some specialist providers do not receive any funding specifically for support for children, which means that children affected by domestic abuse face a postcode lottery. From my previous employment with Women's Aid, I know that some of these children have witnessed unimaginable horror and can have been subjected to some real trauma and they need support. With this in mind, when are you going to deliver on a model for specialist violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence support, as promised in your national strategy published two years ago? If you were serious about tackling adverse childhood experiences, and if you're serious about creating a safe country for women, this is a serious oversight that needs addressing swiftly.

I think it is correct to say that there have been funding difficulties as far as local government is concerned. What we seek to do and what we will continue to seek to do is to work with local government and other providers to ensure that there are no gaps—and there are gaps. It is true to say that coverage is not even across Wales. That is not something that we can rest easy with. We will look as part of the gender review that's being taken forward by the leader of the house and we will look at what funding might be possible in the future, given the financial squeeze that we have, in order to fill in the gaps in service provision that have been identified and that the Member raises.

Thank you, First Minister. 

The next item, therefore, is the business statement and announcement. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs to make the statement on behalf of the leader of the house. Lesley Griffiths.

Diolch, Llywydd. There's one change to today's agenda: the statement on the reform of fire and rescue authorities' governance and finance statements has been postponed until next week. Draft business for the next three weeks is set out on the business statement and announcement, which can be found amongst the meeting papers available to Members electronically.

Can I ask the Cabinet Secretary what assessment she has made of the opportunities to commemorate the significant contribution of the Royal Welch Fusiliers, of the 53rd Battalion, to the war in Palestine and Egypt during the first world war? The Cabinet Secretary will no doubt be aware of the Wrexham museum exhibition that has taken place, which was excellent, but the only exhibition of its kind that was actually marking the contribution of the Royal Welch Fusiliers on that particular front. I'd be grateful to know whether the Welsh Government has considered undertaking some work to mark this and what discussions there may have been with the Israeli Government in order to take that forward.

Can I also ask for a statement from the Welsh Government on the work that it is doing to promote experiences with cadet programmes in Wales? The sea cadets have recently launched a report on the impact of sea cadets, which was published by New Philanthropy Capital, which touched on the tremendous benefits that participation in sea cadets can bring to young people across Wales, including engaging with a wide range of socioeconomic backgrounds, driving social mobility, reducing social exclusion, increasing academic aspirations and outcomes, improving relationships with parents, and improvements in mental health and well-being. I wonder what work the Welsh Government might be able to do in order to promote cadet experiences, particularly given the resources that have been made available from the UK Government to promote these across Wales.

Thank you for those two questions. In relation to the first question, the Cabinet Secretary for Local Government and Public Services will be making a statement later today. On the second point, I understand the same Cabinet Secretary met with the Ministry of Defence just yesterday and will be very happy to update Members in due course.

Cabinet Secretary, you will no doubt agree that the way in which complaints are handled by public bodies is vitally important to people's faith in any system. You'll also be aware that under stage 2 of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014, local authorities appoint independent investigating officers to look at complaints against the local authority. What is apparent however is that, even though independent investigating officers perform a statutory public service, they are not subject to any professional regulatory standards. Social workers are; doctors are; nursers are, but these independent investigating officers are not subject to any professional regulatory standards. There is currently no national register of investigators. I understand that some even have no social care practice experience either, which came as a bit of a surprise to me, to say the least. I'd therefore be grateful if the Minister for social services would agree to bring forward a statement on the role of independent investigating officers. I would ask that the statement look at whether we need to establish specific standards for investigators, registration and training, and what role a professional body could play in this. These investigators are an integral element of the social care community in Wales, but they are largely hidden from practice development staff and policy makers. I would be grateful if the Minister would commit to starting to change all this.

I think you're absolutely right that people need to have confidence in a system if they complain. The Minister will, I understand, meet with the Member if he wishes to discuss—obviously, you've got very specific concerns, to address those.

Cabinet Secretary, I was delighted to join the First Minister yesterday at the Living Wage Week launch event at the Bigmoose Coffee Company and to welcome the rise in the real living wage rate to £9 an hour. We already have a number of accredited employers paying the real living wage. In my constituency, the Vale of Glamorgan, it includes Barry Town Council, Glamorgan Voluntary Services, Citizens Advice, Santander—branches of—and more employers are coming on board in the new year, including Cardiff Airport. Supporting the real living wage campaign will help tackle low pay, counter the growth of indebtedness and use of food banks and support a fair work economy. It makes economic sense and is the hallmark of a caring, compassionate and fair society. Can we have a statement on Welsh Government measures to support employers in the public, private and third sectors to adopt the real living wage in Wales?

Thank you for that question. As you said, yesterday the First Minister launched Living Wage Week in Wales, announcing the new rate, and in doing so outlined many of the actions being taken by the Welsh Government to promote the living wage across the economy, reiterating the commitment in the programme for Government to take action on the living wage. This includes action right across the public sector—the Welsh Government, our sponsored bodies, NHS Wales, national parks and local authorities. You mentioned Cardiff Airport, they've just recently announced they are bringing forward their own commitment and, of course, our higher education institutions are also increasingly adopting it. I think we all need to make that commitment. We all need to talk about the living wage and to spread that message very widely.

You'll be aware, in parallel, earlier this year, the First Minister established the fair work commission. We are waiting for it to conclude its work. It's already met with a range of stakeholders, including trade unions, businesses and representative organisations. And I think probably after the commission has reported would be the appropriate time for the relevant Minister to bring forward a statement.

Acting leader of the house, may I ask for a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for Finance on Welsh Government support for the retail industry? The Welsh retail industry is under considerable pressure due to the growth in the number of customers shopping online and the increased burden of business rates. Welsh retailers already pay a quarter of all Welsh business rates and it is becoming increasingly expensive to operate from property, so much so that the Welsh Retail Consortium has projected that over a fifth of shops could close as the next decade progresses. The Chancellor, in this budget, announced funding to cut business rates by a third over two years, saving 90 per cent of all shops in England up to £8,000 each year. Can we have a statement on what measures the Welsh Government is taking to support the retail sector in Wales, please?

I think you make an important point about people's shopping habits having changed. We have done a great deal as a Welsh Government to support many businesses in relation to rate relief. Obviously, again, you will have heard the First Minister say that Cabinet will be making a decision around the additional funding we are receiving.

Could I request an update on what the Welsh Government is doing for those with complex care needs, especially those people with muscular dystrophy? I hosted an event last week—a cross-party event—with regard to muscular dystrophy, and we had many families there who raised concerns about the lack of medical awareness among key staff in the NHS. Two of the people at the meeting told the group that they or their family member had been to a hospital where medical staff were sadly not listening to the specific needs and pharmaceutical requirements of these patients and, in one case, medical staff asked the patient to take medication that could have—had she taken it—led to her death. I think this is something that needs to get more political priority. We need to understand how specialists are engaging with those with muscular dystrophy. There may not be hundreds of thousands of people suffering from this condition in Wales, but when they do have it it is something that they have for life. So, I would like to have a statement from the Welsh Government on an update on what's happening in this area, so that we can go back to those people who have concerns and raise them appropriately. 

Thank you. Obviously, there are many conditions that health boards have to look to address, and I'm sure that muscular dystrophy is something that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services will have discussed with health boards. I will ask the Cabinet Secretary if there is something specific in relation to muscular dystrophy, to write to the Member.  

Cabinet Secretary, I've just had a letter from the managing director of Schaeffler in the UK confirming that they're beginning their 45-day consultation period, with a view to closing the long-established plant in Llanelli with the loss of some 220 jobs. Clearly, this is very disturbing news for Llanelli and for the country. We can hardly afford to have further losses to our manufacturing base, and for the economy of an area like mine, this could be a very serious blow. The Cabinet Secretary has kindly agreed to meet with me, I've spoken to the First Minister this morning and I'm touch with the trade unions, the company and the Engineering Employers' Federation, because I hope there's something we can do to persuade Schaeffler that they can adjust their business model and continue to make things that they can sell at a profit in Llanelli.

I was disturbed to read that one of the reasons they cited was the continued uncertainty around Brexit as one of the factors that has influenced their decision making, because we have been pressing for the last two and a half years that certainty of access to the single market is essential to make sure that these multinational companies in all our communities feel that they can stay here. So, would the Government consider making a statement about what they can do to work with Schaeffler to see if there is a way forward for them staying in Llanelli?  

Thank you and, obviously, this is devastating news, as you say, not just for your own constituency in Llanelli, but for other parts of Wales, too, and our thoughts are definitely with the workers and their families. I'm very pleased you've spoken to the First Minister and, obviously, Ken Skates, the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport. Obviously, Welsh Government stands ready to offer every assistance we can within our power to the plant, and I'm very pleased you will be having a meeting with Ken Skates. We should do everything we can to support the workers. However, I do think that the UK Government has some serious questions to answer. As you say, we've raised time and again over the last two and a half years the detrimental impact that their approach to Brexit is having. Businesses need clarity and they need the confidence that a deal will be struck that will not adversely affect them and, unfortunately, really, that's just been so woefully lacking and we're not getting that, and it is now starting to cost jobs in Wales.   

I'd like to ask the Government for clarity regarding when it intends to hold the debates and votes in relation to the terms of the UK's departure from the European Union, if a deal is actually reached. The First Minister confirmed while giving evidence to the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee yesterday that the Government intends to hold two debates and, presumably therefore, two votes, first on the withdrawal agreement reached between the UK and the EU, and then another in the form of a legislative consent motion on the withdrawal Bill itself. Given that the legislative consent motion will only be brought forward if the withdrawal Bill has been agreed to or it looks like passing unamended, it seems to me that the vote on the withdrawal agreement gives Assembly Members the best opportunity to express a view as to whether this Assembly accepts or rejects the deal. Could you ask, therefore, the leader of the house to confirm that the debate and the vote on the withdrawal agreement will be held here in Wales before the meaningful vote at Westminster, in order to ensure that the voices of the people of Wales, as expressed through this Assembly, will be meaningfully expressed as well? 

Thank you. I will ensure that Members are updated on that point in the business statement next week when the leader of the house returns. 

Many people in Wales, especially in my region, are very worried, very concerned and, in some cases, devastated by what is happening to family members in the Yemen with the conflict, and family members literally being bombed out of existence. What I'd like today is a statement from the Government about what you could do to help the Welsh Yemeni community in terms of mental health support for people in Wales, and also grief counselling. I think we really should do something, and I'd like a statement about what we could do, or what you could do as a Government, please.  

Thank you. We obviously work widely with the black, Asian and minority ethnic sector across Wales to identify and seek to address issues that affect people's everyday lives. So, you'll be aware, I'm sure, of several of the programmes that we have within our equality and inclusion funding programme. We have a Cardiff co-ordinator who works with the Yemeni communities. Findings from that project feed into Welsh Government policy development. You may be aware there was a BAME remembrance event held last week at the Temple of Peace, in partnership with the Horn Development Association, and Welsh Government formally honoured the contribution made by such communities during the first world war and second world war, and that included Yemeni merchant seamen. 

We do have a broad programme of work to support the community, under our community cohesion and tackling hate crime programmes, and that works with a wide variety of communities, obviously, not just Yemeni, and individuals in Wales. 

Thank you to the Cabinet Secretary.

The next item, therefore, is the motion to appoint an acting standards commissioner, and I call on Jayne Bryant to move the motion. Jayne Bryant. 

I formally move. 

Mark Reckless—oh.

Apologies that Mark Reckless wasn't in his space. [Laughter.] I had assumed that the Chair of the standards committee would be speaking first.

There's no notice of this event on the computer system we have here for the agenda. It wasn't mentioned as a change to the agenda by the acting leader of the house. I did get an e-mail at 12.34 p.m. with a link to an agenda, with this as an unnumbered item between No. 2 and 3. And I just want to share my concern about the way that we're addressing this. It says in the motion that the standards commissioner can't consider the matter of this complaint from Joyce Watson in May, or the other complaints relating to the same subject matter, and the reason he can't consider it is that he has already considered it and determined that, in his view, in that consideration, it did not merit consideration by the standards committee as a whole or a report. 

Now, I don't know the merits of that decision. I haven't seen the video that's been complained about. All I know is that we have a standards commissioner. I respect him and his decisions, and if he's considered a matter, surely we should accept that decision rather than complain about it and pressure him to retake that decision in a different way, when, actually, our procedures don't allow us to. So, we now look to have a different motion to get around this by appointing someone else to come in and do it over the head of the standards commissioner who's already considered it, and we propose to pay him £392 a day, as well as having a press officer coming in for the standards commissioner in future. I would just question the way this is done. I think it's important that Members and others in the justice system, as in the justice system outside, don't suffer double jeopardy, and just because a Member may be unpopular or people may take a different view from the standards commissioner on a certain thing he's considered, surely it would be better to accept his decision rather than seek to reopen it. 

I wholly agree with everything that Mark Reckless has said. I believe that this motion raises fundamental questions of due process in the context of our standards committee and the way it works. This is a quasi-judicial body and it does have the power to impose sanctions that are both financial and of other kinds. It has the power to exclude from this Assembly to which we've all been elected by the people outside. These are very serious powers and therefore should be exercised with caution, and the procedures for the investigation of complaints, on the basis of which any sanction is applied, should be fair and should be relied upon by everybody who is a member of this place, equally, and individuals should not be singled out. 

Now, this motion applies only to one complaint against one Member. The commissioner has written to say that there is no provision in the procedure laid down by the Assembly for reconsideration of a complaint, either at the request of the original complainant or a third party. However, each of the requests that he has now received in relation to this specific matter contained a complaint about the video, and he has decided that each request should therefore be treated as a fresh complaint. Now, this is a reconsideration of a complaint that has already been considered, not on the basis of compelling new evidence, which the double jeopardy Act, brought in following the Lawrence inquiry, has provided for, for example, DNA evidence that was not available before. In those circumstances, one can well see that miscarriages of justice involving serious crimes like murder may call for a reconsideration on the basis of new evidence. There is no new evidence in this case. There is only the video, and it's a matter of subjective opinion what one thinks of it. I haven't seen the video either, although I have myself been the subject of such a video—[Interruption.] I have myself been the subject of such a video on YouTube, where my head was put in place of Miley Cyrus's in 'Wrecking Ball'. I laughed that off; I certainly wouldn't regard that as a serious criticism worthy of consideration by the standards committee.

I do believe that double jeopardy is a serious matter. The United Kingdom is signed up to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 14.7 of which says:

'No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country.'

If this motion passes this afternoon, it is flatly in contradiction of Britain's obligations under that specific provision. And I see a fellow lawyer laughing at this, which I'm very surprised at, actually, because he could well find himself in a similar position in future. If we are to say that, regardless of the commissioner's decision, further complaints that are identical in form can be considered and reconsidered ad infinitum, then there is no end to this process. One of the main reasons for supporting the double jeopardy rule—

That's simply not true.

Will you please shut up and listen? [Interruption.] I'm trying to make a serious point here, which is—[Interruption.] I'm trying to make a serious point—

Make the point. And other Members will be silent.

—of a non-partisan nature. It may be Gareth Bennett today, it may be anybody else tomorrow. Therefore, the procedure that we set up has to be fair and reliable and to be applied equally. Yes, by all means let us set up a process of appeals from a decision of the commissioner, but let us not do it in an individual case, where it might easily be said that this is a case of victimisation, against a specific individual, because he is not popular in the Assembly. That would seem to me to be the correct way in which to proceed.

Organisations like Liberty have spoken up for the double jeopardy rule to be maintained in the past, and many organisations that should be revered by Members of Plaid Cymru or the Labour Party have explained publicly, and in documents, how abhorrent it is that individuals should be subjected to a retrial, unless there were compelling new evidence, which is allowed for in the European convention on human rights as well. In this particular instance, there is nothing new whatsoever, as I understand it, in these complaints.

Now, Mr Bain, I'm sure, is a totally acceptable choice for such a position; I've nothing against him whatsoever. If he comes to a different conclusion from Sir Roderick Evans on this matter, where does that leave Sir Roderick Evans's credibility? Whose decision are we to accept as preferable and why? Are we then to have a third commissioner appointed, in order to resolve the impasse between a difference of opinion between the existing two? And how many times does this have to go on? Should we have a people's vote on this matter, ultimately? This seems to me a matter of extreme importance to not just the liberty of the individual, but also to justice, and justice should matter to all of us, even though it may not be apparent to some who have noisily been trying to intervene in my speech today.

Jayne Bryant to reply to the debate. Jayne Bryant.

Diolch, Llywydd. I think it might be helpful just to outline a few points here. As stated in the motion, the commissioner has indicated that he's unable to act in the matter relating to the complaint made by Joyce Watson, and any related complaints, and he has asked for an acting commissioner to be appointed. The provision for an acting commissioner has been included in the Measure, and therefore it will have no bearing on the commissioner's position. In this instance, after careful consideration, the commissioner decided that this was the best option to deal with the matter.

The commissioner made it clear in his statement that he'd received further complaints, and has concluded that he should not act in this matter. And it's permissible within the legislation for an acting commissioner to be appointed. There is nothing in the Measure to prevent a complaint being looked at where one of a similar nature had been dismissed.

Will the Member give way? I wonder if she could answer a question—very genuinely. When she says that the commissioner asked for this acting commissioner to be appointed, can she assure Members that no pressure was brought on the commissioner by any Member prior to that decision in any way?

It certainly was the decision of the commissioner to do this, so, yes. Thank you, and that was—. I was coming to—you've intervened right at the end of my speech, so thank you. 

Just in time. [Laughter.]

Good timing. 

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

The next item, therefore, is the statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services on the findings of the independent accelerated programme for amber review. Vaughan Gething.

Thank you, Presiding Officer.  In my statement on 15 May 2018, I informed Members that I had commissioned a clinically led, independent review of the Welsh ambulance service’s amber category. I'm pleased to be able to provide Members with an update following the completion of that review. Members will recall that an independent evaluation of the clinical response model, undertaken in 2017, found a universal acknowledgement from within the ambulance service and external partners that moving to the new model was the right thing to do. It found that the new clinical response model had helped the Welsh ambulance service to focus on the quality of care that patients receive as well as improving efficiency in the use of ambulance resources. It also made recommendations for further improvement, including a review of the amber category. 

In light of that recommendation, the amber review that I ordered sought to establish whether patients in the amber category are waiting too long for an ambulance response, and if so whether this is resulting in poorer outcomes and experience for patients. I'm encouraged to note that the amber review has echoed the findings of the previous independent review—that our clinical response model is safe. Our model continues to ensure that those in the greatest need receive the fastest response to improve their chances of a positive outcome, whilst also providing appropriate and timely care for patients who do not have immediately life-threatening conditions.

I've previously outlined the review process in place to keep all prioritisation codes under ongoing review. This review process, undertaken by experts in the field, ensures the allocation of codes to the red, amber and green categories remains clinically appropriate. Members will be aware of my focus on evidence-based measurement. It is interesting to see that the review has advised against introducing new time-based targets for ambulance services. Instead, we will continue to pursue a whole pathway measurement for conditions like stroke, and develop further clinical indicators and measures of patient outcome and experience in line with 'A Healthier Wales'.

Incidents in the amber category will generally receive a blue light and siren response, much like those in the red category. The main difference is that for red incidents all available nearby resources are despatched, whereas in the amber category the nearest and most suitable response is sent. This should help patients to access the right specialist care sooner. The majority of ambulance staff that took part in the review said they believe the prioritisation system works well, and the number of vehicles attending amber calls has decreased. And that should give us confidence that we're getting the right resource to people first time more often. That should improve clinical outcomes for people with conditions like stroke, heart complaints and fractured hips.

The review’s findings also, of course, present opportunities for improvement. The median response time for amber calls has increased by an average of seven minutes during the review period, from April 2016 to March 2018. That's clearly not acceptable and will be addressed through focused and collaborative work. Findings suggest timeliness of response has been affected by a number of capacity-limiting factors. That's despite additional Welsh Government investment of £11 million for patient care services over the last two years, and £38 million in capital investment over the same period.

Ambulance handover delays and staff sickness need immediate attention through a whole-system approach and improved staff well-being. I expect health boards and the Welsh Ambulances Services NHS Trust to work with partners to take responsibility for these issues and to take immediate action to address them. We will of course monitor progress closely.

The review was able to use innovative techniques to track patient-level data through the system. It found no direct relationship between long waits for an ambulance response and poorer outcomes for the majority of patients. However, the experience of patients and their families will be negatively affected and that is supported by public feedback. I expect action to be taken to enable reassurance and welfare checks to be provided when people are waiting longer for an ambulance to arrive.

The review found that incidents relating to people who have fallen accounted for the largest call volume within the amber category. In view of this, I have decided to allocate £140,000 to the chief ambulance services commissioner for a collaborative falls response project involving St John Cymru Wales.  

Anecdotal evidence from operational staff suggested that there were a significant number of calls from nursing homes for patients who had fallen and that it would be beneficial for all nursing homes to have lifting cushions. The national programme for unscheduled care will, therefore, fund several hundred lifting cushions for nursing and care homes across the country. Both of these initiatives should reduce the unnecessary dispatch of emergency ambulance resources to people who have fallen but are not injured and can be safely resettled.

The review found evidence to suggest that there are opportunities to better manage people in the community, either through providing clinical advice over the telephone, referring to alternative services or discharging at scene. Public feedback to the review suggests it is important to people that they avoid going to hospital if it isn't necessary. Eighty four per cent of those surveyed said they would prefer to stay at home, and 88 per cent of people felt it was important to them that medical advice was provided over the phone. Ambulance service staff also felt that expanding the numbers and roles of clinicians in the control room was essential to manage demand effectively. Given these findings, I have agreed to fund the recruitment of more paramedics and nurses to provide clinical advice to the public over the telephone to help manage demand in the community.

Investment of around £450,000 for the remainder of the year will also include a winter pilot of mental health liaison nurses in ambulance clinical contact centres, and that is based on feedback from clinical contact centre staff, who said that they do not have the required training to support people in mental distress. They believe that having a mental health specialist in the control centre would help to relieve pressure and allow more people in distress to be treated in the community.  

We will, of course, continue to work with the Welsh Ambulance Services NHS Trust, health boards and the chief ambulance services commissioner to take forward the review’s recommendations with pace and purpose. I look forward to Members' questions. 

Thank you, Presiding Officer. First of all, Cabinet Secretary, I'd like to thank you for the technical briefing you offered this morning from your officials. It was very helpful. It's a big report, there's an awful lot in it and it makes for interesting reading, much of it welcome, some of it concerning. 

Four areas particularly leapt out at me in terms of sheer statistics that caused me concern. The first is that, over the past two years, over 7,000 people waited over three hours outside a hospital to be transferred in, and over 15,000 people waited over three hours for an ambulance wherever they were when the incident they were involved in happened. There's been a rise in the amount of hours it takes from handover to clear, which is obviously an area we need to look at, and, of course, a very concerning one is the rise in sickness of ambulance staff and trying to discern why: is it down to stress? What are the issues here? Of those four areas themselves, two are indicators of where we're not performing well, and two are indicators of where there might be logjams in the system.

The report as a whole makes some very interesting recommendations, but it does repeatedly reference placing clinicians in settings such as control rooms, nursing homes, police services as a means of improving management of the service and assessing the situation. In terms of implementation, how sure are you that you have the capacity to already put those clinicians in place? Are we aware of how many roles will be needed and where they are? Because it's all very well for this report to say, 'We could do so much better if we have people over there, over there and over there', there's a great devolution from the Welsh ambulance service, and it may well be right—I'm not certainly not arguing that—but what I am concerned about is that it's all very well saying, 'Let's put these clinicians in the control room'; 'Let's put more people here, there and everywhere', but we know the staff shortages we have. So, I'd be interested to know what you've done to assess that particular issue. And, again, with reducing the long waits of patients such as non-injury fallers—it tends to be our older population—this, again, is looking for social care workers and district nurses. So, how are they going to be better incorporated into the care pathways for these individuals? How are you planning to build that capacity? 

I do welcome the bespoke plans with the local health boards, but the implementation of these plans is highly dependent on those health boards. We know that ambulance services have received additional capital investment in this year's budget, but in order to drive forward change, how will you, how will health boards, be supported to put in place these improvements? Will they be asked by you to demonstrate how they will do that in their integrated medium-term plans, because if you don't monitor this, it could very easily get lost in the mix?

With regard to improving the service, we did initially expect this review to be made public in September, and it is now the first week of November. One quote from the review says,

'In order to avoid the combination of factors that were seen last winter, the ambulance service and the wider NHS must ensure it takes every opportunity to maximise the availability and efficiency of resources in order that the patients of Wales receive the highest quality and timely ambulance response.'

So, how, then, are LHBs going to be able to implement this ready for this winter and Christmas period? Were they privy to this review before us here in the Assembly? Have they been able to put in place resilience plans prior to the winter?

Presiding Officer, I just have one last question. At the back of this review is a list of the protocol cards that are used by call centre staff, and I was really surprised to see that there is not a sepsis protocol card. As you know, sepsis kills more people each year than bowel, prostate and breast cancer combined. And there are key indicators. I know it is a chameleon, but the key indicators of chills and shivering, confusion and slurred speech, severe muscle pain, fast breathing and very high or low temperatures are real indicators that someone might be having a sepsis episode. We know if we can rescue people early, they've got more chance of a proper, full recovery. No protocol card. Would you please undertake to just have a look at that and see if it would be appropriate to put a protocol card and add it to the 19 other protocol cards that the ambulance service currently work to?

Thank you for the comments and the range of questions. I'll try and deal with them as well as I can in the time available. You, of course, referred to a range of figures at the start, particularly on the focus on handovers and others, and, of course, you have 475,000 calls to the service. But there's a recognition that there's more improvement needed on a more consistent basis across the country, because there is some variation in the country about not just handover rates, but that's one part of the whole system. What the review tries to do is to place all of that within the whole-system context. So, lots of improvement in getting the right response to the right people. They need that to discharge at the scene where possible, and, if they need to go to hospital, properly discharged, and also for them to be able to leave a hospital setting promptly as well. So, it is part of a wider system.

I recognise your points about sickness. There are certainly measures to take, and I'm pleased to say they will be taken forward by employers, together with trade unions as well. And I don't know if you've seen the constructive response to the recognised trade unions within the service, but it's positive; there's a recognition of the need to improve sickness rates in particular in the service, and, of course, that's also partly recognised in the pay and conditions conversations and negotiations that are taking place in the recent months.

On your point about recruiting appropriate clinical staff to contact centres, it might help to reflect that there are three clinical contact centres in the country, so, three centres to recruit staff to. There'll be a challenge there about making sure we have the right staff to recruit. We're confident we'll be able to do that, as well as staff within the wider system. And, actually, in the wider system and the points you make there, actually we're looking at being able to get on with the winter plans, drawn up by health and social care together, including the ambulance service. So, that money is based on funding those plans in addition to the £10 million that I announced previously, together with Huw Irranca-Davies, the Minister, to actually put into the social care system. We're looking at the whole system as part of that, and those plans are consistent with findings in the amber review.

You also talked about clinical leadership and accountability to be able to take this forward. And in this, we're in a positive place because you have leadership within the paramedic workforce that is positive about our direction of travel, including the need to invest in the numbers of people we have. So, that's about training, about retaining the bursary as well as recruitment of experienced staff. It's also about investing in the skills of the workforce in social care and in the health service. I hope you've had time to look at some of the investment in the future of advanced paramedics as well, what they can do, both within a contact centre, but also in their job on the ground, of being able to see and treat, and hear and treat, as well. I'm really pleased that Jo Mower, the national unscheduled care lead, is having an impact with her colleagues in the wider unscheduled care system. She comes with real credibility because she is still a serving clinician. She's a consultant in emergency medicine, and she's working part-time in that role and part-time as the unscheduled care lead. So, she has real credibility with colleagues across the system.

I'll deal with your point about sepsis as well, because, if you look at the national early warning scores that are used, that's part of the early warning system for sepsis. Now, I'll happily have a look at the specifics you mentioned, but I do just want to get over that this is a challenge for the whole system. And actually, in my time in the job and previously as the Deputy Minister, I have definitely seen over that time a much higher profile of sepsis within ambulance centres, where staff are based, with much more visible material, and, actually, we know that we are getting better.

Now, the challenge is what else we could and should do to continue that improvement. So, it's not about complacency; it's a marker of improvement that's been made and what more we could do. Actually, I think the NEW scores and the fact that they're in here as a measure that we use is really helpful, because that should help us to identify people at risk of sepsis and to make sure that that is a risk that is properly and appropriately resolved. On this, I know that we share the same objective about wanting to do more, to see more lives saved and to see more avoidable disability not taking place within our health and care system.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for your statement. There are obviously things to welcome in the report, as Angela Burns has already said, and in your statement. I'll be particularly interested to see how the falls response project with St John Ambulance progresses, and I hope you'll come back to us to tell us. I'm very optimistic that that will have some positive outcomes.

The financial investment that you mention in your statement is also welcome. Can you confirm to us today that that is new money for the ambulance service? And can you also, perhaps not today—. If it is new money, it will clearly have come from another part of the health budget and I'd be very grateful if you could write to Members to confirm out of which part of the healthcare budget the new money for the ambulance service—if it is new money—has come.

The report makes a number of recommendations, and I'm struggling a little bit to see quite how your statement reflects the recommendations, but I would accept that it does, broadly, in spirit. I'd like to draw your attention to one particular recommendation where the report recommends a programme of engagement to ensure clarity on the role of emergency ambulance services and how calls are prioritised and categorised. Do you accept that specific recommendation and, if so, can you tell us whether this programme of engagement will provide opportunities for concerns to be raised again about the breadth of calls that are included within the amber category? Your statement says that prioritisation, as it stands,

'should improve clinical outcomes for people with conditions like stroke, heart complaints and fractured hips.'

But would you accept, Cabinet Secretary, that these are actually quite different conditions and that, for some of them, they are much more time sensitive than others? I would suggest, for example, that stroke is much more time sensitive, in terms of the ultimate outcome for the patient, than fractures. In fact, of course, the report shows that internally the service does effectively use an amber 1 and an amber 2 code, as well as protocols to prioritise based on the information of what's happening for the patient. And it also states that the relationship between time and care has been established for a number of conditions, such as acute heart myocardial infarctions and stroke. So, therefore, wouldn't you accept that this shows that time actually does matter for patients and that this internal categorisation reflects that? Would you be prepared to consider, as you work with the ambulance trust to move this forward, whether it is time to look again at formalising a target, particularly for those amber 1 calls? I understand the reluctance to overburden the system with targets—none of us would wish to do that—but where those calls are time sensitive for patients like patients with stroke, I'm a bit bemused by your reluctance to be prepared at least to consider setting a target.

In terms of categorisation, the report also identifies that, sometimes, calls are initially regarded as amber and then get upgraded to red calls because of additional information becoming available. The report also states that there are times when the staff felt that there was an inability for call handlers to deviate from the system because the system was restrictive, and I wonder if you would take another look at that to see whether it needs to become a little bit easier for staff to use clinical judgment to move calls up a category to red or perhaps from amber 2 to amber 1, if necessary.

And finally, can I just ask you again a little bit more—? You did respond to Angela Burns's question about the sickness rates and the stress that I think we can accept is probably at the root of those sickness rates. You mentioned in your response to Angela Burns that you will be expecting the local health boards and the ambulance trust to work on that and to work with the trade unions on that issue. But can you give us a little bit more detail about what exactly that work will consist of and the time frame for it? Because you know very well, of course, Cabinet Secretary, that our health and care services—and none more than our ambulance service—depend entirely on our staff, and, if there's a question about the well-being of the staff, I think that we would all like to be further reassured about how those questions with regard to their well-being are being addressed.

Thank you. I'll deal with that last point first. The challenge about dealing with staff well-being is obviously important, and it's an issue now. So, I've made it clear that that work should begin immediately in the conversation between employers and the trade unions. There is a regular ongoing conversation about staff well-being in every part of our national health service, especially as we look—following the agreement on a three-year pay agreement—to try and reduce levels of sickness. That means we need to understand some of the reasons why staff are going sick. It's not just about managing people efficiently; it is about understanding the stresses that exist. I've announced over the last year a range of measures to try and support staff, because this is a particularly stressful job. So, it has to come from what our staff, through their trade unions as their elected representatives, are telling employers, and to make sure that's taking place. I expect to receive a report within a period of months about what that looks like from the employer's side. It'll be part of the regular conversations I have with not just the chair of the ambulance trust, but also with the chief ambulance services commissioner and the chair of the Emergency Ambulance Services Committee.

That leads me back to your point about money. The money announced is new for the ambulance service trust. There's a challenge over where money comes from, in that some will come from a central pot. But you should remember that this is a service that is commissioned by health boards. That's a model that's been set up following the review that Professor Siobhan McClelland undertook, and so it is for health boards to fund the service that they are commissioning. They can't expect that service to deliver new and additional measures without looking sometimes at not just the efficiency of the use of the resource, but the amount of it as well. There are times when we've intervened in the past to make sure that money is provided from health boards. I'd much rather not to have to do that in the future. We can always top slice. Sometimes that is appropriate to make sure it happens quickly, but, moving forward with the range of the recommendations, I'd expect those decisions to be made by the system as a whole.

On falls response, which you mentioned at the start of your statement, I'll be happy to return to Members to give an update on the impact of both the £140,000 that I announced to go together with the project with St John, together with the projects about delivering lifting cushions and the impact of that. On your broader point about reviewing categories of clinical conditions, and whether they are in the right target of red, amber or green, in some ways, this goes back to the reason why we have a new clinical response model. It's still relatively new. Because we understood that we had a 40-year-old target, which covered a huge a range of conditions, that actually didn't do much good for the patient. It sent resources in different directions to try and meet a target that made no difference to outcomes. It was the only measure we had in the ambulance service. We are in a much better place now in having a proper category of red calls, where time does make a difference, and in having other quality measures that are published every quarter on the quality of care that is provided. There is much more scrutiny now of what the ambulance service does—and the good that it does—than there was in the past.

You can see that isn't just a good decision because of the independent review that we had done in 2017, or indeed this one, but the fact the work that we have done is being followed up and copied in the USA, Canada, Australia, Chile and beyond internationally. And, here within the UK, a similar approach is being taken in both England and Scotland. One of the differences is that England has introduced, without evidence that has persuaded the independent review here, a time target in some parts of what we have in the amber category. Scotland, though, have taken the exact same approach that we have done, in saying that it is not appropriate to introduce a time target within the amber category. We are, though—as I'm sure we've seen from the review and the briefing that you'll have had the opportunity to attend today—looking at the whole pathway approach for a range of conditions, including stroke, for example, where the whole pathway matters. We're working alongside people like the Stroke Association to understand what it is appropriate to measure to give us a real understanding of what the whole system is doing, as well as the ambulance service's part of it. But I do not intend, on the basis of a review that has said very clearly that we should not introduce a time target, to nevertheless, as a political imperative, try and introduce one nevertheless. I don't think that's the right way to run the service. I believe that undertaking, seriously, with real pace, the recommendations in this review will be the right thing for both our staff and, crucially, for the public that they serve.

I, too, welcome the statement and, indeed, the report, which is a mine of information, which I’m sure we will, after full consideration, find is useful in many respects.

I fully accept what the health Secretary says about targets, but I think we ought to acknowledge that, without the Government’s failure so spectacularly to meet the targets that it set itself, we’re unlikely to have had this report in the first place. We must continue to have targets, but, of course, those targets must be meaningful targets. That is a point that is incontestable, and we certainly don't need targets that are misleading. Nevertheless, I was somewhat troubled by the page in the report—page 23—which really sets out to pooh-pooh targets, I think, if you look at it with some care. It says, for example:

'The value of a response time as a measure of the impact and quality of ambulance service care is… questionable',

'if health services are preoccupied with hitting targets then the actual journey an individual patient experiences becomes secondary',

and various other expressions of that kind. I think that the public at large, of course, do want to have ambulance services delivered as quickly as possible, and the failure to do so causes inevitable stress, and that stress impacts, of course, upon ambulance staff themselves, who are trying to give the best possible service to the public.

Much of this is perhaps beyond even the health Secretary’s control. We all know about the needs and means problems of the health service and the excess of demand over supply, which will probably always be there, but I would like the health Secretary to give us an assurance that, because the Government has consistently failed to meet many targets, and has failed to meet them by sometimes very large measures, which are exemplified and illustrated in the report itself—and, indeed, the health Secretary in his own statement says that the median response time for amber calls has increased by an average of seven minutes during the review period itself—. This is all very unwelcome news, but the existence of targets is essential if they're properly used, not just as a stick to beat management with, but as a tool to improve the service, and are essential to achieving the result that everybody in this place wants, which is better healthcare for as many people as possible. And, if we are able to square that particular circle, obviously, that’s going to impact upon sickness rates of staff as well. I think the 7 per cent staff sickness rate is an indictment, in a sense, not necessarily of the Government, but of the inability of the country actually to have a proper debate about the amount of money that ought to be put into the health service and the way in which that can be done to produce the most effective results. But, ultimately, we're all trying to achieve the same objective, but we've got to have the right information upon which to make the necessary political decisions about allocating resources and how to manage them, which are vital to a successful health service in Wales.

I agree with some of the broad narrative, even if I disagree with the conclusion that the Member reaches on some of the points. I'm sure that, with this report—. There will be an opportunity for the Government to appear before the committee to discuss it, at some point, I'm sure. I see that your neighbour isn't in the Chamber at the moment, but I'm sure that comrade Lloyd will want to have a look at the report in more detail.

I don't share your view or your statement that there’s been a spectacular failure to meet targets and that why I have this report in the first place. We actually moved to a different system on targets before your arrival in this place, and the decision that I took as the Deputy Minister. That was a challenge to recognise that we had an inappropriate target. Even if we had met the target, it would not have delivered the right care for patients. And it was a view that was widely shared within the paramedic workforce in particular; they were deeply frustrated about being required to try and hit a target regardless of the good it did for the public. So, we undertook a review; Professor McClelland undertook a review. We then made a decision to actually pilot a new clinical response model, after a proper review that actually looked at the effectiveness of the old target and came up with a possible way forward of a better way to run our system. And that’s why we have a different target. We were the first UK nation to do that, and now other UK nations are following us, but not just because we have a different target—it is a more appropriate target, and that's the point. 

When you refer to the report, about whether the targets are being pooh-poohed, if you actually look at the reference to it then actually it's looking at response times as the sole indicator of the service, and actually that's not an appropriate way to look at the way that the whole service delivers care. Again, the challenge even there is, if you only have one time-based target, even if that is an appropriate measure for that part of the service, we all know that is then used as a way to try and judge the success or otherwise of the whole service.

Just on your point about the public view, the public view about ambulance services is of course they want a timely response, but, in undertaking this independent review with assistance from the Picker Institute, the public view has come back that timeliness matters, but the right response matters more, and people are prepared to wait a slightly longer period of time for the right response. But that does not mean that people are contracting out to wait for a very, very long response in all or any circumstances; we recognise some waits are too long, and action will be taken to address them. I'm sure I'll have the joyous opportunity to be scrutinised by Members in this place or in the committee to see whether we actually manage to achieve that in the near-ish future.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. It's reassuring that the new clinical model is shown to be achieving the objectives that we've set for it, and that it is clinically safe. But, as you acknowledge in your statement, the patient experience still is seen to be wanting in some areas. Inevitably, if you shift priority from one area to another, there are going to be longer waits for some. You say in your statement that there is no direct relationship between long waits and poorer outcomes for the majority of patients, but the patient experience does get negatively affected, and I don't think we should dismiss that. The patient experience is important, and I'd like to know a little bit more what we plan to do aside from making sure the patients who are waiting are still clinically safe. That aside, what are we going to do to make sure that the patient experience itself does not become overly negative? You said during the review period the median response time for amber calls increased by an average of seven minutes, which is disturbing. You say this is going to be addressed through focused and collaborative work, and is affected by a number of capacity factors. Perhaps you can tell us a little bit about that. I think it is important we keep scrutiny on this. I think it's good that it's safe, but there's still much more to be done. You say the review is independent, and, of course, it is independent of the ambulance service, but it's still a review by the NHS, and I wonder if you would consider involving the Wales Audit Office to provide a degree of external assurance as well.

Thank you for the comments and questions. The Wales Audit Office, with their own programme, regularly decide what to look at in terms of public service delivery, and I have no difficulty at all with the Wales Audit Office taking a greater interest in where we are. I'm sure that, at some point, they will want to, when they decide in their judgment that it's the right time to do so.

On your broader point about what we're doing about capacity, that partly goes back to the comments made with Angela Burns about having the right capacity in different parts of the system, so whether it's the local contact centre or the number of staff we have on crew, on shift, at the right time, and the different peaks and troughs in demand that are relatively predictable throughout the year as well. And I expect not just to report that, but you'll see in the quarterly ambulance quality indicators a range of information about how we're able to meet demand throughout the whole year. For example, in the amber area we publish information every quarter on the average response on the sixty-fifth percentile and the ninety-fifth percentile, so you can tell how many long waits there are within the system; you can tell where they are in different parts of the system by health board as well.

What we'll also be doing immediately this winter is we will be looking to have what are referred to as welfare checks. The challenge there is whether people are calling back to check, if someone is still waiting, how they are, because often people are reporting back when deterioration has already taken place and some time ago. People often wait before they call back and say, 'This person is a lot worse', and so actually there's something about being able to more regularly call back that person and say, 'This is the position. Is there any change in the condition?' That goes back into that being the call of someone in the contact centre, or the clinician ringing them back, as to whether to change the categorisation of their call. It's not done to try and fix the system. It's done if there's extra information that the condition of that person has changed and that's the right thing to do. So, this winter we'll make sure those welfare calls are being done through the winter, when they'll be needed.

On your point about whether long waits cause harm, the report also recognises that it is a challenge about patient experience; you're right to point that out. But the relationship between harm is complex and uncertain. That's why further work is needed, because the logic says that, for some conditions, if you wait a long period of time, it may well cause harm, or the condition may deteriorate. We need to understand that better to then understand whether we do need to change anything about the system to properly meet and understand people with those conditions,

So, evidence has lead us to this point. The evidence we now have has led to recommendations that we'll undertake, and I'm sure that we'll have further evidence in the future on the back of the unanswered questions that the review has prompted. So, we're completely open about where we are and, as I say, I have no problem at all with the Wales Audit Office wanting to add their view as to how successful we have or haven't been on generating an improved ambulance service here in Wales.

Thank you for your statement, Cabinet Secretary. The move to the clinical model for ambulance response was one of the most important changes made to unscheduled care. Ensuring patients got the right response based upon their need also sped up response times for the most vulnerable patients.

Unfortunately, other factors have hampered the Welsh ambulance service’s ability to deal with the large volumes of calls they receive that are not immediately life threatening. The Welsh ambulance service received almost half a million calls last year—around 1,300 calls per day—the vast majority of which were amber calls. Nearly 50 per cent of those amber calls took longer than 30 minutes to respond to. Some responses have taken many hours. We are losing thousands of hours each month from delays in handover at hospital. According to the latest ambulance quality indicators, this averages around 4,000 hours each month.

Cabinet Secretary, what assessment have you made of the impact LHB bed cuts are having upon the Welsh ambulance service? The majority of our hospitals are now operating at bed capacities of around 90 per cent. Do you consider this to be a safe level or will you be opposing further bed cuts?

Another drain on resources is the large number of repeated calls by frequent callers, which make up between 6 per cent to 7 per cent of all calls each month. Cabinet Secretary, what steps are the Welsh Government taking to reduce the number of frequent callers?

I welcome the fact that you are recruiting more nurses and paramedics to provide clinical advice over the phone, in order to help manage demand. Is this in addition to the roll-out of the 111 service, and will you outline how the roll-out is progressing? How will it complement the Welsh ambulance service?

Finally, Cabinet Secretary, a large number of calls to the ambulance service each month relate to dental problems, and dental issues are the top reason for calls to NHS Direct. Cabinet Secretary, with some patients facing a trip of 90 miles to see an NHS dentist and hundreds of people prepared to queue for five hours to register for an NHS dentist, it is clear that shortages are having an impact on the NHS as a whole. So, what is your Government doing to ensure shortages of staff in one area of the NHS are not leading to increased demand on unscheduled care services, particularly the Welsh ambulance service?

The Welsh ambulance service is a vital part of our NHS, and I hope that implementing the amber review team’s recommendations will lead to greater improvements for patients and staff. The Welsh public support the approach that delivers the best response, even if it’s not the quickest. However, that doesn't mean we leave patients waiting for hours in pain. Hopefully, the amber review will deliver similar improvements to those we saw in red call responses. Thank you.

Thank you for the comments and questions, and I welcome the praise and acknowledgment for the model and the move to implement that. That was not a straightforward or necessarily popular decision at the time.

I'll try and deal in turn with, I think, the four areas that you covered on bed cuts and the ambulance service. I don't believe that the numbers of beds are actually the challenge for ambulances as to why they're spending too long outside hospitals when they need to discharge patients. Actually, it's about flow through our whole system. It's a system-wide problem. And, actually, we do know that unlocking flow in a better relationship with other parts of the health service and a better relationship with social care will actually deliver results throughout the system. That's, actually, why myself and the Minister are putting money into partnership between health and social care, to try and make sure that health recognise it's in their interest as well to work with local government to do that and not simply to pass responsibility between the two, as well, of course, as the health service taking control and ownership of what it could and should do to see flow throughout the system.

On your point about frequent callers, there are two points there. One is about individuals. There's quite a lot of work that's been done on a range of NHS Wales awards over the last two years on frequent callers. Often, they don't need an emergency ambulance response, they have a different healthcare need. So, the Welsh ambulance service, together with both other parts of the health service and, sometimes, local government and partners and the third sector too, have gone to those individuals and discussed what their need is, even if it's clear that it isn't an emergency ambulance service.

We've actually seen a reduction in frequent callers over the last two years. That hasn't come from a ministerial directive, that's come because we've had greater scrutiny on our figures, greater information, and our staff have chosen to address that because they recognise it's good for them and the job they do, but also good for those individuals and the healthcare need they have. 

The second part of frequent callers are some care homes. There is a challenge here, for some care homes are much more likely to call out than others. Often. it's a fall response, people who aren't injured but staff won't undertake lifting. So, that's partly why we're investing in a lifting pilot. There's an unfinished piece of work to be done between myself and the local government Secretary about the role of the fire and rescue service as well, as a potential answer for a lifting service. That's also why, in my statement, I made reference to lifting cushions, because we do have to reduce the level of unnecessary call outs to care homes. They are part of the frequent callers challenge we face. 

On 111, the roll-out is being successful. I'm pleased with how those proceedings have gone through in Powys as well as the next port of call. We're seeing, around the country, a roll-out of a successful service, and that's actually run and administered through the Welsh ambulance service trust. They're actually running the call centre for it, but it's in partnership generally with each of the health boards. So, I'm content that it's a good news story for Wales. We're rolling out a successful service at the right pace in different parts of the country. 

Finally, on dental services, I won't deal with the question properly today because I will have the opportunity in the coming weeks to deliver a different statement on dental services and reform in Wales. 

Finally, Suzy Davies.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. You mentioned fire and rescue services there. I wonder if you could just give us some indication of your thinking on the role of co-responders in response to amber calls. You'll be aware, obviously, of the service they provide. You've raised the effects of pain and so forth on an amber call, but they're also extremely well placed to spot when an amber call could be turning into a red category call. I've brought examples to the Chamber before where actually the presence and absence of co-responders have arguably been the difference between life and death on amber calls. Can you reassure me now that there will be no move to limit the role of co-responders to red calls only, and that your term 'the most suitable response' can still include co-responders to some amber calls to prevent them turning red and, obviously, prevent all the pain and suffering and, in some cases, danger that can arise when an amber call does turn red? Thank you.

I can offer you reassurance that where a co-responder is the appropriate response, then that is what should take place. That should be a matter for clinical judgment as to the right response, rather than any kind of directive from myself or the head of the service not to use co-responders where they are the right resource for the right person at that time.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary. 

Item 4, a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Local Government and Public Services—reform of fire and rescue authorities' governance and finance arrangements—has been postponed until 13 November. 

Therefore, we move on to the statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services—Betsi Cadwaladr University Local Health Board, special measures update. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services—Vaughan Gething.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I made a statement on 5 June on the progress made in some key areas during the time that this health board has been in special measures, the significant challenges that remained, and plans to work with the health board during the next phase of improvement. My statement today will focus on the progress against those expectations that I set out for the health board in May in the special measures improvement framework.

The framework sets out milestones for 18 months in four key areas: leadership and governance; strategic and service planning; mental health; and primary care, including out of hours. The health board is required to report on progress every six months, and the first report was discussed and agreed at its board meeting held last week.

I met with the new chair and the chief executive for one of their regular accountability meetings with me and the chief exec of the national health service in Wales last Tuesday to discuss the progress made and plans to deliver on the challenges and difficulties that remain.

On leadership and governance, there has been a strong focus on improving board capability. From May to September this year, all the board vacancies were addressed. Mark Polin has been appointed as the new chair, and a new vice chair and independent members appointments have been made. In line with my expectations, an executive director of primary and community care has been appointed to drive the required improvement in this area. A new executive director of planning and performance has also been recruited and will start in post in November.

More robust appraisal and reporting and assurance systems are now being introduced by the new chair to further drive improved good governance. There has also been increased commitment to and impetus on partnership working from the board to support ‘A Healthier Wales’ and the transformation agenda. I was pleased to announce last week support from the transformation fund for a north Wales project across north Wales to help people with learning disabilities live more independent lives and to get the care that they need closer to home. That will involve sharing resources, skills and expertise across health, social care and the third sector.

In relation to finance, the health board remains in a challenging position. However, if the control total set for this year is met, it will represent a real improvement on the previous year. The board are in no doubt that achieving this will require focused action over the latter part of this financial year to deliver the turnaround needed to secure stability and to drive the shift to transformation in its future plan. I announced in July additional funding of £1.7 million under the special measures arrangements to strengthen the management capacity and analysis capability in the turnaround team.

A key expectation of the improvement framework was that the board responded promptly and appropriately to the Health and Social Care Advisory Service—HASCAS, investigation findings and the Ockenden governance review recommendations. I am content that the plans the health board has put in place to implement the recommendations, both with mental health and more widely, are comprehensive and robust, with operational leads identified and being held to account. My focus now is on ensuring that there is rapid progress on implementing these plans.

We are already verifying the progress so far reported by Betsi Cadwaladr in their regular reports, and that is recognised by front-line staff in mental health, and that is in addition to the Healthcare Inspectorate Wales inspection programme, which is also reporting progress. Improvements so far include the confirmation of a new and visible senior management team, appointment of a new mental health nursing director, creation of listening leads across front-line staff and the launch of the 'Today I can’ approach. Furthermore, a stakeholder group has now been created to further test the improvements being made, and I am pleased that some members of the remaining Tawel Fan families have agreed to be part of this group, together with the community health council and other stakeholders.

Recently, I met with a number of Tawel Fan families, when I met them last week. I understand very clearly that a small number of families are not content with the process or the outcome of the HASCAS investigation. However, there was consensus on the need to ensure that the health board reports and action plans are prepared and that they do result in sustainable and meaningful improvements in both mental health services and care of those with dementia across services. My officials have been very clear with the health board on the need to ensure it communicates plans and actions effectively to all staff.

The focus of developments in mental health to date has been around immediate improvements to in-patient services, including environmental works. The health board is also working to assess and improve community services by implementing its mental health strategy, working closely with local authorities, the third sector, service users and the police to deliver local implementation plans. A key focus for the next six months will be to improve and maintain performance against the Mental Health (Wales) Measure 2010 and child and adolescent mental health services targets  To support this work, the delivery unit is reviewing demand and capacity and my officials are discussing what further support might be needed in this area to rebalance capacity and demand.

Improvement to engage and involve staff is ongoing, and the results of the NHS staff survey 2018 show positive changes since 2013 and 2016, most notably in staff engagement. That includes an 18 per cent increase from 2013 of staff who say that they are now proud to work for Betsi Cadwaladr. 

The strategic and service planning area, including performance, requires acceleration and more focused effort. There has been progress in individual specialist strategies with the sub-regional neonatal intensive care centre—otherwise known as SuRNICC—and primary percutaneous intervention plans implemented, and the vascular surgery plan under way. These plans increase success in recruitment and in delivering specialist services within north Wales for the people of north Wales. Work on other areas, including orthopaedics, needs to be further progressed on a whole-system basis and described more clearly in its plans for service transformation and improvement.

In primary care, the new executive director will provide increased focus to deliver further improvements, working in partnership with clusters. Work is continuing to improve GP out-of-hours services and the health board performance is now more in line with the rest of Wales. The ambition of the health board is now to transform the service model so that it becomes fit for purpose and sustainable.

In this statement, I have noted areas of progress but also outlined the significant difficulties that do remain. I am determined that special measures is not a sticking plaster, but that it delivers sustainable improvement and puts in place the capacity and capability required for the medium and long term. During the next six months, the health board will need to focus on finance, strategic and service planning, especially in unscheduled care and referral to treatment, and delivering on the recommendations from both the HASCAS and Ockenden governance reports.

The chair and the board are clear on the work needed and are committed to making progress. Welsh Government will work alongside to provide the necessary support and I hope that regional partners and key stakeholders will also play a key role in ensuring improved and sustainable health and care services for the people of north Wales.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for your statement. I think it's important that you keep this Chamber up to date with the situation in terms of the special measures in north Wales. You know that I've been extremely critical of the lack of progress that there has been over the past almost three and a half years since this organisation went into special measures. We've seen performance on a range indicators, including A&E waiting times, referral-to-treatment waiting times and mental health challenges, not going in the right direction so far, and I think that many people are very concerned also about the sustainability of their GP services in north Wales, given that 24,000 patients have had to find alternative arrangements as a result of their practices handing back their contracts across the north Wales area in recent years. 

We know also, of course, that the financial situation, rather than getting better under special measures, which was always the intention, has actually gotten worse. The deficit was £26.6 million at the year-end—[Inaudible.]—2015, and we note that that deficit—[Inaudible.]—was £38.8 million in the last financial year. Also, of course, there is concern about the control of escalating costs, with even things like capital projects. We saw in the news—

I'm sorry to interject. We have a technical problem, in which none of the microphones are working. So, I have been advised—. I'll let you have another extra two minutes. I've been advised to adjourn for 10 minutes. So, the sitting will now adjourn for 10 minutes, or until such time as the technical problem can be resolved. 

[Inaudible.]—why that was happening. We'll move back now to the spokespeople, so I'll come back to Darren Millar. So, you can start again, Darren. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his statement? I think it is important that this Chamber is updated on a regular basis about the situation in terms of any progress that is taking place in north Wales under special measures. My party has expressed significant frustration over the past three and a half years about the lack of progress. We know that some of the key indicators in terms of emergency department waiting times, referral to treatment times, outcomes for patients with mental health problems in accessing GP appointments, and, of course, the closure of a number of surgeries in north Wales have all been features of the public debate. In fact, 24,000 people are clients of surgeries in the north Wales region who, unfortunately, have had to make alternative arrangements, usually the health board taking over those surgeries in order to provide some continuity of care.

We also know, of course, that on the financial side, the situation has also deteriorated. The deficit in the financial year before the health board went into special measures was £26.6 million, but that has inflated itself to £38.8 million in the last financial year. And if I heard the Cabinet Secretary right earlier on, he's set a control total, whatever that actually means, to allow for some flexibility in expenditure this year. I would be interested, Cabinet Secretary, to know what that control total actually is in order that we can hold you to account for the delivery against it.

Now, I do welcome some of the changes that have been made at board level. I welcome the appointment of Mark Polin and wish him all the very best in the significant work that he and his fellow new independent board members have to get to get to grips with, because it is a significant challenge. But I am still concerned—and I will keep flagging this up—that there are people around the board table who are part of the executive team that was responsible for the significant failings of this board when it was put into special measures. There are two people at least who are still around that table—one of whom, rather astonishingly, has now appointed as the turnaround director at that particular health board, which I think is absolutely scandalous, frankly, given the history at this board.

Now, can I ask you: you made mention of the fact in your statement that you've announced additional funding of £1.7 million under the special measures arrangements to strengthen the management capacity and the analysis capability in the turnaround team? Is that going to be recurrent because, of course, this capacity is going to need to be there going forward, not just in the short term? Can you tell us whether that cash is going to be recurrent?

Can you also tell us as well what the outcome of your meeting with the Tawel Fan families was? You suggested that just a small number of families were dissatisfied with the outcome of the independent investigations that have taken place so far, but that is not my experience in terms of the communications with me and my post bag. Indeed, I had it reported back to me that from your meeting with those families, there was a request for an Assembly inquiry to be commissioned. Now, I would hope that you would support such an inquiry if there were calls for such an inquiry being made by Members of this National Assembly. Perhaps you can tell us whether that will be the case, because I do think that many people have a complete lack of confidence in the two very significantly different overall conclusions that arose from those independent reports by the Health and Social Care Advisory Service and Donna Ockenden. 

Can you also tell us—? You made reference to developments in mental health. One of the developments in mental health that has taken place in recent months is a withdrawal of funding for capacity-building organisations in the third sector, which I think is of significant concern across the region. So, the organisation Un Llais, which has developed advocacy services in recent years, has had its funding pulled, with effect from December of this year. That funding has been responsible for training advocates, for establishing advocacy services, and we know that the capacity of advocacy services is not managing the demand that is being placed upon them at the moment. So, I would be interested to hear what assurances you have that those advocacy services, given the quality of mental health services in north Wales, are going to be able to meet demand in the future.

You made reference as well to the results of the most recent NHS staff surveys, which show some positive change, and I acknowledge that there's been some positive change and that there is increasing confidence in most parts of the new leadership team. However, you haven't mentioned patient confidence levels, and we know that those have been on the slide of late. We also know that the complaints system is broken. In north Wales, we have people waiting sometimes for over two years for outcomes to their complaints, even in respect of mental health services, at a time when the board is in special measures. Now, that's clearly unacceptable, and I'd like to know what you are doing to make sure that this is an organisation that learns from its mistakes, particularly those that are brought to its attention through the complaints process. Even Assembly Members have problems getting substantive responses when we are asked to intervene in securing them. So, I think, frankly, we deserve an explanation as to what you're doing to build the capacity in this organisation to be able to learn from its mistakes and respond to Assembly Members and other elected representatives who are helping to raise questions.

You also made reference, of course, to the neonatal intensive care centre, which I absolutely welcome, on the Glan Clwyd Hospital site. You didn't mention the fact that 10,000 people had to march on the streets in north Wales in order to secure that. I appreciate the intervention of the First Minister, but if it hadn't have been for those people marching on the streets, we wouldn't have that neonatal intensive care centre. We'd be sending poorly babies and small babies over the border into England in order to be born where there were predictions of problems for mothers. So, I do think it's a bit rich, really, to claim all of the credit for that, when the reality is that you bowed to public pressure in terms of your Government's position. 

On capital investment, I welcome capital investment that's going into the board. I do think that there are problems in terms of the sign-off process, while the board is in special measures, for securing capital investment. I've raised in this Chamber before concerns about the orthopaedic capacity, for which the board has a plan in place to improve, but it can't do that unless it gets the capital investment from the Government in order to implement its plan, and it's taking sometimes years to get a response once a plan has been submitted. Now, how do you expect a board to make the sorts of improvements that we all want to see on a cross-party basis in this Chamber if you're not putting the investment in in order that it can actually help to deliver that? And we know of the rising costs, of course, in terms of some of these capital projects. Pre-election promises of a new hospital in Rhyl, for example, which have never been realised, as yet, in spite of the fact that they were promised back in 2013, when some facilities closed in that locality and in neighbouring Prestatyn, that a new hospital would be built. Now the forecast is that it won't be built until 2022 and that the cost will almost double. So, I think what needs to happen here is we need more rapid progress, we need to see greater levels of capital investment in order to get the systems right and the capacity right, and we certainly need to see more investment in those mental health advocacy services and the complaints process in order to make sure that this health board learns from its lessons. 

Thank you for that range of comments and questions. I will, of course, keep the Chamber up to date on progress with special measures. As we have the reports and the updates on the special measures, I fully expect that statements will be made in this Chamber for Members to ask questions.

I just want to correct a point at the outset: 24,000 people have not had to make new arrangements themselves for GP services. The health board has always managed those arrangements, either in partnership with surrounding general practice or, indeed, by running a managed service until that service is able to go back into the usual manner of delivering general practice services. So, it isn't that people have to go out and make their own arrangements, it is about the health board still managing and delivering that service. There is, though, within north Wales, for the significant challenge that there is in GP clusters—and I recognise that, I've met a range of GPs and others in north Wales, just as around the country—. The appointment of the new exec director for primary and community care is a real step forward—somebody who is a primary care clinician who has trust and credibility within the service and is now in a place to try and bring people together to have a more positive plan for the future and for what could be done, who understands the real challenges of colleagues, not just in general practice as doctors, but the nurses and the therapists and others as well.

Finance remains a major concern with a £35 million deficit control total set. That in itself would not be a significant marker of success, because success is living within the budget, and I've been very clear about that since my appointment. But we want to set realistic improvement targets to meet that control total and then to move on to be able to live within their means in future years. That is why the turnaround needs to be accelerated. That is often about the short to medium-term improvement before longer term and medium-term transformation, but that is also why the finance delivery unit will continue to work alongside the finance team within the health board to try to make sure there is real purchase on delivering on those savings. That's why we've put in short-term support around the health board. Recurrent funding commitments will be made to health boards, as we need to do, but we're adding significant additional investment to help this health board through special measures.

On advocacy, I have undertaken to write to you, and I will chase it up to make sure that I do, because I recognise you've raised the point in the Chamber before, so I don't want to avoid dealing with that.

On Tawel Fan families, the remaining families are a small number but have significant challenges and significant unhappiness about the process as they have seen it and the outcomes of the report. They don't share and don't accept all of the outcomes into the care that their loved ones received. The great majority of families who are part of the HASCAS investigation have not contacted us and they're still unhappy and not content with either the process or the outcome. That does not mean that we won't take seriously the remaining families' concerns. That's why, in half term, I was in north Wales for an evening meeting that lasted much longer than originally planned for because it was important to have a full opportunity for them to express their concerns rather than simply me hitting the bell after a certain period of time and saying, 'I'm leaving'. That would have been entirely the wrong thing to do.

Within that meeting, the call for an Assembly inquiry was far from unanimous. A person made a call, there was some support within the room for that call, but other people made clear they did not want yet another inquiry. It is, though, for the Assembly to decide if it wants to take another inquiry; it is not for the Government to say there should be an Assembly inquiry. I've made clear that the Government's responsibility is to make sure that we do what we could and should do, and that the health board is held to account for what it could and should to to take forward the HASCAS recommendations. The plan they have to do so is a credible one; the challenge is that they need to deliver it. The plan looks like the right one, but they need to deliver it and they need to do so in a way that commands confidence, which is why the stakeholder group exists. It's why it's important there are some of the Tawel Fan family representatives on that group as well. So, it is not a group of cheerleaders for the health board—there'll be real scrutiny.

On your broader point about patient confidence, well, if the health board is regularly written about in terms that do not command patient confidence, it's hardly surprising people are concerned. And with a health board in special measures, I would hardly be surprised if patient confidence in that part of the country is different, say, to other parts of the country. However, I don't accept your statement that the complaints system is broken. The complaints system has a significant backlog, but, actually, the leadership of the nurse director has made a real difference to the complaints system. It is both important to learn from mistakes, but also to deliver the improvement that is required. And, actually, you don't need to take my word for it that the system has got better—the ombudsman has actually commented that he recognises that real improvement has been made, but he's also pointed out that that needs to continue and things are not perfect as they are now.

On the choice about the sub-regional neonatal intensive care centre, it was a decision the First Minister made with significant capital investment, and it came on the back of an evidence-led review by the royal college. There are people in this room who campaigned for a further review of the initial decision, and we took an evidence-led approach to do so. That has been the right thing to do, and, actually, it was only when the unit was delivered, and ready and open, as I said previously in the Chamber, that staff believed that it would definitely happen. It's a real positive. I think that the Government listened, listened to the evidence and we now have a new facility in north Wales for the people of north Wales. On the orthopaedic plan that you referred to, it is simply not true to say that the health board have been waiting for years for a response from the Government. Part of our challenge has been to get, within the clinical community within north Wales, an agreement on what to do between themselves as well as the health board that employs them, but, equally, to have a plan that can not just deliver more activity, but actually meet the demand and the capacity that exists now, let alone in the future. This Government or any other cannot be expected to spend significant sums of money not to meet the demand within the system. So, they have to have a plan that is approveable in the first place, and then the Government will have a choice to make about whether revenue or capital funding is made available. And I think that is entirely appropriate and what any Minister from any Government should expect from the service. But we are not afraid to invest capital within north Wales to deliver a better service. 

And that brings me to the Royal Alexandra proposals that finally went to board last week and have been approved by the board. They will now come to the Welsh Government investment board and I will then have a choice to make and I am determined to make an early decision. I can tell you that the most effective advocate, lobbyist and sharpest voice that you'd do well to listen to on this issue is, of course, the local Member, who happens to be sat in the Chair at this point in time. I will make the right choice for the service and I know that I will be tested on a regular basis by the local Member.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary for your statement. There are some elements, definitely, to welcome. I'm particularly pleased to see the appointment of an executive director of primary and community care—I think that's clearly absolutely crucial, although I would share some of Darren Millar's concerns about some of the other people who are still there from the previous regime. I trust that you and your officials have satisfied yourselves that those people will be able to operate in such a way that they will fully comply with your expectations of a fresh start for Betsi Cadwaladr. I would not expect you, here in this Chamber or publicly, to say anything about those reassurances, but I would like to be reassured that you have received them.

I want to first of all look at something that you don't say very much about in your statement, and that is about staffing. You do refer to the fact that you now have 65 per cent of the staff saying that they're proud to work for Betsi Cadwaladr. Well, that is a good thing, but, of course, that means that you have 35 per cent of the staff who are not. Now, if that was a private sector business and it had 35 per cent of its staff not being happy, they would still be very concerned, and I'd just like to seek your reassurance that there's no complacency from your or your officials about that percentage, because it isn't a good place to be. That 35 per cent is an awful lot of people on the front line who are dealing with patients every day.

I'd also be grateful if you can tell us a little bit more about the issues with recruitment and retention. Are you seeing an improvement—are you and your officials seeing an improvement—in the board's ability to recruit crucial staff and to retain them? Because, obviously, it's those front-line staff who are dealing with the patients and their families every day who are the crucial building blocks for the board, and, of course, for the trust of the public in the area, because those are the people who interface with patients.

I'd like to refer back to the Tawel Fan families. I was somewhat relieved to hear your response to the points raised by Darren Millar, because if one read or listened to your statement, one could be left with the impression that you were dismissing the concerns of those families who are not satisfied. Now, you have reassured us that that is not the case and I'm very glad to hear that. In your statement you refer—that section of the statement that refers to Tawel Fan—to your officials being clear about the need for the board to communicate effectively with staff. I hope that you will be able to extend that comment to say that you're being very clear too on the need for the board to communicate very effectively with those families, because it's very often the case, is it not, that if people don't feel informed—. Even if they're not entirely happy, if they feel informed and they know what's happening, that provides us with some reassurance.

I won't repeat some of the questions that Darren has already raised with you, but I finally want to come back to the point about timescale. Now, nobody would expect you to set some sort of artificial exit point for this, because you've got to be reassured that the board is in a fit state to run itself and manage itself and manage its staff before you can withdraw special measures. But it would seem to me that the special measures have been in place for so long now that they're beginning to feel like the status quo. So, are you able to give us some assessment—? You mention your expectation around further and more rapid progress, and I'm sure we'd all agree with that, but are you able to give us some sort of assessment about how much longer you expect this to go on, bearing in mind, as I've said, that nobody would expect you to say, 'Right, we'll be out of here by 30 June', or whatever it is? Because it is getting to the point, I think, when people are beginning to feel that this is going—you know, 'When is the end point?' Now, of course, it could be argued that there is merit in the Welsh Government actually managing the health service in Wales directly and taking direct responsibility for it. But that's not the situation here. So, if we could have some sort of sense about how much longer you think this is going to take, I think the Chamber—and, more importantly, the people of the north—would be very grateful.   

Thank you for the comments and questions. On scrutiny and accountability, as you said, I'm not going to comment on individual employees. The challenge for me is whether people can demonstrably do their job individually and collectively, and that's what the board scrutiny and oversight is for. That is my expectation, and, of course, the new chair is in a position where—as I've said in my statement—there is additional scrutiny on the process, both for the chief exec and the executive team, but more broadly about expectations across the organisation.

I recognise what you say about the improvement in the staff survey, in terms of people who say they are proud to work for the health board. The 35 per cent who aren't in that category doesn't mean that they are all unhappy, but it does highlight not just the improvement that has been made—the 18 percentage point improvement, which should be welcomed by everyone across the Chamber—but also, plainly, that further improvement is required. I certainly wouldn't want to soft-soap or try and avoid the fact that there is further work still to do.

On your points about whether we're seeing an improvement in training and recruitment, I've had a number of conversations with your colleague Llyr Gruffydd about the opportunity to have different training arranged, for example, for nurses in north Wales. I've also had conversations about recruiting two nurses in north Wales from across the border. There's a range of people interested in working in the Welsh system from across the border. That's particularly promoted by very proud nurses within the RCN and Unison in particular. But also, as a good example, in vascular services, we have been able to recruit new consultants—new surgeons—on the back of the change in the vascular service network and the way it's being organised, the additional investment in theatres that I have approved, but also, following special measures, the improvement made in midwifery services, we have managed to recruit successfully into hospital-based and community-based posts. I hope that those are good examples of where we are now seeing more staff successfully brought into the organisation.

On your broader point about public involvement and engagement on mental health, of course that's part of what the stakeholder group will allow us to do, to listen to the views of the public in that setting, as well as the regular point that we should always listen to the public, and for them to have a proper role. Whether we call them service users or patients, the reality is that citizens should be at the centre of the service, and, of course, we want to listen to them to improve every part of the service.

On your broader point about special measures, I've been really clear that special measures cannot and will not be normalised. It is not a normal way of delivering the service. What I hope to see is that we will see organisations at different points of escalation go through both being raised as there are challenges, but also to come back down through escalation, as indeed Powys health board has done, as indeed the Welsh ambulance service has done. I want to see large health boards in a heightened state of escalation move backwards as well. To do that, though, we work together with Healthcare Inspectorate Wales and the Wales Audit Office, so it is not simply the Government marking its own work, or a Minister making a political choice. On special measures, the publicly announced and published specialised improvement framework goes up to September 2019. I would be delighted if the health board has made sufficient progress to come out of special measures before that, but that must always be on an objective basis to judge that, rather than doing it for my simple convenience; that would be the wrong thing to do.    

I thank you for the update, Cabinet Minister. As you say, much has been done, and there's still work left to do. I'm sure that patients and NHS staff would be reassured to know that special measures is not a sticking plaster, as you say, but is an approach and an intervention that is there for as long as it is needed. And that can be a positive, because it means that the Government, Welsh Government, are there to support those people, both the staff and the patients, for as long as that might be the case, and, within that, they can sort out the structural problems and make sure that this service, to those people and the staff who work within it, becomes sustainable in the long term. This cannot be, and it isn’t, a short-term fix. You do say that there will be a key focus for the next six months on improving mental health provision, and I’m sure, again, that that will be very much welcomed, especially in light of all the discussions that have happened here this afternoon regarding Tawel Fan.

I think what people would want to know is how that process will go along, what those improvements might look like, and what any of those target areas are. You do mention additional funding of £1.7 million to strengthen the management in the turnaround team. In August, you also announced £6.8 million to support improvements directly for patients at Betsi Cadwaladr university health board. Are you able to provide any update on the outcome of that spend, or where that spend has happened?

On the new spend, we recognised that the health board didn’t have the required level of capacity in some of the senior and middle management roles that actually make the service work to allow clinicians to do their job. So, we have a range of new directors in post to make sure that hospital management, but also management in community services, is improved. And I expect that we'll see, over the next quarter, not just that the money's being spent, but actually that those staff are then making a difference.

On the broader point about mental health, it is an area where the visible leadership really matters. On the areas of mental health provision that I've visited, in the community and within secure and semi-secure settings, the leadership at both direct level—so, staff and their peer leadership, as well as their managers—but also the mental health director has been very important, and, since returning to work after a period of unavoidable long-term sickness absence, the director has made a real difference, not just in having a strategy, but a plan for the future that's involved staff and people using the service. And, actually, there is much greater optimism about the future of the service. 

This highlights two things, I think. One is the importance of visible, high-quality leadership, because that person is making a real difference. The second challenge, though, is that Betsi Cadwaladr as an organisation—it doesn’t yet have the significance both in the structure and the fragility of leadership that exists, because, if you took that director out of the position now, I would be less confident about improvements being made in the future. So, there's a job of work to do to build a team around that person who can continue to drive improvement even if that person is not there.

That will also need to be borne out, as I said earlier, in making sure that, in the action plan following the HASCAS report, led by the nurse director, who I think is a good person with a real grip on her part of the organisation to make sure that improvement is real—. So, that should give us confidence: a high-performing member of the executive team and a director who know what they are doing, and engagement and involvement of our staff and the people that they’re serving.

Thank you for your update, Cabinet Secretary, but I have to say that it’s such a shame for the people who need Betsi Cadwaladr that the Cabinet Secretary’s statement doesn’t contain more good news than the broad assertions that there have been unquantified improvements in some areas.

Now, I’m not going to rehearse the disgraceful statistics that have come out of Betsi Cadwaladr; we're all aware of them, and they’ve been rehearsed many times in this place. At the same time, I acknowledge that Betsi’s problems are complex and have built up over a long period of time. Similarly, I acknowledge that the Cabinet Secretary doesn’t possess a magic wand that he can wave and instantly solve the problems at Betsi.

But to solve the problem, or a myriad of them, which is what we’ve got at Betsi, you have to understand the nuts and bolts. Expert reports of course show a big part of the picture, and they're very useful documents; they're detailed investigations and they go a long way to helping you solve the problem. But staff who are delivering these health services on the ground, and those other staff and workers who enable them to do it, also have a wealth of knowledge about Betsi and form a pool of solutions that appears to be untapped. I understand the Cabinet Secretary has conducted a staff survey, and it's one of the positives that the Cabinet Secretary reports that staff satisfaction has risen markedly, although, sadly, how good a piece of news that is very much depends on the content of the survey itself. But on the face of it, it's very good news.

So, I'd be interested to hear whether the Cabinet Secretary would consider the suggestion that staff at all levels, from the cleaner to the chair of Betsi's board, be asked to complete an anonymous and confidential survey into their opinions on the challenges they face in their own role, those they face when interacting with other roles in the organisation at all levels, and where the successes are as they see them, where the problems are, and seeking their opinions and suggestions as to the solutions in their particular department and around them. It's something that private sector businesses do periodically when they experience problems of a similar seriousness.

Now, I appreciate that there are whistleblowing mechanisms and a way of reporting concerns confidentially. I also appreciate that the kind of survey I'm suggesting would be a big task, but I think it's a valuable task, and it would be a worthwhile task, because surely the time now has come for a full, proactive 360-degree review of Betsi Cadwaladr at all levels via the staff, who actually live this organisation day in, day out; one that goes out of its way to seek the input of the clinical and other staff in a way that’s guaranteed to be anonymous and confidential and comprehensive.

Now, moving on to the board itself, I know that on the board there are journalists, an ex-police officer and a variety of other non-NHS-related backgrounds. None of the top three posts—chairman, vice-chair or chief exec—is held by anyone with a single day's clinical training or work experience under their belts. The chairman's an ex-police officer, the vice-chair's from the BBC, and the chief exec is a politics and economics graduate. Now, all of the members of the board have worthy curriculum vitae and they're impressive in their own fields, but I'd like the Cabinet Secretary to explain what the purpose is of appointing non-clinical people to run a health service, and what he believes they actually bring to the management of the NHS in north Wales. Doesn’t he think that perhaps the majority of the board should be clinicians if the service in north Wales is to be clinician-led, as the Cabinet Secretary has said in the past that he wants? And does the Cabinet Secretary think that it's acceptable, and does he feel that the public feel that they can trust the decisions of a health board that has comparatively few health professionals on it? Does the Cabinet Secretary not feel that the public would be more assured if his actions also included ensuring there were far more board members with clinical practice backgrounds, together with direct and current experience of the NHS as it exists in north Wales? The Cabinet Secretary's party likes to talk about quotas on management boards when it comes to gender and other things, but why not when it comes to knowledge and experience? Thank you.

Thank you for the comments and questions. There were two broad questions. On an anonymous staff survey, actually, I took part in a number of anonymised staff surveys when I worked in my previous job in the private sector, both as an individual member of staff, when I was not a leader or manager, and then again when I was a leader and a manager, including a 360-degree review of how my staff saw me in that role, and it was a useful point of learning and improvement. So, I recognised the value before coming into this job, and that's exactly what the NHS Wales staff survey does. It is anonymous and it is detailed, and we actually saw an encouraging increase in a range of areas of people actually taking part in the survey. The more people that take part, the greater the value of the survey, and that includes a range of comments—it isn’t just a tick-box exercise—a range of comments about how people feel about working in their part of the organisation, and comments for improvement. So, we do essentially, with the NHS Wales staff survey, do what the Member asked us to do, and I'm not persuaded there is value in undertaking a health board-specific exercise when we have just completed the NHS Wales staff survey.

It's also worth pointing out, from a staff point of view, there is real excellence that takes place within healthcare in north Wales as well, as highlighted in the recent NHS Wales staff awards, and I think people in this Chamber could and should be very proud of the real excellence that those staff deliver.

On your broader point about the make-up of the board, we have, of course, consulted on the shape and nature of boards, and if we are able to, and time permits, within this term, the First Minister's already announced we'll take forward a healthcare quality and governance Bill. We currently have a range of clinical roles. We have a medical director, we have a nurse director, and we have a director for, essentially, allied healthcare professionals, So, we have a range of clinicians around the board in executive director roles.

These are roles in running significant organisations. The chief executive of a health board requires the skills to be a chief executive. They require the skills to be a significant leader and manager within a service. Now that doesn't mean that they have to be a clinician or, indeed, have had time in clinical practice. This isn't about providing the best clinician with an opportunity to run a health board. If you look in general practice, a range of general practices employ people as either the practice manager or as a business manager to run the business part of that organisation, to make sure that they can do what they need to do. Because the skills that a general practitioner has in training and then in many years of practice are actually how to treat and care for people. The chief executive's job is to make sure they do their job properly as the chief executive officer. That is what I expect, and I certainly won't be introducing a requirement that somebody has to have had a level of clinical experience, because I don't think that is going to deliver a better service and, ultimately, that is what I am interested in.

Thank you. And finally, Janet Finch-Saunders. And can I remind you, you are the second speaker from your party?

Yes, and thank you for allowing me to speak. Cabinet Secretary, it's fair to say that over the past 12 months in particular, I've been extremely vocal. It's not wise for anybody to stand up in this Chamber and just pontificate or use anecdotal information here. When I speak, I speak clearly from what I receive coming into my office. And I can tell you, my casework file is—[Interruption.] There's no let-up in the number of complaints and the type of serious complaints that are coming in as regards this particular health board. Now, you'll be aware, no doubt, of my constituent, where it's just only been announced—. Can I carry on?

I'm listening.

Seven hours ago today, one of my constituents, sadly, has passed away, through waiting for an ambulance for over four hours and bled to death. A 37-year-old constituent. That is just one of many people that I'm dealing with. Another lady, who had a very bad fall in Conwy, waited three hours for an ambulance then waited for 10 hours for treatment. She was taken to Llandudno hospital, and then, such was her bleeding on her leg, and it was a replacement knee joint, they had to cut her jeans off her, 10 hours later. So, she wrote to the chief executive. To date, she wrote to the chief executive in July. I followed it up, asking him where the response was, in August. We're now in November—no response. 

We have dozens and dozens of complaints. You know, because sometimes, I get very frustrated because my constituents come to me in all good faith and they say to me, 'Janet, we don't want to get anyone into trouble, we don't want to criticise, we just want the people at the top running things to know just how bad things are', and they don't receive any response.

And I just find, if a chief executive or anybody working within a senior management team cannot put pen to an e-mail, a standard response even saying, 'I'm very sorry to learn of your experiences, but your information coming back helps us to improve the service'—. There's nothing like that. I've asked Gary Doherty, I've asked Andy Scotson, and, you know, things are so bad for my constituents that now we have a weekly phone session with a member of my staff to go through all the cases where they are just massively delayed.

I had an e-mail when I was sat in Plenary about four weeks ago. An elderly gentleman has been waiting four and a half years for a hip operation. He's in agony. He said he finds it hard getting out of bed. These are people who are not being supported by care. He lives alone. He just needs—. He's been told by the doctor, his GP, he's been told by his consultant he needs a hip operation. Luckily, as a result of him contacting me, they are now prioritising him some treatment. So, please God that he gets his operation, and I think it's going to be fairly imminent.

But people are coming to me, and I want them to, but there's an awful lot of people out there who are not coming. There has not been any improvement, honestly, Cabinet Secretary, as regards their complaint processes.

Now, I know that the senior management team—

Can you make some progress, please? I haven't heard a question yet.

The senior management team—. Yes, it's quite noteworthy the number of new staff that have been taken on, but the old staff are still there. So, you've got this ballooning, ballooning, ballooning management team, and yet, Llandudno hospital have had to close wards—they can't get staff. There has been no improvement in the short or medium or long-term planning in terms of attracting nurses. Have you seen the number of vacancies now for nurses in the Betsi Cadwaladr health board? Things may be better on paper in some areas, but, frankly, as an Assembly Member, my workload is no less and the distress to my constituents, if anything, is growing. So, all I would say to you is you do need to look more at some of the other things.

But, the point that Michelle Brown made earlier, and also Helen made too, about—you can't guess when you might take this board out of special measures. It's been there the longest it's ever been in any of the four parts of the United Kingdom, three years and counting. You mentioned in June 18 months and you're still saying 18 months. So, it looks almost like it'll be the next election before we even consider it.

Can you just tell this Senedd and the Members here when you yourself, as a Cabinet Secretary, as a Minister in a Government of a nation, when do you see this health board coming out of special measures? But, more importantly, when do you envisage that being a situation where real improvements have been made? I will always have a casework load, I appreciate that, but when will we as AMs and my constituents and your patients actually say, 'Do you know what? Things have improved'? Just tell us a timescale, please.

On the individual cases that you mentioned, I can't comment, but I'm not going to try and say that extreme long waits for treatment are acceptable. I've made very clear that they're not and there's a need for improvement not just in north Wales, but in every other part of our healthcare system if people wait too long. I rehearse again that the ombudsman has said objectively the complaints system is improving. That may not be seen in your casework file, but that is what the ombudsman himself has said objectively.

On your question about a timescale, it's essentially the same question and the same answer I gave to Helen Mary earlier. The improvement framework that I published previously goes up to September 2019. I will not give a timescale for when special measures will end because it must be on the basis of the objective advice and assessment we get from Healthcare Inspectorate Wales and the Wales Audit Office that sufficient and sustained progress has been made and the health board should come out of special measures.

If I do as you urge me today, then it might be convenient for me or somebody else in the Government, but it may be entirely the wrong thing to do for people who work in our health service and people who rely upon it. I will do what is right for the health service, even if it means that you and I must agree to disagree. 

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary. We've overrun that statement by a considerable amount, and I will not be overrunning the next statements by the same amount. So, can I just remind everybody that if you're the second speaker from your party it is a 30-second introduction and one question, not a five-minute speech that you've already prepared? 

Item 6 on the agenda is the statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Local Government and Public Services—remembering our armed forces and delivering for our armed forces community. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Local Government and Public Services—Alun Davies. 

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. This time of year serves as a poignant reminder of those who fought bravely in previous conflicts to preserve our freedoms and our way of life. Two thousand and eighteen is the year we commemorate the centenary of the end of the first world war. This war cost the lives of more than 700,000 British soldiers, including, of course, many from Wales. Key events are being held across the country to mark this significant milestone.

I am sure that many will have seen and heard about the Royal British Legion's 'Thank You' campaign to mark the final year of the first world war centenary. The campaign seeks to remember not only those who made the ultimate sacrifice but also those who shaped the world in which we live today. Silent silhouettes have been erected in many communities across Wales as a visible reminder of the conflict and the legacy that have shaped our country for generations, and, of course, those who did not return home.

This year, we have also celebrated the centenary of the formation of the Royal Air Force, with a number of events being held across the country. We can all be proud of the role played by that great Welshman David Lloyd George, who was the Prime Minister at the time of its formation. Through our own Cymru’n Cofio Wales Remembers programme, we will continue to mark significant first world war events. We must never forget the sacrifices made in that conflict. 

And I also recognise, Deputy Presiding Officer, the points that were made earlier by the Member for Clwyd West on the role of the fusiliers in the middle east and in other theatres. I recognise that sometimes we focus on the western front alone, but it is right and proper that we do recognise all of those who fought in that terrible conflict in whichever theatre they were involved.

We must also remember those who made sacrifices in conflicts that followed that war. During the world war two, the RAF played a significant part in turning the war in Europe—its most significant campaign being the battle of Britain. Approximately 70,000 RAF personnel lost their lives defending our country and our peoples. I am also sure that most of you will have seen the graphic pictures of Bluff Cove during the Falklands war in the early 1980s. British forces including, again, many from Wales, lost their lives or were severely injured during that conflict. We will never forget those who have paid the ultimate price and all those who survived, some with serious injuries, to protect the freedoms that we enjoy today. 

Earlier this year, the Welsh Government was proud to provide Conwy County Borough Council with £185,000 to support the national Armed Forces Day, which was held in Llandudno. It was a huge success, with in excess of 100,000 people attending the event. Events such as these give the people of Wales the opportunity to show their appreciation and gratitude to our serving and ex-service personnel.

In April, when I published my statement on support for the armed forces in Wales, I said that there had been a tremendous amount of progress made over the last few years in providing support for this community. Today, I would like to take some time to share that progress.

It is only right that we give back to those who have given so much to us and this is why the Welsh Government supports the armed forces community and will continue to do so in the future. We support Veterans' NHS Wales with nearly £700,000 annually to conduct research trials to help remedy mental health problems. The organisation is also working in partnership with Change Step, which delivers a peer mentoring programme, helping veterans access crucial health and other holistic support, including on substance misuse and advice on housing and employment.

At the armed forces expert group in September, we heard about the work of Change Step and the social return of investing in services to support those vulnerable in our communities, helping them to turn their lives around and keep them on track. I must also say that I am grateful to all those people who work with us on the armed forces expert group, and I would also like to thank the cross-party group in the National Assembly for the work that they do in supporting and sustaining the work for the armed forces community. 

I am pleased that the fast-track pathway for secondary and specialist care continues to thrive. Feedback from the Ministry of Defence is very positive. In the year 2017-18, the Welsh Health Specialised Services Committee spent £77,000 to support the pathway.

We support a free swimming scheme for serving personnel and veterans, and in 2017-18, almost 9,000 swims were recorded. The scheme supports health and well-being amongst our armed forces community and enables people to come together in an environment that supports rehabilitation and well-being.

I am keen to support veterans through our substance misuse delivery plan. In 2016-17, 308 veterans received treatment to ensure their mental and physical well-being is being addressed.

We have recently published for consultation a cross-Government strategy on loneliness and isolation, with a final strategy to be published by next March. My intention is that this will also include work with and for veterans. Military charities will be consulted on the strategy, because I want to ensure that the armed forces community is fully considered. We will also work with the service family federations to determine what support can be offered to serving members and their families.

The Welsh Government recognises the particular challenges that face the children of service personnel. I am pleased that a bespoke fund of £250,000 has been directed towards the educational support of service children, and that 27 schools have been awarded funding in this financial year. Deputy Presiding Officer, last year we continued to support students thorough the armed forces bereavement scheme. This gives children who have lost parents in service a head start in life, giving back to those who have lost so much. 

Last year, the Welsh Government also provided £233,000 through the further and higher education commitment scheme to support service leavers to study and gain further and higher education qualifications. We will continue this commitment in 2019, enabling ex-serving personnel to change careers and gain employment. 

We are aware that some veterans struggle to secure housing. So, to complement our housing referral pathway, we have developed advice cards and leaflets for ex-serving personnel who are unfortunately sleeping rough. These include the contact details of the veterans gateway, which provides an important point of contact in accessing housing, as well as a wide range of other services that are available.

I was delighted to hear about the Tŷ Ryan project in Wrexham, and the good work that is being undertaken by the veterans self-build project. This supports veterans to acquire valuable construction skills and a place to live in one of the houses they themselves have helped to build. Having a home of your own is vital for one's well-being and in securing employment, and for so many practical reasons as well as our general well-being.

Where ex-serving personnel have entered the criminal justice system, they need to be supported and given every opportunity to rehabilitate. The SToMP or Supporting Transition of Military Personnel project ensures that those in custody receive specialist support both during their sentence and on release. Ex-serving personnel may have complex needs and projects such as this ensure that these needs are recognised and delivered upon. In the past year, the team has implemented their whole system pathway across the Welsh prison estate, where veterans are encouraged to improve their education and taught valuable life skills to help them adjust to civilian life.

Last year, the Welsh Local Government Association was successful in obtaining covenant funding to appoint armed forces liaison officers to deliver consistent support for veterans and their families across all local authorities in Wales. I have heard at first hand about the valuable work they are doing, such as the delivery of a construction insight day, which provided service leavers and veterans with the opportunities to meet employers in the construction and civil engineering sector.

The armed forces liaison officers have also implemented covenant guidelines across most local authorities in Wales, which has resulted in raising awareness and training for staff to recognise and address the needs of this community, including reviewing housing policies and support and advice on employment, substance misuse and education. Across north Wales local authorities, the armed forces liaison officers have developed a regional website that will contain information on opportunities for voluntary work, community events and support with accessing services. These initiatives will help this community with their health and well-being, but also support them through challenging times in their lives.

Deputy Presiding Officer, this funding was due to end in 2019, but I am very keen for the good work to continue. That is why today, I am announcing that the Welsh Government will support the role for a further two years from 2019 with a funding package of £500,000. This should enable services received by the ex-serving community to be embedded in mainstream support from local authorities in future years.

I am delighted to say that Wales has punched above its weight in securing covenant funds: £1.37 million was awarded to Welsh projects during 2017-18, providing an opportunity for us to build on the services we deliver for our armed forces community. Yesterday, I attended the UK ministerial covenant and veterans board, where all the countries of the United Kingdom agreed on a new veterans strategy. In Wales, we will deliver the new strategy once we have completed the current scoping exercise to identify gaps in service delivery. The findings of this will be available in the spring. 

Recognising that employment plays a pivotal role in a successful transition to civilian life, the Welsh Government has been working with key partners to develop an employment pathway. To complement the pathway, we are also working with Business in the Community to develop an employers’ toolkit. The toolkit is designed for employers and will help them recognise the skills and qualities ex-service personnel can offer prospective employers. These important documents will both inform and provide options for service leavers and veterans to gain meaningful employment. I would like to take the opportunity today to announce that I will launch the employment pathway in the next few days, and to confirm that we will be launching the employers’ toolkit before the Christmas recess. 

In the spring, this Government will also provide an annual report on our progress in delivering on our commitments for this community. I hope that this Government's actions have given Members confidence that we are supporting the ex-serving community. We have come a long way, but there is clearly more to do. I'm sure that by working collaboratively with our partners and other Governments in the United Kingdom, we will continue to make a difference for this community. I would like to end this statement by simply repeating the words of the Royal British Legion: thank you. 

Well, as you say, we must never forget the sacrifices made in both the great war 1914-18 and the conflicts that followed. You referred to the Falklands, and you mentioned Bluff Cove. Can I pay tribute, and will you join me in paying tribute to Dr Steven Hughes, who was the regimental medical officer with 2 Para during the Falklands? It was he who waded out into the cold waters in Bluff Cove with a group of volunteers to save so many lives on that horrible, horrible day. Sadly, he died in May of this year. He himself had been diagnosed with military PTSD some 12 years after the conflict, and I had the pleasure and privilege of working with him during the unfortunately unsuccessful campaign to prove the need for residential respite and rehabilitative provision for veterans with complex military mental health issues and other related problems in Wales. I know last year I questioned you again about Welsh Government's current position on reviewing that need for residential provision. I wonder if you could update us on what work might have followed since then, at the very least in memory of Dr Steven Hughes, who was a medic and a military man who understood at first hand how desperately deep that need was in Wales and beyond. 

You refer to Veterans' NHS Wales, and you talk about a sum of £700,000. I understand that Veterans' NHS Wales is currently reducing waiting lists, but dependent on third sector funding to do so. What dialogue are you having with Veterans' NHS Wales to put in place sustainable funding to ensure that that continued reduction in waiting lists will move into the future rather than come to an end when that third sector funding runs out.

You also referred to Change Step, and I was involved with that from inception. I spoke at its launch and recognise the vital work it does. It also is dependent on third sector funding. Again, what dialogue are you having, given the recognition by yourself and your predecessors of the vital work they play in filling gaps that cannot be reached by the statutory sector, to ensure again sustainability for that programme, given the stop-go experience it has had? 

You refer to the £250,000 bespoke funds for children of service personnel. How do you respond to concern that that is still less than the amount that would be made available if the service pupil premium, available in England and received by the Welsh Government through Barnett consequentials, was actually made available to deliver a service pupil premium in Welsh schools, as it is across the border?

You refer to housing, and you quite rightly acknowledge the self-build project at Tŷ Ryan in Wrexham. What engagement are you having, particularly with First Choice Housing Association and Alabaré, who not only supported that project but, again, are doing great work in delivering veteran-specific housing in many parts of Wales and, through Alabaré, frequently having to then provide broader health and social support, albeit that its officers are housing officers only? 

You referred to the SToMP or Supporting Transition of Military Personnel scheme, working with veterans in prison to improve education and give them skills to adjust to civilian life. What evaluation of outcomes has been or will be undertaken so that, as with every other effective programme, we can learn what works well and what needs to be done differently?

You referred to the Welsh Local Government Association covenant funding for the armed forces liaison officers, and you've acknowledged two years extra funding from the Welsh Government when the current funding expires. As you know, last year, the cross-party group on armed forces and cadets produced a report on the armed forces covenant in Wales and its implementation, which included a recommendation that the Welsh Government consider the appointment of an armed forces commissioner for Wales to improve the accountability of public sector organisations for the delivery of the covenant, and that would've required publication of an annual report to be laid in the National Assembly for Wales on adherence to the covenant. This was supported and endorsed by the armed forces community and armed services' heads. So, whilst I acknowledge the important and valued role that the armed forces liaison officers do and can play, how will you fill the gap in terms of the need to lay a report to the Assembly, nationally, and to ensure the accountability of public sector organisations across Wales to the covenant?

And finally, you refer to the employment pathway. Again, you referred to this in your statement last year and in the year before that; your predecessor also referred to that. Now you indicate that it's about to be launched, so it's been a long wait—let's hope it has been worth the wait. But can you confirm how implementation and delivery of that has been designed actually with the third sector bodies, which you rightly praise, and others, and with the business and employment organisations, potentially including the likes of Remploy that will have to work with and support people as they move along the pathway that you will shortly announce? Thank you.

I'm grateful to the Conservative spokesperson for his general welcome of the statement and for the points he made. I remember watching the Falklands conflict taking place, and it's the first time in my lifetime and my experience that we'd seen war in such a way. For many of us who were born in the shadow of world war two, we'd not seen a conflict of that sort, and then to see it taking place and the human impact of that I think was something that has affected many of us. I recognise the work of Steven Hughes and I join you in paying tribute to him and to others who have worked so hard to ensure that the veterans of that conflict and people who fought in the Falklands have the support to sustain them through their lives, and that we also recognise those people who didn't come home from the Falklands, and we do that as part, not just of our annual remembrance tributes, but we do that in the way that we design and deliver on the covenant commitments as well.

There has been a number of different conversations taking place over the years about residential provision. It is the advice that I have received that we do not have the requirement for that at present. It is something where I have an absolutely open mind. I do not take the view that it is absolutely not needed, but the advice I have received is that where we need residential provision, it is best delivered in some cases by the military themselves and in other cases through existing provision. So, I've not received a case made to me for a new investment in residential provision. If that case is made and if people wish to make that proposition, then I would be happy to consider it, but at the moment I have not received such a proposition on that.

The Member will be aware that additional funding for Veterans' NHS Wales was announced last year and that has increased the budget and the capacity of Veterans' NHS Wales. The Member made reference to third sector organisations on a number of occasions in his contribution and he also described the third sector as, in some ways, filling in the gaps. I would take a different view to him on that. I would regard the third sector as a crucial part of how we deliver services—not simply filling in the gaps of others, but actually delivering services in their own right. I hope that our relationship with the third sector is sufficiently robust as to enable us to work constructively with all organisations, whatever their legal or charitable status, to deliver the services that are required. Certainly, a number of third sector groups and organisations are represented on the expert group that we have established and play a full part in that. 

I will say, at the same time: I met the Scottish Government two weeks ago to discuss the work that they do on this area, and I did take the opportunity to discuss the work of their commissioner. The reason I gave serious consideration to this but decided not to support the appointment of a commissioner role in Wales is for two reasons. First of all, I felt that the funding and the resources made available would be better made available, at a time of austerity, in funding front-line services, and that we actually invest in the delivery of services to people who require those services. I've been greatly impressed by the work of the local authority liaison officers, and I believe that that was a good way of reinforcing the work that's already been delivered.

The second issue is the point that you made in your contribution—that about accountability. For me, accountability is here. Democratic accountability is more important to me, and it is important to me that Ministers are held to account in this place for the work they do and the commitments they make. I do not believe that it's the role of Government to create the structures of accountability. That is the role of the National Assembly—to ensure and to create accountability of Government to this place. I think it's an important part of our democracy that Ministers are held to account by democratically elected and accountable Members for the commitments that we make and the services we deliver. So, there's both a practical and, perhaps, a principled view there in terms of taking forward that particular issue.

The Member, Deputy Presiding Officer, also asked about the evaluation of different programmes. He mentioned the SToMP programme in particular. There will be an annual report. We talk about accountability—accountability, of course, has to be informed accountability as well, and that annual report, which we will publish in the spring, will provide Members with the opportunity to hold us to account for these commitments, and there will be evaluation of all our programmes contained within that.

The final point, Deputy Presiding Officer, made, I think, was that on pupil premiums and payments. The funding available to schools and to support young people is a significant sum of money, and it recognises the way in which school spending is directed. There was a long conversation yesterday at the veterans board in London, where there was clear differential, if you like, between how support is delivered in the different countries of the United Kingdom. I hope I'm not giving anything away here, but the strategy, when it is published next week, will contain some very clear visions and ambitions and principles that are shared by all Governments of the United Kingdom. But it will also take the view that the way in which these ambitions and these visions are delivered will be different in each one of the countries of the United Kingdom, and that recognises both our devolved responsibilities and also different ways of working. I will say that it is important that we have the ability to do that, rather than simply say, 'If something's done in England, then therefore, automatically, it must be done in Wales.' I will be reporting on the success or otherwise of our funding for school support in the spring, and I hope at that time the Member may well be persuaded that this is the right approach to take.   

May I, too, thank the Cabinet Secretary for his statement and, indeed, welcome the statement and all of the excellent work that is being done in this important field? I won’t rehearse issues that already have been raised, but I think it’s important at the beginning to acknowledge the excellent work of the British Legion over a number of years, and also the other charities that operate in this particular field.

My grandfather fought in the first world war, in the battle of the Somme and in Ypres. He survived, but he suffered long-term injuries—injuries that never left him. There was precious little support available for my grandfather at the time, and people didn’t talk about the atrocities that they saw. Things have changed, and there is a great deal more support in this field. But from my past as a GP in my community dealing with veterans especially, but also former members of the RAF, when people leave the armed forces—this is a vitally important time and it's a very difficult time for them, because people who have been living their lives in the armed forces have been in a very close, disciplined society, and a great deal of things are done for them, and their lives run according to that discipline. It’s so different to the outside world and there is a great deal of support work that is being done, but again, as the Cabinet Secretary has recognised, there is more that we could do.

In terms of the health services, I hear what you say about the support that there has been for the health service, but one area of concern for us as GP is that we can’t get hold of the medical details of those who have been members of the armed forces when they come out to us and become members of our society once again. We don’t have those details that have come from what’s happened to them, over a great many years, in many cases—relevant, pertinent medical details that we should know about. And very often, of course, we never access those details, so there is often a challenge for the health service to be able to get hold of those details and to be able to treat ex-service personnel appropriately on the basis of their medical record, and it’s often a very difficult record to get hold of. That’s the only point that I wanted to make this afternoon. I’d like to ask for clarity from the Cabinet Secretary on that issue, because it’s very relevant and pertinent to how we deal with health issues and mental health issues for those people who have served their nation.

But I do welcome very much all of the work that is being done to support our army veterans, our navy veterans and ex-members of the air force. I’m aware that time is against us, but I very much hope and pray that my children and their children will never be compelled to go to war. Thank you very much.

I’m grateful to the Plaid Cymru spokesperson for his comments today. I think he, like me, is of an age where we recall speaking to family members and members of our communities who had served in the first world war. I recall speaking to family members and seeing people who I believed at that time to be very old—in their 50sprobably; the same age as I am now—when I was a child in Tredegar, and they had fought in the first world war. I saw the impact that that had had throughout their lives, and I think it’s something that we must all bear in mind when we remember the events of a century ago. And as you said in concluding your contribution, thank goodness that our own children will not have to fight in the way that people from previous generations have had to fight on our own continent. I think that each and every one of us, when we remember the sacrifice made by so many people, do think what we can do to ensure that we don’t only remember and commemorate our history, but that we also ensure that we don’t repeat that history. I think that that is a lesson for each and every one of us.

Deputy Presiding Officer, the Member asked a hugely important question on how we share data, and this is something that we have been discussing. There is a project proceeding at the moment, where we do work with the health department in the UK to ensure that we make progress in this area, and this has been discussed twice in the board that I was a part of yesterday, and progress has been made. But the Member is exactly right in his analysis that there have been problems in sharing information and sharing data. It is something that we do have to resolve, and the Welsh Government and the UK Government are working on this together to ensure that we do resolve these problems.

Can I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his comprehensive statement today? On Sunday, across Wales and the rest of the UK, our servicemen and women, ex-armed forces and many organisations, along with the public, will come together to honour those who have lost their lives in service of this country. This year being the one-hundredth anniversary of the guns falling silent at the end of world war one makes it an especially poignant time. But it is worth noting that, since the end of world war two, there has been only one year, 1968, when our armed forces were not engaged in armed conflict somewhere in the world.

Remembrancetide, as it is now called, is a noble and fine commemoration, but in Wales, as in the rest of the UK, we have men and women leaving the armed forces who subsequently find great difficulty in adapting to what to them is now an alien environment. On leaving they tend to miss the discipline, the shared values and the sense of belonging that is present in all the forces. Recognising and dealing with this goes beyond simple rehabilitation. It's about creating an ongoing support network. This cannot be left to the forces to deal with on their own. It is the duty of Government, both the UK and in Wales, to make sure measures, institutions and infrastructure are in place to help facilitate the best possible transfer for those ex-forces personnel, whether physically or mentally injured or not, back into civilian life.

One of the most important elements of this adjustment will be the opportunity for employment. Through employment they will find self-esteem and a sense of achievement and belonging. It is incumbent on both Governments to ensure the right opportunities are put in place to make sure that each and every one of our ex-servicemen and women have the ability to re-engage with civilian life. It is gratifying to see the Welsh Government is addressing this crucial issue through the employment pathway and working with the business community to develop an employers' toolkit. I will at this point re-echo Mark Isherwood's call for an armed forces commissioner who could oversee all the interventions that, we have to acknowledge, the Welsh Government is in fact putting in place.

In conclusion, Dirprwy Lywydd, each and every one of us owe a great debt to our armed forces personnel, both from the two great wars, but also from the conflicts they have been engaged in since. It is not enough to simply remember and recognise their sacrifice. We must carry on supporting those institutions that provide for them once their service days have ended.

I'm grateful, again, for the words of the UKIP spokesperson in describing remembrance. Let me say this: he used the term 'our community will come together', and our community does come together and our community will come together and our community has been coming together to remember all those who served. The Member for Clwyd West spoke earlier about the Royal Welch Fusiliers and their service in the middle east. Of course, in the middle east they would have been serving alongside Indian soldiers. They would have been standing alongside Hindus and Muslims, fighting in the name of the Crown, and they would have been standing as comrades together. I was proud to see Black History Month in the last few weeks paying tribute to all those soldiers from all those different parts of the world who fought in the first world war, and it is important, I think, that we recognise through Black History Month, through reaching out to all parts of our community, that, when we talk about our community, we talk about all those people who fought and all those people who died, and all those people who made those sacrifices. That includes all of the people who fought under the union flag in order to secure our freedoms and to secure the way in which we live today. And I think it was especially poignant when I saw members of this Government standing alongside members of the black community in Wales in the last few weeks making those very points.

The Member is also right when he talks about the covenant as a reality of remembrance. Remembrance is not simply one week in November—it is the reality of what we do week in, week out, every week and every month of the year. The delivery of the covenant is the delivery, by the whole nation, of not just its gratitude to those who have served, but its recognition of the sacrifices that they make in order to keep us all safe.

The issues over employment are issues that are well made and issues that I will continue to address and that will be addressed in the annual report we publish in the spring.

Let me conclude by saying this: I recognise that the work of the all-party group has been important. I value the democracy that we have here in Wales. I value the democracy of this place. I value the work of this place as a Parliament, holding the Government to account. And I believe it is in this place that our accountability should be delivered. Not in private, if you like, and not through a bureaucracy, but delivering services day in, day out to the service community, and then to be held to account for the delivery of those services. I'm yet to be convinced about the role of an armed forces commissioner. For me, it is important that we invest in services and that we value and exercise accountability through our democracy.

As we approach this week of remembrance for our nation, may I welcome, strongly, the Cabinet Secretary's statement outlining the actions taken by the Welsh Government to mark this important and memorable time throughout the year? In my constituency of Islwyn, the importance that communities place and their desire to come together to never forget can be visually evidenced on street after street. And, across Wales, men, women and children will be wearing poppies and attending remembrance services in our schools and churches and respecting those moments of silence. I've also been struck by the large poppies on the streets of Pontywaun and Risca and all across Islwyn, and I want to, in this place, thank those committed individuals like Bernard Osmond in my constituency and our armed forces local authority champions of the ilk of Andrew Whitcombe and Alan Higgs, and the many other committed individuals and voluntary organisations who, each and every year, ensure that our collective memory holds dear.

Within Islwyn, each community wants, strongly, to ensure that future generations are aware of the sacrifice made by our armed forces, to recognise the freedoms we hold so dear and that cost so much. And I do look forward, with great interest, to the publication in the spring of the Government's annual report on the progress made in delivering our commitments for our armed forces community and our veterans. Will the Cabinet Secretary, therefore, outline for me the importance and value that the Welsh Government places on this annual report, and how it will act as a significant benchmark for future action?

Deputy Presiding Officer, the Member outlines the people who work so hard in Islwyn to ensure that this remembrance takes place in a way that values and appreciates and demonstrates the national value and appreciation that we all feel for those who have served. The speech that she made, describing those great people in Islwyn, could be made by each one of us, I think, describing those same people in our own constituencies who work so hard to ensure that the remembrance events that will be taking place in every community across Wales and elsewhere this weekend are events that do commemorate and reflect upon the sacrifices made.

The Member, Deputy Presiding Officer, made mention of local authority champions. I think it's important that we do recognise the work of local authorities in delivering many of the services that we have described and debated this afternoon. The work of the champions in each local authority is to ensure that local authorities do work cohesively and holistically to deliver the sort of services that veterans need, require and have an absolute right to do so. Can I say—? Through the Cymru'n Cofio series of events, a programme that we've followed over the last four years, I hope that we have sought to remember and to understand what war actually is and the sacrifices that were made by people who had no idea of what they would face in the trenches and elsewhere.

I think one of the most poignant things I've seen in recent weeks in the period running up to this armistice commemoration was the colourisation of some of those video clips that we've seen. All of us over the years have seen the same video footage of men walking, all too often to their deaths, across northern France. And, you know, when they're colourised, you see their faces in a different way, and they look just like you and they look just like me.

I hope that all of us, when we flash across northern France on the Eurostar, will look out across those fields and will understand that it is just a little more than a lifetime ago that those fields were not green pastures but were mud and blood of people who died in a futile war, which we assure people that we remember today, and the greatest act of remembrance can be that we will continue to remember their sacrifices but also remember what war is, and remember the words of Dai Lloyd in saying that what we have to do is always to ensure that we do not send our people to war unless it is to defend the interests and the life and the freedoms of this country.

And, finally, Darren Millar.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and can I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his extremely kind and generous words about the work of the cross-party group on the armed forces and cadets? I have to say, it's been a pleasure to be able to work with the Welsh Government to improve the lot of servicemen and women and veterans in Wales in recent years—both with you and your predecessor. So, I'm very grateful for the opportunity to do that.

I just wanted to ask one question. I was struck by your comments about the other theatres of war in addition to the western front and was pleased that you had made reference to the theatre of war in the middle east. I had the opportunity to place a wreath on top of Mount Scopus two years ago in Jerusalem in order to commemorate the role and the sacrifice of the Royal Welch Fusiliers and other Welsh troops who had lost their lives in the battle for Jerusalem and Gaza and in Be'er Sheva. I think it is important that we remember these events and that there are permanent memorials in those nations where Welsh blood has been shed. 

Can I ask the Cabinet Secretary what work the Welsh Government now may be able to do, perhaps alongside the UK Government, to make sure that it's not just in cemeteries that these things are remembered but also in other locations in those theatres to ensure that the memory and the sacrifice of those who lost their lives is not forgotten?

Yes, I do agree. I'm grateful to the Member for Clwyd West for making those points and grateful to him also for paying tribute to not just the work of officials and others and the expert group and the cross-party group, who all work together in order to deliver this, but also the work of my predecessor. I think this week is a difficult week for many of us in very many different ways. I knew, when I took over this portfolio from Carl, that I was taking over a piece of work that he strongly believed in, where he'd worked extraordinarily hard to put in place many of the programmes that we've been discussing and describing this afternoon. Certainly, I would want, this afternoon, to place on record my continuing gratitude to him for what he did as a Member here and as a Minister in this place. I hope that all of us will in some way remember that this week as well, in our own way.

In terms of the wider issues about memorials that have been raised by the Member for Clwyd West, I agree with him; I think it is important that we do recognise, in the way that he's described, the sacrifices of previous generations. I've described already, in answer to points raised by Dai Lloyd, that we do need to recognise the reality of what war means and what war actually is, and that we don't fall into what I believe is the mistake of believing in a more romantic view of it, but we recognise the reality of what it actually means to people and to communities and to families.

And in doing so, I hope that we can work—and I do think that the Governments of the United Kingdom—. We will have our differences from time to time, but my experience is that the Governments of the United Kingdom work well together to deliver for this agenda. The conversations that we had yesterday were all positive conversations across the table in London, and I hope that it will continue to be so. I will be meeting the Ministry of Defence again next week in order to consider our ongoing support for serving members of the armed forces and I hope that we will be able to work together, and am confident that we can work together with both the MOD and with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to ensure that we have the appropriate memorials that enable us to not just remember the sacrifices of past generations, but also to ensure that future generations understand that history and don't repeat our mistakes.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary. 

The next item is the legislative consent motion on the Ivory Bill, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs to move the motion—Lesley Griffiths.

Diolch, Llywydd. I'm grateful for the opportunity to explain the background to this legislative consent motion in relation to the Ivory Bill.

The aim of the UK Bill is to help conserve elephant populations, specifically by reducing poaching through significantly limiting the legal market for ivory in the UK. This is intended to reduce demand for ivory both within the UK and overseas, which should help bring an end to the killing of elephants. I think everyone will agree the welfare and protection of these animals is paramount, and the introduction of this Bill will help achieve this.

Between 2013-17, 602 items of ivory or containing ivory were seized by the UK Border Force. Over the five-year period, this equates to 466 kg of ivory and items containing ivory being seized, making them the fourth-most-seized product. I believe the Bill provisions that prohibit and regulate commercial dealings in ivory within Wales fall within the legislative competence of the Assembly for the purposes of promoting animal welfare.

Late amendments to the Bill were tabled by the UK Government on 17 October in the House of Lords. These amendments provide powers for Welsh Ministers in the Bill in relation to Wales that were previously drafted as wholly for the Secretary of State to exercise. The proposed amendments to the Bill require the Secretary of State to seek Welsh Ministers' consent before exercising any functions under the Bill that could fall within the legislative competence of the Assembly. These amendments provide Welsh Ministers with specific powers, including, for example: to make regulations specifying what matters may be taken into account in considering whether an item is of artistic, cultural or historical value; to make regulations to amend the definition of 'ivory' to include ivory from an animal or species not currently covered by the Bill; and require the Secretary of State to seek Welsh Ministers' consent to any regulation-making provision that applies in Wales.

With the Bill nearing its final stages in Parliament, these late amendments have not allowed the time we would have wished for full committee scrutiny, but I hope Members will support this LCM on this very important Bill, and I move the motion.

There are no other speakers on this item, so I take it that the Cabinet Secretary doesn’t wish to reply to herself. So, the proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? No. The motion is therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

The next item, therefore, is the debate on the general principles of the Renting Homes (Fees etc.) (Wales) Bill, and I call on the Minister for Housing and Regeneration to move the motion—Rebecca Evans.

Diolch, Llywydd. I move the motion. 

I am pleased to open the debate seeking to agree the general principles of the Renting Homes (Fees etc.) (Wales) Bill. The Bill will ensure that tenants will be able to search for a home in the private rented sector with the confidence that they will not be hit by upfront fees. This should make the sector more stable, more reliable and more attractive, and reduce barriers for those wishing to enter the sector or move around within it.

I'd like to start by thanking the three committees involved in the scrutiny of this Bill for their time and hard work. I would also like to thank the stakeholders who provided written and oral evidence. I very much value the evidence the committees took during Stage 1 and the amount of work they put into their reports and their recommendations.

Turning first to the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee report, I am pleased that the committee has recommended that the Assembly agrees the general principles of the Bill. Although there are some differences regarding certain matters of detail, I welcome the committee's conclusion regarding the need to legislate. Recommendation 2 seeks to place a duty on Welsh Ministers, local authorities and Rent Smart Wales to inform tenants, landlords and agents of the Bill's provisions. Subject to approval of the Bill by the Assembly, we will be undertaking a significant communication programme involving local authorities, Rent Smart Wales and the third sector, as well as more general communications targeting a wide audience.

The duty to inform in the Abolition of the Right to Buy and Associated Rights (Wales) Act 2018 reflected the fact that the audience for that Act was readily identifiable and distinct. The much broader audience for this Bill, including anyone who may be considering renting, as well as those already doing so, means that a more general communications strategy is more appropriate. Therefore, whilst happily committing to undertaking an effective and comprehensive communications programme regarding the Bill, I must reject the recommendation.

I am, though, supportive of recommendation 3 for Rent Smart Wales to have enforcement powers alongside local authorities. Since Rent Smart Wales is the licensing authority under the Housing (Wales) Act 2014, it would, under current proposed arrangements, be possible to achieve this using an existing power under the Local Government Act 1972. This enables a local authority to agree that another local authority should discharge a function on its behalf. However, since the 2014 Act provides for a body other than a local authority to be designated, I recognise the recommendation will help to futureproof the Bill, and make enforcement more efficient. Therefore, I will consider bringing forward an amendment to provide for the licensing authority to have enforcement powers at Stage 3, once the detail's been fully considered.

I regret that it will not be possible to agree the specific amendment proposed by recommendation 4, but I do recognise the concern of the committee regarding payments in default, although I believe the recommendation may be more difficult to implement than may be immediately apparent. However, given those understandable concerns, I have tasked my officials to review how the Bill might seek to address this issue. I will write to the committee to update them on my thinking in this area and, should an amendment assist, I will consider bringing one forward at Stage 3. 

I'm pleased to accept recommendation 5, and will bring forward an amendment at Stage 3 to treat payments for utilities, council tax, communications services and the tv licence as permitted payments.

I accept in principle recommendation 6 regarding exit fees. However, I want to further explore the options to address this issue, and will write to the committee following those deliberations. 

I'm not persuaded to accept recommendation 7, as the Bill does not permit more than one holding deposit being taken at any time. An individual paying a holding deposit has a right to first refusal and, where paid, it means the contract must be granted to the contract holder. Ultimately, if issues do arise, there is already a power in the Bill to amend the definition of permitted payments. However, I'm not convinced, based on research available to us, that there is sufficient evidence to amend the Bill at present.  

Regarding recommendation 8, I recognise Members' unease in respect of the provision in paragraph 7 of Schedule 2 to the Bill relating to the right to rent under the Immigration Act 2014. I am, therefore, content to accept the recommendation and omit the paragraph on the basis that the relevant provisions of the 2014 Act are not yet in force in Wales. However, if the UK Government brings the relevant provisions of the 2014 Act into force, they could amend Schedule 2 so that the provision is made.

The Bill's enforcement has been a key consideration during scrutiny, which I intend to address by accepting recommendations 9 and 10. This means that a landlord will be restricted from serving a notice under section 173 of the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016, currently known as a section 21 notice, if a landlord has required a prohibited payment that has been paid and not returned, or if a holding deposit has not been repaid.

I will also bring forward an amendment doubling the sum of a fixed-penalty notice to £1,000, strengthening an important part of the enforcement regime, whilst keeping it to a level where the FPN remains the swift and effective enforcement tool it's designed to be, and reflecting its role as part of a wider enforcement regime.

Regarding recommendation 11, I've asked my officials to give further consideration to creating a banded or tiered approach when issuing fixed-penalty notices, and, again, I will write to the committee as soon as that work has been concluded.

I cannot accept recommendation 12, because it would replicate powers already available under section 36 of the Housing (Wales) Act 2014, which, I would argue, address the committee's concerns. 

Recommendations 13 and 14 would, in my view, unnecessarily complicate the Bill and would undermine our approach to enforcement, so I must reject both. 

I am, however, happy to accept recommendation 15, which will ensure that we monitor the Bill's impact on the student rental market. 

Turning to the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee's report, regarding its first recommendation, I am happy to take this opportunity to confirm that I am satisfied that the Bill is housing related and does not engage any reserved matter. It's not standard practice for the Welsh Government to provide detailed analyses of competence, either in committee or during a general principles debate. Where detail is provided, it reflects unique circumstances, which do not apply to this Bill.

Recommendation 2 makes a broader point in relation to information on legislative competence in explanatory memorandums. This is an issue on which I know the committee has written to the First Minister, and a response will be provided shortly. 

Regarding recommendation 3, I am pleased that the Bill has been able to trial our new approach to integrating impact assessments, consolidating the current suite of impact assessments within a single document. The new process fulfils existing statutory duties associated with impact assessments and brings together a range of impact assessments in a more coherent framework. This reduces complexity and duplication, and so should assist the reader.

Regarding recommendation 4, this is an issue on which I know the committee has written to the First Minister, who will respond on behalf of the Welsh Government shortly. With regard to this Bill, I can confirm that a link to the impact assessment gateway document will be added to the explanatory memorandum.

I'm also happy to clarify the statements made within the explanatory memorandum and impact assessment gateway document in respect of privacy matters. Both will be amended to highlight that there will be privacy implications for a local housing authority when investigating offences and notifying Rent Smart Wales of an offence. I will ensure that the Bill's privacy impact assessment is published on the Welsh Government's website alongside the impact assessment gateway document. In addition, the explanatory memorandum will be amended to better reflect the approach that will be followed when consulting on subordinate legislation.

I can confirm that I will be tabling amendments to the Bill to make regulations made under Schedule 1, paragraph 2(4) and paragraph 6 of the Bill subject to the affirmative procedure. However, I cannot agree with the committee's recommendations that regulations under sections 7 and 13 should follow the superaffirmative procedure. I consider this to be unnecessary, as sufficient scrutiny and consultation will be provided through the affirmative procedure.

Similarly, I must reject recommendation 12, which proposes regulations under section 18 follow the affirmative procedure. That change is unnecessary, given that regulations can only deal specifically with those matters set out in the section, which effectively limits discretion as to the contents of those regulations.

Finally, I welcome the findings of the Finance Committee, particularly its welcoming of the explanatory memorandum's use of sensitivity analysis. The committee's two recommendations are consistent with my thinking on how we will assess the impact of the Bill. I look forward to continuing the debate on the Bill, and hope this Assembly will support its general principles. Diolch yn fawr. 

I call on the Chair of the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee—John Griffiths. 

Diolch, Llywydd. I'm pleased to contribute to today's debate as Chair of the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee following our scrutiny of the Bill. I'd like to thank all those who provided evidence to help inform our work, particularly tenants, landlords and letting agents across Wales who took time out to attend our focus groups. We also set up an online dialogue forum and are grateful to all those who contributed. 

In our scrutiny, we have considered the general principles and provisions in detail, focusing on the impact on tenants, landlords and letting agents, how the changes will be communicated and whether there is a need for a single or lead enforcement body. Having considered the evidence, we concluded that we agreed with the general principles of the Bill and have recommended that these be agreed by the Assembly. However, we have also made various recommendations and amendments where we believe the Bill could be strengthened, improved or clarified and I welcome the engagement from the Minister, as outlined here today.

Part 4 of the Bill, Llywydd, includes specific measures for enforcement. It is clear from the evidence we received that enforcement would be critical to delivering the Bill's purposes. We believe that there is a need to strengthen provisions. In particular, two main issues were highlighted to us about fixed-penalty notices, the level of the fixed penalty and how Rent Smart Wales may be made aware of notices being issued and paid. Concerns were raised by landlords, letting agents and tenants that the levels of fixed penalty would not act as a sufficient deterrent to rogue landlords and letting agents.

The Association of Residential Letting Agents told us that it supported financial penalties of between £5,000 and £30,000. We agree that it is likely that disreputable operators and the ones who are already charging high fees are the least likely to comply, and therefore, have recommended that the Minister amends the Bill to increase the levels of fixed penalties. We heard evidence suggesting that a banded or tiered approach to the levels of fixed penalties may be appropriate in order to distinguish between what may act as a deterrent for a self-managing landlord with one property and a large letting agency responsible for many. We believe that there is merit in such an approach and recommend that the Welsh Government considers how this could be implemented.

A more technical but still important issue is around the notification of enforcement action to Rent Smart Wales. We heard that there's no provision in the Bill to notify them when fixed-penalty notices are issued or paid and believe that this process should be tightened in order to help with their intelligence gathering and make the licensing system more robust. We therefore recommend that the Welsh Government bring forward amendments to require local authorities to notify Rent Smart Wales when a fixed-penalty notice is paid.

A key focus of our scrutiny was to consider whether there should be a lead enforcement body. We heard evidence both for and against. On reflection, we do not believe that there is a need for such a body, but we would like to see Rent Smart Wales given additional powers to enforce the legislation. This will reduce the opportunities for those flouting the law to go unpunished. We believe that the Bill should be amended to provide Rent Smart Wales with enforcement powers alongside local authorities.

Clearly, the impact of the Bill will be the ban of certain payments, and that will be an immediate impact, but it was suggested to us that an unintended consequence could be an increase in rents. Whilst we are not in a position to comment on whether this is likely to happen, we note from the evidence that the majority of tenants would prefer a small increase in rent, rather than having to pay upfront fees. However, it will be important to monitor rent levels as part of evaluating the impact of the Bill and we welcome the Minister's commitment to do this.

We heard some arguments in favour of a voluntary scheme with caps on fees, but were not convinced that this approach would be effective. In particular, we would be concerned that rogue operators—the ones whose practices need to change—are the ones least likely to engage with a voluntary scheme. We therefore believe that a legislative approach is the most likely way of creating a fairer market.

We are concerned that the Bill does not include provision for communicating the changes, notwithstanding what the Minister said earlier. Particularly, we are concerned that this could make it difficult for more vulnerable tenants and smaller agents and landlords to be aware of the changes. We note that Rent Smart Wales will be in a good position to communicate changes to landlords and letting agents, but we believe further consideration is needed as to ensuring tenants are aware, especially as tenants will play a critical role in alerting authorities to illegal payments. We therefore recommend that the Welsh Government brings forward amendments to require Welsh Ministers, local authorities and Rent Smart Wales to take reasonable steps to ensure all those affected are aware of the changes.

Llywydd, we recommend that the general principles be approved by the Assembly, and that the Bill is strengthened in the ways I have outlined. I very much welcome some of the Minister's assurances in response to our report, and the acceptance of a number of them, and also very much welcome the further consideration that will be given to others, as described by the Minister earlier. With regard to those not accepted, I very much hope that the Minister will continue to carefully consider our report as this Bill proceeds through the Assembly. Diolch yn fawr.

I call on the Chair of the Finance Committee, Llyr Gruffydd.

Diolch, Llywydd. I’m pleased to contribute to this Stage 1 debate to outline the Finance Committee’s recommendations in relation to the financial implications of the Renting Homes (Fees etc.) (Wales) Bill.

The Finance Committee supports the general principles of the Bill and agrees that the provisions are necessary to sustain an accessible and affordable private rental sector in Wales. However, we wish to bring the Assembly’s attention to the variation in the figures in the regulatory impact assessment in estimating the potential costs or benefits that could arise from implementing the Bill’s provisions.

The Welsh Government’s analysis has been developed through engagement with key stakeholders, including Rent Smart Wales, as well as being informed by the consultation exercise, independent research and the experience, of course, of similar legislation being implemented in Scotland. Nevertheless, the Minister told us that it has been necessary to make a number of assumptions, due to the substantial differences in practice across the private rented sector. Given the uncertainty in the central estimate presented, the Welsh Government has undertaken a sensitivity analysis, testing the impact of changes to these key assumptions.

The inclusion of the sensitivity analysis, examining the range of potential costs in the best and worst-case scenarios, is very much welcomed by the committee, although it does demonstrate a broad range of costs. For example, the 'do nothing' option presents a cost range of £36 million between the lower and higher estimates for tenant fees over a five-year period. And whilst recognising the estimated savings to tenants of banning fees, we are mindful that letting agents and landlords will recoup this lost income by other means, and we have recommended that the Welsh Government closely monitors and reviews the impact of the Bill’s implementation on rent levels.

Our final recommendation relates to local authority costs, and the costs of enforcement in particular, which will be central to the Bill’s success. We note the Minister’s view that a high level of compliance is anticipated, and recognise that local authorities will be able to retain the income from collecting fixed-penalty notices to offset enforcement costs. However, we remain concerned that enforcement activities may not be cost neutral for local authorities, and that increased rent levels could impact on local authorities' ability to discharge their duties to prevent homelessness through a private rented sector tenancy. We have therefore recommended that the Bill's financial impact on local authorities, particularly with regard to enforcement costs, should be closely monitored and evaluated to ensure that sufficient resources are available.

Thank you. I call the Chair of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, Mick Antoniw.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. We reported on the renting homes Bill on 24 October, and we made 12 recommendations. Overall, we welcomed the steps towards the creation of a subject-specific body of Welsh law relating to housing. We see this as a positive development ahead of the Welsh Government’s more comprehensive plans regarding consolidation and codification, and it should assist in the aim of making law in Wales more accessible.

Moving on, our approach when scrutinising Bills includes considering the extent to which the Member in charge has clearly explained which legislative powers in the Government of Wales Act 2006 are being used to make the legislation. It is not an attempt to undermine the Welsh Government’s or indeed the Llywydd’s assessment of legislative competence. We noted the evidence from the Minister and the information provided in the explanatory memorandum regarding legislative competence, and acknowledged that the change to the reserved-powers model may have made explaining the basis on which the Welsh Government is able to legislate more difficult. However, when we sought further information on this issue, we found the evidence produced by the Minister to be lacking in precision.

It is our opinion that the one-sentence explanation within the explanatory memorandum of how the Assembly has the legislative competence to make the provisions in the Bill lacks sufficient detail. We highlighted that the Welsh Government’s assessment of legislative competence for the Childcare Funding (Wales) Bill spans 11 paragraphs in the explanatory memorandum. While we do not suggest that a one-size-fits-all approach should be adopted, the stark difference between the approaches taken within those two Bills merits explanation.

Our first recommendation was that the Minister use this debate as an opportunity to provide more detail on the Welsh Government’s legislative competence assessment for the Bill. Our second recommendation was aimed more widely at the Welsh Government, requiring the Government, when bringing forward explanatory memoranda, to ensure that the information regarding legislative competence contains sufficient detail to ensure transparency. I've written separately to the First Minister on this point, and also in relation to Crown consent and recommendations 3, 4 and 7.

Moving on to recommendations 3, 4 and 5, we have significant concerns with the impact assessments accompanying the Bill. We were disappointed that an assumption had been made that Assembly Members and other interested parties would be familiar with the impact assessment gateway mentioned by the Minister in her evidence to us.

Our recommendation 3 asked the Minister to use the Stage 1 debate as an opportunity to provide more detail about the Welsh Government’s impact assessment gateway and, in particular, its significance to the Bill, and I look forward to the further response on this, as indicated by the Minister. We believe greater accessibility to both Welsh laws and accompanying explanatory material should be encouraged and promoted. We are concerned that the impact assessment gateway document for the Bill lacks clarity and coherence. Our recommendation 4, again, was directed more widely than the Minister, recommending that the Welsh Government ensures that its explanatory memoranda include links to all explanatory material available in regard to the relevant Bill.

Regarding the privacy impact assessment, we believe that clarification on this matter is needed, because the information within the impact assessment gateway document suggests that the assessment regarding the impact on privacy was not robust. I welcome the comments from the Minister on that. With regard to recommendation 5, we asked the Minister to explain during this debate why the explanatory memorandum and impact assessment gateway document suggest that the Bill produces no new requirements relating to privacy or the sharing of information, and why there appear to be inconsistencies between the two documents. I again welcome comments made by the Minister on that. With regard to recommendation 6, we ask the Minister to publish a full privacy impact assessment for the Bill before the start of Stage 3 proceedings, and I welcome the Minister’s comments on this point also. 

Moving on to the specific regulation-making powers in the Bill, we are content with the balance between what is on the face of the Bill and what is left to subordinate legislation. However, 'futureproofing' and 'flexibility' are not terms we wish to continually see being used by Ministers to justify the inclusion of a regulation-making power in a Bill. We are also concerned that the Welsh Government’s approach to determining the scrutiny procedure assigned to a regulation-making power appears to be based on what the relevant Minister considers to be technical in nature. However, 'technical' is a subjective judgment.

We note also that the regulations made under Schedule 1 are subject to the negative procedure, and we disagree with the argument put forward by the Minister that negative procedure regulations should be permitted to bring forward changes in future Government policy. We also disagree that changing the meaning of 'permitted variation' is something that could be categorised as technical.

Our recommendations 8 and 9 recommend the Bill should be amended so that regulations made under Schedule 1, paragraphs 2(4) and 6, are subject to the affirmative procedure.

Our established practice has been to seek the use of the affirmative procedure for any subordinate legislation that would change primary legislation—so-called Henry VIII powers. For that reason, we welcome that the Minister has drafted the Bill so that the affirmative procedure will be used for regulations made under section 7. However, the power to amend the definition of a permitted payment could alter the effect of the overall aim of the Bill or widen the number of criminal offences created by the Bill. Stakeholders and Assembly committees should have the opportunity to comment on draft regulations that would change a significant element of this legislation.

Recommendation 10 recommends the Bill be amended so that regulations made under section 7 are subject to a superaffirmative procedure. Section 13(3) provides the Welsh Ministers with the power to increase the level of the fixed penalty from £500 to an unknown maximum amount. Of course, the Minister has commented on that in the statement, with a proposed amendment. We noted that the UK Government’s Tenant Fees Bill will enable an enforcement authority in England to impose a fee of up to £30,000. We believe the potential for a significant increase in the amount of the fixed penalty should be subject to additional scrutiny.

As with section 7, our recommendation 11 recommends that section 13 regulations should be made via a superaffirmative procedure that ensures key stakeholders will be consulted before the amount of the fixed penalty is changed.

Can I say that we in the Welsh Conservative group will be supporting the motion today? Over the last decade, the private rented sector has grown both in absolute numbers and proportionality, mostly at the expense of owner-occupation levels. If the trend continues, the private rented sector will become the second most prevalent accommodation type after home ownership; it is anticipated to reach 20 per cent of total housing stock by 2020. So, we support the general principles of this legislation because the sector is becoming increasingly important in meeting housing need.

The private rented sector is diverse, providing homes to a wide variety of households, including students, families, single persons and those looking for short-term housing solutions. However, since the 2008 economic downturn, the sector is increasingly being used as a longer term housing option. Since new homes in the social housing sector are not keeping up with demand, and would-be first-time buyers are finding it increasingly difficult to access owner-occupation, the private rented sector is increasingly being used by many more Welsh households.

This Bill is just one step in the effort to build a housing market that is fit for the future. It is unfair that tenants across the country should be stung by unexpected and unreasonable costs. That's why we need to deliver on our promise to ban letting fees alongside other measures to make renting fairer and more transparent. What we hope is that the Welsh Government will learn from the Scottish ban, from what has been indicated in the committee report, and indeed the scrutiny of Westminster proposals, which is running a bit ahead of our Bill and I think has some useful lessons for us as well. That will ensure the most efficient system is put in place in Wales.

I now would like to turn to some of the recommendations that are in the committee report, but can I just say that the outcome that we need, and I think is furthered in that report, is a housing sector that is fair and works for all parties. Landlords deserve a reasonable and secure return. Reputable letting agents should be protected from rogue providers, and tenants should not face undue hardship at a time of often considerable stress.

So, with the exception of the committee's recommendation 8, which I do not agree with, I think the other recommendations add very much to the strength of this Bill. We will, therefore, obviously look at the responses that the Minister has made and also any specific amendments, but I do note that the response was fairly partial to the committee's report, and some key things have just been outrightly rejected.

Can I emphasise, Deputy Presiding Officer, the following recommendations? I'm not going to go through them all—there will be other opportunities for that. Recommendation 10 will increase, if it's implemented, the levels of fixed penalties—clear support from all sectors, and we need a deterrent and not just a system that recovers costs. I'm not sure that £1,000 is going to be enough, as the Finance Committee has already indicated. Certainly £500 was very unlikely to meet costs, but would £1,000? But we need to go well beyond recovering costs. This has to be a penalty, it has to act as a deterrent. So, I think, in our line-by-line scrutiny, we will need to look at this very carefully.

Recommendation 12, if implemented in an amendment, requires local authorities to notify Rent Smart Wales when a fixed-penalty notice is paid—not issued, when it is paid. This would definitely make the system much more robust. I though the Minister was very unclear. It seems to me to be the general card the Government sometimes plays—'Well, you know, local government have a general power to do all sort of things, so we'll do that.' This is a bit of housing legislation to make the system much more robust and fair to tenants, and it ought to be in the Bill if it is important. And it is important if Rent Smart Wales are going to act as a proper intelligence unit picking up those rogue landlords and letting agents that are having fixed-penalty notices imposed on them, and by different authorities, potentially. And you can only do that if there's a requirement for the local authorities to report. So, I thought you were very weak on that, to be frank.

Recommendation 13: the ability to charge a higher financial penalty as an alternative to prosecution, reflecting the English Bill, going up to £30,000. In effect, that's to offset a prosecution. It isn't strictly a fixed penalty. But I still think that sort of bite and that sort of alternative available to a local authority instead of going through the court system is important.

And I will now conclude with recommendation 14. We are passing legislation to protect tenants and the one thing it doesn't do is ensure that they get the illegal payment that was imposed upon them back. I really feel genuinely sorry for the poor backbenchers on the Labour benches over there who are going to have to grit their teeth and allow the Minister to get away with this. But we will oppose you every inch of the way and we will certainly seek to amend that provision so that tenants get justice. I conclude also by thanking all the stakeholders who helped us in our scrutiny. 

We'll be supporting the general principles of this Bill today, as in fact we have for several years now. Plaid Cymru, of course, tabled amendments to the renting homes Bill a few years ago that would have brought about a ban on letting agent fees. But these were, of course, voted down by the governing party, Labour, like so many other policies that they really should be backing. This time they said that it was on the grounds that more research needed to be done as to whether or not it was fair on the poorest people to be charged hundreds of pounds for credit checks that cost just a fraction of that. Shelter Cymru, of course, had done the research and Scotland had already banned letting agent fees. The Government subsequently changed their reasoning when the backbenchers queried it, instead shifting to the position that this wasn't a devolved matter and, therefore, there was nothing that could be done about it. But events overtook them. The Conservatives announced a ban on letting agent fees in England and there was a proposal to ban them in a motion here. How embarrassing for the Welsh Government.

And now that the Tories have finally introduced the Tenant Fees Bill into Parliament this summer, the current Welsh Government has been forced to act and we have this Bill in front of us today. It's about time, and had action been taken earlier, then several thousands of people wouldn't have been out of pocket in the way that they have been.

Research has consistently shown that tenants often face a bill of hundreds of pounds just for even attempting to move into a rented property, with no guarantee that they will move into that property in the end. The fees for things like credit checks can often be disproportionate to the work undertaken, a fact that the committee has demonstrated, and they act as a barrier to the market working properly. So, if, for example, a tenant finds that existing an landlord doesn't repair the property and they are stuck in poor accommodation, then they can be forced to face upfront costs of several hundred pounds for all the fees, advanced rent and other moving costs that will prevent the tenant exercising their consumer power and driving up standards. 

The committee, of course, has several recommendations that we support to improve the Bill in front of us, not least to ensure that the communication of the Bill and enforcement of it means that we don't have yet another piece of paper that just gets ignored. After all, don't we already have too many criminal offences that wealthy people seem to regard as trivial, like tax evasion, speeding, breaking Electoral Commission rules on spending et cetera? So, we have to really make sure that we aren't just adding another toothless piece of legislation to this list, and that's why we in Plaid Cymru expect it fully to be strengthened at the next stage. 

I'm very pleased to speak in this debate. I'm not on any of the committees that have scrutinised this Bill, but I think it's absolutely essential that the private rented sector is made accessible and affordable for the people who need it, and also that there is greater security of tenure. I agree with the general principles of the Bill, which are so important now that more and more people are dependent on the private rented sector. I think we all know that there are 460,000 people in Wales living in the private rented sector. Since 2001, the private rented sector has more than doubled in every local authority across Wales. I'm particularly concerned about the families with children who are dependent on the private rented sector, because in 2003 the number of children in the UK in owner-occupied housing outnumbered those in the private rented sector by 8:1 and that ratio has now fallen to 2:1 across the UK. So, the private rented sector is the place for families with children, it's needed for older people, people with vulnerabilities—it plays such a huge role now in provision. So, that's why this legislation is so important.

I welcome the recommendations from the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee. I particularly welcome the recommendation asking the Welsh Government to bring forward amendments at Stage 2 so that landlords are restricted from issuing section 21 notices or their equivalent under the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016 if they have charged a prohibited fee and not yet refunded the tenant. I think that this is an important step because it does restrict the use of section 21 and my hope is that the Welsh Government will eventually abolish section 21 altogether. But I do want to say that I think this is an important step, because, of course, section 21 or the no-fault evictions means that tenants can be moved on after six months or turfed out with just two months' notice. Six-month contracts also mean that renters face the worrying possibility of rent hikes twice a year. I think this is totally wrong and we need to think about the impact of this insecurity, particularly on young families. It can be such a struggle to get children a school place, or to find a part-time job that fits around caring responsibilities, and a secure home should be the foundation of family life. It should not be what throws people's lives into chaos at short notice. So, I do support that recommendation from the committee and I welcome what the Minister said when she was commenting on the recommendations.

I know that the Welsh Government has made steps to reduce the insecurity of tenure already by ending retaliatory evictions and also ending the current practice where some landlords issue a section 21 notice at the start of a tenancy so that they can make a possession order after two months. I know that the Welsh Government has already taken those actions. However, I believe getting rid of section 21 is something that is actually vitally important for this Government to do and so I particularly wanted to speak and welcome this step, which I think is a step definitely in the right direction.

Thanks to the Minister for bringing her Bill to this stage today. UKIP agrees with the general principles of the Bill. We've spoken in the past of our wish to ban unwarranted letting agency fees and this Bill does address that issue as part of its general thrust of making it easier for tenants in the private rented sector. Yes, there are currently many unwarranted fees. Leanne Wood mentioned the issue of disproportionate fees, where tenants are charged large amounts for tasks that cost comparatively little. Perhaps even worse than the disproportionate fees is the issue of the lack of transparency when tenants are sometimes charged for things and they don't even know what they're being charged for. So, we do need to address these issues, and this Bill should make the fees in the private rented sector a lot easier to police.

We do have to be wary of excessive regulation, of course, and we do have to keep an eye on the possible unintended consequences. Other Members have mentioned the possibility of rents rising. We did hear from many different people on the local government committee in our inquiry, as our Chairman, John Griffiths, elucidated earlier. There was no clear evidence that arose during the inquiry that, after Scotland passed similar legislation in 2012, there was a rental increase that was connected to the abolition of the fees.

There were a few issues that were kind of loose ends. There was an issue over passporting security deposits, which we raised with the Minister during the inquiry, with one problem facing tenants being that they may still be waiting to get back the security deposit from the property that they're vacating while at the same time being asked to come up with the security deposit for the property they're intending to move into. So, it was raised by at least one member of the committee that, if the intention of the Government was to make life easier for tenants in the private rented sector, then developing some kind of passporting scheme for the deposits would have been a welcome part of the Bill. I appreciate the Minister has said that the Welsh Government is looking at this, but it would be interesting if she could enlighten us further on that aspect today.

We also could do with some clarity on a couple of the specific recommendations. David Melding, I thought, went into some of the shortcomings in the Bill very well, when he looked at the specific recommendations, and I agreed with him on each of those recommendations. The raising of the fixed-penalty notices—the doubling of them—is a welcome development, but, as David mentioned, that may not be enough, because if you have landlords or agents with many properties, they may not find that that's enough of a deterrent and they may deliberately carry on charging fees even if they face a possible £1,000 fine.

I think recommendation 14 is perhaps the most baffling shortcoming of the Bill, as I see it. I can't remember, Minister, what you said the rationale was as to why we couldn't have a system enforcing the repayment of unwarranted letting agency fees. I imagine, or I vaguely recall, it was some legal issue, but perhaps you could enlighten us further as to that when you speak again at the end. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

The market is broken at the moment, and therefore this Bill proposes to fix that. We need to get it right. We can't go on having tenants who are being forced to stay in damp or insecure properties just because they simply don't have the money to pay for the letting agent's fees. That is not the way in which markets operate and, at the moment, they are operating entirely to the advantage of the letting agent. The average tenancy fee is £337 and, in Cardiff, it's as much as £450, just for the pleasure of signing a contract. So, we have to rectify this. There's a particular problem in my constituency, Cardiff Central, which has the highest proportion of university students of any constituency around the UK. Young people who have never entered into a legal agreement on anything before are particularly vulnerable to being strong-armed into some pretty outrageous fees. Not only are they charged £60 or more for a credit check, which probably doesn't cost more than £5 to execute, but they're also being charged renewal fees as high as £300, which simply involves printing out the same contract with new dates on it. People have even been charged £150 per person to take a property off the market while they sort out the contract. This is what happens in a seller's market, and we need to change the balance so that it is fairer for the renter.

The only losers in this Bill are the outrageous letting agents who've been charging both the tenant and the landlords for carrying out work. They've been double-jobbing, these unscrupulous agents, and they need to be put out of business. We heard very good evidence from both the Residential Landlords Association and the Association of Residential Letting Agents that they want us to put these people out of business, and therefore we need to strengthen the Bill to ensure that that happens. There's no point in introducing an abolition of letting agency fees if we then allow spurious charges to be introduced for other matters. So, I think it's disappointing that we don't have a stronger response in terms of what constitutes an appropriate default fee. It needs to be really clear that that has to be fair and reasonable, otherwise we will have all manner of default fees for bringing in and out. 

There is a particular problem, obviously, with tenants who are unable to pay their rent on time because the universal credit has failed to make that payment. Clearly, landlords need to get their payments on time because they've got to pay their own costs, but, nevertheless, it's difficult to see how there's an appropriate arrangement for people being charged for things over which they have no control. It's absolutely appropriate that tenants should be charged for the bother of getting new keys if they were to lose them, or some other matter that requires the landlord to make special visits, but I think that one of the things we need to do is make sure that the range of fines is appropriate for the range of letting agency landlords that we have. The proverbial little old lady who simply hadn't read the legislation and wasn't aware of it who charges a fee is one thing, but a letting agent with 100 properties, it is hard to see how they could possibly not have known that they were not entitled to charge a fee.

Therefore, I'm disappointed that the Minister is still not planning to ensure that any penalty has not been discharged if they haven't returned the illegally charged fee to the tenant. We're not in the business here of creating more work for the citizens advice bureaux or other advice agencies. They've got plenty of work on their plate as it is, so I think that we simply need to ensure that the regulations are sufficiently robust that those who've done the wrong thing have rectified it before they're allowed to move on.

I think also that it's very disappointing that the Minister only wants to increase the range of fines to £1,000, when even the Association of Residential Letting Agents support financial penalties of between £5,000 and £30,000. They're encouraging us to be more radical, because they want the unscrupulous letting agents put out of business as well. I think that we have to be really careful that, with exit fees, it's entirely appropriate for a reasonable fee to be charged if a tenant is terminating the contract before the period they signed up for, but I don't think it's at all reasonable for exit fees to be charged when it's come to the end of the tenancy, the year or whatever it is. There should be no fee charged—simply both parties are moving on. So, we will discuss this matter further and I look forward to reading the detailed response from the Minister.          

Thank you. Janet Finch-Saunders.

I'm not speaking.

Right, thank you. Dawn Bowden.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm not a member of any of the committees that have scrutinised this Bill, so I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of the general principles of the Bill—a Bill that I believe paves the way for further improvements in housing conditions in Wales, and will enhance our efforts to tackle exploitation, especially in the private rented sector. And that is really what I wanted to concentrate my comments on and, in doing so, can I wholly support the comments made by Julie Morgan in her contribution? I think you were absolutely spot on, Julie.

I think there are two benchmarks for legislation such as this. The first is: will it help us to improve the living conditions for those people we represent? And, does it seek to tackle exploitation? I think the Bill does both of these things, or potentially does both of those things. I also welcome the impact that I think the Bill could have on the health and well-being of people. I know that many of us, from our constituency work and from the research that we do, see the health impacts of housing and that the self-reported health of adults who are private renters is much poorer than those in other tenures. So, I'm sure that reducing the financial barriers to finding suitable accommodation should make it easier for prospective tenants to gather the funds required in order to move to a property that is more suitable to their needs. That has to be a good thing. 

It will also be a good thing to reduce unexpected fees, which can cause financial distress—distress that can lead to worry and stress, and that sometimes extends to more serious mental health problems. So, I believe that the Bill has the potential to impact positively on the mental health of some of those tenants. And there are also potential physical health benefits from the removal of fees, resulting in income being saved and therefore able to be spent on food, fuel and other essential health-related outgoings.

Llywydd, you will be aware of the work that I have already championed in respect of tackling the problems around the abhorrent practice of sex for rent. Indeed, I tabled a legislative motion on that subject last year. So, can I take this opportunity of thanking the Minister for taking steps to amend the code of practice for those landlords and agents licensed under Rent Smart Wales, as one small step towards tackling this particular problem, but much, much further to go? And that is why I do very much support the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee’s recommendation 9 on the need to tackle the problems of the so-called ‘no fault evictions’, section 21, which can be used by exploitative landlords to take advantage of the most vulnerable tenants in our society—for example, those who do little more than exert their rights to seek to have repairs in their premises, or refuse the approaches from unscrupulous landlords for sexual favours. Now, clearly that doesn't apply to all landlords and letting agents, but I believe that these are the types of changes that we must continue to make further progress on if we are to tackle the problems of exploitation.

But, I'm also looking forward to this Bill providing a basis for further action to protect vulnerable tenants, especially those in the private rented sector, which I know this is aimed at, and that includes the prospect of improving legislation around sex for rent. So, I do welcome your commitment, Minister, to move towards an end to no-fault evictions within the scope of this legislation—and I won’t repeat all of what that involves as Julie Morgan has already outlined that—but I do hope that this will eventually lead to the end of section 21 as we know it and is a further step towards securing tenancies for the most vulnerable in our society.

Thank you. Can I now call the Minister for Housing and Regeneration to reply to the debate? Rebecca Evans.

Thank you very much for everybody's contributions to the debate this afternoon. I'll try and answer as many of the points that were raised as I can in the time that I have, although I know that we'll continue these discussions in committee as well.

I'll turn immediately to the issues that have been described about the Government's response to recommendation 14 to repay prohibited payments after a fixed-penalty notice. It's important to recognise here that the route for redress for contract holders is through the courts, and they can continue to draw on support from independent expert organisations such as Shelter Cymru and Citizens Advice when making those claims. Local housing authorities—

[Inaudible.]—give way on this. Why don't you follow the practice set out in the English Bill, which does allow local authorities to do this?

Well, local housing associations do not have the developed skills in this area. The developed skills in this area and the expertise lies outside local housing authority areas, so we wouldn't want to be putting additional burdens on local authorities, who I don't think would welcome those additional burdens. The courts, however, are regularly dealing with claims of this type, and they would be able to assist a contract holder through the process. Fixed-penalty notices work because they can be used quickly and easily by LHAs. The more we add to the process the more we become in danger of LHAs being reluctant in terms of enforcement of the provisions of the Bill, and, if LHAs end up chasing unpaid prohibited payments, they're actually diverted then from the actual enforcement work of investigating offences and issuing FPNs or bringing proceedings through the courts. So, we think in this scenario it is the courts that would be the appropriate way for these matters to be taken forward.

I'm grateful to—

Are you giving way?

Yes.

I'm unable to understand why it's not possible to simply add as an addendum to the fixed penalty that evidence must be produced that the money has been repaid. It doesn't need to be anything more than a copy of their bank statement that shows that the money has been repaid.

I'll certainly consider suggestions that have been made, but I don't want to make the enforcement regime any more onerous than it has to be, because we've learnt from Rent Smart Wales that, actually, it's the simplicity of the enforcement regime there that has made it so very successful, and, of course, as Llyr pointed out in his contribution, we do actually expect very high levels of compliance with this legislation. But of course I'll be considering all the points raised in this debate.

I'm very grateful to Julie Morgan and Dawn Bowden for raising the issue of section 21. Whilst we are very much committed to working with landlords to build a vibrant private rented sector, it can't be at the expense of tenants, and how some landlords do use section 21 notices is quite rightly of concern to us. I was very grateful to Julie Morgan for convening a meeting with me, Dawn Bowden and Shelter to discuss the concerns about section 21, and, as a result of that, officials have been discussing the potential ways forward with the relevant stakeholders in the sector. I think it would be useful now if we reconvened that meeting to explore where we've got to and what steps we will take next.

Several references were made to the legislation that was being taken forward in England and Scotland and I can confirm that, of course, Welsh Government has been fully engaged with partners in other administrations, looking to learn from their approaches. Certainly, as Scotland has already legislated in this area, we're looking at the impacts that they have seen in terms of the legislation, but also looking at the evidence that England has received, and their approach there.

One important difference, however, is that in Wales we do have Rent Smart Wales as an enforcement body. All landlords and letting agents must be registered with Rent Smart Wales, and it is a huge deterrent, the fact that a landlord or a letting agent could potentially lose their licence and their ability to rent those properties. That is a deterrent that we have in Wales that they don't have in England, which I think does give a different context for the legislation that we're developing here.

I've been pleased to accept a number of the committee's recommendations, for example, the recommendation of increasing the fixed-penalty notice. So, I'm proposing to double it. I recognise the calls for taking a similar approach to the fines that will be fined in England, but, again, we need to reflect that we do have a different system and different and stronger deterrents here in Wales as well. I've also been happy to accept that recommendation about Rent Smart Wales also having enforcement powers, and to give further consideration to the banded or tiered approach, but, equally, at the same time, I'm keen to maintain some simplicity. But we'll have some further discussions about that as well.

I do want to recognise the point that Llyr made about the importance of the private rented sector in terms of being an important partner for local authorities when they're seeking to discharge their duties under the Housing Act, both in terms of preventing homelessness and relieving homelessness. This is certainly part of a wider piece of work I'm doing to explore how we can improve those relationships and reduce and remove the barriers that there are to the private rented sector being used in Wales.

I'm grateful to Dawn for her comments on the issue of sex for rent. This is certainly something that we're keen to address in Wales. It needs to be something that is tackled across administrations, but certainly within our powers we can amend the code of practice for landlords to make it absolutely crystal clear that anyone who advertises property for rent with the requirement of sex risks losing their licence to operate in Wales. And, of course, this is on top of the work that we're doing to ensure that people who are registered with Rent Smart Wales have passed a fit-and-proper-person test, and that involves but isn't limited to checking that they don't have any unspent convictions for relevant offences such as violent crime, fraud or sexual offences, for example. So, there are several pieces of work ongoing related to this Bill.

I can see that I'm out of time, but I did want to take this opportunity to welcome Leanne Wood to her new role and also to put on record my thanks to Bethan for the work that she's done on this Bill thus far and I look forward to working with Leanne in this particular portfolio.

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

Item 9 on the agenda this afternoon is the motion to approve the financial resolution in respect of the Renting Homes (Fees etc.) (Wales) Bill, and I call on the Minister for Housing and Regeneration to move that motion. Rebecca Evans.

I formally move the motion and I would like to take, again, this opportunity to thank the committees for the scrutiny of the Bill. I will lay an amended explanatory memorandum and regulatory impact assessment ahead of Stage 3, as required by Standing Orders.

Thank you. David Melding. No? Thank you. 

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, in accordance with Standing Order 12.36, that motion is also agreed.

Item 10 is a debate on the Equality and Human Rights Commission's Wales committee annual review 2017-18, and I call on the Counsel General to move that motion. Jeremy Miles.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate today on the Wales committee of the Equality and Human Rights Commission's annual report for the year 2017-2018. The review was launched earlier today in the Assembly with the UN rapporteur on poverty and human rights, and with the Chair of the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee, John Griffiths. 

I want to thank the Wales committee and the staff of the EHRC, including those who are here today in the public gallery, not just for the report but for the hard work they do to promote equality and human rights in Wales. I recognise that this includes the commission's responsibility to 'shine a light on uncomfortable truths', to quote the commissioner in Wales, Dr June Milligan.

During the past year, since the last debate on the EHRC annual review, the Welsh Government has been driving forward our goal of making Wales a more equal nation. The leader of the house has met several times with June Milligan and Ruth Coombs, head of the EHRC in Wales, to discuss how we can work jointly to address and eradicate the inequalities we still see in Wales.

This year, it's important that, alongside the annual review, we should also take careful notice of the EHRC's 'Is Wales Fairer? (2018)' report, which provides substantial fresh evidence to drive and underpin the work of all policymakers and delivery agencies who are seeking to build a more equal Wales. That report is a valuable tool to help us to ensure our decision making is robust and that our policies and services take account of people's needs and are accessible to all. We will also be considering all of the commission's recommendations in 'Is Wales Fairer?' carefully to decide what new or different actions are needed in response. Taken together, the annual report and 'Is Wales Fairer?' demonstrate how productive the EHRC has been this year. This is, of course, in the context of what remains an exceptionally challenging time for human rights, both in the UK and abroad.

I will not try to highlight all the other work the commission has undertaken this year; you can see for yourselves in the review. I will, however, address some of the crucial aspects of their role. 

The UK's exit from the European Union continues to bring uncertainty, not least in relation to equality and human rights, and we'll be debating those issues in more detail tomorrow. In these challenging times, the commission's work remains vital, and I again thank the Wales team and their colleagues around the UK for the advice and evidence they provided to our joint committee's report on equalities and Brexit. The decades of EU membership have produced a legacy of benefits covering many, many aspects of daily life in Wales, and we intend to safeguard these benefits in Wales, and we will vigorously oppose any attempt to cut corners or create worse conditions as we leave the EU. 

Creating a more equal Wales, where everyone has the opportunity to reach their full potential and is able to contribute fully to the economy, will enable Wales to be more prosperous and innovative. It is therefore vital, for example, that all women are able to achieve and prosper, and we are committed to working with the EHRC and others to ensure fair employment in Wales, to protect workers' rights, and ensure women do not face discrimination in the workplace in relation to pregnancy or maternity. The EHRC's Working Forward campaign not only benefits women in the workplace—it also makes good business sense to support staff in the workplace generally. 

The commission continues to promote gender equality, including through its submission to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, assessing the progress on women's rights since 2013, and making recommendations both to the UK and the Welsh Governments. Our own programme of work on gender equality continues through the gender equality review. Chwarae Teg is leading on delivery of phase 2 of the review, building on the work they completed in phase 1. The leader of the house chairs the steering group overseeing the review, and the EHRC is represented by Ruth Coombs. We will be considering both the CEDAW submission and the evidence and recommendations from 'Is Wales Fairer? (2018)?'

Our approach involves working across different equality strands, including race, disability and age, and aiming to ensure that no-one is left behind. We recognise that women and girls who experience multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination are often excluded from progress. By summer 2019, we will have a clear road map, in the form of the phase 2 report, for achieving gender equality in Wales, and the work will continue beyond the formal end of the project to ensure that the right things are being done to achieve this goal.

This year, we have really accelerated progress in delivering the objectives in our national strategy on violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence. The number of public sector workers we have trained has topped 135,000. For the first time, local health boards and local authorities have published strategies on tackling these issues. We've run two very successful communications campaigns, and we have worked with survivors and stakeholders to inform policy development and delivery. But there is still a mountain to climb, and we need to do more to ensure that we deliver what is needed, where it is needed and when it is needed. 

During this year, the EHRC has been carrying out an extensive monitoring exercise to assess how well the Welsh public sector is fulfilling their duties under the Equality Act 2010. This work is close to completion, and we look forward to discussing the findings with the commission. I have also been reflecting on what we can do strengthen the public sector equality duty. Our initial priorities, closely linked to the gender review, are to address pay and employment gaps. We will be taking early steps to strengthen the guidance and regulation around these duties, to improve the monitoring arrangements and ensure that information on the performance of the Welsh public sector as a whole is readily available and easy to find.

We acknowledge that there is more to do in Wales to promote disabled people's rights. The EHRC report 'Being disabled in Britain' and their housing inquiry report have both provided food for thought, and influenced our new draft framework, 'Action on disability: the right to independent living'. I urge you to respond to the consultation, which is open until mid January. 

The commission's report on the cumulative impact of UK Government tax and welfare reforms, both implemented and proposed, on people sharing different protected characteristics was a shocking revelation of the UK Government's austerity measures. It is profoundly wrong in a civilised nation to ignore the impacts of these reforms on equality, and it is a serious injustice for the incomes of the poorest and most vulnerable groups in our society to be impacted in such a disproportionate way. Yet a combination of reducing incomes and cuts to vital support services are the bleak reality for too many people in the UK. We will continue our efforts to mitigate the impact of austerity measures on some of the most disadvantaged people in Wales, but we cannot possibly do all that is really needed.

'Is Wales Fairer? (2018)' calls for the Welsh Government to enact the socioeconomic duty of the Equality Act 2010

'to tackle the biggest driver of inequality in Wales: poverty.'

The leader of the house has discussed this extensively, and, in particular, I know she thanks the future generations commissioner for her advice on how this might work within the context of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. Within the last week, officials have been asked to scope a research project to model and test what practical impacts different options would be likely to have. Engagement and consultation with protected groups are fundamental requirements of our Welsh-specific equality duties. This engagement is vital to understand, identify and address barriers to equality and deliver policies and services that are efficient and effective.

'Is Wales Fairer?' adds to our evidence base on equality and human rights and will contribute substantially to the Welsh Government's work in the coming years, not least the consultation on our next set of equality objectives for 2020-24, which will start early in the new year. Aligning our objectives with the commissioner's challenges will ensure we are taking a targeted, joined-up approach to tackling inequality in Wales. I hope it may be possible to develop objectives, not just for the Welsh Government alone, but ones that can be shared and supported across the Welsh public sector. 

Engagement with the public sector and other stakeholders makes up a large part of the EHRC's work, including through their exchange network. This year also saw again an oversubscribed annual conference, which focused on identity-based violence, violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence. Nazir Afzal, one of the two national advisers on these matters, spoke at the event. Also very popular was the EHRC's chair, David Isaac's lecture on human rights in the twenty-first century, which looked at the potential impact of Brexit in Wales. 

So, we thank the commission for their work, not only this year, but since their inception. I think these examples emphasise the importance that Welsh civil society places on the work the EHRC does in Wales to improve lives and safeguard rights. The commission is an evaluator, an enforcer, an influencer and, critically, a catalyst for change. We remain grateful for its guidance and we value its strong and distinct presence in Wales.

I have selected the five amendments to the motion, and I call on Mark Isherwood to move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Mark.

Diolch. As the review states, the Equality and Human Rights Commission or EHRC Wales team works to inform legislation, policy and scrutiny and to embed equality and human rights in public service delivery in Wales. It also makes extensive reference to the commission's 2018 'Is Wales Fairer?' report. Nineteen years after devolution, its findings include: poverty and deprivation are both higher in Wales than in other nations in Britain; Wales is the least productive nation in the UK—median hourly earnings in Wales are lower than in England and Scotland; adults in Wales report far higher levels of poor mental health and well-being than in England; Wales has a higher suicide rate than England, with men over four times more likely to die by suicide than women; disabled people are falling further behind, evidenced by disparities with non-disabled people increasing rather than reducing; compared to England and Scotland, Wales has the lowest life expectancies, particularly for disabled people, and high levels of racism and violence against women. Figures from north Wales police also show that one in four people who report domestic violence there are now men.

Parallel to this, last month's Bevan Foundation poverty rates in Wales report found a higher relative income poverty rate in Wales than in England, Northern Ireland and Scotland, a higher proportion of working-age adults in poverty in Wales than in any other UK nation, and a pensioner poverty rate in Wales far higher than in any of the other UK nations.

The EHRC highlighted a stark attainment gap between disabled learners, including deaf pupils, and their peers. As the National Deaf Children’s Society Cymru states, we need a Welsh Government commitment to address this. The EHRC also reports high exclusion rates for pupils with additional learning needs. As it states, the consequences of this can be very serious. However, although a court ruling has now made clear that schools must ensure that they've made appropriate adjustments for autistic pupils before they can resort to exclusion, I was contacted by yet another parent last week whose autistic son had been excluded.

Damningly, the EHRC also found limited evidence available to examine how Welsh Government policies have affected particular groups, as very few robust evaluations of policies have been carried out in the period under review. It says

'There should be a sharp focus on improving life in Wales for disabled people, with the Welsh  Government incorporating the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) fully into Welsh legislation.'

As Disability Wales states, this would strengthen involvement of disabled people and their representative organisations in informing and influencing policy.

The Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act Part 2 code of practice states that local authorities must put:

'robust arrangements in place to secure involvement of people in the design and operation of services'

and

'that well-being includes key aspects of independent living, as expressed in the UN Convention on the Rights of Disabled People'.

But, I hear almost daily from disabled people and carers who are having to fight for the support they need to enable them to live an independent life, because people in power don’t want to share it, and label them the problem.

The EHRC states, 

'The Wales Act 2017 has given the Welsh Government the opportunity to enact a socio-economic duty, which would ensure public bodies work together to tackle the biggest driver of inequality in Wales: poverty.'

I therefore move amendment 1, referring to the joint committee recommendation for the Welsh Government to outline its position on the introduction of the socioeconomic duty. In his July response to that, the First Minister stated,

'We will work with the UK Government'

and

'with the Equality and Human Rights Commission on these issues.'

Therefore, I'd be grateful if the Counsel General could add to his comments regarding this a few moments ago in the context of that statement by the First Minister on working with the UK Government as well as the EHRC.

Our amendment also notes the report’s key recommendations regarding the public sector equality duty, which calls on the Welsh Government to review how the duty could be amended to focus public bodies on taking action to address the key challenges in this report. I regularly represent constituents on issues ranging from deafhood to autism, disability support to access, and routinely have to remind public bodies of their public sector equality duty. Too often, their response illustrates a shockingly poor understanding of the barriers faced by disabled people.

As the EHRC states,

'In 2022 we want to see significant progress on equality and human rights in Wales that results in reductions in entrenched and persistent inequality.' 

As they say,

'We want everyone to live in a fairer Wales.'

I now call on Leanne Wood to move amendments 2, 3, 4 and 5, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd, I move the amendments tabled in Rhun ap Iorwerth's name. But, before I address the amendments, I'd like to briefly address the issues around poverty outlined in this report, 'Is Wales Fairer?' The report shows that Wales has a relative poverty rate higher than England or Scotland's and that the relative poverty rate for 16 to 24-year-olds has increased by a staggering 17.7 percentage points. Now, it appears, because it says on page 57 of this report, that:

'In Britain overall, poverty rates have not changed significantly since 2010/11.'

That means, of course, that poverty levels are worse here than elsewhere. And if that is correct, as a Government, you need to get to the bottom of why that is. If this deepening of poverty is indeed just happening in Wales, then this poverty can't be explained by austerity, because otherwise we would see the same trends elsewhere. That means that we in Wales need specific solutions, and that starts by acknowledging and accepting that we have specific problems that need to be addressed, and it means having an anti-poverty strategy, and it means getting the basics right, like definitions—something that the Government is lacking on so far. 

I now turn to the amendments, all of which are aimed at addressing poverty and inequality. Amendment 2 is an invitation to Labour backbenchers to support their own party's policy over what the whip says, but I won't be holding my breath. The Welsh independent living grant is being phased out, with responsibility being passed to local authorities. There's already considerable evidence that this is leading to reduced levels of support, significantly harming the most disabled people in Wales. So, I appeal to all of you: please don't vote against this amendment today on the basis of assurances of a review, assurances that these are only isolated incidents, or even that these problems don't exist, or that, somehow, disabled people are lying. Those points should be treated with the contempt that they deserve. It's absurd to suggest that local authorities are going to be able to provide equivalent levels of support, given the financial pressures that we all know that they face. 

Turning to amendment 3, on the continued lack of funding for services that help survivors of sexual assault and rape, the First Minister of course says that he wants Wales to be the safest country for women, so I eagerly await details of how, in the context of austerity and local authority cuts, these services that can reduce the impact of adverse childhood experiences will receive the increased funding that they badly need.

Amendment 4 is tabled to ensure that all of us treat class inequalities as an equalities issue. Some areas of our political culture have just about grasped that sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia and ableism have negative impacts on the lives of the majority of citizens in Wales. Discrimination leads to poor decision making. Well, so does discrimination on the basis of social class, and this report clearly shows that poverty is deepening and we should regret that and be prepared to do something about it. That's why things have to change. Public bodies have a duty to ensure that we create a Wales where no-one is left behind, and all employers, public and private, have a duty to become a living wage employer—a real living wage employer—and this would have the impact on poverty that I've referenced earlier.

Turning to amendment 5, which is a broader point about why we are having these debates, it's a disappointment to all of us, I'm sure, that we've seen a growth of political movements seeking to roll back even the most basic human rights protections over the last decade. From Trump to Bolsonaro and the recent friends of the Conservative Party in Hungary, via a Brexit detour, we've seen attacks on the very concept of human rights coming from the wealthiest and most powerful. At least in the 1930s, ordinary Germans could use the excuse of not being able to predict the future if they tacitly tolerated the Nazis, but there is no excuse today for supporting these political movements. I can scarcely believe that we have to restate the case for human rights, but it's absolutely clear that we do, and, hopefully, we can maintain a progressive alliance here to do just that.

I'm pleased to speak in this debate as Chair of the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee. The commission, of course, is one of our committee's key stakeholders, and throughout this reporting period we have continued to have an effective and constructive relationship, which has helped inform a range of our work. I was pleased to welcome the EHRC to the Senedd earlier today to mark the publication of their report, 'Is Wales Fairer?' 2018. This has been an important part of the commission's work over the last year and has resulted in an important and comprehensive report that provides a clear evidence base for assessing whether we are making progress in reducing inequality in Wales. I know that our committee will use this report as an important tool in our scrutiny in the coming years. It sets out a number of clear, cross-cutting recommendations, which if implemented could make a significant difference. Their cross-cutting nature helps to signal that equality is something that impacts on all aspects of life rather than it being a single issue only some people need to consider. In particular, I would highlight the recommendation for the Welsh Government to set achievable and binding targets to reduce poverty and to report on progress annually. This very much resonates with the findings of our committee. We've been calling for a single anti-poverty strategy for some time now, along with the need for clear targets and indicators against which progress can be monitored. 

We would hope that the Government will accept the commission's recommendation and implement it as soon as possible. It is important that we are able to understand what progress is being made to tackle poverty, given the extent of socioeconomic issues here in Wales. And enacting the socioeconomic duty is very important also, and I very much welcome the Counsel General's announcement of work to consider its enactment. 

Dirprwy Lywydd, moving on to other aspects of the annual review, the commission's work on the experiences of pregnant and new parents directly influenced our recent work on parenting and employment, which we debated in the Chamber this term. The commission's Working Forward campaign aims to make workplaces the best they can be for pregnant women and new parents. It is heartening that over 30 leading Welsh organisations have signed the pledge, including the Welsh Government. I very much hope that more companies and organisations will sign and help bring about necessary improvement. 

The review also highlights the work the EHRC has been doing so that we can better understand the potential implications of Brexit. This will be an issue that will be debated tomorrow in the Chamber, but I would stress that the EHRC has played an important role in our committee's understanding of what Brexit might mean for human rights. The majority of our committee supports the commission's calls to ensure that rights currently protected under the EU charter of fundamental rights are continued once we leave the European Union. I look forward to debating those issues in more detail tomorrow. 

Dirprwy Lywydd, in closing I would like to commend the review to the Assembly and the important work that the commission continues to do here in Wales. 

Thanks to the Counsel General for bringing today's debate and to the Wales Equality and Human Rights Commission for their annual review. We in UKIP note the efforts to bring more disabled people into the workplace and bring more apprenticeships to women and ethnic minorities, among other laudable objectives that are outlined in the report. We have a number of amendments today—one from the Conservatives and four from Plaid Cymru. We broadly support the thrust of these amendments, apart from Plaid's amendment 5, which seems to be saying that the populist right is seeking to roll back human rights protections. From the fairly vague wording of the amendment, I wasn't—[Interruption.] Okay, if you say so. From the fairly vague wording of the amendment, I wasn't totally sure which specific protections were being referred to today. Donald Trump was mentioned, so let's have a look at Donald Trump for a moment. Some commentators would claim that President Trump is indeed attempting to roll back—

Would you give way, Gareth?

No, not today, thank you, Neil. 

Some commentators would claim that President Trump is indeed attempting to roll back human rights protections in the USA. But to me he is simply trying to protect the USA's southern border from illegal immigration. I'm not sure I would agree that trying to implement an immigration policy that has been constitutionally agreed by the federal Government and its democratically elected legislatures actually amounts to rolling back human rights. Well, actually, I'm sure it doesn't represent that, and I think that Trump's election demonstrates that a broad mass of the US population don't think that either—

Would the Member give way?

No thanks.

[Inaudible.]—giving way.

What does intrigue me is the issue of free speech. We now seem to have—[Interruption.] Thanks, Alun. We now seem to have a situation where the concept of free speech seems to clash with minority rights. So, the political left, far from championing people's liberty to speak and broadcast their opinions, are now trying to clamp down on this and get people who say the wrong things prosecuted. Elements of the left tried to ban me from this Chamber a year ago and, of course, there are now moves afoot to get me banned again. Banning elected politicians for broadcasting opinions that the left does not like does not seem very consistent to me with having a genuine interest in human rights. In other words, the left is rather hypocritical on this, hence this ludicrous amendment 5 from Plaid Cymru today, which we oppose. Diolch yn fawr iawn. 

I welcome the EHRC report updating us on the state of equality and human rights in Wales in 2018. I want to focus today, and will again tomorrow in the equalities and Brexit debate, on one action, and that's the recommendation to the Welsh Government by the EHRC and backed by two Assembly committees that the Welsh Government should bring the socioeconomic equality duty to life in Wales. In 'Is Wales Fairer?', the EHRC calls on the Welsh Government to enact the socioeconomic equality duty in the Equality Act 2010 so that public bodies have due regard to the need to reduce the inequalities of outcome that result from socioeconomic disadvantage. We need the commitment from the Welsh Government that this will be progressed as rapidly as possible.

I want to use the opportunity today to return to two key themes that I've been speaking on over the past year. The first is my commitment to tackling the gender pay gap. Earlier this year, I noted from the World Economic Forum that it will take 217 years to achieve gender pay parity. We had the opportunity this year to scrutinise the impact of the Equality Act provision for companies with workforces of over 250, with the appalling shortfalls in gender pay hitting the headlines. And I fully support the Women's Equality Network manifesto in this regard, which calls for the gender pay gap to be halved by 2028. It was the Office for National Statistics that recently revealed that the gender pay gap for full-time workers had fallen to a record low of 8.6 per cent, compared with 9.1 per cent last year, and is at its lowest since records began in 1997, when it stood at 17.4 per cent. But as Frances O'Grady, the general secretary of the TUC, said in response to these figures:

'Working women won't be celebrating this negligible decrease in the gender pay gap. At this rate, another generation of women will spend their whole working lives waiting to be paid the same as men.'

And she was, of course, backed by the Fawcett Society's Sam Smethers, who said:

'This is a practically static picture on pay inequality…and it’s a missed opportunity for our economy. Improving our performance on gender equality in the workplace could increase GDP by £150 billion.'

The second, final point I want to make relates to the need for women to be fully represented with gender parity in the Assembly, as recommended in 'A Parliament that Works for Wales'. We achieved this gender parity in 2003, all too briefly, as a result of positive actions such as the constituency twinning that Welsh Labour took forward and women-only shortlists. But we have slipped back again as an Assembly. Yet the public opinion has moved ahead, as we saw in the recent Beaufort Research-Western Mail poll, which reported last week that 53 per cent of the population were either definitely or possibly in favour of legislation that would ensure an equal number of male and female AMs. The majority responding in favour of the legislation came from across Wales, with the poorest and youngest people most in favour of achieving this balance. And these are the people I represent in my constituency, whose voices I want to be heard in this Assembly and by the Welsh Labour Government. So, I'd like this legislation to be in place for a gender-balanced Assembly in time for the next election in 2021, and I back the chief executive officer of Chwarae Teg, who welcomes this poll, as I do, saying that politicians across the political spectrum must act. And this is backed by the EHRC in their comments in their report on promoting human rights participation in Wales. They say:

'We made recommendations to Welsh Government and National Assembly consultations on electoral arrangements with the aim of ensuring elected representatives are reflective of the diversity of Wales.'

And they're calling on the Welsh Government to consider the case for changing legislation, so that roles such as Ministers, public appointees and councillors may be job shared, and that all Welsh public authorities should advertise all jobs as flexible by default.

So, I'm one of those politicians who believe we must act. I'll continue to press for the socioeconomic duty to be adopted, and for legislative action to be commenced, to achieve gender parity, in line with public opinion, and the pursuit of what the Counsel General rightly says should be a fairer and more equal Wales.

There are some data gaps identified in the report. I think the Government needs to meet the call for 'Talk to me', and to develop improvements to reduce suicide, particularly for men, because the biggest killer of men under 45 in Wales is in fact suicide. There are huge gaps also in data and research for mental health provision amongst ethnic minorities. I'll just give you one example. There are no suicide rates for anybody from an ethnic minority, so we just don't know if certain communities are being affected in particular ways. The Government has recognised previously that there are higher rates of discrimination in health against people from minority backgrounds, who are very often seen as being aggressive and uncooperative, and the lack of adequate translation in the health service really doesn't help there. And passive racism, frankly, is also a problem.

The conversations that we need to have, which are not actually in the document—I'll talk about suicide again, for example. There is research out there that shows that southern Asian women are two and a half times more likely to attempt suicide than white women, especially in the age group of 18 to 24. I think it's good in the report that there is specialist support for ethnic minority women, disabled women and women with complex needs, in terms of domestic abuse support. But there's an absence of gender-responsive services for male victims of domestic abuse. And men are the largest minority group of victims in violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence, yet they receive the lowest level of support.

There's a lack of equality in housing that I want to mention, which is not actually in the report. Because if you're a non-resident parent—and, really, the term is slightly misleading—it's if you have less care time for your children, then that is not taken into account in terms of housing allocation, by housing associations or indeed councils. So, you may have care for your children every weekend, or two days a week, but if you're on the housing list, your children will not be taken into account. So, for example, you could have five children, and you would be allocated a one-bedroom flat. Historically, I think this has been seen as a male issue, but what I'm finding through my work—I tend to attract a lot of cases like this—is that it's becoming a lot more gender neutral. I had a woman in my office last week talking about this very problem, and as a result she may well lose contact with her children. It's a real inequality that we're not actually talking about.

I just want to deal with one amendment—and I wasn't able to get in there with Gareth. The Plaid amendment says that it regrets the growth internationally of political movements seeking to roll back human rights protections, and calls on the Welsh Government to publish a plan for maintaining human rights following withdrawal from the EU. I see nothing wrong with that—no particular group is mentioned, nobody is singled out, it's just a recognition of what is actually happening in the world. And I fully support that. I just find it strange that anybody would want to vote against a plan to maintain human rights—quite strange. Diolch.

I want to thank the Wales committee, led by June Milligan, and the staff at the commission, for their work on these very important issues. I wanted to start by highlighting the inequality and discrimination faced by the Gypsy/Roma/Traveller young people in particular, some of which is highlighted in this report. Two weeks ago I attended Travelling Ahead's tenth national forum at Baskerville Hall in Hay with 50 young people from the Gypsy/Traveller/Roma community and many of the organisations working with those communities, and with Assembly Commission staff. The day was really an inspiring day—the young people were filled with enthusiasm and they were so glad to have the opportunity of putting forward their views about their place in society. I took part in a group that discussed the lack of awareness of Gypsy/Traveller culture, in particular by schoolteachers and other pupils in the schools. And one of the quite simple wishes of those children was that there could be a special assembly devoted to their culture. Many of the children did say, in fact, that they never said that they were a Gypsy—they hid their origins—because as soon as people knew they were a Gypsy, people's attitudes towards them changed immediately.

What did come over in the discussions was the huge importance of the Traveller education service, and many of the children said that they wouldn't be at school at all if it wasn't for the support of the service, and, as the report points out, only one in five Gypsy/Roma/Traveller children leave school with five GCSEs at A-C grade, which is a damning indictment, really, of the education service that we are providing for them. I know there has been a lot of concern about how the Traveller education service has been affected by the lack of ring fencing for the education improvement grant. I don't know whether the Cabinet Secretary, in his response, would be in a position to say how that service has been affected or whether he would need to refer it to the leader of the house when she comes back. But I do think it's very important that we do have actual evidence about how the Traveller education service is being affected.

Also, in 'Is Wales Fairer?' there is reference to the fact that Gypsy/Roma/Traveller families, along with transgender people and refugees and asylum seekers, continue to experience difficulties accessing quality health services, and I wanted the Cabinet Secretary also to look at that, because I know we did have a special inquiry into how we should provide services for the Traveller community, and I wanted to know what was the follow-up to that. 

It does seem that prejudice against Gypsies is the last acceptable prejudice. I've been approached by the Traveller community about the publicity following the funeral at Rover Way in Cardiff, which resulted in traffic jams in parts of the city. The comments that were put on Facebook following the WalesOnline article were absolutely shocking, saying things like, 'Auschwitz is empty at the moment' and other horrifying comments. How are people, human beings, supposed to feel if these comments go up publicly on the internet, on social media? How are they ever going to feel as part of society? I think this is a huge challenge for us all, and I think that, whenever we all speak, we must be aware of how people feel, how they respond to comments we make and anything that leads to those sort of comments.

But one of the very positive things that's happening at the moment is the setting up of the youth parliament, and it's really exciting, I think, that voting is now taking place. There are 480 candidates. I'm absolutely thrilled that, on the top-up list, there will be a place for a Gypsy/Roma/Traveller young person, and, on the day that I was at Baskerville Hall, the young people were voting for their choice. It just seemed to me that this was absolutely the right way that we should go as a society—to make an effort to include people who are not included naturally and where there is this awful prejudice. They were so excited. They had their manifestos. There were three young people who were competing against each other and it just felt such a positive thing that this was happening, and I felt very proud that the Assembly was doing this and that this opportunity would be offered, because there's an awful lot to fight against.

Thank you very much. Can I now call on the Counsel General to reply to the debate?

Diolch, Dirprwy Llywydd. I'd like to thank Assembly Members for participating in the debate, which has clearly demonstrated why it's important that the Equality and Human Rights Commission continues to have a strong and distinct presence in Wales. Most of the contributions started from the premise that a society based on equality and human rights was a given, even if we may approach it from different perspectives in some cases. I think one contribution in particular reminded us that we rest on our laurels if we believe we can stop making the case daily for a society based on equality and human rights. 

There were a number of points made in the debate. I will turn to them through the amendments, if I may, and the comments that Julie Morgan just made in relation to Gypsy/Traveller families, I will direct those, if I may, to the leader of the house to provide that information to her.

Turning to the amendments, we support amendment 1. As I said in my opening speech, we welcome the commission's recommendations, both in the annual report and in 'Is Wales Fairer?', and we are already working both to strengthen the Welsh public sector equality duty and, as Mark Isherwood, Jane Hutt and others have raised, to consider the options around enacting a socioeconomic duty in Part 1 of the Equality Act 2010 in Wales, which is a potentially very powerful tool for reform and for equality in Wales.

We oppose amendment 2. I didn't recognise some of the comments that Leanne Wood made in that particular context. The Welsh independent living grant was only ever an interim measure to ensure continuity of support whilst long-term arrangements to support people affected by the UK Government's closure of the independent living fund were agreed. Following engagement with stakeholders, the then Minister for social services announced in 2016 that support in future would be provided, as has been indicated, by local authorities' social services, and support is provided for the vast majority of disabled people in Wales who are not able to access the ILF. Since April this year, therefore, the full transfer of £27 million a year that we receive from the UK Government has been allocated to local authorities on a recurrent basis to enable them to support people who used to receive payments from the ILF to continue to live independently.

We also oppose amendment 3. Like the previous amendment, it fails, I think, to recognise what the Welsh Government is already doing. We recognise that sexual violence services are often described as cinderella services and, at the same time, victims of domestic abuse are being turned away from refuges due to shortages of places. Whilst we do not yet have a—

Will you take an intervention?

Certainly.

I've just had an e-mail here, now, this afternoon, that says that countless women are being failed by the system and that there is a 12-month list for trauma counselling that you can't have if your case goes to court, yet you're claiming you're doing enough. You're clearly not, are you?

Well, the Member will have heard me say in my speech that, despite the investment in support services, there is still a mountain to climb and that remains our position. We recognise that, whilst the work we are doing is having an impact, there is more that we can and we must do, and that is reflected, I think, in the contribution that I made at the start in my opening remarks. We don't yet have a clear picture as to whether the issue around refuges is due to underfunding or whether it's because funding has not been directed at services that have the greatest impact, but we absolutely recognise these issues need to be addressed urgently, and the First of Minister, in fact, will be making an announcement about this on 12 November.

We support amendment 4. Both Leanne Wood and John Griffiths spoke on the themes of this amendment. Breaking the cycle of deprivation and poverty is a long-term commitment for Welsh Government, which is only exacerbated by the UK Government's welfare reforms. We are moving in the right direction. Our child poverty legislation, our support for fair work, the new economic contract and the real living wage all underline our commitment to tackling poverty and inequality. Nevertheless, we know we need to do more if we are to make a real and lasting difference. And, as I said in my opening speech, officials have already been tasked with looking at the options around enacting the socioeconomic duty in Wales, which a number of Members have raised in their contributions.

We also support amendment 5. The Welsh Government has made clear our commitment to promoting and protecting human rights and making sure it's embedded, as it is, in the founding legislation of the Welsh Government and, indeed, in all that we do, and despite the way that the UK Government is handling Brexit negotiations. The Government of Wales Act 2006 makes specific provision in relation to international obligations. Section 82 gives the Secretary of State intervention powers in relation to action by the Welsh Ministers that he or she considers to be incompatible with such an obligation. The Welsh Government continues to have high regard for the international human rights treaties and UN conventions to which the UK is a state party signatory. We seek to reflect both the spirit and the substance of each convention across our policies and programmes, as appropriate, at all times.

I'll close the debate by once again thanking the Equality and Human Rights Commission. For the past 10 years, the commission has worked alongside the public sector, the private sector and the third sector to tackle inequality and injustice in Wales. Year on year, the commission has delivered a distinct and relevant work programme to reflect the unique political, legal and social landscape of Wales. The commission is a critical friend to the National Assembly for Wales, here to guide us all and bring about positive change. We look forward to working with them in the future and continuing our positive and productive relationship. 

Thank you very much. The proposal is to agree amendment 1. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, amendment 1 is agreed in accordance with Standing Orders. 

The proposal is to agree amendment 2. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Object. Therefore, we'll defer all voting until voting time. 

Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will proceed directly to voting time. Okay, thank you.

Okay, we're now in voting time. We carry on voting electronically. So, I call for a vote on amendment 2, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. For amendment 2 21, no abstentions, 27 against. Therefore, amendment 2 is not agreed. 

We now move to a vote on amendment 3. I call for that vote on amendment 3, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 21, no abstentions, 27 against. Therefore, amendment 3 is not agreed.

We move to a vote on amendment 4. I call for the vote on amendment 4, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 48, no abstentions, none against. Therefore, amendment 4 is agreed.

I call for a vote on amendment 5, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 36, 10 abstentions, two against. Therefore, amendment 5 is agreed.

I now call for a vote on the motion as amended, tabled in the name of Julie James. 

Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 48, no abstentions, none against. Therefore, the amended motion is agreed. 

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