Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

I call Members to order.

The first item on our agenda this afternoon is questions to the Minister for Education, and the first question, Darren Millar.

Thank you, Darren. Estyn’s 2017-18 annual report shows that standards are 'good' or 'better' in just over eight in 10 primary schools, and remain 'good' or 'better' in half of secondary schools. I am committed to the reforms as outlined in 'Our national mission', which will give all of our children an equal opportunity to reach their full potential and see excellence in all of our schools.

Will you join me in congratulating Ysgol y Foryd on its five 'excellents'—Ysgol Y Foryd in Kinmel Bay, in my own constituency, which I visited over the Easter recess? It's an excellent school. But, of course, it's achieving that in spite of the significant financial challenges that schools are facing across Conwy and north Wales at the moment. You will know that, as a result of the Welsh Government's current funding arrangement with the UK Government, £1.20 is available to spend on children here, in terms of their education, for every £1 spent on a pupil in England, and yet the reality is that there is a significant funding gap in terms of the per pupil spend per year. What action is the Welsh Government taking to close that funding gap so that other schools can achieve the excellence that's available to children who are pupils at Ysgol Y Foryd?

Well, could I congratulate the staff, pupils and governors of the school in your constituency? Perhaps the Member would be kind enough to ask me to visit the school so I can see for myself, obviously, the high standards that are being achieved. Let's be absolutely clear: independent studies show that the funding gap between English and Welsh schools has closed and is barely negligible. Of course, we could put more money into front-line education services if we had a better deal from the Westminster Government. For instance, on the issue of the teachers' pension scheme, and increases to the TPS, which is of a huge concern to many in the profession, only 80 per cent of the resources to cover the rise in the cost of teachers' pensions has been provided from the Westminster Government, and the Welsh Government has had to find that additional 20 per cent so that we can pay for the teachers' pension rises in full.

The new curriculum has the potential to transform the learning experiences of our children and young people, but I am shocked to think that it also has the potential of failing entirely. The life of every school is very busy on a day-to-day basis and is filled chock-full with challenges, and a lot of time is spend dealing with cuts in budgets that are shrinking. Now, you've suggested that there will be one additional in-service training day per year, but surely that isn't enough to create the huge transformation required with the new curriculum. So, how do you expect schools to create the necessary space to achieve that transformation and to train their staff properly without the Government here increasing school budgets?

Well, of course, we are currently out to consultation on the proposals to provide an additional INSET day for schools in preparation for the implementation of the curriculum, which will be statutory from 2022. Of course, schools already have a number of INSET days, which they can use to help prepare for the implementation of the curriculum. With regard to resources to allow professional development to be undertaken, the Member will be aware that this Government has made available £24 million direct to headteachers' budgets for the professional development of their staff, and that's the largest single investment in professional learning in the 20 years since this institution was created.

Thank you, Caroline. 'Our national mission' places well-being at the heart of our new curriculum, ensuring it permeates throughout the whole school day. The development of a whole-school approach to emotional and mental well-being will also help promote a culture where all school staff are responsible for supporting their learners.

Thank you, Minister. I'm not sure if you're aware, but Nottage Primary School in Porthcawl are proposing to change their school day to align with the comprehensive school. In order to achieve this, without reducing teaching time, the proposals call for reducing playtime by 40 minutes and only allowing one 10-minute comfort break. Minister, do you agree with me that reducing play and limiting toilet breaks will have an adverse effect upon the health and well-being of the children?

I am aware of the proposals of Nottage school in Bridgend county. The organisation of the school day, indeed, the school week, is a matter for individual headteachers and their governing bodies. But any changes to the organisation of the school day should be undertaken in full consultation with parents, and, clearly, the health and well-being needs of children should be duly considered in those changes. 

Minister, do you agree with me that one group of children and young people in our schools who are particularly vulnerable are young carers and that they need extra time and support with appropriate staff to help them to both achieve what they can do academically, but also to have time to simply be a child? I share some of the concerns, because, for young carers, being at school is often a rest. You go to school and you can be a child, you can play. I have some concerns that the shortening of the school day, particularly for very young carers—and we know that children as young as six can be taking part in caring activities—could restrict young carers' abilities to have that time to be a child in school. 

There are steps that you can take, perhaps in conjunction with the Deputy Minister for social services, to ensure that, as schools are making these proposed changes, they do consider the needs of this particularly vulnerable group of children and young people. 

Thank you, Helen Mary. You are absolutely right to draw the Chamber's attention to the specific needs of carers within our educational system and to ensuring that our educators and schools and colleges are attuned to the sometimes very simple things that they can do to make school and college easier for those young people to fully participate and reach their full potential. 

The issue around the organisation of school days is often associated with the issue of an asymmetric week. Members will be aware that the Public Policy Institute for Wales carried out research into the asymmetric school week, which often does lead to the curtailing, potentially, of either break times or lunch times. Actually, in those instances, it was reported that, sometimes, a shorter lunch break actually assisted the well-being of children because it cut down opportunities for bullying and some of the issues associated with long periods outside without the direct supervision of staff. But, of course, that's not necessarily applicable to the issue of carers.

The Member, I'm sure, will be aware that I have asked Estyn particularly to do a strategic review into what more we can do within the education system to ensure that that group of learners reach their full potential and, as I said, that the profession know how best to support them. 

Minister, health and well-being goes beyond school. We also need to look at further education colleges and colleges post 16 as well, where there is not necessarily a compulsory time. But participation in competitive sport and other non-competitive physical activities can help schools and colleges to ensure that there are ample opportunities for learners to be aware of their own individual health and well-being agendas. 

Will you join me in congratulating Wales's FE colleges, who on the weekend achieved success in the Association of Colleges Sport National Championships in Nottingham, competing in over 14 different competitions? And perhaps you will pledge to help to ensure Sport Wales, in conjunction with Welsh Colleges Sport continue to deliver a range of new, enjoyable activities to provide health and fitness opportunities for the 45,000 post-16 learners studying in FE colleges in Wales. 

Well, thank you, David, for reminding of us of that tremendous effort on behalf of the students in our FE colleges the length and breadth of Wales and their success in representing their colleges and, indeed, representing Wales in those games. I know from discussions with colleagues in FE that they are committed to providing a broad and balanced curriculum in FE colleges that allows students to pursue not only their academic or vocational studies, but to be able to participate in an entire range of extra-curricular activities, including sport, but also drama, music and creative pursuits. And, as you know, David, the FE sector is one of the strengths of the Welsh education system, and this recent sporting success just compounds what we know—that the FE colleges in Wales are performing very well indeed.

Questions now from the party spokespeople. The Conservative spokesperson, Suzy Davies. 

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Minister, can I just begin by thanking you for facilitating the briefing on the new curriculum yesterday, which Lynne Neagle organised? I think the overriding impression I've had at this stage is that this wholesale change of philosophy and culture is going to take some time to grasp and convert into real-life lesson plans, especially as schools, of course, will have to be delivering two sets of school curricula at the same time, on squeezed budgets, for some time. But, just because it's difficult doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it, and while I might feel the same about funding formula, perhaps we can leave that for another day.

I'm a one-nation Conservative, so I believe in co-production, big society and empowered individuals taking on personal responsibility as well as being under a duty to empower those around them. And so I will support the aims of a curriculum that helps raise young people who are resilient, compassionate problem solvers who recognise the imperative to contribute their talents to society as well as their taxes to the state. But they will also need a depth of subject knowledge based not just on their own experiences and choices. This is not a content-based curriculum—that was repeated a number of times yesterday—but it will have content based to a significant degree on staff and pupil choice. How will this proliferation of content be quality controlled?  

Well, first of all, can I say I'm glad that the Member found the briefing yesterday useful? And could I also share her thanks to Lynne Neagle, the Chair of the Children, Young People and Education Committee, who helped facilitate that briefing? I'm grateful to all the Members from the committee and, indeed, beyond the committee who took the time to come and listen to the presentations yesterday with regard to the new curriculum? 

I think it is really important to recognise that the curriculum is not devoid of knowledge. It is a curriculum that builds on knowledge, skills and the experiences that I believe children and young people in Wales will need to ensure that, when they leave school, they will go on to live successful personal lives and will be able to contribute successfully to the nation. 

With regard to quality control, obviously there are assessment arrangements that were also published yesterday, which demonstrate where we would expect a child to be in relation to the six areas of learning and experience broadly at stages throughout their educational career. And, of course, we will continue to assess those children via our innovative online assessment regimes, as well as a teacher assessment. And, of course, the overall policy of the curriculum experience will be underpinned by our accountability regime—the individual accountability of teachers, the role of governors, the role of our regional consortia or as our school improvement service and, ultimately, of course, Estyn, which will be visiting schools more often under our new regime than they currently do presently, and they will be there to look at ensuring that the curriculum that is being delivered is one of high quality. 

Well, thank you for that answer. I think it's actually quite a difficult question to answer outside the traditional world in terms of monitoring and assessment that you've just explained. I actually quite welcome the idea that it's going to be a more varied curriculum, but how to keep tabs on that I think is going to prove quite difficult. And how those links work over the next few years I think is going to be pretty important, because I think it would be fair to say that every new system will have its bedding-in period, even with the less demanding changes that we've seen in the made-in-Wales qualifications recently in moving some children from BTECs to GCSEs, and I know why you did that. We have seen some confusion about how to benchmark standards. Obviously, Qualifications Wales has the main role here, but I would like your view on how we are going to avoid prejudicing the transitional guinea pig cohort of learners—if I can call them that—who are going to be taught by teachers who may have had the CPD but have had no actual experience of teaching the curriculum these first few years. Because we did see casualties when we switched from the grammar to the comprehensive system all those years ago, before the new system bedded in. And I just want to make sure, as I'm sure you do, that you don't want to see that risk repeated. 

The link between the new curriculum and what qualifications look like is still very unclear to me. So, how will you help learners and professionals protect standards and achievement in this transition period so that they're not compromised in the eyes of FEs, HEs and employers in the future who will have huge influence over a learner's post-16 choices? 

Well, Suzy, the first step that we are taking to ensure that children's life chances are not compromised was the decision that I made previously to roll out the curriculum over a number of years, especially in the secondary sector. It would have been unimaginable, indeed unthinkable, to think about changing the curriculum during a child's maybe crucial year 10 or year 11 period of study. And that's why you will be aware that the curriculum will begin to be rolled out in our secondary schools in 2022 in year 7, and will follow that cohort through. 

With regard to a bedding-in period, you will be aware, again, that I took the quite difficult decision to delay the implementation of the curriculum, having listened to teachers who told me very clearly that they would need more time to prepare themselves and get ready. So, we had the draft published yesterday. This is now a period of genuine feedback for people to engage—not just the teaching profession, but also the employers, the colleges, the universities that you talked about so that they can feed back to us also. The final curriculum will be published in January of next year, thus giving schools, again, a significant period of time before it becomes statutory before they have to deliver it so that they can truly engage in it.

You will be aware that, throughout this process, Qualifications Wales have been deeply embedded. They have already begun their work on the implications for end of year 11 examinations, as a result of the changes to the curriculum. They are very clear in their advice to me that the GCSE brand is a strong brand—it is well understood by parents, pupils, employers, further education and higher education and they expect GCSEs to remain, but clearly the content may need to change. And we will continue to work with the independent body, Qualifications Wales, to ensure that the currency of those examinations will give Welsh students and young people a passport into the world of work and into the world of study, whether they do that in Wales or whether they choose to do that somewhere else.

Thank you for those answers. Yes, I've spoken to Qualifications Wales myself about this and I am still unclear about what it is that will be examined in approximately seven years' time in a GCSE. I appreciate that, in the period in between, we might get some clarity on that, but I still do have concerns about those individual teachers who start in year seven, and, even if they're with the same children until year 11 or 12, they will have had no prior experience of teaching this. That's why I asked this question about will there be some kind of—I don't want to call it 'special arrangements', but breathing space for the children who are caught up in the process in its first seven years.

I just want to move on now, still with the curriculum: Welsh Government often invites us to look at international comparators and I'm sure that we'll be invited to do so again, quite rightly, during the debates on removing the defence of reasonable punishment. Professor Donaldson's proposals were inspired by the experience of other countries—as we know, not least some of those were in Scandinavia—and we've had the chance to see them in practice, closer to home, in Scotland. Now, the Scotland experience hasn't been without its problems and you have reassured us, Minister, on more than one occasion that you've learned lessons from Scotland to avoid their mistakes. Recently, Scotland has learnt from its own mistakes. All of its councils have instructed their schools to teach CPR on the secondary school curriculum. It is compulsory on the curriculum in 20 per cent of European countries, including Norway and Denmark—Scandinavian countries—and in Sweden, where it's not, guess what, the chances of surviving a cardiac arrest outside a hospital setting are lower than in the rest of Scandinavia. Even America is on the ball now, with this training being compulsory in 36 states. If you are prepared to learn lessons from Scotland, why won't you learn this one?

Let me begin my saying that life-saving skills and emergency first-aid procedures are clearly incredibly important, and I am very keen to raise awareness of those skills. I would encourage everyone to learn first aid, whether they are schoolchildren or indeed have left school. But it is for the schools themselves to decide if and how best to provide first-aid learning and those opportunities within the curriculum. 

As you'll be aware from the briefing yesterday, the curriculum does include the new area of learning and experience of health and well-being—an AoLE that has been broadly welcomed by all who have given feedback to date and there will be ample opportunity within that AoLE for these subjects to be taught in schools. 

As you may have seen over the weekend, Buzzfeed reported that the UK Government was considering abolishing home fee status for EU nationals studying in England post 2021. I understand that the current Welsh Government position protects the current situation up until 2019-20 academic year here in Wales, and we, as a party, would support that. But, just in the interest of continuity and clarity, can you confirm if the Welsh Government will not abolish home status and financial support for EU students post 2020?

The Member is quite correct—we have confirmed that we will continue to provide tuition fee support to students from the EU who start their studies in the 2019-20 academic year. I would like very much to clarify the position for 2020-21, but I am unable to confirm until we have a clear position from the UK Government on the provision of loans.

Okay, thank you very much for that. And if I could ask for when you think, in your deliberations with the UK Government, you will be able to get that confirmation—from a previous response that you've given, I think it was to the education committee, you said it was because of Treasury rules. So, I'm understanding that that isn't now so much of a challenge for you. And, if that isn't so much of a challenge, could you tell us if you could continue with the support for students post 2019? Because, as far as I understand it, we already have that funding in place for EU students. So, could we not therefore continue the current settlement as is—i.e., we've already got that in our budgets as part of what we've agreed here in the Assembly—because of course it's really important that European students don't choose to go to another part of the UK? For example, Scotland, they've said that they will extend it beyond 2021, and so we don't want to lose out when students will be making those decisions in the next year to decide potentially not to go to Wales and go to Scotland instead, when we need the financial backing from European students, because we are losing some of those students already because of, unfortunately, the discussions around Brexit.

Well, firstly, let me be clear that I want as many students from the EU, indeed as many students from around the world, to come and study here at our universities. We have a significant higher education offer, which would be of huge benefit to them. If I could just clarify to the Member, it is not our own budgets that are pertinent to this point—we need to have confirmation from the Westminster Government about the provision of loans. If that does not come forward, the Welsh Government would have to guarantee around £45 million of support to EU students to ensure that they would have the funding in place for the entirely of their study. I'm sure the Member would agree with me that would pose a significant risk to the Welsh Government budget. That's why we require clarity from the Westminster Government around access to loans. Without that clarity, I do not feel that I'm in a position to expose our budgets to those risks. I have pressed the UK higher education Minister, Mr Skidmore, on this issue at every meeting that I have with him. My understanding of the situation now is that we are unlikely to receive a decision or publicly have confirmation from the Westminster Government during the purdah period for the European elections.

Thank you for that reply, and I'm not asking from a position of hostility, I'm asking from a position of support, because of course we would want to support the Government's stance on this because we acknowledge how important those EU students would be to the Welsh economy, but also to enhance the lives of the students not only from the continent of Europe, but the lives of students who are here in Wales. So, if there's anything we can do to put influence on the UK Government in regard to the loan, then we would be fully supportive of being able to do that to show that Wales is open for business, despite the deliberations around Brexit. 

On the third and final question, I just wanted to ask in relation to continuing the theme on the curriculum reform, but specifically in relation to further education. I've heard that many—. There has been welcoming of the actual change in process, but I've heard from some in the sector that they are worried about the progression to work-based learning and to post-16 education in relation to the transition. So, can you guarantee that this process will happen in a seamless way so that, when people are leaving school with these changes in qualifications, when they're accessing post-16 education or work-based learning, those skills will be able to be adaptable to that environment and that you will be engaging with the post-16 education sector in that vein to include them fully in any deliberations that you will be having on the changes to the curriculum?

Well, I'm grateful for the Member's support of the Welsh Government's stance with regard to the desire to continue to welcome EU students to study at our universities. I'm grateful for her understanding that, until we have clarity around those students' ability to access loans, which comes from the Westminster Treasury, we're not in a position to make further announcements.

Can I assure the member that FE have been intricately involved in the pioneer process in the development of the curriculum to date? Clearly, we would want any child emerging from our schools, following the implementation of the curriculum, with a set of qualifications, skills and aptitudes that will allow them to go on to pursue either the world of work or further education study, whether that be in apprenticeships, whether that be traditional academic A-level courses or vocational courses, and representatives of the FE sector have been involved to date. But may I use this opportunity, Presiding Officer, to encourage everybody who has an interest in Welsh education to engage in the period that we are in now, as we test, refine and challenge ourselves as to the development of our new curriculum—the first time in the history of this nation that we will have devised our own curriculum for our children and young people?

Thank you very much, Mark. Our ambitious additional learning needs reforms will help ensure that all children and young people requiring British Sign Language to access education are at the heart of the planning process and have the support properly planned and protected.

Thank you. On 6 February, we debated the Deffo! Wales Deaf Youth Forum petition asking for deaf young people to have better access to education, qualified staff to work with, and help to develop the skills of deaf young people using British Sign Language. Deffo! is concerned that, in your subsequent response to a letter you were forwarded from them, you stated that none of the £289,000 extra money being put into the additional learning needs budget is to go for support for teaching assistants—or, as they prefer to be called, communication support workers—and they say that's truly shocking. How do you respond to their concern that, to date, they've had no further correspondence from your or anyone in Welsh Government regarding the plan to set up an advisory group to begin the actions that were agreed at the debate?

I would be very happy to update the campaigners, and I will put a copy of that letter, if appropriate, Presiding Officer, in the Library and also copy it to the Member concerned. 

Can I thank the Member for the question? I'm committed to ensuring that all young people receive high-quality sexuality and relationships education. I announced in May 2018 my intention to rename this area of study and have proposed that relationships and sexuality education will be statutory for all learners in the new curriculum.

Thank you very much, Minister, for that. I think, having picked up the draft statutory guidance yesterday, it reads really, really well about what we're trying to do and also, hopefully, will calm down anybody who has been encouraged to think that this was, in some way, a way of brainwashing our children into one piece of action or another. 

Obviously, the new areas of learning don't come into force for a little while, so, given the problems that there have been in England, where some quite homophobic remarks have been made, particularly by people who claim to be professionals, how can we ensure that parents in Wales realise that what we're trying to do is give children the tools they need to live a healthy life and to inform healthy relationships? Is there some sort of summary version that's going to be issued so that all parents are aware of what can become quite a contentious issue if it's in the wrong person's hands?

Can I thank Jenny for her positive welcome of the draft that was published yesterday? It is absolutely crucial that everybody understands that what we are proposing here is age and developmentally appropriate relationship and sexuality education that is fully inclusive and reflects the society our children and young people are growing up in and will become adults in. It is about giving those children and young people the language and the knowledge that they will need, as you say, to form healthy relationships—in the first instance, within their own family, and among their peers in school—how they can keep themselves safe, how they have the knowledge to understand what a healthy relationship looks like and what an abusive one looks like. And that is at the heart of what we're trying to do in the development of the new curriculum. But, clearly, I understand that, often, these are sensitive issues, particularly for adults. They're rarely so sensitive for children and young people, who seem to take it all very much in their stride. But it can be very sensitive for adults. And, as part of our engagement around the new curriculum, I will be undertaking a series of roadshow events, and I'll look in particular at engaging with families—mums, dads and carers—on these particular issues. But I'm grateful for the Member's support.

Welsh Women's Aid believes that schools need to be equipped with the resources they need to properly publicise the benefits of the new RSE curriculum—relationships and sexuality education—in order to ensure and protect children's rights. How do you respond to the reinforcement by Welsh Women's Aid of the need for a designated and trained RSE lead practitioner to develop and deliver the RSE curriculum and embed RSE in a whole-school approach, as recommended by the expert panel to improve impact and access for children across Wales?

Mark, as you'll be aware, the Welsh Government has funded Welsh Women's Aid to help us develop materials and resources to go into schools. Additional resources have been made available specifically to help train teachers and professionals working in our schools to discuss these issues with children and with young people.

I was delighted to receive today a letter from the Children's Commissioner for Wales that says that, having studied the draft of the curriculum that was published yesterday, she believes that that draft curriculum not only puts Wales at the forefront of the UK in ensuring children learn and are able to exercise their rights, but it puts us at the forefront internationally. Now, clearly, there is more work to be done, and the children's commissioner will want to provide feedback, but I'm delighted to receive her initial assessment of where this puts us—Wales—internationally at the forefront for children's rights.

Thank you, Joyce. We are aware of some schools in west Wales that run an asymmetric week, with Friday afternoons used for planning and training time for teachers. It is for the schools to decide how to structure their week. However, in doing so, they must consult with parents before making any changes.

A number of the schools in my constituency have already introduced that early finish on a Friday, as you say, to allow time for teacher training, with many more expressing plans to follow suit in September. The concern is that some parents are wondering what, if any, subjects might be not delivered or reduced as a result of the two hours' reduced teaching time. 

Also, some parents are concerned about the shortened week and what that might mean for them in terms of supervision for their children when they're working. I wonder whether you've had any discussions over those particular items that have been brought to my attention, and those concerns from those parents, with the schools in question.

Thank you, Joyce. Officials have been in touch with Pembrokeshire with regard to proposals to introduce the asymmetric week in some schools and the implementation already of the asymmetric week in others. Let me be absolutely clear: the assurances that I have had from Pembrokeshire County Council say that no child has to go home on a Friday afternoon as there is significant provision of extra-curricular activities and opportunities to stay for lunch and to participate in an entire range of extra-curricular activities, either of an artistic or expressive arts kind, or sport, or of an academic kind.

All schools, as I said, are required to undertake a community consultation should they wish to change to the asymmetric week. I know, for instance, in the case of Ysgol Harri Tudur, they continue to keep under review the asymmetric week and whether they wish to make further changes. Of course, Pembrokeshire is not the only area. Treorchy Comprehensive, for instance, in Rhondda Cynon Taf, has been operating an asymmetric week now for, I believe, two years.  

Minister, do you agree with me that it's very important that any decision to move towards an asymmetric week is based on whether that's good for children and not whether that's convenient for adults, whether those adults are the teachers who are teaching them or the parents who are looking after them? Can you confirm that in the consultation you expect schools to undertake one of the issues that is covered would be the issue for rural schools of school transport and of children having absolutely no way to get to or from school except school buses, and the complications that that can bring to family life? The situation of children in very rural schools is, of course, different, potentially, with regard to an asymmetric week, if the children are not in school, to what it would be in a more urban area where there are more transport options.

I would absolutely agree that each school making these decisions has to look into the context in which they are delivering education, and that varies from community to community, let alone from local authority area to local authority area. What's really interesting in the work that was done by the Public Policy Institute for Wales is that one of the advantages of the asymmetric week that they found in the report was that, actually, they identified improvements in pupils' well-being, including the ability to engage in extracurricular activities that perhaps they would not be able to otherwise, to be able to spend more time with their families, to be able to spend a bit more time relaxing, rather than being—we often hear from parents about the constant pressure children feel in our academic settings—and it actually allows children to undertake personal appointments that would otherwise mean they were missing the school day. So, there are some advantages that the PPIW work highlighted, but the disadvantage of issues around transport, particularly in a rural area, is also something that they've identified. The Welsh Government does not have a stated policy on the asymmetric week in the sense that it is for individual schools to judge what is in the best interests of their pupils. And the Member is absolutely right; it has to be in the best interest of their pupils to make any changes to what is regarded as a traditional school day.

Thank you very much, Leanne. I have taken action to support budgets for local authorities in order to safeguard front-line services in schools. Education funding remains a key priority for me and for this Government, in spite of continued austerity.

Speaking to headteachers in the Rhondda, it seems that their job is as much about clever accounting as it is about providing direction, leadership and drive to staff. In the local authority that covers the Rhondda, some secondary schools are more than £0.5 million in the red. There's pressure to balance the books, but services have already been cut to the bone, so the only way now to make those further cuts is to make large numbers of unsustainable staff redundancies. This, of course, will have a negative impact on the education of our children, and it's their education that should be our top priority.

I've raised the issues of what the teaching unions say is almost £0.5 billion—almost a fifth of all spending allocated for schools—of the education budget being kept from the front line because it's retained by local authorities or consortia. Now, I know that you dispute that figure. So, what advice and support can you give to our leaders in education who face very difficult financial decisions in the immediate future unless you make some changes?

Thank you, Leanne. I don't doubt for a minute the significant challenges that many headteachers are facing with regards to school budgets. It is important to recognise that the responsibility for day-to-day funding of schools lies with individual local education authorities. Like you, I share the ambition of ensuring that as much money gets to the front line as possible, and that's, for instance, why we took the decision to ensure that the £21 million for professional development was passported straight to individual headteachers.

Whatever the figure is, it is a source of great concern to me that any money that should be in the schools budget is being held inappropriately, either at LEA level or at consortia level, or, indeed, that there is a duplication of funding from LEAs and consortia. After all, the consortia are run by their constituent parts, and it would be strange indeed, wouldn't it, for a local authority to allow a regional consortium that it runs to duplicate spending when those budgets, as you quite rightly identified, are tight. 

I am carrying out work centrally within Government to ensure that the direct grants that we have control of are being used appropriately and that that money is getting to the front line. But in the work that is being carried out by the Children, Young People and Education Committee, as I'm sure you're aware, there is not a consensus on whether moving to a system of direct funding of schools, bypassing both the LEA and the regional consortia, is a policy that has a consensus behind it. Indeed, your own education spokesperson feels very strongly that that should not be the case.

As you said, Minister, we need to ensure that funding reaches the front line. To be fair, programmes such as twenty-first century schools have provided much-needed funding for local authorities to improve school buildings and other aspects of school life, but, of course, that doesn't help the revenue situation of existing schools, particularly when they don't always tick the right funding formula boxes. For example, as I've raised with you before, in the Monmouthshire local authority area, schools have traditionally received less funding by virtue of the fact that they have fewer children accessing free school meals. Now, I can understand the reason for having that aspect of the formula, but that does mean that Monmouthshire schools have received less over time even though there are, of course, children going to those schools who are from disadvantaged backgrounds. So, my question to you is: how are you ensuring that the funding formula does work overall and does fairly fund local authorities and schools in different parts of Wales so that our children do have the best start in life?

As the Member will be more than aware, the decision on individual funding for schools is a matter for each individual local authority. With regards to the funding formula, I think the Member is referring to the funding formula for local government as a whole. You will be aware that there is a funding formula review group that regularly looks at different aspects of the revenue support grant scheme. My understanding is that, certainly, last year, there was a representative from Monmouthshire council on that very group and had the ability to influence the data and the formula as it was undertaken. Both myself and the local government Minister have said that we are more than happy to engage with individual Members who may have suggestions on how the formula operates, but I have to tell the Member, when given the opportunity earlier last year to change issues around the indicator-based assessment for education, it was local government representatives themselves that decided not to proceed with that change.

Thank you, Mandy. Further education colleges across Wales do excellent work in planning their curriculum to reflect employer needs, and in preparing students at all levels to progress into further learning and employment that reflects their skills and their personal aspirations.

Thank you for that answer. Minister, I've read that our young people in Wales are the most likely of any in the UK nations to apply to study outside of their home nation. Some 40 per cent go to England, Scotland or Northern Ireland. We know that when young people go away to study they may never come back, and this is having a very negative effect in parts of my region. How will the Welsh Government seek to incentivise young people to study here at home?

I've been very, very clear that I don't want to put any limitations on the aspirations of Welsh young people to study in institutions either in their home nation or in the rest of the United Kingdom, or, indeed, internationally. Of course, what we need to do in Wales is to ensure that the quality of our offer is strong, and I believe that it is, but secondly look at what we can do to persuade people who do study abroad or study in other parts of the United Kingdom to come home to Wales, just like I did and many other people in this Chamber will have done. Just one of the ways in which we will be doing that is that there will be additional financial incentives for students coming back to Wales to do their postgraduate study in core subjects that will benefit the economy. They will be entitled to additional support for their studies if they undertake them here in Wales and if they undertake them in a subject that is particularly pertinent to the needs of the Welsh economy.

I'm just looking to see who's next. I know somebody is next. And it's you, Mr Griffiths. Question 8, John Griffiths. 

It's a good job the Presiding Officer found you, John; it's a most excellent question. We are working to deliver a new curriculum for all learners by 2022. It'll be purpose led so that by the age of 16 they should be capable, confident, ethical individuals who play an active part in their community and society, and are prepared to thrive in the world of work.

Thank you, Minister. I wonder if you're familiar with a recent proposal for a national technology institute, which came from Newport economic network. It's really about looking at how we provide this sort of applied education for world-class technical, digital and entrepreneurial skills, really in responding to the fourth industrial revolution. It does have a good deal of work behind it, Minister, and it is about the practicalities of taking that forward with existing institutions and providers rather than creating something very new in that sense. I can see that you are familiar with it, and I'd be very interested in your views.

Well, John, you're right, I am familiar with it and officials have met with representatives from Newport City Council and the Newport economic network to discuss the content of the report and the exciting vision that it presents. There are meetings planned with existing providers and other stakeholders to consider the proposal and what the next steps could be to develop it even further.

Thank you, Minister.

The next questions are the questions to the Minister for Health and Social Services, and the first question is from Alun Davies.

Yes. Thank you for the question. We want to see sustainable and accessible GP services across Wales, including, of course, in Blaenau Gwent. GP practices are using components of the newly established primary care model to improve the way that they provide services with, and for, patients.

Minister, it was a real pleasure to welcome you to Blaenau Gwent some months ago, where we discussed the access to GP services in and throughout the borough. You'll be aware, as well, that the Welsh Government has helped to invest in a new well-being centre in Brynmawr. I think nearly £4 million has been invested in improving the facilities available to the people of Brynmawr and the upper Ebbw Fach valley, but since the opening of the new centre, I've had literally hundreds of people contacting me, talking about how difficult it is to access the services in the well-being centre. I'm sure you share the frustration of people in Brynmawr and myself and elsewhere that we invest in fantastic new facilities to improve the healthcare infrastructure in Brynmawr and then people find it difficult to access services within those facilities. What do you say to those people who see this wonderful new facility but are enormously frustrated being unable to get an appointment to see a GP or other healthcare professionals?

Well, I'd say that we recognise that access is one of the key priorities for the public when it comes to the national health service and local health services in particular. It's the largest issue of concern in the National Survey for Wales and it's grown as an issue. That's why we're determined to make progress on improving access. The investments that we're making in facilities are designed to do that, but it does require change in practice. And everywhere that new access arrangements are made, in particular about triage arrangements, whether by non-clinical staff, nurse led or GP led, there's almost always been a bump in getting over a new way of working for staff, but also for the public to access that service.

I expect, where those new arrangements are introduced, that people inform the public of changes in advance and then listen to what the public are saying about how they access those services, because I do expect everyone to be able to access the right clinicians at the right place and in the right time. And if you haven't had a satisfactory response from the practice manager at the new centre, I'd be more than happy to sit there with you to run through what we can do to try and ensure the improvement we plainly want to see for residents in Blaenau Gwent and Brynmawr.

Aneurin Bevan health board confirmed to me today that of their 398 GPs, only 34 of those are in Blaenau Gwent, and that's 8.5 per cent of the total compared to perhaps the around 12 per cent we'd expect by population. One way they try and tackle this is through the directly employed GPs, and I was pleased to hear that, actually, the majority of those were in Blaenau Gwent, but less pleased to hear that that meant only four out of the seven full-time equivalents.

Does the Minister think that these managed GPs, directly employed by the health boards, could be significantly expanded in number to at least in part address the shortages and difficulties of access to GPs in Blaenau Gwent?

Well, this is a subject that I regularly get asked about in this Chamber, about whether there is a Welsh Government agenda to get rid of the partnership model in general practice, and that is not our intention at all. The great majority of general practice is delivered through the partnership model, the independent contractor model, and the managed practices are there to try and help through to deliver new models of care or to manage a transition, where traditionally, when GPs are retiring, we need to make sure that the service continues, and it is true that no person in Wales has been left without a GP.

So, I see managed practices as part of the future answer, but not a replacement for the independent contractor model. And that is about the conversation with local GPs, and our cluster model has helped to promote that better working between practices, and I think we will continue to see more mergers and federations between practices and a new way of employing GPs, but I still think that the independent contractor model will be the foundation of general practice here in Wales for some time to come.

Thank you for the question. Population screening is a public health priority. We know that cancer screening programmes save lives. Public Health Wales is responsible for delivering the cancer screening programmes in Wales and they are overseeing significant improvements aimed at maximising uptake and, of course, preventing more cancers.

Thank you, Minister. Earlier this year, I and my office staff became cancer screening champions after completing a training session led by Aneurin Bevan University Health Board and Public Health Wales. I'm also proud to be the Assembly's first bowel cancer champion, and I'm delighted that eight colleagues have since signed up. Worryingly, Newport has one of the lowest rates of all cancer screening participation in Wales. Nationally across Wales, the uptake of bowel screening last year was only 55 per cent. Improving the uptake of these free and potentially lifesaving screening programmes is vital. 

The simpler, more sensitive fecal immunochemical bowel screening test has been available in Wales since January. What action is the Welsh Government taking to publicise this new test and encourage those who are eligible to take part in all screening programmes?

Thank you for the question. You're correct that we started introducing the new, more sensitive and, importantly, easier to administer test from January this year. It will be fully implemented across the whole of Wales by June this year. Actually, when people receive their invite to undertake the test, that's part of the direct contact with people, and it's also part of our broader message about the fact that screening really does save lives. It's important to introduce it in a way where we don't actually provide more demand than our system can cope with. That's why we're having a phased approach, having greater sensitivity within the test to make sure that we have the right number of people to deliver treatment after that. So, we'll continue, at each point, to review again the figures on uptake and the impact that means for the service. You can expect to hear on a regular basis that encouragement, a simple message from the Government and Public Health Wales to use the test, to take it up, because undertaking that screening really will save lives.

Minister, bowel cancer screening is clearly an important area. The FIT test is sensitivity based and, actually, the level of sensitivity is going to be crucial in that, but also perhaps the age, because at the moment it's 60 but it could go down to 50, but there are also smear tests. So, there is a variety of tests that are basically declining. What discussions are you having with Public Health Wales to ensure that we promote these tests, so that we get more people taking the tests, because, as you say, you get them early and we can avoid people having cancer because we can actually spot things earlier or we can treat it earlier, which means an earlier diagnosis and better results?

You're right, and it's of course a point of concern that there's been a slow decline, not just in Wales but across the UK, in people actually taking up the smear tests that are offered. That's partly about looking at if there's going to be a change in the test and there is some research being done on self-administered screening. There's a pilot taking place that's due to start in September this year in London, so I'll be interested in the results, which will be shared across the UK. But it's the reinforcing of the message and understanding which particular groups we need to target, because younger women are the least likely to take up the tests that are available. So, you will have seen the #loveyourcervix campaign that we started in March. We wanted to see something that was more body positive, so that people are not embarrassed about attending, and again recognise the same message with bowel screening. The tests are designed to help save lives and not taking the test means that there is an unknown risk for that person and more broadly. So, I'm more than happy to reiterate the message that I want everybody who is offered a screening test in Wales to take up the opportunity to do that for themselves and their families.

Questions now from party spokespeople. Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Helen Mary Jones.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Thank you. Last year, the General Medical Council struck off 76 doctors and the Nursing and Midwifery Council struck off 257 individuals regarded as no longer fit to practice in the health service across the UK. I'm sure the Minister will agree with me that it's right for professionals in the health service to be held accountable for serious malpractice and misconduct. Does the Minister believe that managers in the health service should also be held accountable and, if so, can he tell this Chamber how many senior managers or board members in the Welsh NHS have lost their jobs as a result of service failures or mismanagement since 2016?

Well, of course, the Member's aware that I don't have at my fingertips the number of staff who have left the health service from managerial positions going back to 2016. It is worth reflecting, as I said yesterday when a similar point was made, that a number of managers and leaders in services within the health service are, of course, registered clinicians as well and have professional duties too. So, you'd need to look at those people who are caught by their professional responsibilities as well as their responsibilities as managers. This goes into the broader point about leadership, governance and accountability within each one of those NHS organisations.

I'm sure that the Minister will understand, after yesterday's statement, that issues with regard to leadership and accountability are of great concern to Members in this Chamber. Can the Minister explain to us why he has had Betsi Cadwaladr health board in special measures for about four years and we don't seem to have seen any change after this lengthy intervention? Can he account for why, if we come back to the Cwm Taf situation, there were eight reports over six years and none of those reports triggered the change that was clearly needed, and mothers and babies continued to be let down and some grievously harmed? Can the Minister explain to this Chamber why families in the Cwm Taf area should trust him, his officials and the measures that they've put in place to sort out the system in Cwm Taf, given that he failed to pick up on any of these eight reports over those six years after the first concerns were raised and that the problems in Betsi Cadwaladr are nowhere near being solved after four years?

I think there are three particular questions there, Llywydd, the first about—[Interruption.] The first about special measures in north Wales, and, of course, it's factually incorrect to say no progress has been made. For example, one of the main issues that saw Betsi Cadwaladr go into special measures were challenges in their maternity services, and they have come out of special measures, because real and sustained improvement has been made, because the steps that we took, including new leadership within the midwifery service and a change in culture across the whole service, actually have made a difference. It's also true, for example, that the out-of-hours service in north Wales has come out of special measures as a concern. There are remaining concerns, and that's why that health board remains in special measures, because I'm determined to make sure there is a real measure of progress and it's not simply an artificial device for a politician to use.

When it comes to Cwm Taf, as explained at length yesterday in the statement and in answer to questions to it, the seriousness and the depths of the concerns were not apparent from those previous reports, which is why action was not taken until I commissioned the joint royal colleges review in October last year. Part of the concern is about why other factors, why other flags of concern and complaints, in particular, did not lead to a change in culture and practice within the health board at the time. That's why I've taken the action that I outlined in detail yesterday in writing and in the oral statement.

And in terms of the confidence that public and staff should have, a key part of that is the work that not just our independent regulators will be doing, but the independent oversight group that I have appointed, with independent clinicians, to oversee the 43 serious incidents and to look back to 2010. I will meet directly with families over the next two weeks, as well as staff, to hear directly from them, together with Mick Giannasi, their concerns and to understand how we help to rebuild confidence in the service that must improve, and that certainly requires significant change.

Well, I'm sure, Llywydd, that this Chamber will be rather concerned that after eight reports over six years, the Minister and his officials had not picked up on the seriousness of this situation. We heard individual testimonies in this Chamber suggesting that those concerns actually go back a lot further than the first report that I'm referring to in 2012. I'm just really concerned, Llywydd, that this is suggesting that we have a Minister who doesn't have a grip on the system. Eight reports over six years, and nothing was done until you called for the report years ago.

I try to avoid being sensationalist in the Chamber, but during those years children died, mothers were traumatised and families were traumatised. I have to ask the Minister why he thinks that we should now be reassured that he and his officials will be able to pick up on these issues effectively when they didn't for that period of years.

I wonder if the Minister agrees with Owen Smith MP when he says in the Western Mail today that the Welsh Government cannot be absolved of blame for the failings in Cwm Taf. I wonder if the Minister understands that many people are concerned about what appears to be a complacent response from him. I was astonished, for example, to hear him yesterday dismiss the implications of the inverse care law—the fact that these communities that were so badly served were so poor. I was shocked to hear him dismiss that. It suggests to me that he doesn't understand those communities very well. I was also shocked—and I am not easily shocked—to hear the Minister say, when asked by ITV yesterday whether the buck stops with him, the Minister's response was that the buck stops with everyone. Well, I'm afraid I must put it to this Chamber, Llywydd, that the buck does not stop with everyone—the buck stops with the Minister. And I am going to ask him again to consider his position, and if he is unable to consider his position, to explain what further, what more serious situation would occur in the health service in Wales, what more has to go wrong before he is prepared to take personal responsibility?

I return to the range of points—I think there are five different points made at that time, Llywydd. In terms of the eight reports that the Member refers to, none of them refer to the depth of challenge that was revealed in the autumn of last year, which led to my commissioning of the joint royal colleges report. That was a decision I took because of the concern that had been properly revealed at that time. And it's a matter of a simple fact that, of course, I hadn't been in this role during the whole six years that you refer to. I've acted in the time that I have been in office on all the information that I have had available to me. And it is part of the challenge to understand how and why concern was not flagged up and acted on at an earlier point. That's why the independence in the oversight arrangements in the review process is absolutely crucial, to rebuild the trust and confidence that staff and the wider public will expect.

I certainly have not dismissed the inverse care law. I have made clear that I expect every person, every family, every community, in Wales to be treated appropriately by our national health service, with dignity and respect, to have their voices listened to. It is part of what I have found deeply upsetting in respect of Cwm Taf maternity services. That clearly did not happen to a range of families who have spoken about their experiences. So, the action that we have taken more broadly about the inverse care law, we have particular programmes undertaken in Aneurin Bevan, together with Cwm Taf. So, this is something that we are deliberately taking proactive action upon here within the health service in Wales.

Now, when I say, 'Who has a share of responsibility?', everyone in this health service does have a share of the responsibility for the way the whole health service works. But, ultimately, I'm the Minister for Health and Social Services, and I have overall responsibility for what happens. And I am far from complacent about my responsibilities, not only in the sense of the whole performance of the service, not just the challenges, but the good that the service does. But my responsibility is to see through the improvement that I recognise is plainly required and I am determined to see delivered.

The Conservative spokesperson, Janet Finch-Saunders.

It is widely known among stakeholders, users, politicians in Wales that social care funding across Wales is considered to be very serious. Alongside the 2019-20 local government settlement, providing councils with nothing but real-terms cuts once again, leaving them with little choice but to cut vital services, Wales is likely to have a 35 per cent increase in population over the age of 65 by 2039. The additional pressure on local authorities has been noted by the Welsh Local Government Association, who have estimated that there will be £344 million-worth of service pressures in social care by 2021-2. Clearly—[Interruption.] Allow the Minister, if he can, to respond to me. Clearly, a realistic vision is required, rather than the current rhetoric so often heard in this Chamber. The introduction of a transformative reform package is a necessity, and one that frees up local authorities from the continual, significant and ever-increasing financial burden. The provision of appropriate social care for our most vulnerable in Wales is not only an entitlement, it is a basic human right. Will you, as the portfolio holder and Minister, acknowledge the fact that local authorities across Wales are massively under-resourced by your department, by your Government, financially to provide social care? And will you look at transforming how this is funded?

Well, Llywydd, the questioner shows a staggering lack of self-awareness in asking the question. The unavoidable reality is that the Welsh Government has suffered a 7 per cent real-term reduction in our budget—well over £1 billion—and that has consequences that are unavoidable and directly flow from the policy of austerity implemented by the Government that you support, a policy that you have campaigned for in three successive general elections. 

I should also point out that if all of the spending demands made by Conservatives in this Chamber, and outside it, were acceded to, then we would have a much larger sum of money because we simply cannot meet all of the demands you make upon us. They are wholly unrealistic, as well as ignoring the impact of Conservative austerity. When you talk about the challenges of local government and paying for care, the biggest challenge they face is austerity. If you want to see a change in the position of local government and their funding, you should join with others in this Chamber and outside and call on the Conservative Government to end the policy on austerity to stop the damage being done in each and every one of our communities. I think many people will hear what you have had to say and wonder if at all you understand what is happening, or that if you do, whether you're potentially just a touch hypocritical. 

I thought we were in for a kinder politics, actually. I haven't insulted you personally.

Now, one recent idea as to how to fund social care is the proposal this week that has been outlined by the Rt Hon Damian Green MP in his paper on fixing the care crisis. It's fair to say that the UK Government realise that it's a ticking time bomb where social care pressures are and they are prepared to do something about it. Now, this would see a pension-style system introduced, guaranteeing a reasonable universal safety net. I'm not endorsing this at this point, but what I'm saying is that they are looking at it and coming up with meaningful and potential ways to address the issue. The way you smile, you look as if you don't even believe that there's a social care funding crisis in Wales. Now, this would help increase the flow of private funding into the—. [Interruption.] You can heckle and try and support him from the sidelines—

Don't take any notice of them; that's the best advice I can give. Ignore them completely and carry on. 

Thank you. Just for the reference, £1.20 is spent on public services in Wales—provided by the UK Government—for every £1 in England. So, there's an obvious fault there, isn't there, when, clearly, there's less money being spent in England, and—[Inaudible.]—delivery? But, anyway, on with my question. This would encourage a greater voluntary contribution of the around £163 billion in non-pension assets possessed by each annual cohort of 65-year-olds in Great Britain. Now, the merits of the proposal may be a debate for another day, but at least, as I've said, they're looking at it. But we must acknowledge that something has to be done in Wales. Can you say yourself that the Welsh Government, and you as a Minister, are doing enough to do this, and will you also confirm to me how you have taken forward one, two or even more of the nine recommendations of the Finance Committee report, 'The cost of caring for an ageing population', especially No. 7, which highlights the need to engage with the public about the future funding of social care in Wales, and to have a national conversation? Have you taken those recommendations forward, and are you prepared to have that national conversation?

Well, I'd like to thank the Member for her latest interesting take and bring her back to reality. The undeniable challenges on social care exist right across the United Kingdom, including here in Wales. Within the significant reductions made to our budget by the UK Conservative Government that she supports and has campaigned for, we have made honest choices about the share in resources between health, local government and all other public services and money we spend on supporting the economy. If the Conservatives in the United Kingdom Government were really serious about fixing this issue, they would have done something about it. We've been promised a Green Paper, not a paper by Damian Green, to understand what the UK Government are going to do on this. It has been delayed again and again and again.

The Dilnot commission that was supposed to help take this matter forward was buried by the Conservative Government in the last term. The reality is we could have made more progress right across the United Kingdom if the UK Government had been a straight and honest dealer in this and actually taken action rather than kicking the can down the road. Here in Wales, we do have an inter-ministerial group that I chair on looking at the future payment for social care, and looking at how we generate more money to go into our social care system. And that is not a consequence of free choice to make at all, and if we want more resources to go in, there are difficult choices about where that money comes from and if we're prepared to fund that in a variety of different ways. 

I suggest that rather than just looking at it, the UK Government needs to recognise that they are responsible for the position on social care funding, and it comes back again to the choice on austerity. End austerity—there are different choices that every Government within the United Kingdom can make. End austerity, and your Conservative colleagues who run councils in England will have a different settlement, because don't take my word for it, but the choices that your Government across the United Kingdom has made have had even more serious consequences in England than any other part of the UK. They look on the way Welsh local government has been treated and they recognise there is a much better deal available for local government here because there is a Welsh Labour Government that has balanced our resources and prioritised local services. 

A very, very weak response from a Government Minister. You have just actually admitted to this Chamber that despite you having the levers, despite you having the resources financially, and despite you having the powers, you're actually waiting for a Green Paper from the United Kingdom Government. What happened to devolution? What happened to you taking the lead as a Government Minister and as a Welsh Labour Government? You've answered that question. But, anyway, I've got one more for you. [Laughter.]

There are 370,000 carers in Wales providing 96 per cent of the care in communities across Wales and they contribute more than £8.1 billion to the Welsh economy every year. Now, if just a small percentage of these hard-working carers stopped caring, health and social care services would undoubtedly submerge into a deeper crisis than I have mentioned. Therefore, challenges faced by unpaid carers in Wales must be addressed by you. For example, I am shocked, and I am sure other Members here would be, to learn— 

You do need to come to your question now. You don't need to preamble your third question. 

Many carers are unable to access appropriate breaks from their caring responsibilities in order for themselves to live healthy and fulfilling lives and to reach their own potential in terms of education and employment. What urgent steps are you taking to ensure that all carers receive the adequate breaks they require and that the full cost of replacement of respite care in order for them to live their own fulfilled lives is achieved? 

Thank you for the question on carers—an important subject on which there is some cross-party agreement that we need to find a better deal on. The Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 provides rights that do not exist in other parts of the United Kingdom. Our challenge is how we work with our partners and make sure those rights are realised. There is no lack of focus on carers and, indeed, the Deputy Minister is leading work with carers on implementing a better deal for them here in Wales.

I actually think the problem with this set of questions is that when you talk about powers, levers and resources that already exist, actually the undeniable truth is we have only recently had powers over changing our income. We have not had the resources. That's a point I've continually made about austerity and your failure to take any kind of responsibility for the choice that you have actively campaigned for in three successive general elections. It is a Conservative choice, it is a Conservative creation—the crisis that we see across public services right across the United Kingdom. 

The challenge in this exchange is that, unfortunately, Llywydd, I just don't think the Member understands what is actually happening within the country, and let's just leave it at that. 

UKIP spokesperson, Neil Hamilton.

Diolch, Llywydd. The Minister will know that in the years 2017-18, 100,000 ophthalmology patients' appointments were cancelled, often at very short notice, and that figure was a rise of 5.5 per cent on two years before. Those who have been waiting for twice as long as they should for a follow-up appointment were 35,000 in December 2018, up from 15,000 in April 2015. The latest figures that I have been able to find for those people who go blind whilst waiting for treatment in Wales is 48. That was back in 2014 in a Royal National Institute of Blind People report. Is it not a scandal that a single person in Wales should go blind whilst waiting for treatment by the NHS? 

This is an area in which we've actually changed measures, and the difference between measures and what happened in the service actually matters. We were measuring a referral-to-treatment target that didn't actually take account of the clinical priority of patients. So, we had a blunt measure that didn't take account of how the service should act to actually deal with the potential clinical harm. So, one of the things that I have done is that I have now worked with the service, together with the Royal National Institute of Blind People, and we have new measures in place that actually take account of clinical priority. So, some people will wait longer, but we will prioritise those people in the greatest need to avoid the prospect of people actually suffering avoidable sight loss. It's a deliberate choice that we've made, and I believe the health service and the people of Wales will be better off for it, and it enjoys the widespread support of both clinicians and the third sector.

Well, better late than never, I certainly acknowledge that, but there is still a very long way to go. The Minister will know that the Public Accounts Committee has been taking an interest in this area, and recently we took evidence form Aneurin Bevan health board, which noted the need for improvement on its current 62 per cent performance of risk 1 patients being seen by the target date or within 25 per cent in excess of the target date. Risk 1 is defined by the RNIB as a risk of irreversible harm or significant patient adverse outcome if the patient target date is missed. These delays are really intolerable, are they not? 

If you look at the follow-up appointments in certain health boards, there is a very significant disparity between performance. In Abertawe Bro Morgannwg, there were 5,000 people waiting twice as long as they should do for follow-up appointments—that's four times as many as two years before. In Cardiff and Vale, 10,000 people are waiting twice as long as they need for eye appointments. That's four times the position two years ago. This is something that calls for the most urgent action possible from the health Secretary, and perhaps he could tell us what, in practical terms, he's now going to do to sort the problem out.

Well, the new measures themselves are not simply an answer in themselves. They are actually about how we organise and run the whole system. It's about actually ensuring that we're able to transfer care into community-based services wherever possible, and actually Aneurin Bevan have been leading on a range of that work, to provide greater time and capacity within hospital-based services for people who need to be seen by a hospital-based clinician. So, it's about re-engineering our whole system. And actually if you talk to people within the service, and if you talk to people across the system within the United Kingdom, they recognise that we're doing the right things here in Wales and there is a challenge about how other parts of the UK catch up with what we're doing, both in local treatment within the community as well as more priority for the right people to be seen more quickly within a hospital system. That means different measures that accurately reflect what matters to the person and what should matter to all of us to make sure that the right care is provided at the right time and in the right place.

Yes. We want to see sustainable and accessible GP services across Wales. GP practices are using components of the primary care model to improve the way they provide services to patients, including, of course, within north Wales.

Thank you for that answer, Minister. GP services are suffering. My constituents report waiting weeks for a routine appointment and just not being able to get through on the phone, sometimes needing to try up to 50 times and then giving up. Many say that they are losing confidence and faith in the health service. We've already heard that recent changes to the funding available for the indemnity scheme seem to be a step too far for many of those GPs. Minister, your very first ministerial responsibility is oversight of NHS delivery and performance. Are you doing your job properly?

'Yes' is the simple answer to the final question, but actually we know that, in response to the question asked by Alun Davies, there is a need to recognise that access is a key challenge in every community across Wales. And actually, as politicians, when you go out and talk to people, you know if there's a problem because it's localised—because some houses you'll talk to won't have a problem at all and won't raise it, and a few streets over, you'll have lots of people saying they have real challenges about accessing their local general practice.

That's why I've made access such a priority in conversations with local health services not just in the last year, but in the year moving ahead as well. It's part of our conversations with general practice in terms of how we introduce those new models, because, actually, most general practices in the country don't have a problem with having access to the right person at the right time, but a significant minority do, and almost all of us will know people, if not ourselves, who have had some of those challenges. 

When it comes to the general practice contract for general medical services, we have made real progress. We have made a real step forward on indemnity arrangements. It will de-risk the future of local healthcare for general practitioners. On the broader contract, I am optimistic that we will secure agreement, as I have always intended to. Recently, and over the last month, there have been further negotiations between the BMA general practice committee, the Welsh Government and the NHS, and I'm optimistic that in the coming weeks we'll reach an agreement to take this matter forward.

Of course, because of the shortage of GPs in north Wales, more and more surgeries have been coming under direct management by the Betsi Cadwaladr health board. Can I ask whether Welsh Government has carried out any analysis or any sort of study comparing services provided by those surgeries as compared to the more traditional practice model?

Yes, there's quite a lot of information available about the relative cost of independent contractors or managed practices, but it's also about our ability to attract and retain people to work in those services, not just GPs, but other clinical staff as well. So, we do have a range of those practices that have come in to be managed by Betsi Cadwaladr, and they've all managed to maintain a service for the local public, but my ambition is to have a more stable model for local healthcare to be delivered. That's why we talk about clusters coming together; we think we're going to see more co-working between those different practices. Those may be formal mergers; they may be federations. But, actually, to have that stability, whether doctors choose to work as an employed doctor employed by other doctors, or whether they wish to become partners—and we ought to incentivise people to become partners in general practice—and then to make sure they have a proper multidisciplinary team, that is more and more what we are going to deliver in local healthcare. If the Member wants further detail, I'd be happy to discuss outside the Chamber in correspondence.

Yes. Whilst the health board has improved its 36-week position by 3 per cent between February last year and this year, I am disappointed with the number of people who are still waiting too long. I have made my expectations clear for the health board, and I expect to see further improvements in waiting times before the end of this year and into the next. To help that, the Welsh Government has provided additional funding to help achieve that improvement in performance.

Too many people are waiting too long for treatment in north Wales. People on orthopaedic waiting lists are typically waiting, now, for two years in order to get access to their treatment. You clawed back £1 million from the health board this year because of its failure to hit your waiting time targets, and £3 million was clawed back last year because of a similar failure in that period. The situation with the Countess of Chester hospital, which took a significant number of referrals from north-east Wales, is going to make waiting times even longer and more difficult to achieve in terms of the targets. When will you wake up, make sure that the Countess of Chester hospital gets the funding it needs to make sure that it can care for the Welsh patients that need access to that service so that we can get these waiting times down, and when will you sign off the orthopaedic waiting time plan, which has been sat on your desk for 18 months, in order that these patients can get access to the treatment they need within the waiting time target?

I think there are three particular points there, Llywydd. The first is that two years is not the standard wait for all orthopaedic patients. That is not even the average wait. But there are some specialities, in particular some forms of joint replacements, where the wait is of that order, and that is simply far too long and simply not acceptable.

The orthopaedic plan has not been sat on my desk for 18 months. I am yet to receive an orthopaedic plan from the health board that I can make a determination on, on whether to invest in that or not. It has taken more time than I certainly have wanted to get a joint plan that clinicians across Wales and the health board can agree will actually match the capacity now and in the future.

When it comes to the Countess of Chester, the Member is simply wrong to suggest that the Welsh system is refusing to make payments and that that is the reason, while the Countess of Chester took unilateral action. It is rather more complicated than that. The Welsh system has not behaved inappropriately, and I hope that people in the Countess of Chester will behave in a way that reflects the values that should exist right across the national health service in every one of the four nations and not disadvantage patients while discussions continue about an appropriate rate of payment. And each and every year, the Welsh system has paid its bills in full and on time.

You say that you’re disappointed that people are waiting too long. It’s worth taking a moment just to think what exactly 'too long' means in this context. I wrote to the Betsi Cadwaladr health board and received a response on 8 April. I wrote on behalf of a patient waiting for a new knee. The response said that some 2,200 patients were awaiting orthopaedic treatment and that waiting times for elective surgery was around 100 weeks. That’s two years. Now, a fortnight later, I got a response saying that waiting times for knee operations or hip operations were more than 110 weeks. Now, this at any level isn’t anywhere near what is acceptable to us. Isn’t it time for us now to realise that special measures in themselves are not enough and that we need to move to some sort of crisis measures for Betsi Cadwaladr, or to seriously consider whether the single health board model for north Wales is fit for purpose?

There's no suggestion that changing the organisational structure of Betsi Cadwaladr and having two or three different health boards would actually improve performance in this area. The challenge would still be about how different clinicians on different sites actually work to a unified plan to make better use of the resources that they share across the health board. That will require investment in capital facilities and require a change in practice. I expect to see both those things set out in the orthopaedic plan, when I am actually provided with it, for me to make a decision on whether to invest or not.

I recognise that people are waiting far too long in north Wales in particular. I recognise that we're spending money in a way, in actually providing additional capacity from the independent system or from England, that is not actually a long-term, sustainable way to use that resource. We need a more sustainable way to use that resource here in Wales and to only use capacity outside of the Welsh system when it is absolutely necessary. So, I am under no illusions about the unacceptable position that faces our staff and in particular our patients. I look forward to receiving the plan so I can make a choice on the next steps to be taken in orthopaedic services.

I'm sure the Member will appreciate I can't get the performance figures for the newly created Swansea Bay University Health Board. However, for the former Abertawe Bro Morgannwg, performance continued to improve across key areas compared to the previous year, with improved performance in A&E waits, referral-to-treatment times, and diagnostic and therapy waits, and the new health board continues to see more patients within the target time for cancer compared to the previous year.

Minister, since being escalated to targeted intervention status in September 2016, Swansea bay health board, formerly, obviously, ABMU health board until recently, has made some progress in terms of its performance, as you outlined, and the work of the new leadership team has to be acknowledged. However, pressures do remain. There are challenges in delivering against the cancer pathway target across the health board, and also within planned care. Despite reductions in the number of people waiting over 36 weeks, nearly 11 per cent of patients are still waiting over 26 weeks—six months—with waiting times in some areas, such as trauma and orthopaedics, actually having worsened since September 2016, when it went into targeted intervention. This September, this health board, with its various names, will have been in targeted intervention for three years, so what further actions are you planning to ensure that services reach a level that patients in Swansea and Neath Port Talbot deserve?

I recognise the points the Member makes and, to be fair, he regularly raises performance issues of the health service in the region that he represents. I have previously said, in both a written statement and in an oral statement, that I expect the new health board to have an approvable three-year plan created within this year, and that must come on the back of not just real improvement made to date, but prospects of further improvement in the future. We've actually done better on performance over the last year, and, in making use of the additional resources we've made available, that has to continue. So you're correct that 89 per cent of people within the new health board can expect to be seen within 26 weeks. I expect to see further improvement. I expect to see the health board come out of targeted intervention and to continue to improve in each of the key areas that you have outlined.

Minister, you may remember, in the 2017-18 accountability report for ABMU, that the board were very jubilant, actually, that they'd shown an improvement inasmuch as the £36 million overspend that they'd predicted was actually only £32 million, and that that figure actually disguised a better saving because the figure included £7.4 million that was a penalty for not achieving referral-to-treatment time targets, which I don't think is anything that they should be proud of. We now have the new Swansea Bay University Health Board, with a reduced footprint. Will you be expecting some more ambition from them in terms of their financial controls, or will you be satisfied if the new board comes in again to say that overspending by fewer millions of pounds than they were expecting is a success, because those fewer millions of pounds could of course be going towards the social services and you would have been able to answer Janet Finch-Saunders's question differently?

I would say the health board were far from jubilant about the reduction in their deficit down to £32 million. It was still unacceptable, and that was made absolutely clear to them both by my officials, but also by me, here, in conversations directly with the chair, and in the appraisal I've made it very clear I expect them to continue to improve. They won't have a balanced plan for me to sign off unless they can demonstrate that they are on track to live within their means, and to do so not just in one year, but over the three-year period. That is my expectation of the organisation—to improve its performance, including its financial performance, as well as improving the quality and the timeliness of its care and treatment for the people that you and I represent.

Yes. Patient flow across the England and Wales border happens on a daily basis. Cross-border healthcare provision is arranged through formal agreements between local heath boards and English providers to meet the healthcare needs of the local population and, of course, we see a significant number of English residents coming into Wales for treatment, especially in regard to primary care.

Diolch. Before recess, the Countess of Chester Hospital announced a unilateral decision to not accept any new elective referrals for Welsh patients. Minister, I thank you for meeting with me earlier today about this, and I know you are aware, following our meeting, that this issue is hurting people in my constituency and, indeed, people right across Flintshire. They are deeply, deeply concerned and angry about what the future will mean, and I have to say I share those feelings with them. And playing politics on an issue like this, in my view, is a disgrace.

My constituents want to know, Llywydd, why we are in this situation, but, most importantly, they want to know what's going to happen in the future. Minister, there needs to be an immediate interim solution to this issue whilst negotiations take place to allow Welsh patients to access cross-border services.

We also need assurances that this situation will never happen again—not just to my constituents, but to any patient who uses cross-border services throughout Wales. So, Minister, can I press you to work with me and colleagues from north-east Wales to ensure that happens, because health conditions know no borders and neither should the health service?

Yes, thank you for the question and the opportunity to discuss this matter in some more detail earlier today with colleagues from north-east Wales. There has been some progress on arrangements with the English system. As you know, not just in the part of Wales that you represent, but in other parts, there's a regular flow for hospital treatment in particular. And the challenge has arisen over the way that tariff payments work within the English system. Now, not everyone here will be familiar with the tariff, but it's a way in which providers of health services in England are paid, and there's a rate that's set. The new rate set for England includes elements that appear to have been covered by consequential payments into the Welsh and English systems. If we simply agree to pay that amount, then we're essentially double-funding parts of the English system, including, for example, with the pay award. Now, that won't mean much to people who simply want certainty about how they're going to be treated, and I certainly want to see progress. I've had several direct conversations with UK Ministers on this, my officials have been directly engaged, there are further meetings taking place this week between the two Governments and, indeed, individual actors within the system in Wales and England.

I too want to see an interim agreement that allows us to carry on with the longer term challenges, not just an agreement with the Countess of Chester, but with every provider of cross-border healthcare, and to make sure we have something that will last in the future years as well. And, on that, there is some progress in having a Welsh voice around the table when English providers are setting new tariff arrangements, but it'll still not be our choice about what those arrangements are. I want something that works here in England and Wales, and, obviously, there are similar considerations for other nations in the UK as well. So, I will continue to update you on the progress that we are making, but this should not have happened. It is in direct contravention of the cross-border protocol that provides that both countries will act in the interest of the patient at all times and there'll be no delay in accessing healthcare services whilst commissioning responsibilities are clarified. I hope that message is heard in the Countess of Chester and that your constituents will not be placed in the position they are today.

Yes. The Welsh Government continues to work with health boards and partners across Wales to improve services for people living with persistent pain. We're working with relevant health boards to ensure that alternative pathways are in place for those patients affected by the closure of the pain management service in the Oswestry hospital.

Thank you, Minister. For patients in Montgomeryshire, I have been and am still receiving reports from constituents who have not been informed of their options for pain management following the closure that you talked about of the Oswestry orthopaedic hospital. There does seem to be very poor communication from Powys Teaching Health Board about their options for future pain management. Can I ask you to commit to working with Powys Teaching Health Board to ensure that patients do receive timely communication about their future healthcare pathways? Further to that, patients in Montgomeryshire with chronic pain conditions do need provision within north Powys. Can I ask you to work with Powys Teaching Health Board to ensure that that is actually the case?

Yes, I'm happy to confirm that my understanding is that the health board have written to each patient who has been transferred back from the hospital in Oswestry—

They haven't.

And that they can—that they have now written to every patient, because I understand that had not taken place previously, and the health board issue an apology because of that. Of course, patients can contact the Powys pain management service itself if they do remain concerned, or of course contact local representatives. Some pain clinics are already offered in north Powys and the health board plans to introduce further services. I'll also be issuing a future written statement to confirm new guidance for pain management services in Wales in the very near future.FootnoteLink

And, finally, question 8. Suzy Davies.

We don't collect data on the basis of a 10-minute wait before discharge. We have measures that start with a 15-minute period of time. But I expect all patients who arrive by ambulance at a hospital facility to be transferred to the care of hospital staff in order of clinical priority and in a timely manner to support positive patient outcomes and experience.

Thank you for that answer. Following a freedom of information request to the Welsh ambulance service, I was shocked to find that the average time that an ambulance waits outside Bridgend Princess of Wales Hospital before handover of the patient is one hour and five minutes above the target time that you have just described. This information also showed that the longest waiting times in the last three months—the longest one was a staggering 16 hours and 39 minutes above the target handover time, with the next longest being 14 hours, then 11 hours, and then 10 hours. To compare with that, the average at the Royal Glamorgan Hospital is just nine minutes over the target set for handovers. These hospitals are now in the same local health board area. The ambulance trust has been ring-fencing resources for this work in Cwm Taf since 2015, and you can see the difference. Have you asked the trust why this is not being rolled out everywhere?

It will be for the new Cwm Taf Morgannwg health board to ensure they're providing a consistent service across the whole footprint. This is one of the issues about a change in culture, practice and leadership and how it will affect all parts of the whole organisation, including the Bridgend portion that has been brought into the new Cwm Taf Morgannwg health board. So, I do expect to see further improvement. I expect further improvement in handovers and in understanding and listening to patients about their experience of what makes a difference with and for them. Because, plainly, the extremely long waits that you quote in your question are certainly not acceptable. 

Thank you, Minister.

No topical questions were accepted today.

Therefore, we move to the 90-second statements. The first statement is from Mick Antoniw. 

Thank you, Llywydd. Today is 1 May, International Workers' Day, and Sunday was international Workers' Memorial Day. On both of these dates, we recognise the contribution and sacrifice of working people across the world to our economy and society and their global struggle for social justice and equality.

In Wales, this commemoration is particularly pertinent as we recall the sacrifice of life and health of our miners, steelworkers, industrial and public sector workers and their trade unions, who are the bedrock of our communities and shaped the values of our society. Every year, more people across the world are killed at work than in wars. Most don't die of mystery ailments or in freak accidents— they die because an employer decided that their safety just wasn't that important, a priority.

Workers' Memorial Day is held annually on 28 April and commemorates these workers and those disabled, injured or otherwise made unwell through work. Trade unions across the world organise events, vigils and other activities to mark the day. 

The slogan for Workers' Memorial Day is 'Remember the dead—fight for the living', and it reminds us not only of those who have paid the ultimate price for helping to create a nation's wealth but that such tragedies need not happen and that it is only by campaigning for the development of effective health and safety legislation, enforcement of existing laws and penalties and breaches, that this aspiration can be made a reality, and by putting people before profit. 

In Wales, 54 workers' deaths due to accidents at work were recorded over the last five years. However, many hundreds more continue to die each year in Wales from work-related diseases, such as asbestosis, pneumoconiosis and other lung diseases and cancers. International Workers' Day is an opportunity to reflect on the ongoing struggles of working people for decent jobs, decent conditions, equality and social justice. Here in Wales, this Assembly must remain at the forefront of this struggle. 

Leanne Wood.

I would like to congratulate the Rhondda-based Cory Band for taking first place at the forty-second European Brass Band Championships in Montreux, Switzerland, over the weekend. This triumph was the sixth time they have won the competition since 2008, with a number of second and third placings during the same time period. The victory has cemented their position as the greatest brass band in the world, a fact recognised by the international ranking system, and I'm proud that we have such musical excellence in the Rhondda.

A little bit of history about the band: they originally bore the name 'Ton Temperance'. In 1895, the name was changed to 'Cory Workingmen's Band' after receiving financial assistance from coal exporter Clifford Cory. This name was later shortened to the Cory Band. In 1923, they played for the BBC, which is believed to be the first time that a brass band was broadcast on the radio. Since then, they've gone from strength to strength and they've been recognised as the best in the world for 13 years. 

Being the best in the world and maintaining that position takes a lot of talent, hard work and dedication. The Cory Band are a real inspiration, not just in the Rhondda, but all across Wales and further. They've shown what can be achieved when you set your mind to it. But being the best in the world also requires money. So, if there is anyone out there who would like to help the Cory Band financially, please check out their website or contact me for further information. I'm sure they would be more than delighted to receive your support. Diolch yn fawr. 

Item 5 on the agenda is a debate on the Public Accounts Committee's report on the Welsh Government's relationship with Pinewood, and I call on the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee to move the motion. Nick Ramsay.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Rightly, the announcement of the arrival of Pinewood in Cardiff in 2014 was met with excitement and anticipation that such a world-renowned brand was coming to Wales and could bring an estimated £90 million to the Welsh economy and boost the Welsh film industry on an international level. Pinewood’s arrival offered opportunity and hope but, just four years later, the Welsh Government decided to terminate the lease and collaboration agreement it had in place with the company. The studio and the running of the media investment fund was brought under direct Welsh Government control. So what happened? What caused this love story to turn into a tragedy?

Well, to be honest, it really was a comedy of errors. The Welsh Government entered into a contract that lacked clarity in terms of operating arrangements and a collaboration agreement that did not explicitly make clear the roles and responsibilities of each partner. Not only was there a lack of clarity on the financial and economic returns expected through these agreements, but also a seeming lack of recognition about the conflict of interest caused by the arrangements. The Welsh Government entered into an agreement with a Pinewood subsidiary to manage the £30 million media investment budget, but officials failed to record or advise their Minister about the potential conflict of interest arising from Pinewood administering this budget and also providing its own London-based services to the industry.

We were told that the media investment panel was set up to mitigate this risk. We concluded that this was insufficient mitigation, not least as the perception of an advantage for Pinewood still existed across the industry and that this was a wider conflict than the individual projects being considered.

Alongside these poor contractual arrangements, there appears to be a significant lack of due diligence. The Welsh Government chose to purchase a site for the studio that consisted of three very different and unusual assets costing £6 million, and failed to commission a full structural survey beforehand. Most people have a structural survey before buying a house, but this was a £6 million purchase for which the Welsh Government were satisfied with a valuation report and the fact the site was being sold by an institutional investor.

Yet, as we saw, essential repairs to the roof were not identified prior to purchase, which led to significant costs being incurred. To compound all of this, Welsh Government officials were not aware of any requirement to make good the grade II listed property on the site and had no intention to do anything to this unless instructed to, which are not exactly the actions you might expect from those with oversight responsibility for Cadw, who should, surely, be an exemplar owner of listed buildings. Although, interestingly, this building has recently been de-listed by Cadw, all of this seems to suggest, at best, a significant degree of naivety within the Welsh Government.  

Further evidence of this naivety is evidenced by the lack of clarity around the value of the works carried out by Pinewood to improve the building. We were surprised and concerned that the Welsh Government were unaware of what had been completed by the company when the Welsh Government took back ownership of the site and even more concerned that there was no detail of the value of works specified in the agreement to lease the site, and that the Welsh Government were unaware that this information, agreed in the heads of terms, had not been transposed into the contract with Pinewood.

The result of all this means that there was a lack of clarity about who was responsible for which improvements and that this, ultimately, had a negative impact on the public purse—where the Public Accounts Committee came in—as there could have been no evaluation of the value for money gained. I return once again to the theme of naivety. This appeared to the committee to be a basic error in the contract negotiations—the original contract negotiations.

We agreed, as a committee, to reserve judgement on whether the deal with Pinewood has represented value for money, as we recognise that commercial investment in the film and television industry is, by its very nature, precarious and that it can take many years to realise the economic benefits. We believe there is a balance to be struck between investing public money to maximise investment in Wales and the risk this incurs, but these risks must be managed and the decision-making and governance arrangements around them need to be robust and rigorously informed.

We welcome the Welsh Government’s response to our report, in which the Welsh Government accepts eight out of nine of our recommendations and sets out the work it has undertaken to ensure lessons are learned from the Pinewood experience and shared, as well as implementing new procedures and guidance, to prevent similar shortcomings occurring again.

However, we note that its response to recommendations 3, 4 and 5, which relate to issues of conflicts of interest, is specific to Pinewood, while the spirit of our recommendations related to the mitigation of conflicts of interest more broadly across all of the Welsh Government’s interactions with private sector business. This a matter we will follow up shortly as part of the committee’s work on the Welsh Government's financial support for business.

We also note that although the Welsh Government has rejected recommendation 8 of our report, it agrees with the general principle of the recommendation and has begun work to develop a best practice guide to acquisitions undertaken in the name of Welsh Ministers. We will keep a watching brief over compliance with this guidance once it has been introduced to ensure it is implemented and works effectively.

Dirprwy Lywydd, in summing up, it is unfortunate that Pinewood, like several other Welsh Government projects before it, including Kancoat and, indeed, the Circuit of Wales, has fallen foul to the Welsh Government’s lack of due diligence in certain respects: poor governance arrangements; as we saw it, ill-informed decision making; and a basic overall lack of transparency and a lack of clarity, particularly when it came to the formulation of those original contracts.

It was just last year that the Public Accounts Committee reported on the Welsh Government’s initial funding of the Circuit of Wales project, highlighting the need for decision-making processes followed by those charged with the expenditure of taxpayers’ money to be both coherent and properly documented. As with the Circuit of Wales, the Welsh Government’s relationship with Pinewood has involved some inexplicable decisions.

I do not know how many more times we'll have to debate the same reoccurring issues within the Welsh Government about a lack of due diligence and poor judgement. While the need to take measured risks is appreciated by all of us here, the need to be responsible with public funds must be paramount. It's essential that, moving forward, the Welsh Government learns from its past experiences and must demonstrate categorically once and for all that lessons have been learnt with regard to its approach to funding private business in Wales.

It's useful to reflect on this story that we've been debating for the last nine months. It's undoubtedly the case that the former Government economy Minister had very ambitious plans for expanding the film and television industry in Wales, and that in itself was laudable, but there wasn't sufficient thinking through of the potential conflicts of interest, which weren't considered properly when entering into a partnership with a multi-million pound company with global interests. The Welsh Government was a minnow by comparison with Pinewood, and, although it's not possible to conclude that the Welsh Government was taken for a ride, it's certainly the case that the checks and balances were not in place to ensure that that did not happen.

There was no survey of the building done before the purchase. A pig in a poke seems to me an inadequate response to a £6 million investment, and that remains a considerable concern. The advice given to Ministers was also absolutely silent on potential VAT liabilities, which was quite extraordinary under the circumstances. We did get some very robust assurances from civil servants that that was not going to happen again. But nor indeed was there any consideration of the liabilities that the Government was taking on by purchasing an asset that included a listed building. It's really not good enough for the Welsh Government, which has to enforce listed building status, to then be cavalier about the obligations that that requires of them as the owner of such property.

However, it would be curmudgeonly not to recognise the transformation that has occurred over the last five years in terms of Wales's status as a location for filmmaking and broadcasting. Would Bad Wolf studios have located to Wales at all if Pinewood studios had not existed? It's impossible to say, but it's very likely that that would not have occurred to them. We are now in the happy position that Bad Wolf studios has so many orders on its books that it's outgrown its own premises and is having to rely on the entire Pinewood studios over the next 12 months in order to accommodate all the work that they are undertaking. We also have the new BBC building, which is going to be one of the most iconic broadcasting centres across the UK and, indeed, across the world once it opens in Central Square in Cardiff Central. We also have many, many more awards being won by S4C, ITV and the BBC for their drama and documentary productions, and all of this is a huge positive for the Welsh economy.

But we do need to build on that success by ensuring that, in our contracts that we enter into, we are insisting that a proportion of the subcontracting is done with Welsh companies, and that will enable us to build on the fact that Wales is indeed recognised as a place to go for both location filming and as post-production. But we need to ensure that, for example, if we've got talented actors in Wales, which I'm sure we have, they don't need to go to London in order to be auditioning for roles. There's no particular reason why that can't occur here. We don't need Wales to be seen as an outpost of London when it comes to considering film and television. We certainly have the opportunity to do that to ensure that Wales has its own international success in this regard, but we have some more work to do to ensure that we have the full gamut of skills and that that is recognised across the world.

The announcement of the arrival of Pinewood in Cardiff five years ago was met with excitement and anticipation. It was hoped that the brand would bring an estimated benefit of £9 million to the Welsh economy. Hopes were raised that the opportunity provided would boost the Welsh film industry on an international level, and yet, only four years later, all hopes were dashed when the Welsh Government decided to terminate the lease and the collaboration agreement it had with the company. Does this sound familiar? It should. Last year, we debated another project that was widely welcomed as it presented an opportunity to regenerate one of the most economically deprived areas of Wales. The Circuit of Wales project failed due to officials making basic errors, omissions and exercising poor judgement. Once again, hopes were raised and then dashed by the Welsh Government's botched handling of an important project.

The Public Accounts Committee report into the Circuit of Wales called for robust and effective governance and internal communication channels to guarantee that such issues do not occur again. However, in relation to Pinewood, the committee was surprised to find the Welsh Government entered into a contract that lacked clarity in terms of operating arrangements. The collaboration arrangements also failed to explicitly make clear the roles and responsibilities of each partner. Most worryingly, the committee was concerned about the inaccurate, incomplete and poor quality of advice provided to Ministers on more than one occasion. In oral evidence, Welsh Government said that an independent evaluation was carried out before the building at Wentloog was acquired, but subsequently it became clear that the reported condition of the building was inconsistent with the need to undertake essential repairs to the roof of the building, which was found to be leaking. I find it incredible that the Welsh Government took a decision not to commission a structural surveyor to survey the building prior to the purchase, which is a common practice in any business or property when you buy. The Welsh Government made an assumption that the building would have been maintained to a reasonable standard because it was being sold by an international or institutional investor. This is totally unacceptable, Deputy Presiding Officer. I note the Welsh Government has rejected the committee's recommendation with regards to acquiring surveys. We can only hope the best practice guide we are told is currently being developed will address this issue.

Another example of a lack of due diligence became clear regarding the issue of VAT on the sponsorship agreement. Under the agreement, the Welsh Government would pay Pinewood £438,000 a year to market and promote the studio. Shortly after the agreement was signed, it was noticed the VAT had been omitted. This increased the annual cost of sponsorship by £87,600 and it became £525,000 in total. This failure to obtain specialist advice on VAT implications demonstrates a lack of capacity within the Welsh Government to ensure that the development of proposals to enter into non-standard commercial agreements with private companies is sufficiently robust.

Presiding Officer, throughout their time in office, the Welsh Government's record has been littered with poor decisions that have lost the taxpayer money in such a wasteful manner: the Circuit of Wales project, land sales by the regeneration investment fund for Wales, Kancoat, Natural Resources Wales. As Nick Ramsay, Chair of the Public Accounts Committee has said in his foreword to this report, it is essential that Welsh Government learns from its past experiences and demonstrates that lessons have been learned with regards to its approach to funding for private businesses. We can only hope it does. Thank you.

I wanted to thank the Public Accounts Committee for conducting this report. I wanted to participate in this debate in my role as Chair of the Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee.

We first looked into this issue as part of our inquiry into film and major television production in Wales last year, before we passed this issue to the Public Accounts Committee for further scrutiny. We held two sessions with the Deputy Minister for Culture, Tourism and Sport and the Minister for Economy and Transport. It was clear that there were specific problems with this project from the beginning. Throughout, the aim was admirable, but the execution was pretty poor. Obviously, we want Wales to host a world-class studio facility, as has already been said, and we are fully supportive of efforts to raise Wales's profile internationally in the film industry. However, the advice provided to the Government was based on a model that was never suited to this country. As has been said, the purchase of the site was done without a full structural survey; this, we were told, limited its use to television, not film production. As the report from the Public Accounts Committee says, the contract with Pinewood

'lacked clarity in terms of operating arrangements,'

and the collaboration agreement

'did not...make clear the roles and responsibilities of each partner.'

Almost every aspect of the project, from the location to the management agreement to the estimated annual returns, has since been shown to be deficient.

Aside from the problems with the building and the contract, which were of great concern to the committee, I want to mention the lack of transparency from the Deputy Minister. The Welsh Government refused to disclose details of its relationship with Pinewood, citing commercial sensitivity. However, the Wales Audit Office report, published in July of last year, only omitted one monetary figure—the value of the management fee. The committee was disappointed that it appeared that commercial sensitivity was being used to avoid hard questions about value for money. The whole nature of our discourse with the Deputy Minister was unsatisfactory. For instance, we questioned whether there were plans to renovate the Grade II listed farmhouse building on the site purchased by the Government, and the response from the Deputy Minister was, only if forced to by a planning inspector or Cadw. Surely, we can expect more from the Cabinet member in charge of safeguarding our heritage.

In January 2018, the Deputy Minister told my colleague Adam Price that, and I quote:

'It is not accurate to say that we as a Government are paying Pinewood'.

However, as the Wales Audit Office report makes clear, in November 2017 the Welsh Government entered into an agreement with Pinewood whereby the costs of running the facility, together with payment of a Pinewood management fee, would now be met in full by the Welsh Government. We remain concerned that, despite requests for information from various Assembly Members, had it not been for this report by the Wales Audit Office, this information would still not be in the public domain, and Assembly Members and the Welsh public would still be in the dark.

We need to know that the Welsh Government is committed to making their investment in film and major television productions a success. So far, their dealings with Pinewood have been riddled with amateur mistakes, which we are told are the subject of a lessons learnt report, distributed to the rest of Welsh Government, but which are so basic they shouldn't have been made in the first place.

During our inquiry, we found that the media investment budget was seriously under-performing. We never received a clear answer to our question about whether the estimated annual revenues from the agreement with Pinewood had been revised to reflect the actual performance of the collaboration agreement. In March, I asked the Deputy Minister for an update on the media investment budget, and was told that one would be provided in December, as part of a response to the PAC recommendations. This means that there has been no up-to-date information on the media investment budget since June of last year. Our stakeholders in the industry deserve to know the rate of return on investments made with public money sooner than that.

We are pleased to hear that the studio space is now being rented to Bad Wolf, but I would like the Deputy Minister to tell us the latest figures for spending and return on investment from the media investment budget, what is the rental income being received from Bad Wolf, and how does this compare with any ongoing costs incurred by the Welsh Government. And can the Deputy Minister state clearly whether the Wentloog site is now operating at a profit to the Welsh Government or not? This information is important to understand the value of money from our financial commitment to this one project. But the overall lack of transparency we experienced in our dealings with the Welsh Government are continuing to frustrate our inquiries into how best the Government can support and maintain this vibrant industry. We hope that, from now on, the Welsh Government will be far more transparent about its relationship with Bad Wolf, and it doesn't require an audit office report to bring to light important details of public spending decisions.

Can I just start by offering my heartfelt thanks to the Public Accounts Committee for accepting the invitation from the Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee to pursue further inquiries into Welsh Government's relationship with Pinewood? It's an excellent report. I don't even know where I want to start on it, but I think I'll start with the point that you were talking about, Bethan, which is about transparency, because I think that's pertinent to Government as a whole.

After, like everybody else, welcoming the Government's initial announcement about the new arrangement with Pinewood, and after about a year or so, I asked some fairly anodyne questions about progress and key performance indicators, by way of routine scrutiny really. Edwina Hart's responses were short and as uninformative as we'd come to expect at that point, but even then commercial confidentiality was making an appearance. We were hearing nothing about these arrangements for bringing £90 million into the economy. By March 2017, which is some years later, the then leader of the house, in response to my requests, said that a statement would be forthcoming. Nothing happened.

I'm not going to rehearse all this, but I then went on to ask a range of questions, not even clear at this stage about the difference between the media investment budget and the Screen Wales budget—so little information was there available on the various websites—and what I got were incomplete or very delayed responses, again peppered with references to commercial confidentiality. And by now, I was sharing my disquiet with other Members. I’d even contacted the Information Commissioner when freedom of information requests were refused. Long story short, the Chair—Bethan—of the culture committee was in agreement that this needed further investigation, and I'm very grateful to you for taking that opportunity.

Because it now emerges that by 2016, when I'd started to ask these questions, a huge amount of worrying and expensive change had been taking place in that relationship. The smouldering conflict of interest had ignited and the financial forecasts were way off and nobody knew about it. Despite further questions from myself and Adam Price, it was only, as we know, when the auditor general became involved last year that this was exposed in any way at all.

I want the Welsh Government to know that we do understand and respect commercial confidentiality. But Ministers need to respect their duty to be candid when scrutinised by this Assembly, and they may also want to remember that some of us might be familiar with the concept of commercial confidentiality from our previous lives. I know exactly what it means. The Welsh Government is not Harry Potter. It does not have an invisibility cloak and it must stop treating commercial confidentiality as if it is one.

At no point, until committee scrutiny, did a Minister or Deputy Minister offer the explanation that Pinewood had vetoed answers to questions, because if they had, I and others could have considered redacted answers, for example. And while there is no recommendation on commercial confidentiality in this report, I look forward to the committee's findings after its forthcoming inquiry into Government support for business.

Talking of previous lives, I was very pleased that the committee looked further at the lack of a building survey of the studio building and the lack of a schedule of works covering tenants' improvements. Where is the Government's evidence that spending £1 million on this roof would have added equivalent value to this holding? How did it not hear alarm bells that having the cottage on site was a liability when the seller insisted on it being part of the sales package? I am pretty sure that had I advised clients in this way, when I was in private practice, with an acquisition of this nature, with what we know of the contract, there would have been a claim against my firm by the buyer, possibly the lender, and I'm pretty sure that I would have been sacked. And I am curious to know who was carrying the can in this instance.

Because what confidence can we now have, on hearing that Welsh Government has just bought a warehouse to store medication in case we have a 'no deal' Brexit? How can we be sure that they've even made sure the place is watertight? And, again, why can we not be told the terms on which Welsh Government has acquired that warehouse? I think I can feel Ministers reaching for that invisibility cloak again.

As it happens, I agree with the Government’s rejection of recommendation 8. A building survey needs to be sought on buildings of values lower than £1 million, even if they are due to be demolished, because that’s how you identify issues that will be material to estimating the costs of demolition. So, I'm hoping perhaps the Welsh Government would accept that recommendation.

I think what we've all learned from this sorry tale is that it's not just Jeremy Corbyn that presents donkeys and unicorns as thoroughbreds. When you present your next money-making race winner, Ministers, you'd better prove its pedigree upfront. And when you engage in bespoke arrangements—and let's remember that the Bad Wolf deal is a bespoke arrangement—please make sure that you have procured the necessary negotiating expertise. A director of Bad Wolf, herself a former Government insider, said that capacity was lacking in that department. And Jenny, you're quite right, if you're dealing with Darth Vader, you don't send Bambi in to negotiate the deal.

So, finally, you have been held firmly to account here, Welsh Government. I want to hear today that you will accept responsibility for this, and then demonstrate your accountability. Thank you. 

Can I now call the Deputy Minister for Culture, Tourism and Sport, Dafydd Elis-Thomas?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I thank the committee Chair for the courteous and reasonable way he presented his report, and we do very much appreciate the content of this report and I'm pleased that he accepts that we, as a Government, have responded to each and every one of the recommendations, with the exception of one. We have set out clearly in the letter that I sent to the committee, and in what I said in evidence, how we intend to act in order to put right the errors made in the past. To be entirely clear, we accept the criticism, clearly, that has been made by the committee. This is the purpose of scrutiny by the Public Accounts Committee and, indeed, the relevant subject committee covering culture too.

I'm also pleased that Jenny Rathbone and others have noted the importance of this sector for Wales. It happens to be a happy coincidence, for me, at least, that I am responding to this negative report, as it were, the day after I made a statement on Creative Wales. I will say a few more words about that before the end of my contribution.

We have seen the substantial growth, with an annual turnover of around £2 billion in this sector in Wales, which employs over 58,000 people, and that there are 50 per cent more people working in the industry now than was the case 10 years ago. I'm very pleased that Members recognise the importance of that.

The ability to maintain studio infrastructure is a key part of any strategy for this sector. I was very clearly reminded of that in my meeting with NBC Universal recently in the Vale of Glamorgan. There is an appreciation of the buildings that we currently have and companies do see the possibilities for further development.

Wales is now a centre of excellence for high-end tv drama and film and we recognise that there is a strong selection available for production that can compete with any other part of the UK, including, of course, London and the Thames valley, which is so expensive in comparison.

I did outline the priorities for the creative industries yesterday through Creative Wales, and therefore I will refer to that before I respond to some of the comments that have been made. Creative Wales will be a means of ensuring that the Welsh Government does engender growth in the future. There will be sufficient expertise in order to deal with the sector. There will be proper procurement of staff and board members, as well as a chair, who will be entirely accountable in dealing with the creative industries. I do accept, as one who has occasionally worked with the creative sector since the 1980s, that different skills are required in dealing with media businesses and businesses involved with creative activities than would be required in dealing with other kinds of business. And therefore, if there has been a shortage of expertise and understanding of the nature of funding for development in the creative industries, then it’s certainly my intention that Creative Wales will take advantage of appropriate advice within Government and particularly outwith Government in terms of the expertise we will seek to recruit for Creative Wales.

It's important to say, as has already been stated in the debate—to return to Pinewood—that we did gain value for our culture and our economy, as well as our creative industries, through establishing the name of Pinewood here in Wales. The brand has helped to ensure that Wales is a credible location for film and tv production, and that has been clearly demonstrated through the work that's already been done. But the lessons have been learnt and I'm pleased that the committee accepts what we have said in that regard. The lessons include learning the difference that needs to be drawn between the models for film studios in Wales and the rest of the UK, and how we can share the broader benefits in the economy and the commercial gains. And these lessons will be available to Creative Wales when it becomes operational over the next months.

But it’s important to state that our relationship with Pinewood has ensured that over £45 million has been spent on film and tv production in Wales. We believe that it is appropriate to appropriate £21.5 billion of this directly to funding from the media investment budget on behalf of the Government, over £13.7 million to projects from Pinewood, and some £7.8 million remaining for the Welsh Government once Pinewood withdrew from the investment budget on 31 October 2017.

Of course, we have said that there will be a further update on the financial performance and the forecast for income, and that will be provided to the committee in December. We are certain that this is the appropriate time to do that, in accordance with recommendations 2 and 6 in the committee’s report. Also, of course, considering the VAT implications is a matter that we have taken action on with a team specialising in VAT within the Welsh Government, so that such an obvious mistake doesn't happen again. And the work has already started to develop, as we heard, the best-practice guidance for procurement that will be made in the name of Welsh Ministers. And those lessons are being learnt across Government. That guidance will endorse and echo the current guidance in place and ensure that we use best practice in making procurement with the appropriate transparency and due diligence across Government, accepting the restrictions that do arise from questions of confidentiality that is truly commercially sensitive—the point made by Suzy Davies.

Our grant funding arrangements, which include most of our arrangements with third parties, come under the grant terms and conditions, which outline the responsibilities of both parties clearly. The relationship with Pinewood, as has been said, is an unusual example, given the particular nature of the establishment of this programme. We accept that the mistakes that were made because of the specialist nature of dealing with this company are ones that we have to learn from for the future, and that we must have an approach to the creative sector that is appropriate to the sector and fit for purpose, so that we don’t have to make exceptions of individual companies in the present or in the future, as we have done in the past. In the future, if we do need purpose-built arrangements to define arrangements between parties, then we must ensure that additional professional advice is sought, as I mentioned earlier, in order to ensure that the assessments are robust, as the committee has recommended.

In terms of surveys of properties over £1 million being procured, although we accept the general principle, there will be cases where surveys won't be appropriate, for example where a building is being bought for demolition. We accept as Government that we have noted the broader potential for conflict of interest in the future, and that we will ensure that when officials identify problems, they will be highlighted to Ministers immediately. It’s possible that that didn’t happen swiftly enough, as we have accepted and set out in this report.

Assistance for this sector in the future will include, as I said yesterday in my statement on Creative Wales, an emphasis on fair work and skills promotion, which is part of our economic action plan. Also, an economic contract on the economic action plan will accompany the synergy between the cultural and the creative industries, and will mean that we will be able to see the economic benefits, the social benefits and the cultural benefits together. And that means that there will be more social responsibility towards the sector in the future.

Can I ask the Deputy Minister to wind up?

Yes. Finally, I would like to say, the arrangements with Bad Wolf have been referred to—

The arrangements with Bad Wolf on the rental of the vacant space in Pinewood is operational for the next 12 months, and the production work is ongoing, and the current buildings are all at capacity. That doesn't justify what happened in the past, but it does demonstrate the clear intention of the Government to be effective in this area. Thank you.

Diolch. Can I ask Nick Ramsay to reply to the debate?

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Can I thank all Members who've contributed to today's debate and thank the Deputy Minister as well for his comments, and everyone for raising a number of important points? I think I should point out as well that the committee recognises that some of these issues date back a fairly considerable length of time and, obviously, the Deputy Minister wasn't in post at that time, but a number of officials were and we were pleased to take evidence from them and to make our recommendations.

If I can just touch on some of the comments that were made by Members who contributed. Jenny Rathbone, you touched on the VAT issue—I didn't really mention that in my opening remarks, so I'm glad that you raised it because it was an important point that featured in our report. We have seen other instances in Welsh Government projects where VAT hasn't been effectively taken into consideration. I know the situation arose with the early M4 discussions as well. So, that's an area where the Welsh Government has to get it right and they have to build up their expertise in that area, because, let's face it, VAT is a pretty basic component of all our lives, actually, and certainly of Welsh Government life, so it's something that does need to be brought up to speed, and I'm pleased to hear the comments from the Deputy Minister in that regard.

As you've said, actually, Jenny, it was generous that you said that the Welsh Government could be accused of trying to be too ambitious back in 2014 when the original contracts were signed with Pinewood. This was groundbreaking territory. It's an area that, as Mohammad Asghar said, was greeted with great excitement from Government and from people across Wales. It's a great thing for us to be involved on the international stage with the tv and film industry and I think everyone would wish that project well. Of course, as we know with hindsight now, it wasn't as rosy in the garden as it seemed at the time, and, sadly, that relationship ended a few years later without the dividends that were promised. But there was an initial hope, and hopefully that flame can be reignited in the future.

We all accept that this isn't an easy area to operate in; it can take several years for benefits of this sort of venture to be realised, but that definitely didn't happen in this case, when that relationship was terminated, so those lessons do need to be learnt.

Mohammad Asghar spoke about the listed building issue. Yes, there should've been a survey in this case—of course there should've been. I think everyone recognises that now. I do understand the reasons for the Welsh Government's rejection of our recommendation. Yes, there may be times when, if a building is going to be demolished, a survey would be a waste of money, so that wouldn't be necessary, or, indeed, the opposite of that, where there may be a case for a survey where purchases are smaller than £1 million. What we are saying is that, however the Welsh Government does it—[Interruption.]—I'll bring you in now, Mike. However the Welsh Government does it,  we want to see that process happen so that the right decisions are made at the time. Mike Hedges.

I was going to say, but, surely, if you're going to demolish it, you do need a survey to find out if there's asbestos or other things in the building, which would increase the cost of demolition.

Yes, I think the issue here is that there are going to be individual circumstances in each case, and what we've agreed on as a committee is that the procedures in place in the Welsh Government should be robust enough so that those individual circumstances can be taken into account, so that if there's any suggestion that a survey is needed, it should happen, and if a survey can be completely ruled out, then that can happen as well. But, clearly, something went wrong in this case. But, thanks, Mike.

Bethan Sayed, I know your committee did a fair bit of work in this area. We were happy to take up the request to look further at it, as you know, from the public interest—in terms of the public value-for-money point of view. I'm glad that you referred it to us. You made an interesting point in your contribution that the model being relied on by the Welsh Government wasn't suited to Wales. I'm not sure whether we did make that point in our report—it was hinted at in our evidence—but I think it's an issue that is probably at the heart of this, actually, that, certainly, if we're going to try and undertake these ventures in the future in encouraging the film and tv industry in Wales, then it's important that the model that's being used is suited to Wales. We often talk about devolution bringing benefit from being suited to Wales, but it does seem to be, as we plough further into devolution, that sometimes we're not using models that are suitable, so that's an area that needs to be looked at, so I'm glad you raised it. Welsh Government perhaps shouldn't be expected to have all the necessary experience and expertise in these areas at the outset of this sort of venture, but they need to have the capacity to know where the gaps are and to try and fill that knowledge.

Suzy Davies, again, you were concerned about the lack of transparency and the issue of commercial confidentiality, which crops up again and again in our debates in this building. I think you said it is not a cloak of invisibility, and you mentioned Harry Potter as well, continuing the film and media references. Well said, Suzy. Yes, we need to make sure that the cloak of invisibility, that commercial confidentiality isn't used in that way and that it's used in ways that are appropriate.

Can I thank the Deputy Minister for his very encouraging response today, and for the way he responded to the recommendations—indeed, for the Welsh Government acceptance of most of our recommendations? As I said, I recognise there are logical reasons for the rejection of recommendation 8, but I would respectfully ask that the spirit of that recommendation is adhered to in the future and all the points I made earlier—that the Welsh Government knows if a survey is needed, if it isn't needed, and we're not in this position again in the future.

Can I thank the Minister as well for his reference to Creative Wales? I won't go too much into this, because you made a statement on that yesterday, and that's an example of a strategy that's being pursued and being developed at the moment, so that's exactly the sort of area where we would hope that the lessons that are being learned here don't just go into a document on a dusty shelf somewhere, but they're actually incorporated into current, modern policy making, so that what we all want—improvement in the situation in the future—does actually happen.

So, in summary, Deputy Presiding Officer, can I thank everyone who contributed to today's debate, to the Members of the Assembly, also members, specifically, of the culture committee, who have brought a valuable aspect to today's debate? Can I also thank the Deputy Minister for his response? There are wider issues at stake here, or, rather, lessons to be learned across the whole of the Welsh Government, not just in one department, and there is a balance to be struck. We certainly, as a committee, didn't want to see creativity stifled, we certainly didn't want to shut the door on future film and tv opportunities for Wales and productions being made here in Wales and, indeed, here in Cardiff. So, we were very careful in the way that we framed the report, and I hope that that has been appreciated. But that balance does have to be struck right. At the end of the day, the taxpayer's interests also have to be safeguarded and we need to make sure in the future that when these sorts of decisions are undertaken, there is the right experience, the right expertise—if not there at the start, brought in-house into the Welsh Government—so that the Welsh taxpayer can have confidence that public money is being effectively spent.

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

Item 6 on our agenda this afternoon is a debate on the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee report, 'Wales' future relationship with Europe and the world', and I call on the Chair of the committee to move the motion—David Rees.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'm pleased to open today’s debate, noting our report on Wales’s future relationship with Europe and the world, and therefore move the motion. Can I remind Members this is actually the second stage of our work, because we did, in 2018, publish a report, which was stage 1, that was focused on Europe, and this has gone wider to look at Europe and the world? Before I start my speech, can I just put on record my thanks to the clerking team and the staff in the Research Service and European office of the Commission for the work they have undertaken on behalf of the committee? Without those individuals, we are always going to be struggling, and we very much appreciate the efforts they put in.

In gathering the evidence for this report, we actually heard from academics and stakeholders, and we spent a lot of time thinking about Wales’s role on the international stage. Indeed, the Brexit process has brought new urgency and added impetus to this work, although we are now delayed a little bit on Brexit, and we've got a bit more time. But it is important we do look where we are in the future.

We looked beyond Wales, which is crucial, and spoke to representatives of Norway, the Basque Country, Quebec and Switzerland on our visits to London. We also spoke to representatives of Ukraine, of New Zealand, of Ireland and many other nations in visits to Brussels and beyond. Our sincerest thanks go to those individuals, who gave their time and commitment to listen to us, but also to feed into our inquiry on where they saw that future relationships can exist and how they worked in the relationships they wanted to do.

Now, our work found that, in the past, the Welsh Government's activities then, in terms of international engagement, had been too patchy in our view, and incoherent, and it is important that we see this change. We made a total of 11 recommendations in our report, and I am pleased that the Minister has indicated that they've accepted or accepted in principle all of them—though we always question that term 'accept in principle', sometimes. We'll see how that goes.

But, turning to the first couple of recommendations, it's abundantly clear that Wales needs a new strategy of how we engage with the world after Brexit, or, actually, how we engage with the world full stop. Brexit is just an example of why we need to do it. This new strategy needs to be bold. It needs to set out the scale of our ambition as a nation. We must not be frightened of going perhaps that one step further than we would conventionally do. In leading on the development of the new strategy, we welcome the creation of the new Minister for international relations, with a seat at the Cabinet. However, it is clear to us that many aspects of international relations are cross-portfolio, and therefore we want to actually see more examples of that: economy, environment, education portfolios. It is clear that it is not a single subject area.

We want the Minister to lead on that co-ordination across Government, and, in the report, we did recommend a Cabinet sub-committee. We acknowledge that the Minister says this could be an appropriate mechanism, but she alludes to the need for full Cabinet discussions on internationalisation. I fully acknowledge this, but how do we have a formal structure that ensures a cross-portfolio approach? That's the question. It's all well and good having this informal concept, but we need a formal structure, and that's why I want some further information from the Minister today on the progress towards co-ordinating activities across Government, in addition to the bilateral meetings she intends to have with those colleagues, but where is the formal structure where that happens?

Wales's future role in Europe after Brexit was a perennial issue during the course of our work. It is clear to us that, whatever the eventual shape and outcome of Brexit—and I say that now, 'whatever the shape of the outcome of Brexit', because we still don't know—Europe and our relationship with the European Union will continue to be important in the years ahead. It is for this reason that we support the retention of the Welsh Government offices in Brussels.

We also heard that Wales has historically enjoyed the benefits of a number of European programmes, such as the student mobility programme, Erasmus+, and the research and innovation programme, Horizon 2020. Currently, it is the Welsh Government's position to advocate continued participation in those programmes through the UK. We want this ambition to go further so that, if the UK Government fails to secure this, then the Welsh Government should go ahead and explore securing participation in its own right in devolved areas and where there are clear benefits to Wales. I think this week's example of the HE student fee issue highlights how the UK Government may not be in synchronisation with the Welsh Government's thinking on our relationship with the EU and EU citizens.

This is what we are calling for in recommendation 5: for the Welsh Government to actually explore and have exploratory talks, and to report back to this Assembly in the autumn term, and, with the autumn term including 31 October, which is now the new deadline, perhaps it's appropriate that we do that, because that's the next cliff edge that we face.

In addition to the multilateral relationships and networks that we enjoy, Wales also has a number of bilateral relationships, which will continue to form an important part in Wales's external engagement work in the future. During our work, we've found that the countries and sub-state actors across the international stage that operate most successfully have clearly prioritised bilateral relationships based on common interests. In particular, the approach of the Basque Country and of Quebec were examples that we could learn from, and I am fully aware that the Basque Country have been to this institution and that we have had committees that have gone over to the Basque Country. They are an example of where we may want to learn how they manage the relationships and particularly bilateral relationships, and how they've prioritised them.

Our recommendation 6 calls on the Welsh Government to review the bilateral relationships that Wales currently has, in order to assess which of them can be strengthened and deepened in the future. I am pleased that the Minister, in her written response, has signalled that this work is under way, and again it would be helpful if she can give the Assembly an indication of timescales for the completion of this work, so that we have an understanding of where we are and where we can expect to be in the times ahead of us. We all know that time is going to be a major factor in the future.

Turning to the question of our diaspora, we are clear that more can be done to make use of that diaspora. Although definitive figures do not exist, a study published in 2006—and I accept that's 13 years ago—suggested that as many as 11 million people have Welsh ancestry in the USA alone. Better engagement with the Welsh diaspora could be the key to unlocking some of Wales’s ambitions for international relations after Brexit. Again, I'm aware that the Welsh caucus in Washington is an example of where we could be using some of that. 

Our report calls for the creation of an action plan for engaging that diaspora. However, the Minister’s written response suggests that the Welsh Government will not commit to this and instead is undertaking preliminary work to assess what is already happening in this area. I therefore ask the Minister to keep the committee updated on this work so that our ambitions can be realised. 

Turning to recommendation 10, whilst I do not wish to repeat arguments made previously in the Assembly about the need to improve inter-governmental mechanisms, I would like to give the Minister an opportunity, if she has the ability—and I've raised this with the Brexit Minister—perhaps to improve on the limited detail available in her written response, in particular, if she could confirm a date for when the publication of the review of the JMC will be available to us, because it's almost a year—it's actually a year—since the review was undertaken and we are not yet clear of any date of publication of that review, and it is critical to understand how Wales can have an input into various aspects of international relations. 

In terms of the Welsh Government’s overseas offices, we note the expansion in recent years of Wales’s presence abroad. However, it is vital that these offices know what they are doing and that their activities are in line with the forthcoming strategy. I note that the Minister’s response does not commit to an audit in the way that we have suggested. Perhaps she'd like to review that, because it is important we understand what is the purpose of the office, why is it where it is, how will we measure what it's doing, so that we can have a clear understanding that they are in the right place, doing the right thing for Wales.

Finally, I’d like to talk a little about Welsh soft power—this is to say Wales’s cultural and economic influence around the world. We heard that some of Wales’s unique assets—our language, our arts, our values—could be better used to carve out a niche for ourselves on the world stage. We have seen other nations such as Scotland and Ireland do exactly that. To achieve this we need to be clearer about what our unique selling points are and develop those in a way that gains international recognition. To that end, we recommended that the new international strategy places a greater emphasis on soft power. I am pleased that the Minister has accepted the need for this. I think it was evident when we were Brussels last how UK representation looked at Wales's soft power mechanisms as an example of how they may want to do that when we leave the EU. 

Dirprwy Lywydd, we are facing a period of seemingly accelerating flux and change across the world. Perhaps now is the time for us in Wales to redouble our efforts and to work together to ensure that our voice is heard on the international stage much louder than it has been. I commend this report to the National Assembly, and look forward to hearing the contribution of other Members today.

I thank the Chair for his leadership of our work in this area and the clerks for their support. I look forward to hearing from the Minister. Some people, I think, have questioned our participative approach of asking for ideas, but I think it is a good one and I would like to commend it. Although on the first day in office you haven't come to us with a list of what you'll be doing, you're having this period of listening and consulting others, and I think that's a very valid approach and I look forward to seeing the outcome from it, hopefully including consideration of our report and the debate today. 

I want to draw on three of our visits, in particular, for my remarks: firstly, to our office in Brussels and the activity around that, second to the Basque delegation in London, and third to the Quebecois delegation in London. I went to our office in Brussels wondering if it needed significant change and a new focus in light of Brexit, thinking that what it would be doing would be very different in future, from outside the European Union, to what it had been doing within the European Union. I left thinking that the need for change was less radical than my initial presumption, and I think the reason for that was something that the Chair got over in his contribution—that what that office has been doing is largely an exercise in soft power. Now, there are certain hard diplomatic interfaces, most notably with EU funding that Wales has received, also, to at least some degree, our position that we've had within the Committee of the Regions. However, most of the work of that office has been making friends, building connections, reaching out, finding people to work with Wales on our agenda. And I think a lot of that focus and that skill set will be the same post Brexit as it has been before, and I think we really did notice, both from the delegation itself, but also talking to a number of other people, such as the Confederation of British Industry in Brussels, the extent to which UKRep is having to change its focus from the hard diplomacy of speaking in plenary at a council meeting and voting in particular ways, to actually seeking to influence and build allies, and perhaps there should have been more of that before, but UKRep is having to change what it did and is looking to Wales, to be fair to the CBI and to some of the other larger private sector organisations, for how it adjusts its diplomatic representation to a world that will have a greater focus on soft power rather than institutional levers within the European Union. 

I want to say a bit about the Basque and the Quebecois delegations, because I think they emphasise two types of what we might be trying to achieve for Wales through these international relations. The Basque approach was again—and this was a surprise to me—a very hard-edged economic approach, and it was connected with the economy Ministry and what it wanted to do is it wanted to increase Basque exports and it wanted to get more foreign direct investment coming into the Basque Country. They seemed to be its two main objectives. They were very well set up for doing it. It's a relatively well-off region within Spain, and they organise around that. And I think we need to consider is that what we want Wales to do, and, if so, our officers need to be in places that are larger sources of foreign direct investment, areas that are growing strongly or where there is a particular appetite for potential Welsh exports.

The second model I think was exemplified by Quebec more. There was also an economic aspect, and that aspect, I think, fitted quite well into what Canada was doing through its high commissioner, and there were very close relations. There was also this desire to promote Quebec from a perspective of its culture and its language, and also, I think, education. And what the structure was to do that and where it did that, it was more separate from Canada than it was on the economic aspects. And I think we need to think is that what we're trying to do as Wales: is it our particular culture? Is it the Welsh language? Is it education, perhaps sport? Are there particular things about Wales we want more people across the world to understand and know about and that we want to go out there and project? And I think we need to really understand the balance between that economic and that more cultural objective.

What I don't think we should be doing is simply trying to find other sub-state actors that we want to spend time with and be more like and 'we've got to have those connections'. I think there may be some of those connections, and, if you are a party that wants Wales to be independent, then you may want to spend time with those contacts, developing those relationships with other parties in sub-state nations that also want to break apart from those nations. But I don't believe that's what the Assembly as whole should be doing, and I would ask the Welsh Labour Government to consider very carefully what are the objectives. And I think we learnt a lot from going to the Basque delegation and going to Quebec, but I don't see the primary objective of these international relations as sub-state nations who see an independent future, or particularly working with Catalonia because they want to go in a certain direction—or some people there. Devolution for us has been a trajectory and a dynamic process, whereas for many of these other sub-state actors, there is a settlement—in Quebec or the Basque Country—with which they're pretty happy. Yes, let's learn from them, but let's focus on what we want to do, how much is about the economy, and how much is about cultural projection.

I welcome the recommendations of this report in its entirety. I hadn’t yet joined the committee when the inquiry was being conducted, but I would like to praise this piece of work and the skilful leadership provided by the Chair, David Rees. In the report, we see comprehensive and detailed recommendations as to which steps could be taken to increase the role of Wales at an international level in the next few years. Ensuring such a strategy is more important than ever in the shadow of Brexit. I welcome the fact that the Government has accepted seven of the recommendations, but I’m disappointed that another four, which were drawn up carefully, have only been accepted in principle. Fellow Members in this Chamber have noted concerns in the past about the Government’s practice of agreeing in principle to recommendations, as the impact of this, if truth be told, is that the recommendations aren’t implemented.

Recommendation 5 calls on the Welsh Government to explore with the EU the possibility of Wales’s continued participation in European programmes that are undertaken in devolved areas, adding that this should be progressed urgently. The Government’s response is inadequate to this, because it agrees that the work needs to be done but doesn’t want to commit to do it before the end of the year. I would urge the Government to reconsider its response to this recommendation and to proceed with the work as a matter of urgency.

I will turn now to the response to recommendation 8, which calls on the Government to commission an independent baseline analysis of the operation of the Government’s overseas offices. The Government states that it is giving further consideration to this recommendation as the strategy is drawn up. Again, a comprehensive strategy should be in place before then. Almost three years has passed since the referendum and a month since the first departure date.

Recommendation 7 calls on the Government to draw up an action plan for engaging with the Welsh diaspora. The Welsh Government’s response doesn’t show much ambition and does not provide much detail as to which countries would be prioritised. The response insists, rather, that much is being done in this area already, which is true, but there’s always room for improvement. It’s disappointing that Government doesn’t have greater ambition in this area. The Government’s response also states that we can’t have a one-size-fits-all approach. That’s a valid point, and I do agree that we should have diverse plans that dovetail, rather than have a static, single approach. But the truth is that these plans don’t exist in sufficient detail at the moment.

The Welsh diaspora contributes so much to our nation, building bridges with people who represent us at a global level. The Government should provide a clear vision in developing that relationship with the Welsh diaspora rather than simply providing warm words. Brexit makes all of this urgent. We need clear, ambitious action now rather than dragging your feet. Will the Government therefore commit to drawing up a detailed plan to build bridges with the Welsh diaspora?

I would also like to know what the latest is in terms of the Government’s international strategy, Global Wales. A problem with the Welsh Government website means that it’s impossible to find details of this work online. It’s ironic—and quite Kafkaesque, really—that it’s impossible to find information about a strategy that seeks to look out to the rest of the world. May I ask, therefore, where the is Government with this work? What is the timetable for it? Which principles will drive the work and what will the remit be? And finally, when can we expect a statement to be made by the Minister in the Chamber in order to provide Members with an update?

It’s about time that Wales took its place in the world as a proud, modern nation that’s looking to the future. We should build bridges with other states and stateless countries, such as Catalunya, in order to place economic and cultural foundations that we can build on as our nation travels on the journey towards full autonomy. Wales has a bright future, but we must build it ourselves. Thank you.

Like others, I'd like to start my contribution this afternoon by thanking the clerking team of the committee, and also thanking David Rees for his leadership of the committee on these matters.

I also wish to follow others in welcoming the appointment of a Minister for international relations. I enjoyed the session we had, Minister, on 21 January and I hope we'll be able to return to some of those matters in due course. It's an irony indeed of course that this appointment in itself has highlighted the need for an international strategy that perhaps we didn't appreciate fully before. Also, it's brought into sharp focus the extent to which we rely on EU institutions for our international profile and creating a framework for our international work.

But, this afternoon, I'd like to persuade the Government of two matters. Firstly, the vision and the ambition that is required to maximise the potential of any international strategy. And second, to be able to hold the Government to account to ensure that we have the information, the targets and the ambition described in a way that enables us to understand what the Government seeks to achieve by such a programme. 

Minister, in your response to the report, you described Wales as a European nation. Now, for much of our recent history, this would have been a contested description of our country, and it certainly remains a highly political description of our country. At one time—it takes us back, of course, to the days of Owain Glyndŵr and his seeking ambassadors from the papacy and elsewhere to recognise the state that he was seeking to create in our country at that time. But also, of course, because it defines Wales as a European nation without reference to the state of the United Kingdom, within which we are today. So it's a very political statement, and it's a statement, of course, that I welcome.

But it also is a statement that speaks of a much higher ambition and a much wider vision. Mark Reckless's contribution spoke about the almost transactional approach taken by the Basque Country, and that's a perfectly fair and reasonable approach to take, and I make no criticism of that. But the ambition that I believe the  Government here has in mind, and I hope it will express, is one that sees that transactional relationship between ourselves and others as the blocks upon which we will build, as a foundation and not the totality of an international role, and the role that we wish Wales to play on the international stage. 

In listening to this debate, I'm reminded of the conversation that we had with the New Zealand ambassador during the visit to Brussels. There, he was very, very clear: the international trade agreements that New Zealand seek to make are the basis upon which they seek to do other things. Certainly, you need to have all the arrangements in place to do trade, to make commercial agreements with different partners and organisations, but is that the totality of your vision? Is that the totality of what you seek to achieve on the international stage? For them it was not, and for us it must not be, either. The example used by the ambassador was that of sustainability. Perhaps after our debate later this afternoon, this is something we could also use to define a Welsh contribution to international affairs in the future. Others have spoken about the contribution we could make in terms of minority language and culture policy. That's something of which some of us already have experience, and I think it's something that we can also do. So I hope we have that ambition and vision. 

But let me say this, also: that will mean a change of culture in this place, and particularly for opposition parties, let me say. Too often, we have seen a political culture here where we count the pennies and we do not understand the vision. I want to see the Welsh Government investing in the network of offices it has and the network of relationships it develops, and that means that you can't be on the international stage without physically being on the international stage. So, rather than opposition parties spending time putting in freedom of information requests and asking for the cost of flights, perhaps it would be better that we take a more mature approach, where we seek to hold the Government to account for what it achieves and not simply where it goes. And I hope that that would be a far more mature approach to the debate that we have now.

In closing, Deputy Presiding Officer, I was lucky enough to enjoy—it turned out to be a 1-1 draw, and I think we got away with it—Wales playing Mexico in Pasadena, in the Rose Bowl, and some of you will know the stadium, across in California last year. It was a fantastic event—80,000 people watching Wales playing football. It doesn't happen very often. It hasn't always happened in my lifetime, I have to say. That is an opportunity for us to build a presence, to build an idea of what Wales is and what Wales can be, and the role that Wales wants to play. We have an opportunity to play a role with the soft power that has already been spoken about that not everybody has. We'll be, I hope, playing and winning the World Cup in Japan in a few months' time. I hope the Welsh Government will be maximising the impact that we can make from that as well. I hope that we will be able to see the opportunity of playing a full role on the international stage.

I'll finish with these remarks, Deputy Presiding Officer. One of the issues we need to define—and this is in the report and I'd be interested to understand what the Minister says in response—is our relationship with the United Kingdom Government. I believe the relationship with the United Kingdom Government can be a very powerful and positive relationship. We often criticise the UK Government here—and I do probably more than most—but the network of offices and the way that the Foreign Office works is a very, very powerful tool for us to use, and I believe that we should be working closely with the Foreign Office and working with the United Kingdom Government to maximise the impact of the network of embassies and consulates around the world so that we are able to maximise the impact that we can make for Wales wherever we may be.

Perhaps I can tell you, Deputy Presiding Officer, that I spent part of the Easter recess lecturing at the College of William and Mary on the subject, 'Britain after Brexit'. I have to say, the title was chosen in December, when it didn't seem so wildly improbable. I visited the National Library of Wales earlier in the year, and they knew of my connection with the college. They dug out from the archive a letter from Goronwy Owen, the great eighteenth century poet, about his preparations to take up a post teaching at the grammar school attached, then, to the College of William and Mary.

It strikes me that there are many astonishing connections that we should be keen to follow up on. In fact, at the library, they said, 'Did you know that there is a commemoration of him on the college campus?' I was slightly surprised at this, and so, during my visit, I did try to find out where this commemoration is. I went to the Swem library—the main library at the university—and they told me that, actually, the plaque is in the library. They told me where it was, and I went up and there's this magnificent plaque to Goronwy Owen. It commemorates his transformative work, really, in the eighteenth century for Welsh literature and celebrates the connection. It just reminded me of how wonderful it would be if we could do more with that. His famous poem, 'Hiraeth', for instance, has had a big, big impact on our culture, but the fact that he spent so much time in Virginia is something we should build on.

It wasn't an entirely happy episode. As poets are wont to, he was a little fond of electric soup. After a few years, I'm afraid the college moved him on, and he was moved on to Brunswick county, also in Virginia, and was curate there, which is rather a curious, perhaps, position to recover from a drink problem, but he was. He spent another 10 years there—in fact, he's buried in Brunswick county. I understand that a steady flow, if not a vast flow, of pilgrims make their way to his grave to this day. So, that's a great example of someone, I think, who connects us deeply.

It's possible that Goronwy Owen met Thomas Jefferson and that they overlapped—Owen was about 20 years older than Jefferson, and Jefferson was at the College of William and Mary in the late 1750s. Jefferson, famously, thought he was Welsh, or of Welsh ancestry. It's very unlikely that he was—modern scholarship really eviscerates all our myth making, doesn't it? We now think it's unlikely that he was of Welsh descent, but Jefferson lived all of his life thinking he was, and if you can't build on that connection then, again, there's a poverty of ambition there.

Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio and several other states had very significant Welsh immigration into those states in the earlier colonial years and then in the early industrial revolution just after the republic was established. It's something, again, we can really, really build on. 

It's interesting that it's later waves of immigrants, particular the Irish and Italians, that really embedded this concept of 'Italian-American' or 'Irish-American', but we should remember the significant part that Welsh men and women played in the history, particularly the early history, of the United States. So, I think the Welsh diaspora, and trying to tap into that, is really, really important.

I think this naturally leads on to all sorts of concepts of soft power. And can I commend the British Council's soft power barometer for Wales, which compares us with Scotland, Northern Ireland and other places like Catalonia, Flanders and Quebec, amongst others? I think that's a good indicator, because there's good and not-so-good news there, but there are some really interesting insights. We are rated sixth out of those 10, so we are behind Quebec, Flanders and Scotland, but ahead, for instance, of Northern Ireland. We do particularly well on the sports barometer, where we are second, behind Catalonia. I suppose they've got Barcelona and football, but we do well obviously with rugby and other sports. We're also second on digital technology, and I think that's something we should really build on. We don't do so well on education, but that is something we can aspire to.

I would, if I had time, also talk about inter-governmental mechanisms, but can I just say that the UK Government—and this is an important recommendation in the report—should publish as soon as possible its review of inter-governmental mechanisms? Whilst I do not think we should have a veto, or that the Minister should, on trade negotiations, it's very important that our Minister and our scrutiny of our Minister—that there's a direct mechanism so that we can influence, through the Minister, trade policy. Thank you for your indulgence.

I nearly withdrew my name from this debate after hearing David Melding talking about Goronwy Owen and me not planning a speech about Goronwy Owen, but we'll say that I was going to do that but there's no point in doing it because David Melding has already done it. [Laughter.]

I'll speak briefly as chair and one of the founders of the cross-party group on Wales international. It's a group, for those of you who haven't been involved with it so far, that is a forum for discussing Wales's place in the world in several different ways. Our discussions within that group have varied from using foreign languages in Wales to the diaspora, to soft power and all of the things that we've heard discussed today. I was very eager to see the cross-party group established because I am an internationalist who believes very strongly in the benefit that will come to Wales, as a small nation and a proud nation, of playing as full a part as possible in as many international networks as possible.

In making remarks on this report, could I thank the committee, which I'm not a part of, for its work in putting this important report together? I won't spend time discussing the main part of the report in terms of the relationship between Wales and Europe in the years to come. On our benches, Delyth Jewell has dealt with that issue, but, of course, others have contributed on the important decisions that will have to be made in the coming years following the change in our relationship with Europe that seems to be on the way. All I will say is that I believe as an internationalist in the need, whatever happens, to build bridges and to strengthen the relationship between Wales and countries across the EU.

I want to make some comments on chapters 2 and 4. Chapter 2 is to do with the need, according to the committee, for a new strategy in terms of our international relations. I do agree entirely with the recommendation from the committee for the need for that kind of strategy. I do welcome the fact that this Government has appointed a Minister who is responsible for international relations, and I'm very pleased that that has happened, of course, after calls from my fellow Member Steffan Lewis over such a long period. But having the Minister in herself isn't enough; we need to be clear as to what the function of the Minister is. And in order to be clear about what that function is we need a strategy, a very clear strategy, on the kinds of ways that we can develop and build on those relationships that Wales has internationally already, and also to make new relationships.

Moving on to chapter 4, this is something that means so much to me: the idea of using our international friendships, our soft power, our compelling power on an international level, and of course to build on the direct relationships that we have with individuals in all parts of the world through the Welsh diaspora. I'll talk about Wales International, and I'll declare an interest: my father was a chair of that organisation for many years. It's a body that is still strong today, but which was established back in the 1940s when T. Elwyn Griffiths was in the armed forces in Cairo in Egypt. He realised at that time that Scotland had far more bodies and support for their diaspora, but there was nothing Welsh. So, he established this union in order to draw the Welsh diaspora together in Egypt, established a magazine, Seren y Dwyrain—Eastern Star—and found a problem in that the letter 'y' is used so much in Welsh—more than in other languages—he couldn't get enough of that letter in the press in Cairo. But, anyway, that was the start of formal networks for Welsh people overseas, and I'm pleased, as I say, that that is a body that is still undertaking activities. But there are other bodies. Global Welsh is worth mentioning, and that's one I've been involved with, which creates modern networks in business, among individuals across the world. My appeal here would be to the Government to take advantage of, to use, to invest in and to build on these bodies that already exist and have been building their relationships over a period of a great many years.

Wales is not a large country, but it's a country that has friends across the world, and relationships through sport and the arts and music and food, and through our national conscience. I'd like to move towards a humanitarian fund in Wales in the years to come. That's something that could benefit us as well. It's a country that has always looked beyond its borders, through Goronwy Owen and others, and there's an opportunity now, given that we have our own Parliament, and our own international relations Minister, to go to places that we haven't visited before. I'm sure that you, in getting a proper strategy, will have the Assembly's support as we look for new friends across the world.

Thank you. Can I now call on the Minister for International Relations and the Welsh Language, Eluned Morgan?

Well, thank you very much. May I start by welcoming the committee's report and thanking David Rees especially for all of the work undertaken and the evidence gathering that you have done during this inquiry, because it has provided us with some very valuable information as we develop our new strategy for Wales? I'm also grateful to everyone who's contributed to this afternoon's debate. May I say that I'm pleased that we have accepted the recommendations in the report, and that generally speaking I agree? I'm not particularly happy to accept recommendations in principle. One of the problems we have at the moment is that Brexit means that it's very difficult in certain areas for us to know exactly what the future holds. So, that partly explains why that's the case.

For decades, the way that we have operated in Wales has been defined by our relationship with the European Union. I'm pleased that Alun had noted the fact that we had called ourselves a European nation, and that is an important political point to highlight, I think. Of course, the nature of that relationship at the moment is still uncertain, but whatever happens, Wales will continue to be a European nation and will be an open country that has strong links with our neighbours on the European continent. That will be true whatever the outcome at the end of the current negotiations.

Following my announcement in January on the development of a new strategy for Wales, I launched a period of consultation in order to give public sector, private sector and third sector groups a chance to feed in their ideas as to how we should develop this strategy, and I have been having discussions with many stakeholders across the main sectors. Now, in order to broaden that discussion, I published a series of online questions on social media in order to gather evidence from the public as to what kind of message and image we should be conveying to the world.

The strategy will give us a focus in terms of how we prioritise work within the department and will note the challenges and opportunities that I hope will emerge in future. It will also set out criteria so that we, and you, are able to measure and assess our success. Work on the strategy is ongoing, and I do hope that by the end of this month I will be in a position to present the first draft to the Cabinet, but the final document will be available by the beginning of the summer.

May I also thank Alun for raising this point of the importance of the environment to truly highlight the fact that we do take this issue seriously, and the possibility of taking a lead role in minority languages? I’m sure you've noted the fact that these are some of the points that I highlighted when I went to the United States.

It’s also worth noting that the international agenda runs as a thread through every Cabinet portfolio. So, over the past six weeks, I have been holding a series of meetings with other Cabinet Ministers, and those discussions have been most useful in helping to draw up the strategy. The committee has asked us to establish a Cabinet sub-committee to set direction, but may I say, given the importance of this agenda and the fact that his extends across a number of portfolios, I do think that it’s important that we do discuss this in the full Cabinet, rather than in a sub-committee of the Cabinet? But, I do accept the point that we do need to ensure that that does happen, and we need to consider how we ensure that that is on the agenda consistently and regularly.

Since the UK’s decision to depart the European Union, the Welsh Government has been working with partner organisations in order to mitigate the negative impacts during this transitional period of Brexit. The chaotic Brexit, as we’ve seen to date, will have an impact on civic society and third sector organisations in different ways, depending on the kinds of services that they provide, the people they serve and the people they employ. That is the reason why we have been providing financial support directly to sectors across Wales so that they can plan and prepare for Brexit. And that includes that £50 million in the EU transition fund.

It’s crucially important that we ensure, as far as possible, that the benefits that Wales received from being a member of the European Union are not lost once the UK establishes a new relationship. The UK Government must honour the commitment that Wales will not lose a penny in funding following Brexit. We continue to call on the UK Government to confirm that it will provide ongoing funding for Wales without any conditions attached, just as we have been receiving over the past 20 years. We know how important it is for Wales to continue to be part of partnerships and networks on a European level. We have been clear to the UK Government that we do hope to continue to be part of the EU programmes wherever appropriate.

I think it's worth noting that participation in EU programmes and the associated agreement with the EU would normally be entered into by a sovereign state with the powers to do so, and we are already exploring whether it would be possible for Wales, or a combination of UK constituent countries, to participate in an EU programme like Erasmus, even if the UK Government were to disallow the participation of England. We've established that such an approach, I'm afraid, would require the agreement of the UK Government and its signature on any EU agreement. But that has not put us off the intention to make sure that we push as far as possible our future participation in programmes like Erasmus.

When appropriate, in the context of further Brexit negotiations, we will of course then approach the relevant EU institutions. We are, of course, reviewing all our bilateral relationships as part of that development of the international strategy, and based on this assessment, in line with our strategic priorities, we will identify key priority relationships on which to focus our activity, and they will be set out in the strategic plan. And I would like to assure Mark that we will be underlining the importance of the Welsh office in Brussels, because, of course, not only should we continue to influence in the EU, but that soft power relationship is also crucial in future. We will, of course, need some flexibility within the strategy to make sure that we don't preclude co-operation with other partners outside of our priority areas if those opportunities arise.

We recognise, of course, the importance of developing a more systematic approach to connect Wales with the diaspora. Thanks to David for his ever-interesting Goronwy Owen lessons and Jefferson; they were, of course, part of the Welsh diaspora in the past, and it's important that we gather that diaspora who are out there at the moment, who are willing and able to speak up for Wales abroad. It's quite a complex picture. What I don't want is to start something that we can't continue. That's why we've already had discussions with GlobalWelsh, which you mustn't mix up with Global Wales—I don't want us to be stepping on people's toes who already are doing work in this area. So, we're just trying to bottom out where the best places for us to work are.

Countries, of course, take different approaches to this. Our network of overseas offices, of course, will play an important role in our outreach in the world, and we will give further consideration to the committee's recommendation to commission an independent baseline analysis of the operation of the Government's overseas offices, and I can assure the committee, Chair, that we will be undertaking an assessment of their efficiency and delivery. We've already appointed an official to oversee the performance management of the overseas offices and we need to consider further whether an audit of very small offices would be appropriate, because in some cases we're auditing an individual. The key thing, I think, to remember is that we've got this office in London as well, which has already been strengthened. I am under no illusions whatsoever that London will be central to the delivery of our strategy. We need to tap into the huge resources of the UK Government in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and other places, and we are also waiting for the Joint Ministerial Committee's timetable.

Can you wind up, please?

So, just in closing, I would like to thank the committee for their positive engagement and I hope that we can continue in this vein. I can assure you that many of the points that you've pointed out will be included in that international strategy. Diolch yn fawr.

Can I now call on David Rees to reply to the debate?

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Can I thank the Members for their contributions this afternoon and for the Minister's response and just highlight a few things? I think the common themes we've found throughout the contributions were the importance of soft power and how that really can build and help Wales in its future directions, and also diaspora and how that works. And we have not yet used that to our benefit. Mark Reckless pointed out very clearly that that was something he was impressed with. He learnt how important that is and how Wales has been doing a good job of it in Brussels. He also highlighted the different approaches that we need to make. And there is a difference between an economically focused approach and a culturally focused approach, and the Welsh Government must decide which way it wants to do it and perhaps which type of relationship would match each approach. So, it may have a different form of relationship with one nation, compared to another, depending on the approach you want. That's very important.

Delyth highlighted—I think what came from Delyth most importantly is that we are a proud, modern nation and we need to look forward to building relationships with the world. We should not be afraid of that and we should be ambitious in taking those messages forward. And she expressed the importance of acknowledging the timescales, because we are conscious of the very sharp timescales that apply today and, really, we want the Welsh Government to speed up the process and reflect upon that. 

Alun Davies mentioned what I think we forget about, which is actually the importance of London in this. Obviously, you mentioned offices in London, Minister, but it is crucial and what was highlighted to us is that we always look to the world, but we should also be looking to London, because there are links into London and the foreign office, and how we can use those is also crucial. Our role in the UK and benefiting from that is important and is something else we need to have, because it may explain the Welsh contribution to international affairs and how we can actually influence that, both as ourselves, as a nation, but perhaps also in London as part of the United Kingdom. We cannot miss our way, and we should use the building blocks that we can build upon.

David, perhaps, enticed me to go to America to the William and Mary college, but what he highlighted was: there is so much out there we don't know about, and perhaps we need to start exploring some of those issues, to start building upon what is already there, which we haven't yet learnt. We can use it to our advantage. It is so powerful that we are missing a trick, and we should be doing more on that.

Rhun, I recognise your work on the CPG. I've attended one or two meetings, I wish I could attend more, but, unfortunately, there's always something going on, usually, at the same time—sometimes the ones I chair as well. But it is a crucial element you've taken on board as to where the place of Wales in the world is and how we can expand upon that. The CPG will keep on with that message, going on, I know that, under your leadership. It's very important.

We've got to go to places we haven't been before, that's effectively it. We always tend to go to the places we know, our friends, but there are places we haven't been yet, we haven't explored, and I think the opportunity now in this strategy is to start looking at some of those aspects. Don't be afraid to say, 'Actually, we haven't thought of that one, let's go there, let's look at that avenue', rather than the traditional 'everyone we know' friends.

Minister, I'm very pleased your strategy will be published by the summer, because it is crucial now we start seeing a strategy, it is crucial we start exploring what it means for Wales, and it's crucial we have the key performance indicators associated with it so we can assess whether it is effective or not. That's very important. It is now time for Wales to have a voice, for Wales to have a very loud voice. We've got one, let's use it. We need to do this because we believe we have a contribution to make to the world.

Many talk about Scotland and many talk about Ireland, and I think David highlighted we don't talk about the Welsh Americans. Many Welsh Americans are in the Appalachian mountains and the coal-mining areas—there's a history there, but we don't use it. Let's use our voice, let's use our experience, let's use our relationships. That's what we need to do.

I welcome the fact the Assembly has given, today, its consideration to our role in the world and I look forward to seeing us set a course, and that strategy must be a clear course, so that we can actually see an outward-looking Wales delivering and having relationships with other nations across the world.

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

Item 7 on the agenda this afternoon is the Plaid Cymru debate on workers' rights, and I call on Leanne Wood to move the motion.

Diolch. I'd like to begin by thanking our partners in the trade union movement for their work in supporting Plaid Cymru to develop this motion. Today is International Workers' Day, and we are pleased to be able to host today's debate. We believe it's important to mark the day by giving Members in this Chamber the chance to voice support and solidarity for workers and to contribute to the debate on workers' rights. TUC Cymru want to make Wales a fair work nation. Plaid Cymru shares these basic values. Surely, we all want workers in Wales to benefit from collective bargaining and to have their say on pay, workplace conditions, as well as the terms and conditions on their contracts. I'm sure that most Members will be more than familiar with these matters from our casework. Time and time again, we hear about unfair labour market practices, low pay, dodgy contracts, discrimination and illegal employment practices and so on, and so on.

It's true to say that unemployment has fallen in Wales since the start of the financial crisis, but that doesn't mean that there has been a rise in pay. Wales is blighted by low-paid work. Around a quarter of jobs in this country were paid below the voluntary living wage in 2017, with regional variations to that figure. For example, one in five jobs in Caerphilly were low paid; one in three jobs in Blaenau Gwent were low paid. In 2016, roughly 17,000 jobs in Wales were paid below the statutory minimum wage. The Low Pay Commission found that the majority of underpaid workers are women, part-time, and hourly paid. This, in turn, has led to an increase in in-work poverty. Unlike the past, work today does not necessarily lead to a route out of poverty. Pay, hours of work, changes to social security benefits have all had an impact and a detrimental impact on our communities. Between 2014 and 2017, there was a 10 per cent rise in the number of children living in relative poverty where all working-age adults were in work. There is much more I could say about zero-hours contracts, for example, that contribute to this, but my colleague Helen Mary Jones will cover that shortly. 

The Senedd may not have all the economic levers to deal with all these problems, but there are things that the Government can do, and we are calling on the Welsh Government in this motion to include a commitment to introducing a social partnership Act to kick-start a cultural change in Wales's labour market, where the workers' collective voice is equal to the voice of employers—a Welsh way of strengthening workers' rights that we have a long history of championing. So, let's make sure that we keep that tradition alive.

We also want to see a clear commitment to this in the Government's legislative programme. But I have to say, we found it more than disappointing that a Labour Government has essentially gutted our motion by deleting every point after point 1, turning it into another meaningless self-congratulatory statement, with wishy-washy words and a long kick into even longer grass. I know, because I shared a panel with Martin Mansfield from Wales TUC, that they want to see this legislation passed with a clear time frame. 

So, I look forward to hearing the Government's justification for amending the motion in such a way, and I appeal to all of those Labour Members on the back benches who value their relationships with the trade unions to back us on this. Show them, on International Workers' Day, of all days, that you will put workers' rights above the party whip on this day today.

Thank you. I have selected the four amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will be deselected. So, I call on the Minister for Housing and Local Government to move formally amendment 1, tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans.

Formally.

Thank you. I call on Russell George to move amendments 2, 3 and 4, tabled in the name of Darren Millar.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I'd like to thank Plaid for bringing forward this debate today, and also say that I will move the amendments in the name of my colleague Darren Millar.

Can I say I support the vast majority of Plaid's motion? I particularly support their points 1, 2 and 3, and I look at point 2 of their motion, noting—it's a noting motion—that Wales is lagging behind the rest of the UK when it comes to fair wage levels, with many people in Wales on wages 30 per cent lower than the rest of the UK population. That is a sad fact that that's correct, but disappointing that that's the case, and I do think that that is a result of Government, and since we've had devolution 20 years ago, that gap has only widened, which makes this all the more disappointing. The Taylor review of modern working practices states—and I'm quoting here—that

'Flexibility in the labour market is important and must be retained in order to keep participation rates high',

and the report cites the 2017 labour force survey, which found that one fifth of people on zero-hours contracts are in full-time education, and 68 per cent of those on contracts do not want more hours. Certainly, the implication there is that zero-hours contracts do suit the vast majority of people on them.

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, absolutely.

Thank you. I'm grateful to you for taking an intervention. There is a difference, though, between zero-hours contracts, which put all the power into the hands of the employer, and flexible working contracts, where the power is more evenly balanced. I don't know if you've had family members who've been working on zero-hours contracts, but I have, and, as the TUC general secretary said, I've never met anybody working on a zero-hours contract who wanted that contract. They might want the flexibility but they didn't want the zero-hours contract where the power is with the employer.

I do think that there's a balance here that has to be struck, and clearly we're on a different side of that balance, but what zero-hours contracts do offer is they do offer that flexibility for workers, offering workers patterns that suit their personal circumstances and give them the ability to work in a way that suits them. Zero-hours contracts also provide the flexibility for businesses, allowing them to meet customer demand at busier times as well. That's one of the things that also is important here, and this is why my colleagues and I on this side can't support that part of your motion. But I do suspect that what we want to achieve is the same—it's just there's a difference about how we achieve it, and there's a different balance here in that regard. But workers should be able to secure fair work, and employees should be able to have the right to ask their employer for more predictable and stable contracts if they prefer. This is the crux of our amendment, taking the approach, here, of the UK Government in their commitments to protect workers' rights as well. We do need to have an approach that empowers workers, gives them the ability to choose what contract best suits their personal and financial requirements. Whilst the European Union sets out the minimum requirements that workers should enjoy, the UK Government has consistently exceeded them, and has led the way in enhancing the rights of workers. This includes expanding upon EU maternity entitlements and parental leave. New proposals include providing greater protection for pregnant women [Interruption.]—in a moment—and new parents from redundancy, and extending current protections enjoyed by parents to other parents, such as those returning from shared parental leave. Yes.

So, with what you've said, why will Theresa May not sign up to the charter of fundamental rights? Why is she insistent that legislatively it is excluded from any link with Welsh workers' rights, UK workers' rights?

Well, I've already stated that the UK Government has exceeded the protections that are under EU law. I've made that point, and I would finish by saying that I do agree with Leanne Wood in regard to the disappointment of a Government that has deleted all of Plaid's motion, most of which we can agree with. For that reason—[Interruption.] For that reason, we won't be supporting the Government's amendment.

Thanks to Plaid Cymru for bringing forward this debate on workers' rights. I'll speak proudly of the work carried out by this Welsh Government and other members of these benches in promoting those rights. For some of us, this is a real and personal issue, and in my case it was 30 years as a trade union official fighting for and defending workers' rights every single day. I remain a proud member of Unison and continue to support and admire the work that they do for public service workers across the UK and beyond. As the daughter of a Transport and General Workers Union shop steward it's clear to me that some things, like belonging to a trade union, just happen to be in the blood.

In the years that I spent as a trade union official I recall working alongside colleagues like Vaughan Gething and Mick Antoniw as employment lawyer partners in taking forward personal and collective cases that benefitted many thousands of people—benefits that were gained by enforcing their workplace rights. I also recall working closely with Eluned Morgan in the Lords on our opposition to the Trade Union Bill, seeking to defend workers in Wales against the Tories' race to the bottom, and the pride in seeing this Welsh Labour Government bring forward legislation to protect Wales from the attacks on trade union organisation in the public sector.

Will you take an intervention? There's no doubt your contribution to workers' rights and the trade union movement is commendable. Do you therefore regret the amendment that's been put down by the Government today to delete all the substance out of our motion, effectively, and just congratulate itself without thinking about what it can do in the future to further protect those workers' rights?

No, I'm quite happy with the amendment and I'll explain a bit further why as I go through. I would say that I'm sorry, Russell, despite what you say, the Tories' solution to the problems in the workplace is always to attack workers and those who represent them and while ignoring the fat cats in the boardrooms with their bonuses and while workers are constantly facing austerity and pay freezes through these difficult periods. On these benches, however, we have the ingrained and instinctive values that still help to shape the work that we carry out in this Senedd. In the period of devolution, we've seen successive Welsh Labour-led Governments taking forward a workers' rights agenda, embracing social partnership, working towards a fair work nation, promoting collective bargaining, protecting and funding the Wales Union Learning Fund, abolishing zero-hours contracts in social care, introducing codes on ethical employment and procurement, establishing the economic contract, and, as already mentioned, repealing the worst elements of the vindictive Tory Trade Union Act here in Wales, and, finally, that is committed to developing a social partnership Act in this Assembly term. There are so many proud achievements by our Labour movement, but, having just marked international Workers' Memorial Day, I think it reminds us that this work is far from complete, whether that is work on health and safety, on protecting the gains that we've made on equality, or seeing more workers protected by collective bargaining. And I was very proud to see that moving towards mandatory collective bargaining was actually part of Labour's general manifesto in 2017, showing that, without doubt, Labour remains the workers' party.

But we couldn't have this debate, of course, without mentioning Brexit, and it has been touched on by others. If we leave the European Union, we will need to redouble our efforts to ensure that every right won by workers across Europe remains at the heart of workers' rights in the UK too. We cannot and will not allow workers' rights to be sacrificed at the altar of deregulation and freemarketing that the arch Brexiteers are desperate to see. In or out of the EU, much remains to be done, and some of us will never give up that fight, because, for some of us, fighting for workers' rights is just in our DNA. 

I'm very grateful for the opportunity to take part in this important event, this important debate. It's great for us all as a Senedd to be able to celebrate International Workers' Day, and we do this, of course, in the context of a very moving statement from Mick Antoniw, remembering that Sunday was Workers' Memorial Day.

Now, Mick reminded us of the theme of that day, which is to remember the dead and fight for the living. And I want to focus on my disappointment in the way that the Government has chosen to amend this motion with regard to zero-hours contracts. Most people on zero-hours contracts don't want to be on zero-hours contracts, and I just want to give a few facts from research that's been published in February this year by the Trades Union Congress. People on zero-hours contracts are more than twice as likely to work night shifts, and are paid a third less an hour on average than other workers. The median hourly pay before tax for someone on a zero-hours contract was £7.70, compared to £11.80 for other workers. Again, 23 per cent of zero-hours contracts have compulsory night work.

Now, the thing about a zero-hours contract, as opposed to a flexible working relationship, is that all the power is in the hands of the employer. How are people expected to live when they do not know from one week to the next how many hours they're going to work? Flexible working does work for some people, but a zero-hours contract is not flexible working, and we've got into the habit—and I'm afraid we saw this a little bit with Russell George—of using these interchangeably. And it's not the same thing. Flexible contracts give equal power to the worker and to the employer; zero-hours contracts, all the power sits in the hands of the employer, and that isn't fair.

So, our original motion says this—clause 4

'Calls on the Welsh Government to ban the use of zero hours contracts in all devolved Welsh public services and associated supply chains'.

The amendment says—it

'Welcomes the actions developed through social partnership by the Welsh Government to eliminate exploitative zero hours contracts in Wales and the work it has done through the Code of Practice'.

Well, that implies that there's such a thing as a zero-hours contract that isn't exploitative, and nobody on these benches here believes that that is true. Zero-hours contracts are a nasty American import that we should not have here in any of the countries in those islands, and certainly not here in Wales. [Interruption.] I'm very sorry, I didn't see. Mick.

Thank you for taking the intervention. I don't think anyone disagrees with the narrative you've given, but, in the format that clause is, do you accept that it is actually outside our legislative competence?

I was about to come to that, because of course in terms of banning—legally banning—zero-hours contracts we do not have the competence to do that. But our motion doesn't ask for that. What our motion asks is for the Welsh Government to use its economic power to keep those zero-hours contracts out of those areas of service over which they have control—

'devolved Welsh public services and associated supply chains'.

If the Welsh Government chose to ban them in public services through various service level agreements and the various ways in which their public services are managed, they could do that. If they chose to then, through the contracts that they let and the contracts that public bodies let, to put in a clause that banned it, that would be perfectly lawful within UK legislation as it stands. Of course, on these benches, we feel we should have the power to legislate, but let us use the power that we do have. 

Now, have some steps been made forward? Certainly. But what we're asking for is something specific. I, like Leanne Wood, am really disappointed that, on something where we would have expected that across most of these benches, and indeed colleagues in other parts of the Chamber, we could have broad agreement, you have chosen as a Government to take a fish knife to our motion and gut it and be just self congratulatory about what has already been done. I don't think that's really in the spirit of the way we put this motion forward and how we hoped that you would react. 

So, let me come back to what Mick said: remember the dead and fight for the living. We do not have the power here yet to ban zero-hours contracts. I do not understand why the Welsh Government will not use the power that it does have to reduce them.

Whilst I have a number of speakers, I do have to call the Minister, and Plaid Cymru have to respond to their debate, so I apologise to those who were not called. I now call the Minister for Housing and Local Government, Julie James.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. As a political party that was created to unite trade unionists and socialists and to give voice to the working class, and as a Government that believes in equality, social justice and opportunity for all, we absolutely recognise the importance of International Workers' Day as a means to highlight the plight of many workers and to promote workers' rights. But, as a party with an indelible link to trade unionism—and like Dawn Bowden I too am a proud member of Unison, which I have been for some 40-odd years now—successive Welsh Governments have developed and deployed excellent working relationships with employers and trade unions over the last 20 years. We have replaced the remaining points of the motion to set that record straight, because the motion is not written and designed to get consensus across the Chamber, it's written as an attack, and that's why we reject it and replaced it with ours, and I'm very happy that we have done so. [Interruption.] Certainly.

Do you welcome that earlier this year the First Minister has given an outright, an absolute commitment to already introduce a social partnership Act and for the abolition of section 1 of the Equality Act 2010 and that that work is under way?

Absolutely, and I'm coming onto that in a moment. Social partnership has indeed, as Dawn Bowden said, been part of our DNA from the outset of devolution. We recognise its critical role in shaping effective policy and we have established many mechanisms to support this, such as the Welsh Ministers' business scheme, and, in the early days of devolution, the business partnership council, the council for economic development, and latterly a social partners strategy group and the Wales social partners unit.

I also agree with Dawn Bowden that we are rightly proud of our model of social partnership. It has indeed helped to deliver tangible rights for workers in Wales through the Trade Union (Wales) Act 2017 as she mentioned, the agricultural wages Order, and through the ethical code of procurement in supply chains. The guiding principles on the appropriate use of non-guaranteed hours arrangements in Welsh devolved public services is an excellent example of how successful this partnership can be. Nevertheless, I do absolutely recognise many of the points and issues that Leanne and Helen Mary raised. I absolutely agree with them that we need to do more for Wales to become a fair work nation. For that to happen, both our policies and our supporting institutional arrangements will need to work together to shape the nature of work and employment in Wales. We appointed—[Interruption.] Yes, of course.

A very specific point about your amendment around zero-hours contracts: as it is written, it says

'to eliminate exploitative zero hours contracts'.

I invite you to take this opportunity to make it clear that the Government believes that all zero-hours contracts are exploitative and that that's there to describe all zero-hours contracts and not to suggest that there are zero-hours contracts that are not exploitative. 

I take the point that you make, and actually I agreed with much of what you said in your speech, and I think the vast majority of zero-hours contracts are indeed exploitative. The issue there is the control issue that you rightly outlined. I want to just qualify it a little, because it is about control. There are zero-hours contracts where the control is shared and people need those flexible arrangements, but they only work where the worker is in control of that arrangement, and that's an arrangement you don't very frequently see. So it's a very small caveat to your 'all', because I don't think there are very many of those. So, we are very keen on stopping exploitative zero-hours contracts, and we are very keen to make sure that some of the issues that you've both raised around the way that workers are treated and the way that they have an unequal power relationship are addressed. But, it is outside our devolution settlement, and so what we'll be doing—and I'll just start to outline that now—is using the levers we've got to their maximum effect to eradicate that as much as we possibly can and to lead the way for the areas of the Welsh economy where we don't have direct power. For what it's worth, I, too, think we should have that power, just to be clear.

But, as I said, for Wales to become a fair work nation, both our policies and our supporting institutional arrangements will need to work together. So, the commission that we appointed, the independent Fair Work Commission, will be publishing its report this week, on 3 May, and its recommendations will help shape our thinking about how we might enhance employment opportunities across Wales. Social partnership will be absolutely key to driving this forward. It will rely on getting the balance right in the relationships between the partners in order to take them with us and get the leverage that we want. It will be important to ensure that agreements reached through social partnership are implemented effectively.

That's why we have already, as Mick Antoniw said in his intervention, committed to introducing a social partnership Act in this Assembly term in order to provide greater clarity about the authority of social partnership bodies and their effect. And, if and when we leave the EU, we will indeed be looking to ensure there is no weakening of existing employment rights, that new trade agreements protect employment standards, and that future UK employment legislation keeps pace with progressive EU employment legislation. It's not enough, Russell George, to stand still and rest on our laurels. We need to make sure that Wales keeps its place in the world as a good place to live and work, a good place to do business. And for that to happen, both the employers and the workers need to recognise that that's what we are and that is why, Dirprwy Lywydd, we will be bringing forward the social partnership Act, we will be looking to make Wales a fair work nation, and that is why we had the independent report. And that's why I'm very pleased to have been able to put the record straight in this debate today. Diolch.

Can I now call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to reply to the debate?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. As spokesperson for Plaid Cymru on the economy, what I hope or what I’m trying to do consistently is to try to develop policy and hold the Welsh Government to account as part of that work of strengthening our economy and making Wales more prosperous. But the worker has to be at the heart of that, not just because ensuring the worker’s rights is the right and just thing to do, but because a worker, of course, does deserve fair treatment—in pay and terms and training and safety and so forth, to prevent exploitation, because that in turn is going to be good for our economy. If a worker feels there’s value to the work that he or she does, and has fair recognition for that work and becomes a true stakeholder in their workplace, then that worker is going to be more productive. We know that raising productivity levels is vital as we work towards strengthening our economy. All of it is interwoven.

Both my parents, as it happens, became union leaders, so it was perhaps no wonder that joining a union, the National Union of Journalists in my case, was a pretty natural step when I started in the world of work. The value of unions was clear to me then, as it is now. Unions are good for pay and well-being levels, for job security. Where you have unions, good training is more likely to take place, equality issues are more likely to be addressed through trade unions, unions help bring stability to a workplace, reducing turnover of staff, which is good for business. That brings us back to my earlier point: it's cyclical. Treating workers fairly, giving workers a voice is good for the economy as well as for the workers themselves. And there's plenty of evidence of the value that comes through ensuring that the worker has a true voice. 

What we want, of course, and the purpose of this motion today is to make work fairer, and that has to be done during a time when work is changing. Work patterns are changing. The gig economy is bringing new challenges, but unions are always trying to adapt to those changing circumstances. I always value being able to co-operate with the trade union movement in Wales.

In closing my comments on this motion today, I remind the Government that, as a result of the Wales TUC's latest campaign, we will hold the Government to account to make sure that there is no slippage on the promise of a move towards a social partnership Act—it is something that the trade union movement in Wales demands.

It is a real shame, I must say, that the Labour Government's amendment takes away most of our motion, especially, perhaps, the one on zero-hours contracts. Some people will be doing the maths and working out that that's the eighth time that Welsh Labour, in government, is turning down the opportunity to vote for a strong wording—a strong motion—on zero-hours contracts.

It's a shame that they're taking away our motion, or most of it. This motion was the result of work between us and our—and your—friends in the trade union movement in Wales, so perhaps you'd like to explain to them what was not acceptable in their words and in their demands that we brought to the Assembly today in this motion. But, let's all commit—

Will you take an intervention?

I was wrapping up, but, in a couple of seconds, yes.

I was just wondering—presumably, though, you do very much welcome the commitment of the First Minister to introduce a social partnership Act, and you're more than prepared to give support and to work with the Government, and all parties, in fact, to ensure that we deliver a social partnership Act this session.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to point out that our motion today made that commitment to move towards that social partnership Act. There's something very strangely tribal in the fact that you remove our commitment to asking for a social partnership Act and then put it in yourselves. Why not just support what the trade union movement was saying through our motion today that they wanted us to push?

The result is the same—the result is the same, of course. We wanted it, and we will hold the Government to account to make sure that you deliver it. But, people watching from outside will make their own judgement about what on earth is going on in removing our motion and replacing it with your own. 

Tribal politics aside, let's all commit to making Wales a fair work nation. Indeed, in response to Alun Davies from a sedentary position, this is serious politics, and serious politics is about working collegiately, where it's possible. In working together with our—and your—friends in the trade union movement, we had a motion today that asked this Government to take action that the trade union movement in Wales wants to see being taken. That's mature politics. But let's make Wales a fair work nation.

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

The next item is the Plaid Cymru debate on climate change. I call on Llyr Gruffydd to move the motion.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. I’m sure that many of us will have welcomed the statement that the Government made earlier this week declaring a climate emergency, and that, of course, in response to the tireless campaigning of climate campaigners—young people, the school strikers and thousands of others, and ourselves as a party, who have consistently raised this issue over the past few months.

I also agree, if I may say so—if the Government does feel that such a statement is to have national significance, I agree with some of the backbench Members of the Government party that the statement should have been made to this Chamber rather than being released in a weak press release from the Welsh Government. But, it does demonstrate that gains can be made and the tireless campaigning does work.

So, despite the declaration having been made, there is, of course, still purpose to today's debate. I understand, by the way, Llywydd, that members of the public are being denied access to the gallery to view this debate, so I am concerned at that, but maybe we can be told why that's the case at some point. Of course, we now have to make sure that we cannot end up seeing this as being some sort of headline-grabbing grandstanding from the Government. It really needs to mean real and immediate change and action to tackle climate change.

Many of us were a bit disturbed by the First Minister's statement yesterday, when he said that declaring a climate emergency doesn't really represent a sharp difference in policy for the Government. Surely, the whole point of declaring a climate emergency is that everything changes. I very nearly expect something more like a civil contingency response than a business-as-usual response from this Government. We only have to look at the environment Minister's statement issued yesterday and, again, I agree with her own backbencher, who described it as a wholly inadequate response. In essence, I think, it's establishing two new committees and giving the university of Cardiff a bit more money. Well, my question to the First Minister and to the Government today is whether you're really up for this challenge. Declaring a climate emergency can't just be a rebranding of existing policies. We've seen recently published, of course, the Government's 'low carbon Wales' paper, and the BBC highlighted quite clearly that the vast majority of pledges in that document already exist in different Government departments. This has to be a game changer, and business as usual is not an option.

The 'low carbon Wales' document that I mentioned—if you look at it closely, of course, a lot of the commitments start with, 'We will consult on', 'We will consider', 'We will start to explore' this, that and the other. Of course, the Government's narrative around climate change really has to fundamentally change, and the Government needs to move to action mode. So, prove to us today, Minister, that this Government, as I say, is up for the challenge. As a party, we've made it clear the kinds of initiatives that we would want to pursue in Government, from establishing a national energy company to help achieve our goal of Wales becoming self-sufficient in renewable energy, to the energy atlas, of course, the national inventory of green energy potentials so that we can start unlocking some of that potential in a way that brings benefits to our communities and our people, of course. The biggest home retrofitting programme that Wales has ever seen was outlined, our multibillion pound energy-efficiency programme, contributing to the triple bottom line of reducing emissions, creating jobs, tackling fuel poverty across Wales. I'm already running out of time, because I've been limited to four minutes, so I'll just say—[Interruption.] Yes, that's fine. Okay—

I will need to make the point that Plaid Cymru chose to put this motion as a half-hour motion, and you are limited by the half hour.

Okay. And I've already wasted 30 seconds in making that point, and point taken.

The other point I'd like to make is that, if this motion was passed today, then it would mark us becoming the first Parliament in the world to declare a climate emergency, and that would give, I hope, the Government a mandate and the confidence to go further and faster than is currently the case. We owe it to our future generations. We know that they've made their views known recently, and, of course, we know as well that, by the time that next generation has their hands on powers, then it'll be too late, so it falls on us as today's leaders to step forward and deliver.

Declaring a climate emergency isn't the culmination of anything; it's the beginning. And my plea to you, Minister, First Minister and the Welsh Government, is: let's move into action mode and let's do something.

I have selected both amendments to the motion, and I call on Andrew R.T. Davies to move amendment 1 tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. I agree with the sentiments that have been expressed today. It is a shame that only 30 minutes of parliamentary time is being used to deal with this very, very important issue. People will have different ways of attracting and attacking this particular problem that we face and this issue that we face, which, as the First Minister said, is the issue of this generation that we need to face and tackle head-on. But it has been an issue for the last 20 to 30 years, and there has been huge progress in the way that we have gone about our everyday lives, whether we are in business, whether we look at it domestically or whether we look at it as society as a whole.

I formally move the amendment in the name of Darren Millar, which highlights some of the successes at a UK level that we've been enjoying to date, with a 40 per cent reduction, whilst the economy has been growing by more than two thirds, and also signing up to the Paris agreement as well, which also then goes on to highlight that, sadly, in Wales here we've only seen a 19 per cent reduction in the same period from 1990 to 2015. I don't for one minute doubt the Minister's seriousness or intention and purpose in attacking some of these challenges that she in the Government's position faces, but it is a fact that, sadly, our footprint here in Wales is not achieving the same success as other parts of the United Kingdom or other examples we can look at around the globe.

Driving in this morning knowing that this debate was taking place, I did reflect back to my youth when, in Grangetown, you used to drive past, virtually next door to the IKEA store at the moment, the huge landfill tip that used to be there, and that used to be basically seven days a week landfill going in there—black rubbish and bulldozers flattening that site down time and time again. When you look at our recycling rates and the way we domestically and industrially have completely changed and transformed the way our economy works, that surely has to be a positive.

Just to declare a climate change emergency—it does need to have a roadmap and a route map of where we're going to respond to this, because the word 'emergency' indicates the seriousness of what we need to be doing. As Members here, we literally had a written statement yesterday rather than an oral statement where we could challenge and we could probe what the Minister will be doing in the next weeks, the next months, and the coming years to make the changes that people by and large across society in Wales want to see happen. And certainly from these benches, she will find willing supporters along that journey. But it is also important that the Government uses the levers that are available to make sure that the changes from the Government policy position are enacted on the ground, and I, as a supporter of the M4 relief road, do find myself in contradiction to some of the points that the environmentalists want to make on this point, but I state that fact.

Now, yesterday, we had the climate change emergency announced on Monday, and we then had a Government statement talking about what it wanted to do in the field of aviation, and we know that £30 million to £40 million has been spent so far promoting the M4 relief road. I appreciate there's a difference of opinion here, but, equally, if you're in that chair as the Government, you need to make sure that you're using the tools available to back up the rhetoric that you're doing rather than just chasing the headlines on a press release on a Monday afternoon.

And when it comes to planning, for example, which is another important area and important lever that can be used, if we look around the city of Cardiff with the huge new housing estates that are being built, how much environmental work has gone in to protect and develop those estates so that they do have a positive footprint when they're built out by the 2030s and 2035s? There's so much more we can do in the field of planning. We have those powers available to us to make that difference.

In particular, I would implore the Minister to actually get to grips with some of the recommendations that have come from the environment and sustainability committee's report that looked at the way the Government was performing in this area—in the area of forestry, for example, where we know Government targets have been missed and missed by a country mile. Again, it's about the Government making sure that when it does set itself a challenge and does set itself a target, it hits that target. You might face criticism for not being ambitious enough, but at least we can have confidence that the targets are going to be met and we move on to the next level of what we need to do.

When you look at the evidence, time is ticking away against us. There has been progress over the last 20 to 30 years. Much, much more needs to be done, but let's make sure that we resolve and commit ourselves to handing over a better environment to the next generation, which is something that hasn't happened successively over previous generations. We can do it, the technology exists to do it. We just need the commitment and making sure that we deliver on our pledges.

I call on the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs to move formally amendment 2, tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans. 

Formally.

I'm very glad to have the opportunity to speak in this debate, this year being the thirtieth anniversary of the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl, the legacy of which continues to remain with us, and we perhaps have in mind all the other potential Chernobyls that exist in nuclear power stations that are centred around conflict zones in various parts of the world. My concern is not so much in terms of understanding, knowing, and being aware of all the things that are happening to this planet, but how we actually achieve real change.

This year, I'll be 65. Next year, I qualify for my state pension. In 20 years, I probably won't be here. My generation is the generation that has destroyed this planet, is continuing to destroy this planet, and our legacy to the younger generation is to actually solve the mistakes that our generation has actually made. So, when we saw on the streets schoolchildren, young people, occupying the streets, occupying schools, demonstrating, protesting, I give my full support to that and I do not accept the criticisms of those people because what they are doing is expressing now the ownership of that legacy that we are leaving them: a legacy that has pushed the planet to virtually a tipping point.

I was very interested in the climate school strikers' four demands. 'The Government declares a climate emergency': well, we're moving towards that, and hopefully at Westminster that will happen shortly. 'That the national curriculum addresses the ecology crisis as a priority': it is beginning to do this, but as we talk about our curriculum now, I think that point is very, very pertinent in terms of an understanding of the link between the society we have and the environmental legacy. I'm very interested in a quote by Naomi Klein, which basically said that,

'Our economic system and our planetary system are now at war. Or, more accurately, our economy is at war with many forms of life on Earth, including human life.'

And what needs to change is not the laws of nature but it's the actual laws of the economy that require more and more expansion with very little regard to the environment.

Llywydd, the biggest criticism that many of the young people made that we've heard on social media and we've seen on the television is that politicians are good at words but we're not very good at action. Well, I think our young people have actually shown that they are prepared to take action, that they will take action, and I fully support them taking action in that sort of campaign because if we can't deliver, then the only people who can actually protect the future of our environment and our planet are going to be those young people taking action, fighting and defending for their future. Thank you.

It isn't often that we feel the weight of history on our shoulders, or rather the weight of the future. I welcome the Welsh Government's declaration of a climate emergency, but as the point has been made by Members across the Chamber, it must be backed up with action. The Oxford English Dictionary defines an emergency as 'a serious situation requiring immediate action'. It is defined by the fact that it necessitates doing something in response, so I'm sure the Welsh Government will appreciate the need to make the right call on projects like the M4 relief road. You cannot declare a climate emergency and continue to countenance the possibility of building that black route; it would be irrational. We are living in a hugely significant time. Yes, I'll take an intervention.

Does that also mean you don't want the bypass in Llandeilo?

To return to the point that I was making in terms of what this Government is doing: in order to actually declare a climate emergency, it has to be backed up with action. We are living in times of dark days. This is true close to home where over half of Welsh wildlife is in decline and one in 14 species are under threat of extinction. We see the impact of climate change in coastal erosion in the Gwent levels. The grief and the anger that we should feel about this is not only grounded in the loss of the natural world but also in our relationship to that natural world, the inspiration we draw from it and the contribution it makes to our health and well-being. We are creatures of our habitats and we are dependent on them. If we let them go, what will it mean for our survival?

Countries that have done little to contribute to the crisis are facing the eye of the storm. Mongolia's temperature has already risen by 2.2 degrees Celsius and they have the worst air pollution in the world. Mozambique has this year faced two cyclones; much of the land near the coast has turned into sea. Yes, the day is dark, but these are also the days when we have a last chance to do something about it. It is fitting in that sense that the origin of the word emergency is from the Latin emergere, meaning 'to arise or bring to light'. It reminds us that light must come out of the darkness if there is any hope. We must act and follow this adage: think globally, act locally.

New Zealand has determined no more gas and oil exploration permits will be granted. The Republic of Ireland will become the world's first country to sell all its investments in fossil fuel companies, likely within five years. And in the United States, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's green new deal aims to virtually eliminate greenhouse gas pollution in a decade.

Wales needs to think now about what actions it will take. Yes, within its competence, but we need to be ambitious. We should set highly far-reaching targets to limit our carbon output, encourage greater use of public transport and electric vehicles, and take steps to become powered solely by renewable energy. For our sake and the sake of the planet, declaring this emergency is a welcome, necessary step, but it must be the beginning of a sea change in our whole approach towards protecting our environment because the impact of climate change isn't remote, isolated or far away, it is now, it is immediate, it is near at hand. Solving it too and halting it is also within our grasp.

Well, I hope I can cheer everybody up with my little speech because the motion starts with one of the most spectacularly silly statements you could imagine: that the world's scientific community says that there are just 12 years left to prevent 1.5 degrees of warming. I'm old enough to remember the invention of the environment as a political issue at the end of the 1960s, and indeed the very first United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization conference on Earth Day in 1970. And it's very entertaining to look back at the predictions that were made at that conference, including one from ecologist Kenneth Watt, who warned about the impending ice age in a speech:

'The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years',

he declared, and, 

'If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.'

Will you take an intervention?

Well, I've only got four minutes, so I don't think I can, thank you.

In the same conference, Paul Ehrlich, a renowned doomster on population, said that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the great die-off, and 50 years later, he's still at it. In The Guardian on 22 March this year, he's now saying, 

'A shattering collapse of civilisation is a "near certainty" in the next few decades due to humanity’s continuing destruction of the natural world'.

So, I'm afraid, regardless of the extent to which predictions depart from reality, these people just never give up, do they?

Life magazine in 1970 reported that,

'Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half'.

And I could go on and on and on. Well, here are the facts: since 1850, the global temperature has increased by 0.9 of a degree centigrade, and half of that increase took place before 1950 when it's generally accepted that the manmade global warming—even if you believe the science—that is said to be behind it could not have been the cause.

Of course, what these predictions fail to cope with is more recent temperature data, because since the great global cooling scare ended in 1975, there has been the following: until 1998, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and temperatures did rise roughly in conjunction with one another, but then, in 1998, there started a 20-year pause in increases in world temperature, whilst global carbon dioxide figures went up and up and up, and until 2015 or 2016, they were flat. Nobody has quite explained how it is that these predictions fail to cope with the reality of temperatures that are recorded by actual observation. In 2015-16, there was more warming, but in 2017-18, there was more cooling, and now, average global temperatures are actually 1 degree Fahrenheit below the computer model predictions. So, how do you explain the pause? How can you predict with confidence that, in 12 years, there will be an increase in world temperatures of 1.5 degrees, when the experience of the last 50 years proves the opposite?

There are, of course, loads of other alarmist forecasts, which I don't have time to debunk—

Will you take an intervention? 

I can't, I'm afraid. I've only got less than a minute left. But—

Let me just show you a map.

Afterwards, please. [Laughter.]

He's not taking an intervention.

I'd be very happy to go through it with you.

Of course, the biggest threat to the world if you believe the warmists' predictions, of course, is the rise of population, because the world population in 1800 was 1 billion, and in 2019, it's nearly 8 billion and it's forecast to be 8.5 billion by 2030. And most of this increase will take place in rapidly industrialising countries, and we all know what's happening in the far east. In India last year, there was a 6.7 per cent increase in their emissions; in China— 

Here we go.

Yes, and it's a fact, and this is what one has to recognise. India and China between them are responsible for 36 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions. And, in China, there was a 4.7 per cent increase in carbon dioxide emissions and in India, 6.7 per cent increase in emissions. Whatever we do in this country is going to be swamped by the reality of what is happening in the far east. You are proposing to impose massive economic burdens upon the people who are least able to bear them in this country—those at the lower end of the income scale. I think that this is grossly immoral, as well as absurd.

I'll make the point at the outset that we haven't the time anymore to waste in arguing with climate change deniers; we've got more important things now to do, with urgency. I hope this Assembly will support the main motion today and the Government amendment reflecting the reality of the climate emergency that we face, but also the commitment and willingness of the Welsh Government to act. But my purpose in speaking today is to make clear that this carries significant implications, not just for Welsh Government, but for all of us individually. We will need to do more, much more. We'll have to make truly difficult choices that follow the evidence, do the right thing for the long-term future of our planet as well as for this and future generations, but which, in the short term, will be challenging politically and individually.

It will take brave national leadership to make the changes we and the planet need, because they will affect the way that we and our electorate will live and work, how we travel, how we take our holidays, what we buy, what we eat, and more. They will affect the way that we as Government prioritise investment, we regulate and legislate to modify behaviour, consumption and lifestyle. So, be under no illusions, some of the further measures we will need to take to meet the climate change emergency will be unpopular. Ministers will need to be brave, but we as Assembly Members and as political parties—if we agree deep down with the activists, the campaigners and the motion today, we'll need to park the politics and build a consensus for action that will meet the urgency and the scale of the challenge, the same leadership and spirit of political consensus that allowed Labour to bring forward the first ever Climate Change Act—Climate Change Act 2008—or to develop here the well-being of future generations Act in Wales. This will need to be harnessed if we are truly serious about this.

I was once invited into No. 10 as an environment Minister to explain a particularly difficult decision I'd made, which was absolutely the right decision but was deeply unpopular with a handful of colleagues and their constituents. I explained to the gathered special advisers at No. 10 how and why the decision was taken and how and why it was the right decision. The special advisers listened diligently, they quizzed me intelligently as I summed up that there was indeed an easy decision and there was the more difficult, evidence-based, long-term-thinking, right decision I had made. The advisers mulled this over and came to me with a conclusion: they would support me fully. They agreed I'd made the right decision, difficult as it was. As I left the room, the senior adviser turned and whispered to me, 'Next time, Huw, make the easy decision.'

Well, Ministers, colleagues, here in the Chamber, from here on, we'll have to take many more of the difficult but right decisions and build a consensus here in this Chamber and outside with the public too about the benefits that flow from the right decisions on tackling climate change and global warming, on reversing biodiversity and habitat loss, on creating truly sustainable, healthier communities and lifestyles in every single part of Wales.

I am delighted that the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs has signalled that she'll be examining with her officials, even in the light of the low-carbon Wales plan and its 100 policies and proposals, how we can go further and faster to decarbonise. Now, I welcome that, because whilst Wales is indeed showing leadership—it's committed to 80 per cent reductions in net carbon emissions by 2050—we all know in our heart of hearts and in our heads that the actions that we've agreed nationally, but also internationally, are not sufficient to the day. Stern warned, the climate change committee repeatedly warned and warns—the international scientific consensus so spurned by those who would happily burn the planet to the ground now and trash the futures of our children and grandchildren—all warn repeatedly that we must act decisively and early, because the costs of doing so will be lower. Conversely, the costs of not doing so will be huge and could be terminal for our prospects on this planet.

So, we'll need to go further, and we'll take some tough decisions, supporting low-cost energy generation and demand-reduction options, like onshore wind as well as offshore; ramping up energy efficiency in homes and residential buildings; planting trees at an unprecedented rate; a step change in reducing, reusing and recycling waste; creating sustainable communities and transportation that make it easy, affordable, desirable and commonplace for people to travel far and near by public transport, walking and cycling; making the combustion engine extinct, instead of species and habitats; changing what we eat and how much we eat, how we manage the land for public good, including climate adaptation and modification, how we produce our food, how we fly less. In all areas of policy and integrated policy across Government, we'll need to move beyond voluntary measures and beyond incremental improvements towards step change and more direction.

So, let those of us in Wales who genuinely believe we are in a climate emergency work together to forge a new consensus, take the necessary actions to save the planet and, in so doing, save ourselves and our children too. Let's agree to make the right, but difficult decisions, the brave decisions, for this and future generations and for this one and only precious planet that we share with many other species for just a short moment in time. This is not our planet to trash or burn. We don't own it; we're just passing through, so let us tread lightly as we go.

Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs—Lesley Griffiths.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome the opportunity to respond to this debate. I believe the Plaid Cymru motion is right to point to the stark warning from the scientific community and the need for urgent and rapid global response. Climate change is not a distant threat. As we debate today, the impacts of climate change are damaging the lives and livelihoods of millions of people across the globe. It is driving extreme weather events here in Wales, to which we are already having to adapt. 

Wales is only responsible for a tiny fraction of the world's emissions, but it is the view of this Welsh Government that we are capable as a nation of delivering change here in a way that will reduce our impact on the environment, make our society fairer and healthier, and that we can spur more rapid change across the UK and internationally. That is why I would like us to go further than the Plaid Cymru motion. I want us to focus not just on what we need to do, but on how we will focus our efforts to deliver it. Assembly Members and the public are rightly asking: if this is an emergency, what is our response and how can we judge progress? 

The Government amendment is to highlight our areas of strength on which we can build, and I have to say, Plaid Cymru's line on the climate change emergency—they aren't bad actions, but they are far short of what's in the Welsh Government plan, and wouldn't even deal with half of our greenhouse gas emissions, never mind take us anywhere near net zero. So, as a Government, we can use our progressive legislation to underpin the changes needed with legal force: the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 and our Environment (Wales) Act 2016.

We can maximise the contribution made by the public sector to tackling climate change and the loss of species and habitats, and we can play a co-ordinating role in driving change in other sectors, from fostering the creation of new green industries and community-led renewable energy projects to improving the evidence base by working with Natural Resources Wales, with Wales's universities, and with international experts.

On Monday, when I met with my ministerial counterparts from the UK and Scottish Governments, we all agreed there is a need to accelerate action on climate change. I'm disappointed that the Welsh Conservatives' amendment shows a complacency in the face of the climate emergency we face, and I would urge Members to vote with the Government today, to make the National Assembly the first Parliament in the world to vote in favour of the declaration of a climate emergency. The seed of our response to the climate emergency is contained in the 100 policies and proposals in the low-carbon delivery plan, but after receiving our advisory body—the UKCCC—advice tomorrow, I will review these.

In conclusion, Deputy Presiding Officer, to match the pace and scale of change needed, we now need to call for collective action across the whole of society, and that will include action based on a common resolve between our political parties.

I call on Leanne Wood to reply to the debate.

I'd like to start my contribution to this debate with a big 'diolch', 'thank you', to Greta Thunberg, the school strikers and Extinction Rebellion, but also to all of the other environmental campaigners and activists who've been raising this alarm for years, if not decades. You are succeeding, the conversation is changing—with some exceptions, of course.

The Extinction Rebellion protests have one central request: politicians must tell the truth about climate change and get serious about our ecological crisis. But the truth is, we are failing miserably. In Wales our carbon dioxide emissions have risen in recent years. Back in 2007, as part of the One Wales coalition agreement between Plaid Cymru and Labour, we agreed on binding greenhouse gas emission reductions, and to monitor this, a climate change commission was set up. What's happened instead? The targets have been missed and the climate change commission has now been abolished.

Now is not the time for the Welsh Government to congratulate themselves on progress and fall back on complacency. And now is not the time to applaud the UK Government's track record, when we've seen them cut sustainability funding. As Greta Thunberg has told us, 'The house is on fire', and I just don't see the panic. And that's why we reject both the Labour and the Tories' amendments today. It's just not true to say, Minister, that your actions go further. It looks too much like business as usual to me.

That's why the one demand of the climate change protestors, to set up citizens' assemblies, to ensure that Governments are held to account, is so key. Without that, the frustration that Governments are not telling the truth and are not doing everything they can to avert a climate emergency will just not go away. Our first step is to acknowledge the problem, and I'm glad, of course, that the Government announced its declaration of a climate emergency before today's vote, but that can't be the end of the matter. If the Welsh Government is honest about the climate emergency, the prospect of a new M4 around Newport would be scrapped. If we understood the severity of our ecological crisis, the idea of concreting over the Gwent levels would be ruled out as a catastrophe. We can no longer use twentieth-century answers to our twenty-first century problems. We have to think about how Government investment is used to combat and alleviate these problems to build resilience, and we must oppose investment that does the opposite. The M4 black route is a key test as to what this climate emergency declaration means. We all know that, if we're being honest with ourselves. We have to stop chasing jobs at any cost. There are no jobs on a dead planet. 

So, we want to see clear commitments and actions from this Government to make real its declaration of a climate emergency. We want to see the rapid emissions reductions and we want to see those citizens' assemblies, and nothing less will do. 

Thank you. The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we defer voting under this item until voting time.

Deputy Presiding Officer, I wonder if you'd take a point of order before we move to the vote.

Yes, I will take the point of order.

I wanted to understand why it was that those who'd gathered on the Senedd steps to show their support for the motion that we've just passed, or are about to pass, were not permitted to come and hear the debate, because I've always been proud of the fact that we are an open Assembly and we're keen to ensure that the people of Wales know what we're debating. I was told that only six people were allowed in to hear the debate when many more would have liked to have heard it.

Okay. I was not aware of that. I'll have a discussion with the Llywydd and we'll think about what you've said, but it's on the record. Thank you.

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

The first debate we vote on this afternoon is the Plaid Cymru debate on workers' rights, and I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. If the proposal is not agreed, we will vote on the amendments tabled to the motion. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 10, two abstentions, 40 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed. 

We now go to vote on the amendments. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will be deselected. So, I call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans. Open the vote. Close the vote. For amendment 1 28, no abstentions, 24 against. Therefore, amendment 1 is agreed, and amendments 2 and 3 are deselected. 

I now call for a vote on amendment 4, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. For amendment 4 38, no abstentions, 14 against. Therefore, amendment 4 is agreed. 

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

Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amended motion 29, no abstentions, 23 against. Therefore, the motion as amended is agreed. 

We now move to vote on the Plaid Cymru debate on climate change, and I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Again, if the proposal is not agreed to, we vote on the amendments tabled to the motion. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 10, 13 abstentions, 29 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed and we go to vote on the amendments.

I call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 12, one abstention, 39 against, therefore amendment 1 is not agreed.

I call for a vote on amendment 2, tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 28, one abstention, 23 against, therefore amendment 2 is agreed.

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

Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amended motion 38, 12 abstentions, two against, therefore the amended motion is agreed.

We now move to the short debate. If Members are leaving the Chamber, can they please do so quickly and quietly? Can Members leave the Chamber if they are doing so, and, if not, can they resume their seats?

We now move to the short debate, and I call on Bethan Sayed to speak to the topic that she has chosen. Bethan.

As a republican, I, Bethan Sayed, do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and swear my allegiance to the people of Wales from now until the end of my term of office, that I promise to faithfully discharge the duties of my office to protect and defend the welfare, the best interests and the rights of the people of Wales.

As a republican, I, Bethan Sayed, do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and swear my allegiance to the people of Wales from now until the end of my term of office, that I promise to faithfully discharge the duties of my office to protect and defend the welfare, the best interests and the rights of the people of Wales.

This is the first time in this place that I’ve had an opportunity to express what’s on my mind and in my heart as a real pledge of allegiance. When we pledge allegiance, it is crucial that we believe in that oath. That is true in any part of life—it’s true in a court of law, it’s true in any conversation. This is what’s at the heart of trust. It’s crucial in the way that we represent people that we believe in what we say and that we, as representatives of the people, honour our beliefs. But, in Wales, when we take an oath in this place, many of us pledge allegiance to an institution that we don’t believe in, not through choice or malice or any attempt to mislead but because we are required to do so in order to take our seats here. In a way, we are threatened into taking an oath that we do not believe in and this is entirely unacceptable.

Now, some people have said—some people who aren’t in the Senedd any more—that this should not be a priority. They have asked why on earth am I raising something like this, which they would consider to be ostensibly meaningless. But I disagree with them entirely. This is a hugely important issue. When we take an oath, there are versions of oaths in every culture, and virtually every country in the world insists that members take oaths to maintain certain values and principles in public life. In the Assembly, we are required to adhere to the Nolan principles on public life, and morality is important, as are ethics, in almost every parliament throughout the world. These rules are in place because public expectation and opinion state that they are important, but it appears that there is no room for some Members, in their first act in this room, to pledge allegiance to something that they believe in.

This is what Members pledge to do currently, 'I—the name of the specific Assembly Member—pledge that I will be faithful to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors, in accordance with the law. So help me God.' Well, I don’t believe in that statement. I am a republican and I am very proud of that fact. I do understand that not everyone is a republican and, of course, they have every right to disagree. I respect that. That is the true nature of democracy. But that respect should work both ways. I respect Members who wish to pledge allegiance to the Queen, although I don’t fully understand why they would wish to do that or agree with their desire to do so. But my desire, and that of several other Members, not to do that is not respected. It’s not respected either in Scotland, England or other nations where the Queen is the head of state, such as Australia and Canada.

What is strange about the oath is that arrangements are in place to take a different oath on the basis of one’s religious beliefs but not in terms of an oath to the monarchy. My belief makes it impossible for me to pledge allegiance to the Queen or her heirs because I don’t fundamentally believe in the institution that she represents. It doesn’t comply with my beliefs or the kind of Wales that I want to see for the future, but, again, if I am to sit in this particular seat, I have to do that, and it makes no sense at all to me.

But there are options for those of us who should be able to swear a different oath based on our conscience, but it would require a change to the Government of Wales Act at Westminster. Whilst I don't anticipate this happening tomorrow, if we don't discuss certain issues, then they certainly will never change. It's raising the profile of this issue and kick-starting a lively debate. It's already sparked minds and passions over this one week alone.

Across the world, there is a variety of options for a different oath—an oath to the people or country office holders represent. In the United States, there is a requirement to uphold, protect and defend the constitution—a very old document that nonetheless is designed to guide that country and espouses its founding governing principles. In Germany, language for office holders such as the Chancellor and other Ministers includes pledges to consider and protect the welfare of citizens. In France, there is a requirement to defend the republic and the values upon which it was founded.

In the north of Ireland, there is no requirement for an oath at all because of the sensitivities involved—we all appreciate that—but also because there is a recognition, due primarily to historical enmity, of the long-held beliefs of republicans. It would be impossible to force allegiance to the monarch in the north of Ireland without denying representation to a large proportion of the people there. This is also based upon the principle of many people in the north of Ireland not wishing to swear to something they fundamentally disagree with. But here there is no such recognition of wider views. Here, we have a threat hanging over us, 'Bend the knee, swear the oath, or don't be seated.' It does call into question how democratic our system truly is. Some would say we truly cannot be a democracy as part of a monarchical system, but that is a debate for another day.

Let's be clear about this, forcing me and others to swear allegiance to an institution we do not believe in in order to take our seats, here and in Westminster, shows that the United Kingdom establishment places adherence to an ancient and anachronistic tradition ahead of democratic norms. The fact we have a system in Westminster, which has been followed here, that bars republicans representing hundreds of thousands of people in the north of Ireland from taking their seats as an example of placing tradition above normal democratic expectations, and that isn't right. 

So, why should we be content with the system? Because it's the way it's always been done? Well, I reject this. One of the rationales I've heard from our current oath and swearing-in process also does not recognise democratic norms as most people would understand them. The National Assembly and other Parliaments of the UK exercise power on behalf of the monarch and at the discretion of the monarch, because the monarch chooses not to exercise their prerogative powers. Much of this is based on a mixture of long-standing procedures and laws that stretch back centuries. There are still laws and precedents influencing elected Governments and their relationship with the monarchy that stretch back to the English civil war or to precedents and powers exercised on behalf of the monarchy by Robert Walpole, the first Prime Minister, even though at the time that wasn't the formal title.

The outdated adherence to tradition for the sake of it demonstrates one of the fundamental and overlooked problems with the monarchy—the outsized power and deference given to an institution that does not have elected legitimacy. I'd be willing to bet that most people don't really know just how much power the monarchy actually has in theory but chooses not to use. It's one of the reasons we have our current oath: misguided deference to a political settlement that is well past time for review in a modern country, in a modern Wales.

So, what could a different oath look like? Well, I've asked for ideas on social media this week and the vast majority were constructive, and I myself have been surprised by the numbers of people who've contacted me offering their suggestions and ideas. A common theme running through the suggestions was obviously a commitment to the people of Wales, but also a commitment to better the lives of the people, to ensure their welfare, to act in their best interests, as we are elected to do, to consider decisions and act in a way that upholds the values of this institution, to transparency and honesty, and to protect the culture and language of Wales—a slew of ideas based on the principle that power should be derived from the people who put us here, not a monarch who deigns to devolve to us her divinely inherited power.

So, how about the oath I suggested at the outset? There are so many other forms this could take and, ultimately, what I'm concerned about is having the option. I'm not overly fussy or prescriptive about the actual wording. What I am fussy about is this fundamental point of principle, of putting the people of Wales at the heart of everything we do as AMs, from the minute we take the oath onwards. It's a clear statement of intent. It was great—. I'm hearing quite a lot of remarks from a sedentary position, but somebody hasn't asked me for a minute, so, with all due respect, please give me the chance to do my speech.

It was great to have engagement regarding this debate, proving that, unlike the suggestions of some people that this was not an issue anyone cares about, it was, in fact, something that very many people were very passionate about. There is a changing relationship among people in Wales to the monarchy, and I think that is becoming clearer now. We have to build support for a debate on our values here in Wales and whether or not we think the monarchy fits into those particular values. This is just the start. As we saw with the backlash over the renaming of the Severn bridge, people are not prepared to blithely accept something simply because there is a royal promotion attached to it. The tide is for the turning.

I don't think, in our Government and in our representative bodies, that we should just sit back and accept things the way they are, because then nothing will change in our lives. This is an area that should be reformed. It's the right thing to do. It's a relatively easy thing to do. I'm not asking to ditch the current oath to the Queen. Some would want to see that, but I'm not saying that. If we have an option not to do a religious oath, which is also fair, we should also have the decision not to do an oath to a royal family, a system that some of us simply do not believe in. Let's continue with this debate. Let's do that in a fair and open way, and let's respect each other's opinions when we come at this debate, because we are all different and we are all entitled to our opinions, and we all should be respected for those opinions, too. Diolch yn fawr iawn. 

I call on the Llywydd to reply on behalf of the Assembly Commission—Elin Jones.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and thank you to Bethan Sayed for introducing a new and interesting topic for discussion here this afternoon. I am responding on behalf of the Assembly Commission, and I’m grateful for the opportunity to outline the current situation in terms of responsibilities and competence in relation to the oath taken by Assembly Members. The Government will also respond on its role and view in this regard.

So, at the moment, in accordance with the Government of Wales Act 2006, there is a requirement for every Assembly Member to take an oath or a similar affirmation within two months of election. The wording of the current oath, as stated by Bethan Sayed, is outlined in section 2 of the Promissory Oaths Act 1868. The Assembly has power to change certain sections of the Government of Wales Act 2006 but not the provision outlining the requirements in terms of the oath. The power to change the relevant section could be devolved, but this would require a Westminster Bill.

An alternative approach and a possibly simpler approach to transfer these responsibilities would be to make something called a section 109 Order. This could be used to change the Government of Wales Act in order to provide the legislative competence to the Assembly to change the oath. A section 109 Order would be placed before the Westminster Parliament and the Government here, and the consent of both Houses in the UK Parliament would be required as well as that of this Assembly. Standing Order 25.26 allows any Assembly Member to table a motion calling on the Welsh Government to introduce a proposed Order under section 109. Under Standing Order 25.25, any committee could also propose an Order under section 109.

However, the devolution guidance note published by the UK Government on Westminster legislation affecting Wales is clear on one matter, namely that the guidance states that the UK Government would expect negotiations to take place between the two Governments, because the 109 Order would have to come before Westminster and the Assembly and be brought forward by the two Governments. In a situation where a majority supported the transfer of the relevant power from Westminster to Wales, you would need a Bill in this Assembly to implement this power.

Of course, it's only the procedural issues that I've outlined to date. To implement any change to the oath, you would need to secure the political will and a majority through a vote to do that—in Westminster and in this Senedd.

It is clear that the topic of this debate has engendered some interest and has sparked a debate. It reminds me of that time in 1997, as mayor of Aberystwyth, when I changed the toast from a toast to the Queen to a toast to the people of Aberystwyth. But I did not need legislation or constitutional change to do that—just perseverance and a little persuasion.

My advice, therefore, to any Member who wishes to implement change of this kind, or any other change on any issue, is to hold positive discussions among Members in this place and the people of Wales, and across parties, of course, and to garner the support of a majority. Everything is possible, but only through garnering support.

Thank you. Can I now call the Deputy Minister and Chief Whip to reply on behalf of the Government? Jane Hutt.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I would like to thank Bethan Sayed for bringing forward this short debate today. Being sworn in as an Assembly Member is one of the most important moments in our political careers. We can remember the times. I think there are nine of us who've actually been through this; three—four, five—in the Chamber today. Four of us who've been in this—no, five—. Anyway, we're here because it means a lot to us and to respect the fact that you've brought this forward. Interestingly, you're bringing it forward at a time when, next week, we'll be celebrating, marking, 20 years of devolution.

But it is an important time, in terms of being sworn in. It does mark that transition from being a politician to an Assembly Member, or continuing on, or succeeding others, and also continuing as an Assembly Member, serving our constituencies and the people of Wales, both here in the Senedd and at home. So, you have raised a number of very interesting, important issues, Bethan, in this short debate about the oath.

Responding to how Members take the oath, and the form of words they use, is not a matter for the Welsh Government, but I was pleased that the Llywydd did respond to the short debate as well this evening, laying out the current position regarding the procedural and legal issues concerning the topic of this debate. Diolch yn fawr. 

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