Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

I call Members to order.

The first item on our agenda this afternoon is questions to the Minister for Economy and Transport. And the first question is from David Rees.

Yes, of course. Our broad approach to economic development in Aberavon, and across Wales, is set out in the economic action plan.

Thank you for that answer, Minister, because it is important that we address the whole aspect. I'm sure I'll have another good look at the action plan. But, as you know, I've got strong commitments to the steel industry in my constituency and events in Bridgend, with Ford, have once again highlighted the need to develop a diverse economy in Aberavon, so that we're not simply reliant upon a sole employer. Tourism is one sector that can deliver part of that diversification and there are many fantastic sites in my constituency—I encourage anyone to come along to the lovely three-mile-long beach we have, the historic Margam abbey, or Margam park, or even the wonderful Afan valley. These all offer huge opportunities to strengthen the local economy and through a tourism offer—large or small scale.

One large-scale project that has been in the news recently is the Afan valley resort park, a concept that actually demonstrated that activity-based tourism is well suited to our topography, and one that could bring economic regeneration to an area of deprivation. I will acknowledge, as was mentioned yesterday, the serious concerns that have been raised about the financial dealings of the company that are developing and are behind the scheme, and, consequently, I would expect those to be dealt with in the appropriate manner. However, I believe the concept of the project is one that we should explore further, as it can offer employment, and opportunities, and regeneration to many in my constituency.

Minister, can you confirm first of all that no Welsh Government funding has been given to that project? And do you agree that such proposals should continue to be explored as a positive opportunity for building a strong tourism experience in our valleys and offer communities many opportunities, and what support can you give to smaller, local projects that can feed into the tourism offer in the valley?

Can I thank Dai Rees for not just his questions, but also the important point he makes about the fantastic natural and built assets in his constituency and across the region? As the Deputy Minister for Culture, Sport and Tourism takes forward a new tourism action plan, which will be consulted on, diversity within the sector and across each of the regions will play a key role. There has been huge business growth in Neath Port Talbot over recent years—double-digit growth in terms of business start-ups—and we as a Government, whether it's with regard to the tourism sector or any other sector, are determined to ensure that that growth continues into the future.

The Member also raises a very serious matter that has been much promoted in the media, and investigated particularly by ITV and The Guardian. We thank them for their work on this particular project. I can indeed assure Members today that we have not promised, and we have not provided, a penny of funding to Gavin Woodhouse or Northern Powerhouse Developments for the proposed development of the Afan valley adventure resort. But it is important that Governments look to proposals that are brought forward that offer transformational potential. I would join Members who have, across this Chamber in recent days, appealed for clarity as to whether the vision on offer for the Afan valley—a stunning valley in south Wales—can still be realised.

David Rees is absolutely right. And the opportunity, not just in the Afan valley, but both the Neath valleys as well, for tourism development is extraordinary. And I still consider it a missed opportunity. What's available in the Neath Port Talbot borough is just amazing. We've obviously been hit by some bad news recently, not just the newspaper pieces that you've referred to, but the sad news about Jistcourt as well, so we could do with some good news. Could you tell me when you last received an update from the Swansea bay city deal board about progress towards the national steel innovation centre?

I receive, at the moment, almost on a daily basis, updates from my officials regarding the Swansea bay city deal and each and every one of the projects, as does my Deputy Minister. And I hope that we'll be able to make a positive statement very soon with regard to the deal.

Nobody's disputing the fact that the Afan adventure park concept isn't good. And, in fact, we would be supportive of that idea, because I think, as has been exemplified in questions now, we know the potential and the beauty and the attraction of the Afan valley, and we want to see the area succeed. So, in your conversations with the council, with the city deal and other players, what efforts are you making now to ensure that we can get that much-needed investment in a region where we've seen not only Jistcourt, Ford potentially now as well, and other detrimental economic failures impacting on the area, so that we can put forward new alternative ideas and futureproof against some of these things? I appreciate you've thanked The Guardian and ITV, but how can Government, and the community as a whole, futureproof when we are looking at some of these grand ideas to understand how viable they actually are in future, so that we don't go beyond what is possible? We can still dream, but we don't actually then think that these ideas are something unachievable, but they are ones that are tangible, and ones that make economic sense, and that are value for money, ultimately, too.

Well, as I've said—. And I do welcome the point that the Member has made about being supportive of the vision that was offered. That's very different to being supportive of the company that was behind the vision; they are two very different things. The fact of the matter is that Wales is leading in terms of adventure tourism in Europe, and we have to look at all proposals that will enhance our excellent reputation. I think the Member also raises a very important point about how we assess the validity of schemes that are brought to us, particularly those that individuals promise will be enormously transformational for an entire region or, indeed, for an entire country.

And I'm sure I don't need to, but I will remind Members of the incredibly thorough due diligence that I ordered for one of the most controversial schemes that we have dealt with in recent years—the Circuit of Wales—which highlighted a number of challenges. It was as a result of that due diligence that we were able to avoid putting more than £300 million of taxpayers' money, £300 million of investment that could go into schools, hospitals and other services, at risk. So, I can assure the Member that, as far as my department is concerned, as far as the Welsh Government is concerned, rigorous due diligence of all projects that promise to transform the lives of people is made, and we will continue to make that effort to ensure that we do not invest in projects that cannot deliver and that are not viable.

But I think it is important that we don't put all of our hope in single projects that promise to change entire communities, and that's why I'm all in favour of ensuring that we have a diverse mix of businesses in each and every region. And with regard to the tourism sector, whilst you can have key strategic infrastructure in place, such as, in the north, Zip World or Surf Snowdonia, you also have to have around it a very, very high-quality supportive mix of attractions and infrastructure. And, so, with regard to the Afan valley, with regard to the wider community and the wider region, we're looking at every opportunity through the emerging action plan to invest in improving the quality of the offer in the area, and also the attractions that are there, based on the stunning natural environment and taking full advantage of our historic assets as well.

Thank you. The Minister for Finance and Trefnydd has received a commissioned report on how progressive procurement can develop local spend with local businesses. We are now developing a structured approach for delivery that encompasses public services boards across Wales to look at methods to achieve this.

Thank you for that answer. Obviously, this is something that isn't just a matter for the Trefnydd, because, clearly, a lot of the budget is spent by the education Minister, by the health Minister, et cetera. I'm aware that the National Procurement Service is trying to get more bids from local businesses, both to reduce food miles as well as to improve the freshness of food, which is obviously the area that I'm particularly keen to explore with you.

I know, for example, that one local supplier, Castell Howell, in your constituency, has secured over 40 per cent of the public procurement contracts for food for our hospitals, schools and nursing homes. However, only 18 per cent of what they actually deliver is Wales-sourced. So, there's obviously a great deal more work to do on this and Carmarthenshire and Caerphilly seem to be at the vanguard of ensuring all our schoolchildren are able to eat fresh food rather than it coming from goodness knows where. For example, Woosnam Dairies, a milk producer, started off delivering all the milk to the primary schools in Caerphilly and is now delivering to the NHS as well as two other local authorities. So, it's a good example of how starting small can enable a business to grow, and be good for the public services we're endeavouring to offer, but also for ensuring that more food is grown locally. So, in light of the possibility of a 'no deal' Brexit, which could completely disrupt our food security, what plans does the Government have to spread and scale this good practice, which means getting more fresh food grown in Wales? 

Well, thank you for the question. This is an area that we are actively working hard in. You mention Carmarthenshire and Caerphilly as examples of good practice, and we could add Ceredigion and Cardiff to that. There certainly are a number of local authorities who are doing good work in this area. One of the issues we have is that the performance across Wales is patchy, and the skills and the capability and capacity are patchy too. So, there's a big job of work that we're doing across Government. The finance Minister is leading on the transformation of the National Procurement Service, and I'm working alongside her through the foundational economy experimental fund and the public services boards to try and identify good practice and the spreading and scaling of that good practice. So, the example you cite, particularly of Castell Howell, I know that Carmarthenshire, for example, have put in a bid to the experimental fund for getting more local food into local schools. So, we are judging those applications over the summer, creating a community of best practice where we can share and spread the lessons from this.

I think one of the issues that we need to look at—. The foundational economy project through procurement is not just about getting more business into Wales, it's about changing the way that the sectors within the foundational economy work so those benefits are spread. And I take on board the point the Member makes around local food and provenance and the potential of that, especially post Brexit. I'm certainly alive to the point she makes and I will keep in touch with her as the work develops over the coming months. 

Minister, still on the subject of local food and procurement, in a recent business statement, I raised the issue of Raglan Dairy, a Monmouthshire milk supplier, which has been awarded contracts by the local authority to supply local schools with non-plastic bottled milk. This is great for business, good for the schools and also good for the environment and efforts to reduce plastic pollution. This is a great example of a way that public procurement can be used locally by local authorities to support local businesses and to improve the environment. Can you tell us how you can share this good practice, in addition to what you've said to Jenny Rathbone? And, perhaps, who knows, maybe over the recess period, if you're free—if you're passing through my neck of the woods—we could visit Raglan Dairy and we could see for ourselves the good work they're doing. 

Thank you very much for the question. I think that's an excellent example of good practice. I know from my own constituency, where, in local schools, children themselves are unhappy at having to have plastic bottles to drink their milk with, but the local authority doesn't have the flexibility in their contract to amend it at this stage and we're talking to them about that. So, the work we're doing with the public services boards is to see how this good practice can be spread. Kevin Morgan, from Cardiff University, often talks about best practice being a poor traveller in Wales, and that leader and laggard are cheek by jowl—you'll have one local authority doing cutting-edge work and the neighbouring authority lagging some way behind. So, how we even out these inequalities is something we're working on now with the public services boards. I met with a selection of them just a few weeks ago and there's a great deal of enthusiasm for using the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 to address this agenda. So, I note that example of good practice, and I'll be speaking to officials to see how we can make sure it's widely understood, and see if there's potential to copy it. 

Questions now from party spokespeople. Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Rhun ap Iorwerth. 

Diolch, Llywydd. Yesterday, in the Chamber, we were told that Welsh Government had not given money directly to the Afan valley project. You've confirmed that again today. Welsh Government, though, had given money to the Northern Powerhouse Developments company to develop the Caer Rhun hotel in Conwy. It had been given some £0.5 million and there are now clearly concerns over the future of that hotel in which Welsh money has been invested. Can you comment on the assessments that were made of the company's situation before that decision to invest £0.5 million was made? 

Of course, this was a matter for my colleague in Government, the Deputy Minister for Culture, Sport and Tourism, but I can assure the Member that no release of funding has taken place for that particular project. There were significant conditions attached to it that still have not been met, and so tourism officials are in the process of looking at the withdrawal of the offer of £0.5 million to Caer Rhun.

That's comforting to know and I look forward to more detail of how that progresses.

In the case of the Afan valley project, of course, there may not have been an exchange of funds in any way, but there was certainly support from Welsh Government in the form of your appearance in a video promoting Northern Powerhouse Developments plans, which gave the very public impression that Welsh Government was backing the company. That’s exactly what the developer wanted, of course, and no doubt it helped attract investors. In hindsight, do you think that your appearance in that video was a good idea? It is a number of weeks now since very serious concerns were raised about this company. Can you confirm whether, at the point at which those concerns were made, Welsh Government did instruct that video to be taken down? Would it be morally right, knowing the concerns at that point, for such a video tying Welsh Government into a project with its support to continue to be shown?

Well, first of all, I think we should just reflect on what your own colleague Bethan Sayed said, which was: you have to separate out the vision of the project from the people who were proposing to finance it. In terms of the project itself, it does promise to transform an area. In terms of the funding required for that, clearly, the company behind it are facing very serious questions. And, again, I would reiterate my thanks to those that have recovered significant information that has given rise to those questions.

Of course, I would prefer the video to be taken down—there is no doubt about that—because if there is any suggestion that the Welsh Government or I were backing the company, then that is wrong. I do support the transformational potential of the scheme, but I do not support those people who have been shown in recent weeks to need to answer very serious questions.

And I certainly agree with my colleague Bethan Sayed, who is now sitting behind me, in terms of the potential, and we're talking about an area that wants to see that potential being realised. And there's a danger always in raising people's hopes by going down the wrong avenues. But you tell us time and time again, quite rightly, of course, about constraints on Welsh Government finances. What that means is that we have to be very, very careful, very strategic and rather ruthless as well in how we spend that money.

This project was launched with great fanfare and Government, of course, was four-square behind it, having gone through due diligence processes, presumably, to measure the appropriateness of teaming up with that particular investor. In light of what has happened and what is emerging, will Welsh Government now undertake to publish, in its entirety, details of how and when it collaborated with the Afan valley project and Northern Powerhouse Developments, and what it did, in particular, to protect creditors and investors once it became clear that there were serious doubts about the company involved in backing it?

I think the Member believes that Welsh Government had a greater involvement than it did. There was no collaboration whatsoever: we did not promise money, we did not give money to this project. Any request for funding would have led to a thorough, and as the Member identifies, ruthless process of due diligence. And I’ve already identified one project here in questions today that underwent that thorough process. And despite vociferous support and pressure—indeed, from the Member’s own party, it has to be said, in particular the leader, who said that perhaps we should short-circuit in some way the due diligence process, I stayed firm; I made sure that the taxpayers’ interest was first and foremost considered by the Welsh Government. I will do that again and again. If they’d asked for money, if there had been any request for money for this particular project, the same approach and principles would have been taken forward.

Conservative spokesperson, Russell George.

Diolch, Llywydd. Minister, do you agree with the First Minister when he said that there have been major improvements to the Welsh economy since devolution?

Yes, there have been major improvements to the Welsh economy since devolution. We've helped to create more than 300,000 jobs since devolution, employment rates are at a record high, economic inactivity is at a record low—indeed, for the first time ever it's at the level of the UK average. In addition to this, we've seen the level of qualifications rise incredibly fast. We've seen economic productivity levels rise faster than the UK average in recent years. I think there is an enormous success story for the Welsh economy to celebrate, but it hasn't been achieved by Welsh Government alone, it's been achieved through a partnership between Welsh Government, business and other social partners. 

Thank you for your answer, Minister. Your Deputy Minister, of course, has recently said that the Welsh Government has pretended to know what it's doing on the economy for the last 20 years, and efforts to improve the economy under devolution have not worked. Personally I think it is refreshing to hear a Minister speaking very candidly about the economy. I very much agree with the Member for Blaenau Gwent when he said he would prefer to hear a Minister who speaks plainly and clearly about the challenges facing the Welsh economy. I think the general public agree with that also. With this in mind, is there now a recognition that it's time to approach the economy in a different way? We have had three major economic strategies since devolution, but these efforts to improve the economy have not worked and have not raised the economic fortunes of Wales. Now, the economic action plan covers a large number of different themes but contains no targets for measuring progress, so it is, I think, also contradicted and undermined by the Welsh Government's 2018 budget, which provides no new funding to support any of the action plan's key priority sectors. So, can you, Minister, say what you are going to do to change, and how is your approach going to be different following the Deputy Minister's comments so we can see simplified access to business support, we can align an effective business and industrial strategy, we can reform a failing public procurement strategy to support small and medium-sized businesses, upskill the workforce and reflect this boost with suitably improved infrastructure?

What the Deputy Minister said reflects, in many ways, the challenges that I outlined when the economic action plan was being developed, that whilst we've had enormous success in many regards regarding economic development since devolution, the fruits of growth have not been felt fairly across all parts of Wales, that growth has been uneven and we need to iron out that inequality that we still see—not just across the regions, but also within the regions. It's why the EAP was designed to drive not just futureproofing of Welsh business, but also to drive inclusive growth. And at the heart of the economic action plan, of course, is the economic contract, which is designed to provide for fair work, high-quality work and improved skills. 

Now, the Member mentions other economic strategies, including the UK industrial strategy, and, of course, the EAP was designed to complement and to dovetail with that, and that has been recognised by Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. And, furthermore, in terms of targets and measurements, the whole reason why we've introduced the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to the process of offering challenge is to ensure that we are measuring, in the right way, how inclusive growth is being delivered. 

Well, thank you for your answer, Minister. I appreciate you speaking candidly about some of the challenges of the Welsh economy as well. Two main strands of the economic action plan, the regional business plans and the plan for the foundational economy, remain undelivered. So, I would ask you if you would look at some of the ideas that we have on these benches, for example for deploying trade envoys around the world to boost investment in Wales, and also to have a shift to an economy and a strategy where we're also supporting small and indigenous Welsh businesses as well. We want to see small and indigenous Welsh businesses grow. It's very easy for other businesses to come in and move out, taking investment with them, but we do need to support these small and indigenous Welsh businesses that we have in Wales as well. How can we avoid, in 20 years from now, a Minister looking back and saying, 'Forty years since devolution, nobody knows what we're doing on the economy'? How can we avoid a Minister saying that in 40 years' time?

In the first 20 years of devolution, we have pretty much solved a challenge that Wales has faced during the course of deindustrialisation, which is a higher level of unemployment than the UK average. We brought it down to the UK average and, indeed, on many occasions in the last year, it's dipped below the UK average, and for the first time, as I say, again, inactivity rates have fallen to the UK average.

So, what we've done over the past 20 years, on a macro level, is resolve unemployment and worklessness. However, that's in the whole. What we now wish to do is drive inclusive growth so that we get deeper into the roots, get into the communities that have not benefited so much from the fruits of our growth over the last 20 years, and ensure that equality and inclusive growth are at the heart of everything we do. Now, regional place-based economic development is absolutely crucial, particularly where you don't have the effects of agglomeration, and you don't tend to get the effects of agglomeration in urban areas of less than 0.5 million people. That's why we developed within the EAP the new regional units, that's why they are developing, in conjunction with local authorities and city and growth deal partners, regional plans—so that we can all work together to the same purpose to design interventions to make sure our investment is directed at the same purpose within each of the regions so that we're not competing, so that we're not duplicating but so we're all working to the same ends. And it's my view that, by having a place-based approach, we will be able to better identify the opportunities, the entrepreneurs, the businesses that can drive inclusive growth in the regions of Wales.

I have to say that, in terms of supporting small indigenous businesses, we've done a fantastic job in recent times through Business Wales and, more lately, through the establishment of the development bank. We've heard questions today about the Afan valley and my colleague Dai Rees's local authority of Neath Port Talbot, where we've seen an 18.8 per cent increase in the number of businesses since 2011, up from 6,455 to 7,670. That is not an unusual picture in Wales. We now have a record number of businesses in existence in Wales. The key for us in the next stage in turning the dial through the economic action plan is in ensuring that we turn more of those small businesses into stronger grounded firms, bigger grounded firms within Wales, and so that we ensure that employment is more sustainable in the long term and that we are capturing as much of their spend as possible for local communities.

Brexit Party spokesperson, David Rowlands.

Diolch Llywydd. Minister, when I was a member of the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee, we visited Trawsfynydd, where we learned about the decommissioning of the nuclear power station. At that time, there were discussions about the possibility of the site being used for the emerging small modular nuclear reactors. Has the Minister explored this option in any way?

Yes, I have. I'm really excited about the potential of Trawsfynydd as an area that could be used to develop and support small modular reactors. I'm not alone in this. The North Wales Economic Ambition Board shares the determination to examine all opportunities for Trawsfynydd, and that's why, within the north Wales growth deal, there is an access to the smart energy programme, which is designed to promote renewable forms of energy and the potential of SMRs in that particular area of north Wales.

Okay. I thank the Minister for his answer. I'm given to understand that Rolls-Royce are at the forefront of this type of technology. As such, a development at Trawsfynydd could benefit British industry as a whole. I'm also given to believe that much of the grid infrastructure linking to the national grid system is still in place at Trawsfynydd. So, given the local expertise and general disposition in the area to nuclear power, Trawsfynydd would surely be an ideal location for the emerging technology. It also falls into the Welsh Government's overall decarbonisation programme, and such an installation would also help alleviate the anticipated extra demand on the electricity infrastructure, which the advent of the electric motor car will inevitably put on the electricity industry as a whole. This should—and given some of the adverse decisions with regard to Wales over recent times, I emphasise 'should'—make the UK Government more amenable to such a development. So, would the Cabinet Secretary give serious thought to promoting this industry-leading project to Trawsfynydd?

Yes, I will indeed. In fact, I'm pleased to say that I've met with Rolls-Royce to discuss this very issue directly in relation to Trawsfynydd and so too have members of the North Wales Economic Ambition Board, and I think it's worth telling Members today that energy features as one of three primary strengths of the north Wales regional economy within the economic ambition board's vision for the region. It also forms one of the four key enablers within the north Wales growth deal. So, I can assure the Member that, not just within Welsh Government, but regionally across the local authorities and collectively as the new regional unit, we are well aware of the potential of energy in north Wales, very supportive of it, not just of SMRs, but also, crucially, I think, of the renewable energy sector, where there is enormous strength and expertise in north Wales, and that's why that is included as such a crucial component of the north Wales growth deal.

Yes, of course. Transport for Wales will be improving and increasing rail services across Mid and West Wales, including, I'm pleased to say, Llywydd, introducing brand new trains in 2022, which have more capacity, they'll have air conditioning and they'll have power sockets.

I'm grateful to the Minister for his answer, particularly with regard to capacity. The issue of overcrowding on the railways was raised with the First Minister in this place yesterday. Unfortunately, that's not an isolated concern. Constituents from across the mid and west region have been contacting me citing real concerns about the line that runs across mid Wales to Shrewsbury in particular. Examples included delays ranging from 30 minutes to an hour being just routine and an increasing lack of carriages and seats on those trains—one constituent counting 26 people standing up in one carriage—and, obviously, I'm sure the Minister would agree with me that this isn't acceptable and it is regrettable that these were the same sorts of complaints that we heard under the previous franchise. Last July, the Minister provided us with details of the new franchise agreement that stipulates that Transport for Wales will be penalised if passengers are forced to stand for longer than 20 minutes. Could the Minister reassure my constituents that that commitment to reduce standing on trains will be honoured and could he give us some sort of idea of the timescale for the additional capacity that he mentioned to me in his original answer?

Yes, of course. I've got some comprehensive information in front of me concerning the delivery of new trains and improved services. In addition, I have established next week an opportunity for Members to be briefed on developments on the Wales and Borders franchise network and there will be a drop-in centre between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. I think it is worth stating that pressure on capacity is something that still affects the rail franchise because we've just inherited something that was designed on the basis of zero growth but which, in fact, grew considerably from something in the region of 19 million passengers to 27 million passengers when the franchise ended last year, but we are committed to delivering £800 million-worth of trains during this franchise period. Already, we have introduced the delay repay 15-minute fare repay system; we have introduced 3,000 new advance fares; we've launched the new Wrexham to Liverpool service along the Halton curve; additional class 153 trains have been introduced to the franchise; community rail vision projects have been developed and unveiled; we now have the class 37 service operating on the Rhymney line; and work on the Taffs Well depot will start this month.

In the coming months, I'm pleased to be able to inform the Member that mark 4 trains will replace pacers and mark 3 trains. In September, applications open for the new style concessionary travel cards for current passholders. In September, again, of this year, we are going to be launching a station improvement vision. New community rail partnerships will be established in the same month. They'll concern the Treherbert, Aberdare and Merthyr line and also the Cardiff-Rhymney line.

We'll see timetable changes in December of this year that will deliver four trains per hour between Cardiff and Bridgend, and, on Sundays, over 200 more services will run across Wales. Just in the new year, in January, the young people fare initiative will begin, with free travel for under fives extended to young people under the age of 11, and, for 16s, there will be free off-peak travel when accompanied by an adult.

By the middle of next year, I'm pleased to inform Members that the new Bow Street station will have opened and TfW will have moved its headquarters to Pontypridd by September of next year. There is huge excitement and an enormous amount of work taking place across Wales and the borders area right now. New trains that will operate on the lines are being built at this very moment in Newport at CAF, who we attracted here from Spain, but I can assure Members, if you wish to have any further information or ask any further questions, please do so at the drop-in next Wednesday between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m.

Minister, I'm sure you will agree with me that one way of improving rail services for people living in Mid and West Wales is to reduce journey times. Now, the proposed west Wales parkway north of Swansea would deliver journey time savings for commuters travelling from my constituency to Cardiff of up to 15 minutes each way by cutting the need to travel through the centre of Swansea. It could also encourage a modal shift from the car to the train and that, in turn, would help to reduce congestion on key roads in the region as well. Can you therefore give us an update on this proposed project, and what discussions are you having as a Government regarding this proposed plan?

I've discussed this particular plan with the Secretary of State for Wales just in recent weeks. We are supportive of the proposal in principle, provided we can also have the assurance over additional funding, not just to introduce trains to the lines, but also to ensure that those trains can operate. We will need an increase in the subsidy from the Department for Transport or, indeed, from the UK Treasury.

I think there's also potential, if objections can be removed, for an open-access operator, such as Grand Union Trains, to utilise that particular parkway station, if it is developed, operating rapid express services between Swansea and London. But, of course, there is the other issue of the Keith Williams review, and I would restate the Welsh Government's position on the review that's being undertaken right now, and that is for the devolution of powers over rail infrastructure and, of course, funding for it as well.

Yes. Transport for Wales is committed to improving services on the Cambrian line. Current trains are being modified to improve access for disabled people, with the entire fleet to be replaced with brand new trains by 2022. Service frequency improvements are also planned along the line.

Thank you, Minister. I'm pleased to hear that answer. A member of the Montgomeryshire access group has contacted me to say that they've received yet another complaint from a wheelchair user that they could not use a toilet on the Cambrian line, which means that, in some cases, people have resorted to, in their words, wearing adult nappies. Following, of course, the Equality Act 2010, Transport for Wales has to put in place reasonable adjustments for disabled people. A reasonable adjustment for a train, where you could sit for three hours and 20 minutes from Aberystwyth to Birmingham International, is simply a properly-designed disabled toilet. For disabled people who are normally using the toilet, it is, I'm sure you would agree with me, totally unacceptable, inappropriate and degrading that they cannot do so on the train. So, I'm wondering if you would liaise with Transport for Wales to improve access to toilets for disabled people on the Cambrian line with immediate effect rather than waiting for new rolling stock with the appropriate facilities for disabled people.

Can I thank the Member for his question? I'll be pleased to take that matter up with Transport for Wales. It is worth noting, I think, that, across the Wales and borders network, Transport for Wales is currently completing modifications to its trains to make sure that they are accessible for disabled people and that work has to be completed by the end of this calendar year.

I'm also pleased to be able to tell the Member that, with regard to the area that he's identified, Machynlleth station has been proposed to trial a dementia-friendly environment. I'm also pleased to inform the Member that, through Transport for Wales, we are now working with Disability Wales and the Royal National Institute of Blind People to assist the customer-facing-staff within TfW. And, of course, we are ring-fencing £15 million for accessibility improvements at stations. One of the key principles underpinning the development of Transport for Wales is that it must ensure delivery of integrated transport for people who are disabled or able bodied, and we are determined to deliver on that principle.

The tourism sector employs just over 9 per cent of the Welsh workforce, and the 11,500 businesses generate around £6.3 billion a year—a huge contribution to the Welsh economy. It's also one of the key economic drivers in north Wales; it is important, I think, that we continue to grow the sector in the region and that we continue to enhance the region's key strength of attracting adventure tourism operators and attractions.

I'm sure, like me, you'll welcome the fact that we've been seeing rising numbers of international visitors, particularly from places like Japan in recent years. You may be aware that, last month, the Prime Minister announced plans to create five tourism zones in the United Kingdom in order to boost the sector and boost visitor numbers by 9 million, and to create 130,000 new hotel room accommodation. And, as an Assembly Member from north Wales, I know how critically important it is to get people to stay overnight and not just to visit on a day basis, in order to drive up the impact on the local economy. Given that these zones are up for grabs, can I urge you, as a Welsh Government, to co-operate with the UK Government and try to attract and make one of those zones north Wales so that we can reap some benefits from this investment that the UK Government is going to be making?

I'll certainly speak with both the Minister, my colleague Eluned Morgan, and also the Deputy Minister regarding this development, because, of course, it could play a key feature in the international strategy that is shortly to be consulted on. It would also neatly sit with the current partnership for growth strategy for tourism in Wales, which is striving to drive up the number of higher quality hotels in Wales. It's been a particular challenge over many years in attracting the developers of good quality, but also, it has to said, affordable hotels. Now, the Member is right that, in terms of spend, spend is higher on average per person per day with overnight visitors than it is with day visitors, and that's why it's so important to drive day visitors to come back for overnight visits, and this has been at the very centre of the partnership for growth strategy, which comes to an end next year. And, as the Deputy Minister develops the action plan that will follow it for tourism, I'm sure that he will be determined to guarantee more high-quality attractions and hotels in Wales for the future.

Thank you, Llywydd. We know that visitors bring around £70 million into the local economy in the Snowdonia area annually, but with that there are problems in terms of the images we see of people queuing on the top of Snowdon, for example. There are paths that are being eroded, the car parks are overflowing, there are problems with other infrastructure such as litter and public toilets. There is a risk that the success means that the visitor experience declines and deteriorates, and that that actually reduces the potential to grow this sector.

Now, I’m aware that the Government has allocated some additional funding to strengthen tourism infrastructure earlier this year but, of course, what we want to see is a sustainable long-term solution. And I just wanted to know what discussions you’ve had, for example, with your fellow Ministers on the possibility of providing better resources for the national parks, and Snowdonia national park specifically in this context, because, as we’ve seen the number of visitors double over the past 20 years, the Snowdonia National park Authority has seen its resources halved. So, you can allocate a little bit of money every now and again, but the sustainable solution would be to ensure that the national parks are properly funded in the first place.  

There are a huge number of visitors to Snowdon itself, more broadly to Snowdonia, yes, but the mountain itself is operating pretty much at capacity in terms of how many people can climb it at any one time. One of the concerns that we've had across Government is to make sure that we spread the wealth more evenly across the region and that we take away some of the pressure on communities in Snowdonia, particularly in those areas where visitors go to, by driving other opportunities for them to visit, for example, the areas of outstanding natural beauty, and we're looking at ways that we can better promote the relevance and the attractiveness in particular of the Clwydian range area of outstanding natural beauty in order to generate more opportunities in Denbighshire, in Flintshire and in Wrexham, whilst not detracting from the very special offer that Snowdonia has to make.

I think it's absolutely essential that all partners work together, and that's not just Welsh Government and the national park, but also Natural Resources Wales. They have a key role in promoting the natural environment in Snowdonia. I recently met with the chair and the chief executive of Natural Resources Wales to discuss the economic potential of Snowdonia, and, in particular, some of the assets, the buildings, that Natural Resources Wales own, which could be put to use in order to accommodate more visitors to the area and take some of the strain that I spoke of from those communities that host so many visitors each year.

Question 6 [OAQ54214] is withdrawn, as was question 7 [OAQ54219], so question 8—Nick Ramsay.

I'm very pleased to inform the Member that design development of noise barrier and surfacing works for the action plan priority area near the Bryn on the A40 are currently being finalised, and works will begin this summer and autumn.

You've answered my supplementary question already, Minister. Clearly, this question is as well worn as that road surface on the A40, which I raise frequently. As you've just said, residents living in the Bryn and neighbouring communities close to the A40 dual carriageway do put up with daily noise pollution because of the ageing concrete road surface of that stretch of road, which needs to be replaced at some point with whisper tarmac. I know your officials have been working on noise mitigation proposals, including acoustic fencing—you've already mentioned that, so I'd be grateful if you could give us a timescale for that. Also, something that came up at a recent residents meeting—has any consideration been given to the possibility of a reduction in the speed limit for at least a stretch of that road? Because in other areas where speed limits have been reduced, maybe to 50 mph, that does produce a lower level of noise pollution. It may be one easy, quick solution to actually dealing with some of that noise pollution.

Can, I please, Llywydd, check whether that particular area is part of the 600 sites that we are currently assessing under the speed limit review? It may well be that it is, but I will check and report back to the Member. In regard to the other question that he posed, I can confirm that the noise mitigation scheme will be delivered this financial year between Raglan and Abergavenny. I'm also pleased to inform the Member that a £4 million A40 Wye bridge scheme will alleviate congestion on the A40 coming into Wales, as well as improving traffic flows in Monmouth. We are investing as much as we possibly can with strained resources to ensure that we have better connectivity across Wales.

The Welsh Government’s priorities are set in our economic action plan, and the Valleys taskforce delivery plan aligns and focuses on actions that make a real difference, including strengthening the foundational economy.

Thank you, Deputy Minister. I'm sure you'll be aware that the final costs for the dualling of the A465 Heads of the Valleys road look to stand at more than £2 billion—more than the rejected plans for the M4 relief road. The final section of that road, the last 16 miles, will come in at more than the total that the Welsh Government will be spending on the south Wales metro. Now, I'm a supporter of the road, I think that it's done great things to improve safety and has great economic potential. There have been some tangential benefits to the local communities during the construction phase, but what I'd like to ask you is: what more can the Welsh Government do, moving forward, to ensure that this huge economic asset can be capitalised upon by those communities in the northern Valleys, which are some of our most disadvantaged?

Thank you for the question. The Member is right to point out the very significant investment the Welsh Government has made in the Heads of the Valleys through the dualling of the road. She also notes there have been community benefits delivered as part of the delivery of the scheme, including apprenticeships and training, employment of local people, spend with local companies, engagement with local schools and supporting community groups and events. But she's also right to point out that building roads in itself does not guarantee a positive economic return to an area. We need to use it as a platform to develop beyond that. This is a conversation I've been having with her and with other Members from the Heads of the Valleys areas through the group that we've set up to shadow the Valleys taskforce, and, as a result of that, I am going to be setting up a sub-group of the Valleys taskforce to look specifically at how the dualling of the road can be leveraged to make sure that there are benefits flowing for the whole region. There is huge potential, as the Member has noted previously, from tourism, from food production, giving arteries into both the midlands and the south Wales economies. So, I think there is much that can be done to build on the very significant investment that we've made, and I'm keen to work with her and colleagues to make sure that we do the best that we can with that. 

Thank you, Minister and Deputy Minister.

That brings us to questions to the Counsel General and Brexit Minister in relation to his responsibilities as Brexit Minister, and the first question is from Alun Davies.

There continues to be good progress on frameworks, albeit slower than anticipated due to the impact of 'no deal' planning. We remain committed to frameworks as a long-term system for inter-governmental policy making, and I was pleased to share the first draft framework with the Assembly last week.

The Counsel General will be aware that this is a matter we discussed with the First Minister at the external affairs committee on Monday. I'm grateful to the Counsel General for his very full answer to that question. Does he not share my concern that in creating common frameworks we are almost creating a hidden state within the United Kingdom where many decisions are taken away from public scrutiny and beyond public reach? Does he share with me the concern that we are working without any framework, as it were, for the common frameworks, and as such, what is required to guarantee public scrutiny and public confidence in this system is a statutory structure that puts in law the basis upon which these frameworks are reached, and enables inter-institutional democratic accountability and scrutiny of the work of these frameworks and the new United Kingdom that seems to be being created behind a curtain?

I thank the Member for that further question. The fundamental premise behind the inter-governmental agreement, which is the source of the frameworks programme, was that our default position, if you like, is that frameworks should not be necessary, and so we have approached the task of identifying where frameworks may be necessary from that starting point. As he will know, we have concluded an agreement with the other Governments in the UK that some frameworks will be entirely non-legislative—i.e. they will be based on agreements between Government—and there will be some frameworks that no doubt will involve legislative underpinning. We've shared with the committee our analysis of where those distinctions might lie. One of the areas of focus in developing the common frameworks, and one of the reasons why we have been pressing hard for progress, is the understandable and perfectly legitimate desire on the part of scrutiny committees in all of the legislatures in the UK to engage meaningfully with the process of developing the frameworks and how they operate into the future. So, it is a matter of regret that we have not been able to share more information sooner than we have, but I'm afraid that's been as a consequence, as I say, of the diversion of energies into 'no deal' planning. One of the dimensions of the common frameworks is the question of governance and ongoing review. As he will know, that sits within a broader set of discussions that we are having with the UK Government on improving the quality and machinery of inter-governmental relations, and much of that work touches on the issue of governance, which has very clear read-across to the matters that the Member has raised today. We would have hoped to have made further progress in that area as well, as he will have seen from my letter jointly with the Scottish Government last week, but he can be reassured that we are absolutely mindful of the importance of ensuring that stakeholders have an opportunity of feeding into the development and operation and holding us to account, and, importantly, scrutiny committees in this Assembly and in other legislatures across the UK. 

I note, at this stage of the development of UK common frameworks, that the aim is to widen engagement and consultation, and indeed the UK Government stated on 3 July that they have developed a more detailed engagement plan, and this is to mandate increasing engagement and to raise transparency. Now, it does seem to me that this is exactly how the system should operate. I note that you have some concerns, but in general, this is quite a radical departure for UK governance, and it seems to me to be broadly going in the right direction. There is a great need both for the wider stakeholder community to get involved, and obviously for proper scrutiny and transparency.

I thank the Member for that. His question acknowledges that the common framework shared to date is the first of what we hope is many frameworks that we can share. And they are absolutely—. You know, it is not a fait accompli. It is there for engagement with stakeholders. On that particular framework, there has been a pilot for engaging with stakeholders and we hope to learn from that as we develop the scrutiny and engagement process in relation to this going forward. It is right to say that, of all the areas of inter-governmental relations flowing from Brexit, the development of the common frameworks, which has happened overwhelmingly at official level, has been among the most productive, even if there has been, by this stage, little to put in the public domain. The quality of engagement is probably better there than in any other part of the process.

We are in regular dialogue with companies in the sector, the Welsh Automotive Forum and national sector bodies regarding the potential impact of a 'no deal' Brexit, which would be disastrous for the automotive and, indeed, other industries.

I'm grateful to the Counsel General for his response. He'll be aware that, according to the European Automobile Manufacturers Association, 80 per cent of the cars assembled in the UK are sold abroad. Around 58 per cent of those are exported to the EU. As the Counsel General said, if we don't get some sort of trade deal, the tariffs on car exports could be very serious—up to 10 per cent—which will really hit the competitiveness of Welsh manufacturers in this really important sector.

He will also be aware of the Cardiff Business School report for the Welsh Government in 2017, highlighting how firms linked to the automotive sector based in Llanelli, such as Calsonic and Schaeffler, could be exposed in this scenario. We now know, of course, that 200 jobs are at risk at Schaeffler's Llanelli plant. So, can the Counsel General tell us a bit more about what actions the Welsh Government is taking to mitigate the potential impact of Brexit on this key interest, particularly in the case of a 'no deal' scenario?

Well, I thank the Member for her further question. She's right to highlight the significance of the automotive sector to the Welsh economy. It employs about 11 per cent of the manufacturing workforce, which is around 18,500 people in Wales, and brings in revenue of around £3 billion. So, it's a very, very significant contributor to the Welsh economy. She's right to highlight the damage that trading on WTO terms would cause to the sector—and, indeed, operating outside a customs union. PwC recently estimated that deliveries to Germany from the UK, which can currently be achieved in around 12 hours, could take up to 72 hours. She will know, I know, that the impact that that has on the just-in-time supply chain arrangements of the automotive sector is going to be very, very significant.

The Minister for Economy and Transport issued a written statement earlier this year describing ongoing activity to support and promote the Welsh automotive sector in this difficult time. He's also met key players from the industry, including those, for example, earlier in the year affected by the Honda announcement, which was an announcement geographically in England but had knock-on effects for us here in Wales. There are 20 Honda suppliers in Wales, some of them very significantly exposed to that company.

She will also know of the support that the Welsh Government has given, both in terms of skills investment and in other terms, through the European transition fund, for example, to the automotive sector. We continue to lobby the UK Government to ensure that we do not leave the European Union on terms that would impose punishing tariffs and non-tariff barriers on the automotive industry and, indeed, other important sectors to our economy.

In keeping with all the parties in this Chamber, the Brexit Party is hugely disappointed with Ford's decision with regard to the plant at Bridgend. Our sympathy lies with the workforce, which has made tremendous efforts to comply with Ford working regimes over the years. But, let us be explicit here: Ford's decision has nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit. This has been categorically stated by the Ford management. As with all big business, and this includes all the motor manufacturers and all the subsidiary manufacturers, Ford will take the best option for the company. One has to remember that they removed production of their transport vans to Turkey—and just to remind everybody, Turkey is not even in the European Union. Though the EU partly funded the plant in Turkey—[Interruption.] The EU partly funded the plant in Turkey—[Interruption.]

If I can't hear the question, I'm sure the Minister can't hear the question either. 

What one has to remember is that any tariffs put on any of the exports, particularly of the car industry, after Brexit, will have a hugely detrimental effect on European car manufacturers. And we're not just talking about the German car industry; we're talking about the French car industry, which is increasingly dependent upon their exports to the UK. So, to say that Brexit is going to have this detrimental effect on the car industry is absolute nonsense. Will the Counsel General not agree with me on those points?

No, he will not. I think if we are going to properly evaluate the impact of Brexit on our economies, it's important that our reflections have some connection with the realities of what is going on. And I think he has conveniently forgotten the statement made by senior executives at Ford at the end of last year, which were very clear about the damaging impact of a 'no deal' Brexit on the automotive sector here in Wales. I will refer the Member to the remarks I made earlier, in relation to the damage that would be caused to this vital sector by the course of action that he is a passionate advocate for.

Questions now from the party spokespeople. The Conservative spokesperson, Darren Millar.

Diolch, Llywydd. What opportunities has the Welsh Government identified as a result of Brexit?

Well, it's important, isn't it, to try and be clear-sighted about these things? It is absolutely our view that the overwhelming outcome of Brexit on Wales is negative. A 'no deal' Brexit, which he is happy to tolerate—and the candidate in the Conservative leadership that he supports is increasingly keen upon—would be particularly damaging for Wales. But there are aspects of the process that we've been engaging in so far that can provide aspects of optimism for the future. For example, if the UK Government lives up to its promises that we should have not a penny less and not a power taken away, in relation to future structural funds here in Wales, there are opportunities for those funds to be deployed in ways that, free from the constraints of particular European programmes, can even better support the Welsh economy. But perhaps he can join me in pressing the Secretary of State for Wales and the UK Government to live up to those commitments, which they've so singularly failed to do so far. There are also opportunities for us, if the proposals that the Welsh Government have put forward were taken up, to strengthen the devolution settlement, and strengthen inter-governmental machinery, which has been exposed, as a consequence of Brexit, to be so inadequate. But he will have seen from the statements the First Minister, and I, and others have made, over the course of the last week to 10 days, that the UK Government has, so far at least, fallen significantly short in that respect as well.

Well, the truth is that, despite the constant doom and gloom from the Welsh Government, and from you, Minister, the reality is that there will be some fantastic opportunities for Wales, once the barriers that are currently in place and the shackles that are currently there as a result of our membership of the European Union have been removed. We will no longer have to walk on eggshells, worrying about compliance with EU rules, when legislation, for example, is presented to this Chamber. And I'm surprised you didn't refer—[Interruption.] I'm surprised that you didn't refer to legislation at all in your response. Because, as you will know, Portugal has stood in the way of the introduction of minimum alcohol pricing here in Wales—something that this Chamber voted to support in the interests of the health and well-being of Welsh citizens. So, do you agree with me that leaving the EU gives us an opportunity to get on in helping the health and well-being of our citizens, by delivering that minimum alcohol price, which this Chamber supported? And can you tell us what action you are taking in order to ensure that the legislative programme in the future takes advantage of the opportunities that might appear post Brexit?

Well, on the question of legislation, I think he misunderstands the situation. The Portuguese intervention is part of a set of rights and processes that exist across the European Union, which underpin the legislative framework through which we've been operating, and continue to operate, as member states. And we are proud of the fact in this place, I think, that we operate within the framework of European law, which has developed a network of human rights and protections for our citizens here in Wales, environmental protections, social protections, workforce protections, which his party—or certainly he—would happily throw away, it seems, in the support that he shows for a 'no deal' Brexit. We here should be proud of that, rather than regard it as an imposition. We've worked very hard in the Welsh Government, with other Governments across the UK, to ensure that we have been transposing the EU body of law into Welsh law so that those rights are not lost on the point of exit, because we regard them as an asset to Welsh public life and not the regulatory burden that he implies they should be. 

It speaks volumes, frankly, Minister, that this administration here in Wales will take every single opportunity that it can to criticise the UK Government, no matter how unfair that criticism is, and yet you jump at the chance to praise the European Union no matter how undeserved that praise might be. We heard this week that the Welsh Labour Party's priorities are clear. It's the European Union first, and the union of the United Kingdom last. And because this Chamber won't hear it from the Brexit Minister, let me tell you about the opportunities that we will see, because, of course, we will see the regulatory burden rolled back, potentially, from many businesses that don't need to trade overseas with export. We will also see, of course, some significant savings for the taxpayer. We will have the shared prosperity fund to replace the European Union funds that we will lose. And, of course, the two candidates for the leadership of the Conservative Party, one of whom will become Prime Minister, have both guaranteed that Wales will not lose out a single penny of European funding compared to the cash that it receives to date.

So, instead of having to apply rules here in the UK that benefit farmers in France, fishermen in Iceland, wine producers in Portugal, don't you think it would be better to be able to have our own rules that support farmers here, food and drink producers here in Wales? And can you explain how you are respecting the outcome of the referendum, which is what you promised to do in the aftermath of the referendum back in June 2016? You said that you would respect the result as a Welsh Government and seek to implement that result. You stood on a manifesto that said that you would respect the result. You have now, of course, rolled back from that, kicking sand in the eyes of the electorate, rejecting the decision they made to leave the European Union. So, can you explain why you have shifted your position so significantly, and when will you wake up, smell the coffee, and look at Brexit as a wonderful and glorious opportunity for Wales, not the sort of doom and gloom that you are predicting?

Well, I'm going to resist the temptation of the Pollyanna-like blandishments of the opposition spokesman in this regard. Can I just pick him up on one point? He talks about the shared prosperity fund and the commitments made in relation to that. Let's be clear: what Boris Johnson said last Friday was a constitutional outrage—the fact that those funds would be better deployed if there was a Conservative element to them, not a UK Government element, but a Conservative element. What does that mean? If he wants the Conservatives to manage those funds, the Conservatives need to win an election here in Wales, which you haven't done during the last 100 years. [Interruption.]

Okay. Let's listen to the Brexit Minister's response. 

I will tell you the extent to which the UK Government respect the devolution settlement in relation to that. When the Minister stood up in the House of Commons and told us we wouldn't be hearing about anything in relation to that fund until next year, that was the first we'd heard of that. There was no courtesy telling us what the plans were, despite pressing for that. So, that is the extent of respect for the devolution boundary.

He asks me about respecting the result of the last referendum. He knows very well that we on these benches have advocated for a long time a form of Brexit that respected the result of the 2016 referendum whilst doing the least damage possible to Wales. And the intransigence of the Prime Minister for his party in Parliament stood in the path of that outcome. And we recognise here, which he should recognise, that we have reached the end of the road in relation to that, and the only means of avoiding a 'no deal' Brexit, for which there is no mandate in that referendum result, is a referendum that we are calling for. 

The Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Delyth Jewell. 

Minister, Labour's new Brexit policy is to support a referendum on Brexit and a campaign to remain if Boris Johnson or Jeremy Hunt is Prime Minister, while intending to renegotiate and leave if Jeremy Corbyn is Prime Minister. I'm sure people who've been following the evolution of Labour policy will conclude that there have now been so many backward steps to accompany every forward step that Jeremy Corbyn's feet have become entangled and he is now in a metaphorical confused heap on the floor. [Interruption.] The logical consequence of this new policy is that the only way to ensure that Labour campaigns to remain in any future referendum is to ensure that your party is not in power in Westminster.  

No, it's not out of order. Can you carry on, Delyth Jewell, please? And can we have some silence from the backbenches of the Labour Party? 

Minister, do you therefore agree that, if there is a general election, it would make sense for people who wish to see Labour campaign to remain in the EU in any future referendum to vote for parties that will campaign to remain under any circumstances? 

Well, I think it's somewhat churlish, when one has been calling for a referendum, not to welcome the fact that a party then promises a referendum as a recognition of progress. But the Member knows very clearly what our position is here, as a Welsh Labour Government in Wales. We have advocated for a position as described in the joint paper that we had with Plaid Cymru. We have recognised that we have reached the end of the road in relation to that, and we call for a referendum in relation to any departure on any terms or a 'no deal' departure, whichever Prime Minister negotiates those terms. She will know that we continue to advocate that in all our discussions with the UK Government and to ask them to take proactive steps to make that a reality. The First Minister has written to all Welsh Members of Parliament asking them to join the calls in favour of a referendum and to ensure that Parliament plays its part in making that a reality, and we are happy to work with any other party who shares that objective. 

Thank you, Minister. That was a valiant attempt to justify the latest manifestation of your party's Brexit policy, though I suspect people watching will want to draw their own conclusions as to whether that argument holds water. 

Boris Johnson recently said that if he were Prime Minister, he'd want a strong Conservative influence over how the EU funding replacement scheme—the shared prosperity fund—was spent in Wales, and the Conservatives, in this Chamber today, have said that, 'You lot should not be trusted with that'. Their words not mine. Since the Conservatives are not in power here, this suggests that Boris Johnson wants the fund to be administered from Westminster, or that there may be some truth to the rumour that his friend, not mine, the Secretary of State for Wales, wants it to be administered by local authorities. Do you agree with me, Minister, that this would be a naked power grab, which would run counter to the Wales Act 2017, and that it should also therefore be possibly illegal since powers over economic development, including the administration and spending of regional funds, are devolved to this Assembly?  

Well, I echo the sentiments in the Member's question. As I mentioned a few moments ago, I think it would be outrageous for that to be what happens. The Prime Minister has made commitments, which she is not living up to. Boris Johnson, in making that statement, raises alarm bells, as her question implies. We are absolutely clear that we should not suffer a penny less of the funding that we have received here in Wales, and that the powers over those funds should be exercised here in this Assembly by the Welsh Government on behalf of the people of Wales, because we are best placed here to manage our economic development in Wales. 

Thank you, Minister. The Minister for International Relations and the Welsh Language told the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee recently that your Government is developing red lines in relation to devolved areas that it does not wish to be included in future trade agreements. Minister, can you tell us what those red lines are? She also told us that the Welsh Government would be willing to take the UK Government to court if it tried to sell off the Welsh NHS as part of a future trade agreement with the US. But, as you will know, under section 82 of the Wales Act, the Secretary of State has the power to direct Welsh Ministers to implement directives contained within agreements that fall outside their devolved competence. Could you, therefore, please assure us what actions your Government could take were the UK Government to invoke section 82 in order to try to force Welsh Government Ministers to implement damaging measures that they don't agree with, and whether this would involve possibly taking the UK Government to court, as your colleague the international relations Minister has indicated? 

Well, our position, as a Government, is not that we should have a veto in relation to these matters, but that where the UK Government is formulating a negotiating position for international negotiations of whatever type, they should not normally proceed with that negotiating mandate unless they have secured the agreement of devolved administrations, where devolved competencies are directly affected, or, where they can be indirectly affected, we should also be involved in those discussions. That seems to us to be a fundamentally reasonable request, and an appropriate role for the Welsh Government in those negotiations. We cannot be expected, nor can any devolved administration be expected, to co-operate in how those international obligations are implemented if we haven't been given a voice in formulating those positions at the start.

I would say that this is an important devolution principle, but it’s also an important principle from the point of view of the credibility of the UK Government. The European Union, and our partners in the European Union, know very well what is devolved to different nations within the United Kingdom, and they will know very well that the implementation of those obligations will rest on the shoulders of devolved administrations and legislatures. And, therefore, to proceed in the teeth of opposition to implementation of some of those obligations would be very naïve and would fundamentally affect the credibility of the UK Government in those negotiations.

I made that point very directly at the last JMC(EN) to David Lidington, when I pointed out what had been said in this Chamber and elsewhere, that if a future UK Government were to seek to proceed with the kind of trade deal that Donald Trump was championing in the press conference with Theresa May a few weeks ago, the Welsh Government would refuse to implement the privatisation of the NHS in Wales. We have been absolutely clear about that. That has been our position; it remains our position and it will be our position.

We have supported small and micro businesses through the Brexit resilience grant and are providing preparedness information with businesses and stakeholders, particularly through our websites. We are in constant dialogue with key organisations representing the interests and concerns of small businesses, several of whom are represented on the EU exit working group, a sub-committee of our council for economic development.

Thank you for your answer, Minister. I'm sure you would agree with me that it is, obviously, vital to engage with businesses across Wales in preparation for Brexit. You mentioned that you have been talking to some of the key organisations and they are around the table in your meetings also. But I'm particularly concerned about small, independent businesses that might not be members of such institutions as the Confederation of British Industry and the Federation of Small Businesses. How are you engaging with those kinds of groups that are not in membership bodies?

Well, the Member raises a very important point, if I may say, and I know that he brings a particular perspective to that. I was at an event on Friday of last week, in my region, run by the South Wales Chamber of Commerce, and these challenges were the sorts of things being discussed there. The question of how one disseminates information very widely is a challenge.

We have provided online resources that explain, we hope, in straightforward terms some simple steps that businesses of any size should consider taking, partly to assess their own readiness for Brexit. Some may be exposed to Brexit in different ways from others, but there are some simple steps on our 'Preparing Wales to leave the EU' website that we're encouraging businesses of all sizes to take. 

There is a particular tool that, again, is user-friendly and can be used by businesses of any size, that enables businesses to look at questions of workforce, trading conditions, data protection—really practical aspects of business life—and we encourage businesses of all sizes in Wales to look at that, look at the resources we've provided online and to engage with those tools. It is very difficult for small businesses to make judgments in what is a very, very uncertain field. It's hard enough for large companies, but if you're a small business, perhaps without spare resources to deploy on different potential outcomes, we recognise how difficult that set of circumstances is.

But I think it's important for the message to be sent out and I hope that Members in the Chamber will do what they can in their constituencies and their networks to share that set of messages from the Welsh Government that there are some steps that businesses should consider taking, so that they put themselves in the best possible position for what could be extremely choppy waters ahead for many of them.

The chaos in the UK Government means it's hugely difficult to schedule meetings during recess, the beginning of which coincides with the appointment of a new Prime Minister. I hope the incoming Prime Minister will continue the practice of inviting Welsh Government to be represented at the UK Cabinet meetings when they discuss Brexit preparedness, and we stand ready to attend during recess and beyond. Our focus in the coming weeks will be continuing to prepare for a possible 'no deal' Brexit that, contrary to the views of those wishing to be the next Conservative Prime Minister, would be catastrophic. 

Thank you for that response, Minister. I'm taking it from that response that you have no meetings scheduled over the summer recess. Am I correct in saying that?

I have meetings, both scheduled and in my diary. But as I made clear to the Member, getting focus from UK Government Ministers to put in place the sequence of meetings one might wish to see over the coming weeks has been a challenge because the UK Government is facing obviously very significant change as a consequence of the change of Prime Minister.

Legal aid provision is the responsibility of the UK Government and has been subject to substantial cuts since the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 was introduced. We are concerned that the economic damage of Brexit may result in further cuts, which would further impede access to justice.

I thank you for that. But since that introduction of legal aid cuts by the Westminster Government over six years ago, the number of parents having to represent themselves now in child custody cases has more than doubled. Many families simply cannot afford to pay for legal representation, and are having to navigate complex issues alone without any understanding of that law. This, of course, is putting tremendous pressure on families and campaigners have said, and I quote,

'children's best interests are being "obscured"'.

Brexit has the potential to affect every aspect of life in the UK, including the UK's legal framework. Therefore, Counsel General, what discussions have you had with the UK Government about how Brexit will impact families who currently qualify for legal aid in the family court?

I thank the Member for throwing light on what is a very, very difficult issue. I think she's absolutely right to identify the serious risk, in my view, that the range of consequences of Brexit will put pressure on families across Wales. I think from a legal aid perspective, we are concerned that, particularly with the economic impact of a 'no deal' Brexit, that would put even further pressure on public resources to fund legal aid. Clearly, we know how significant the cuts have been to date, and even further pressure on those budgets would be a disaster.

But there's also the issue of the pressure that those cuts are placing on public services that are themselves under pressure, and that could certainly intensify in the context of Brexit. She talks about the family courts in particular, and I think we need to recognise that the pressures on families of the uncertainty caused by Brexit even now, together with the possible loss of employment and so on, is going, I think, to become a serious issue. It's one of the things we are considering at the moment in Government: how we can address some of those pressures outside the context of legal aid.

I would also say to the Member, though, that if we were to leave the European Union with no deal, that would put the question of civil judicial co-operation within the EU under serious pressure, and the Law Society and others have been advising lawyers about steps they can take in that particular context. We recognise the pressure that organisations are under to provide advice to individuals in this sort of situation, and she will know, of course, that we have provided funding for a number of organisations, and in particular in the context of Brexit to give legal advice around immigration status, so that EU citizens are able to take full advantage of their rights and apply for EU settled status here in Wales.

Minister, Brexit tends to generate far more heat than light these days, with rumours and claims and counter-claims swirling around, and I think it behoves us all to try to learn the realities that are there on the ground. Our parliamentary colleagues in Westminster—there's a group called the Young Legal Aid Lawyers who have taken some 45 Members with them, out shadowing them, out on the ground doing legal aid, really understanding what the issues are that are facing them, and the challenges ahead with Brexit and for families, no matter what the outcome may be. Members of that group include, for example, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for legal aid and the shadow Secretary of State for Wales. Would you consider supporting this group and perhaps trying to bring just such an initiative here to Wales so that we may also go out and learn that reality?

I thank the Member for that question and for the way in which she presented it, if I may say, and I share the sentiment that she started the question with. I would be very happy to look at the work of that group and see how I can support their work or get engaged with what they are doing. I'd be very happy to look into that, and I thank her for making that suggestion.

I have had numerous discussions in relation to United Kingdom governance arrangements post Brexit, most recently at the Joint Ministerial Committee (European Negotiations) meeting on 28 June.

I'm grateful to the Minister for that response. As you'll be aware, the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee did a piece of work last year, and the committee published a report called 'UK governance post-Brexit', and in that report it was recommended that the Llywydd, along with spokespeople and speakers from the other Parliaments and legislatures of the UK, should establish a speakers' conference with the aim of deciding on the best way of developing inter-parliamentary co-operation within the UK. The purpose of this conference would be to consider how to develop joint working between Governments within the UK post Brexit, in order to ensure that the correct frameworks are developed for the future. I understand that models of a speakers' conference are being considered at the moment, but can you as a Government tell us what discussions you've had on this particular idea and also, following on from an earlier question from the Member for Blaenau Gwent, do you think that this is an effective way of ensuring that the correct inter-parliamentary mechanisms are put in place for the future?

That’s a very important question. We have a long way to go in dealing with the changes that will come following Brexit to ensure that the constitutional settlement and the relationship between the nations of the United Kingdom work in a better way than they do at present. Our focus as a Government, on the whole, has been mainly on how the mechanics work between the Governments, because that’s our constitutional remit, but an integral part of that is how the Governments are accountable to the legislatures. And part of that, certainly, is—and we've seen the benefit of this in discussions—how the committees specifically within the legislatures have been calling for greater opportunities to scrutinise and develop new systems and ways in which we can do that in the context of Brexit. I am aware of the work that is going on as regards the inter-relationships between the legislatures. It’s a matter for the Assembly and the Llywydd constitutionally, but that kind of creativity and imagination on how we re-form the relationship between the nations of the United Kingdom is completely core to a stable constitutional system post Brexit.

The Welsh Government is doing all it can to support businesses in preparations for EU exit through advice, guidance and resources that we and the Development Bank of Wales are making available. However, no preparations can fully mitigate the effects of a 'no deal' Brexit.

The Federation of Small Businesses is already reporting that businesses in Cardiff Central are suffering from things like exchange-rate fluctuations, which is making it incredibly difficult for people to be able to price their goods accurately without the danger of making a loss. We've got construction companies who are losing staff because people are returning to their countries of origin, and smaller IT companies are reporting that they are struggling to source stock, because larger IT companies are stockpiling materials and equipment. I think it's a particularly difficult time for small businesses, and I note that both Ireland and the Netherlands are offering support to small businesses in the form of Brexit advice vouchers or other forms of financial or non-financial support to help small businesses through the unknown. The UK Government has notably not yet offered any of this sort of support to UK businesses; they seem to be too busy organising freight contracts with companies who have no ships. So, I wonder if this is something you have discussed with the Welsh Government, or if you could raise it.

I thank the Member for that question and I recognise very much the sorts of challenges that she described companies and businesses in her constituency as suffering—the challenges in particular for small businesses, who may not have the resources or the breadth of time and capacity to address what are, for all of us, a very complex, interconnected set of challenges. Perhaps it's particularly acute for sole traders or for small businesses, and we've been mindful of that in how we've sought to tailor some of the support that we feel able to give, which we are clear is a partial contribution to what is a complex set of challenges.

She will know that we have established a Brexit business resilience fund, which enables businesses to apply to the Welsh Government for financial support for projects that might enable them to transition through difficult, turbulent times into a post-Brexit world. That's a match funded scheme, but it provides access to really quite significant sources of revenue. At the moment, it's over subscribed, but we are looking at that.

There is also a significant amount of funding that has been made available to the Development Bank of Wales to target businesses of different sizes, including small businesses, and some of that is around covering short-term financing problems and so on. But the sorts of challenges she identifies around exchange rate risk, and also, as I've heard elsewhere, companies that may have stockpiled their own stock leading up to the end of March or April now finding themselves at a competitive disadvantage, if you like—. So, these are absolutely complex challenges. We are hoping that we can provide some support through the Business Wales network and through the Brexit portal, which companies in her constituency can access through the Preparing Wales website. I hope and I expect that she will be only too glad to pass on that information to her constituents, companies and businesses.

And finally, question 8—Llyr Gruffydd.

Well, I don't know. It depends on the new Prime Minister. I have repeatedly called on the United Kingdom Government to share information on preparations for all possible Brexit outcomes. The flow of information has improved, particularly on 'no deal' Brexit preparation, but it's still imperfect.

You don’t know, we don’t know, nobody knows. We have no idea, do we, what’s going to happen after the end of October? Is that the message that you’ve conveyed to your agricultural Minister, because she has launched a consultation, of course, on transforming support for the agricultural sector in Wales, and the consultation finishes the day before Brexit? And after that day, of course, we could be facing difficulties in accessing international markets, we could be facing difficulties in terms of tariffs. We have no idea how much money we’ll receive. So, whilst you’ve told me, to all intents and purposes, that you have no idea what the arrangements are, have you passed that message on to Lesley Griffiths?

Well, that is not what I said. I said that I didn’t know when the information would be forthcoming from the United Kingdom Government. As regards preparation, it’s important, isn't it, that we make all possible preparation to ensure that we are in the best position possible when the times comes to leave, if the time comes to leave? It is definitely certain that we haven’t got the full picture at the moment, or the full information to hand, in a number of areas. That’s not something that we welcome, of course. But the Member would also criticise us if we didn’t make any preparations to prepare for this scenario, and he has criticised us in other contexts, saying that we are lagging behind, in his words, in presenting environmental legislation, for example.

So, as a Government, we have to take purposeful steps to ensure that we have a proper framework to be able to deal with whatever outcomes of Brexit. We have been discussing earlier today this question of regional structural funds and so on. There's a great deal of work happening in that field too—we're not certain what the budget will be for that. We have to prepare systems as regards how we can better secure financial sources in the future. And it's obvious—and I know that the Member will know this—that the challenge for the agriculture sector is a huge one, and it’s important that we collaborate and co-operate with them, as the Minister is doing, in order to describe the kind of situation we will face post Brexit and prepare the best we can for that possibility. But I’m sure that the Minister will be very keen to hear the standpoint of the broader sector during the consultation.

Thank you, Counsel General.

I have received one topical question, and the question is to be answered by the Counsel General and is to be asked by Alun Davies. 

Aspects of the Dunlop review can be welcomed. It has the potential to support the joint inter-governmental relations review, however there are fundamental questions about the devolution settlement and the role of territorial offices that are beyond the scope of the review but nonetheless need to be addressed. 

I'm grateful to you for that answer, Minister. I'm sure you'll agree with me that it's absolutely outrageous that the Prime Minister has made a statement of this kind without even consulting the devolved administrations. The First Minister was very clear in answer to a question at committee on Monday that the first the Welsh Government heard about this was when the Prime Minister's speech was being covered in the media, when she was on her feet speaking. One of the fundamental aspects of devolution is that it should be a joint venture between the United Kingdom Government and the Governments in the rest of the United Kingdom, and if the United Kingdom Government feel able to announce a review without even consulting the devolved administrations, the Governments in Wales and Scotland, then clearly it tells you exactly what they think about devolution. 

I'm sure you share with me that this was a grossly offensive way of operating, that it is an appalling position to take and it sums up the United Kingdom Government's attitude at the moment. Minister, will you undertake to convey these feelings to the United Kingdom Government, which I'm sure would be shared in all parts of the Chamber? And will you also ensure that the UK Government understands that the problem with devolution starts and ends with them?

Well, I thank the Member for that supplementary question. He'll recall, I think, the speech that the First Minister made to the Institute for Government a few weeks ago, where he said that devolution, effectively, wasn't simply a question of what happens in Wales, but it's also a question of what happens in Westminster, and it's incumbent on Westminster to look at how Westminster and Whitehall operate in a different way in order to give full support to the devolution settlement. There are some parts of that speech that I think we can welcome. The Prime Minister talks about the UK resting on and being defined by the support of its people, in that sense of being a voluntary association of nations, and we welcome the recognition that devolution is now a stable and permanent part of the UK's constitution, as the speech indicated. I think, if Westminster and Whitehall are serious about addressing how they re-evaluate how they work to support devolution, that will only be a good thing, but I do echo the Member's response in relation to the fact that, if you're going to give a speech that is about the future of the union and the future of devolution within it, then the least you can do is have a conversation with the devolved administrations in advance of that so that, as he describes it, that sense of joint venture of the constitutional settlement is retained and preserved. 

But there's also, frankly, a very practical point to this: we have been pressing here for progress on the inter-governmental review for the last 15 months, and we have very little to show for it so far. He will have seen the announcement made by David Lidington last week and the response of the Welsh and Scottish Governments to that. Actually, pressing forward with that progress would have been a very good way of demonstrating commitment to the devolution settlement here in the UK, and to launch another review without acknowledging that, I think, was unfortunate. And I think had the Prime Minister sought the advice of the devolved administrations, we could have had a constructive discussion about the terms of reference and about how they could be better constructed to meet some of the significant challenges that we face in dealing with the UK Government. We note the emphasis in particular on the importance in the review of the territorial offices, and I think the First Minister was clear in his speech back in May that there is now an opportunity and a need, in fact, for the role of the Wales and Scotland offices in particular to be radically rethought in this post-Brexit world.

I appreciate the response of the Minister, actually, because, of course, the UK Government was simply trying to respond to requests from this Government, and the Scottish Government as well, about the way in which Whitehall and UK departments operate. And we very much welcome the fact that the Prime Minister has responded in such a positive way by announcing this review. Number 10 has made absolutely clear that the review is not going to stray into devolved areas. This is about strengthening devolution, recognising where the boundaries lie and making sure that the machine of Government in London is able to respond correctly and appropriately to matters that cross their desks, where there may be a devolved competence or devolved relationship that needs to be recognised. So, I do welcome the fact that there are many aspects of the Prime Minister's speech that you welcome. I'm sure that there are times when communication could be better between the UK and Welsh Governments, and I think that everybody recognises that there are times when, sometimes, it's good to have a heads-up about these things. Clearly that wasn't the case this time. Perhaps that is a matter of regret.

But, as I say, the reality is that this is a Prime Minister who is responding positively to requests by this Welsh Government and Government in other parts of the United Kingdom to want to look at this issue and make sure that Whitehall and UK Government departments are functioning appropriately. So, can I ask that, in terms of the engagement that you have with the UK Government, you formally welcome the decision that the Prime Minister has taken, and will you ensure that you co-operate with that review in order to help the UK Government identify where those shortcomings are so that they can be put right in the future?

Well, I note the points that the Member makes. It isn't just a question of being given a heads-up. I think that, in a sense, reveals the challenge that we face. It isn't just a question of telling us what's going on. It's a question of proper, deep engagement in the future constitution of the United Kingdom, and that's the bit that's missing. We get plenty of heads-up, although not on this occasion; what we don't get enough of is proper mature engagement on the basis of parity, and that, I think, goes to the heart of the challenge that we face.

I think that, if the review ends up with a conclusion that the solution to the future of the union is simply beefing up the Wales Office, as I think I read in some of the slightly hyperbolic press briefing, that is a fundamental misreading of what is required to strengthen the union. What is required to strengthen the union is better relationships and better machinery between the Governments of the United Kingdom, not a strengthening of the territorial offices.

But I look forward to hearing what the review comes back with. As I say, the terms of reference would have been much stronger and more useful had we had proper engagement in advance, but we look forward to seeing what the review has to say in due course.

On the morning of the day that the Prime Minister announced this review of devolution, I received an e-mail from you, Minister, giving an update on the work that you've been doing to try to improve inter-governmental working in your role as the Welsh Government representative on the JMC(EN). You announced that the committee had agreed draft principles on how those relations should be conducted in the future, and they were very welcome. They were drafted by the Welsh Government. They include, and I quote,

'Maintaining positive and constructive relations, based on mutual respect for the responsibilities of governments across the UK and their shared role in the governance of the UK. Building and maintaining trust, based on effective communication'.

A few hours later, we were treated to this announcement from the Prime Minister that her Government would conduct a review of devolution. The devolved administrations, including yours, Minister, were not given prior notification that this was on the way. That is the crucial point here, isn't it? You were not informed about the detail, the scope or the terms of reference of the review, and you did not consent to it. Do you agree with me, Minister, that the draft principles for future inter-governmental working, which it's taken over a year to agree and which your Government had produced, were broken within a few hours of their publication? Doesn't this tell us all we need to know about whether the UK Government can be trusted to act in good faith when it comes to inter-governmental relations? David Lidington, the Deputy Prime Minister, has as good as acknowledged today that Wales is seen as having been failed by Westminster. The current devolution settlement contained within the Wales Act is a matter of law. Can you, therefore, assure us that, whatever the outcome of this dubious review, Wales's powers, as enshrined in that legislation, will be protected? And, finally, considering the UK Government's behaviour in this respect and in terms of risking our nation's economic future with a 'no deal' Brexit, is your view the same as the First Minister, in that your commitment to the UK union is not unconditional, and, if so, doesn't it follow that your Government may one day conclude that Wales's interests would be best served as an independent country?

Well, I can give her the assurance, certainly, that this Government will always fight to make sure that Wales's interests are best reflected in all the discussions and negotiations that we have with the UK Government and we will not tolerate the taking away of any powers from this Assembly or Welsh Government. She has my categorical assurance in relation to that.

She will have noted the terms in which I responded to the publication of the principles last week jointly with Michael Russell, my counterpart in the Scottish Government. We welcomed the fact that these principles were put in the public domain and I will take this opportunity of thanking Welsh Government officials who lead on that work and lead on that work very effectively. It was—it is—a matter of regret that that was the only part of the review that we felt was sufficiently developed and mature to put in the public domain. One of the things that will need to happen is an early meeting of the JMC plenary between the heads of Government, and I'm sure there'll be reflection at that point about how those principles need to be delivered upon, not simply published.

And, to her point about the exchanges that she had with the First Minister in the committee the other day, I would just say we've been very clear that we think that Wales's interests are best protected as part of a well-functioning union, which is why we work so hard to try and reform the aspects of that that do not best work in Wales's interests at this point. I thought the First Minister took advantage of what ought to be a space in committee to have a more reflective, thoughtful, measured discussion about some of these things, to engage in exactly that, and I'm bound to say I thought it was somewhat unfortunate how that was responded to. The First Minister made the point very simply, I think, that if you were to say—. Is any politician able to say way into the future that, under all circumstances, under any version of the—[Interruption.]—under any version of the—that the interests of Wales would be best protected? That isn't—you know, one cannot say that, but our view is very passionately the case that Wales's interests are best protected as part of the United Kingdom and a well-functioning union, and a union that needs to work better than it does today.

This, of course, isn't the first instance where the representative democratic interests of Wales and the Welsh Government have been, to some extent, bypassed or put to one side while the UK Government just gets on with something without discussion or consultation. It does seem very, very odd. The previous one, of course, was equally significant, on the UK shared prosperity fund. So, I wonder—clearly, they're not learning a lesson, or they're wilfully carrying on to ignore the wishes of Welsh Government or the Scottish Government and both Assemblies as well, both Parliaments, but where are we on the shared prosperity fund? Because, meanwhile, in Wales, like the suggestions that have been put forward by Welsh Government and by the Scottish Government on future structures of devolution, we're also working on ways forward for allocating properly funding throughout Wales. So, the group that I'm delighted to chair—the regional investment for Wales steering group—is working actively across Wales with representatives of wider Welsh society to look at the right structures, and yet UK Government is off doing its thing on the UK shared prosperity fund and we don't know a lot. Would the Minister share with us where we are on that at the moment? Do we have any clarity at the moment on that? Because that might indicate to us the way in which they intend to take this latest piece of work forward.

Well, I thank the Member for that. Can I also take the opportunity of thanking him for his work chairing the regional investment steering group, which is important work and goes to the heart of the point I made to Llyr Gruffydd earlier about needing to take proactive steps in a very creative and imaginative way to look at how we can deliver some of these funding sources into the future differently from how we have been able to do that to date? So, I thank him and members of the steering group for the work that they are doing in that important area.

I think the point that he makes in relation to clarity of information and sharing of information in relation to the prosperity fund is absolutely critical, isn't it? We have been clear that this is not the way to proceed if you're looking to respect the devolution boundaries, and I think he will have shared my dismay at the remarks made by Boris Johnson—in Cardiff, of all places—last Friday in relation to this. I very much hope that that will have ended up being a question of party politics as he seeks the nomination of his party. I'm afraid I don't have much confidence in that. As we stand today, I can't tell him that I have any insight into what the proposals are or any substantive detail, and I think he will share my regret about that.

Thank you very much, Brexit Minister.

Item 4 on the agenda this afternoon is the 90-second statements. The first one this afternoon is Leanne Wood.

I'd like to pay tribute to one of the Rhondda's most famous sons, the actor Glyn Houston, who was born and raised just behind my grandmother's house in Tonypandy. When he was a child, his parents moved to London to find work and escape the crushing poverty and unemployment of the Rhondda. His parents couldn't afford to take all three children, and Glyn was left behind to be raised by his grandmother, Gwenllian. The children were reunited in Gwenllian's care just three years later in tragic circumstances due to the untimely death of their mother.

From this adversity, the family produced not one but two famous actors, for Glyn's older brother Donald also found worldwide stardom. Glyn served in the second world war in the military police, and, after making his film debut in The Blue Lamp in 1950, he went on to star in films such as The Cruel Sea, Turn the Key Softly, Private's Progress and Tiger Bay. He also had an illustrious career on the small screen. In 2009, he was the recipient of a British Academy of Film and Television Arts lifetime achievement award from BAFTA Cymru, which was a richly deserved accolade for an actor whose work touched the lives of many generations of film fans across the world.

Now, I realise that many of today's young people in the Rhondda may not have seen any of Glyn's films or tv shows, but I'd like to think that they would like to know about him. His career teaches us that you can deal with adversity at a young age, you can come from a tough-going background, and you can go on to achieve anything you put your mind to if you put in the work and you are determined.

Thank you, Glyn, for those lessons. Rest in peace.

Vikki Howells.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. This Saturday, I'll be attending celebrations to mark the hundred and fiftieth anniversary of Aberdare park. The park—the 'people's park', as it was initially called—was the very first public park in Wales. Developed by the local board of health, it occupies nearly 50 acres that had been part of the ancient Hirwaun common. Undrained, unkempt land, ankle deep in mud and water, became quality parkland and recreational grounds. That work took three years. The official opening on 29 July 1869 came after a tremendous procession of dignitaries and local people marched from Aberdare town centre to the park gates. There at the park gates, in a symbolic gesture, the dignitaries stepped aside to let local residents complete the first lap of the park. It was, and still is, their park, after all.

Over the years, the park developed in response to nature and human agency: boating, baths, a public water fountain, and more. The August bank holiday of 1906 saw 30,000 people visiting the park. Since 1950, the park has also hosted annual internationally renowned motorcycle races. These bring visitors from across the UK into Aberdare for what is said to be one of the best and hardest-to-master routes. In 1956, the National Eisteddfod was held in the park. Gorsedd stones still remind people of that event.

As I close, I want to pay tribute to the Friends of Aberdare Park, a voluntary group whose members work tirelessly to improve the park for all, and to invite all AMs to join me in celebrating the hundred and fiftieth birthday of the people's park.

Thank you. Rhun ap Iorwerth.

On 20 July 1969, man landed on the moon and, 50 years later, I want to commemorate the event, yes, as a major step for mankind, but also as an incredible step in the career of a man from Anglesey who was one of the major architects of the moon landing.

Tecwyn Roberts was born in Llanddaniel in 1925. Having started his career as an apprentice in the Saunders-Roe aircraft factory on the outskirts of Beaumaris, and then gaining an engineering degree, he went to north America to live. He made a career for himself in aeronautics in Canada, first of all, before joining NASA in 1959, where his ability was used to its greatest extent in trying to deliver Kennedy’s vision. He delivered the work of creating mission control and its new communications systems that were so necessary for the moon landing programme.

On the day of the landing itself, his role was entirely crucial. Armstrong and Aldrin would not have landed without him. Amongst the great relief, there was one man from Anglesey who knew that his work was done, apart from getting the astronauts back home, of course. It’s an incredible story, and I look forward to learning more in special programmes with Tudur Owen on S4C and Radio Cymru over the next few days. It’s very appropriate that a clock is counting down at the end of my 90 seconds—three, two, one. [Laughter.] I may personally have failed to see the landings by some three years, but we were there—Wales was there, Anglesey was there—through Tecwyn Roberts, the engineer from Anglesey who took the world to the moon.

Thank you.

Item 5 on the agenda this afternoon is the motion to annul the School Performance and Absence Targets (Wales) (Amendments) Regulations 2019, and I call on Suzy Davies to move the motion—Suzy.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd, and I move the motion.

I tabled this motion today for two particular reasons. The first is that these are pretty important changes to the current system of assessing the performance of a school, and the second, which isn't a matter for this Minister in particular, but, I hope, for Government generally—I hope, Minister, that you will forgive me for using this particular example to make the point.

The Minister has previously explained to us that the current system of school performance assessment can lead to unintended consequences. Every year, school governors have to set targets for pupil performance in the second and third key stages in the core subjects of maths, English, Welsh and science and there is a similar process, I understand, for students reaching 16 and facing external exams. They also have to set performance targets in two or three other subjects, which are non-specified. The school can then be judged on the performance according to its success or otherwise in reaching those targets— something that becomes particularly visible at the end of year 11, where the comparison is not made between targets and teacher assessment, but between targets and exam results. And that, as we've heard, can lead to schools putting a disproportionate effort into timetabling for the core subjects and gaming the system by entering students for exams that can only ever produce a grade C GCSE equivalent.

As part of wider reforms, and to deter this behaviour, the Minister's moving towards new evaluation and improvement arrangements. We've already got some interim key stage 4 performance measures, I think, which we'll see worked through for this summer’s exams. And the current setting of targets process doesn’t align with this new-look performance measure and doesn’t bring anything to a school’s self-evaluation and improvement. Furthermore, governors are being asked to set targets on what will be an obsolete set of requirements. I think that’s core of the Minister’s argument, but, if I’ve got it wrong, I’m more than happy to be corrected.

Now, these regulations still require governors to set targets; it looks like it’s still six. But the requirement for any of those to be the core subjects of English, Welsh or maths will go, as will the need to report on the percentage of pupils who achieve those targets. Now, we may have an issue with the idea of a school being set targets by its own governors and not knowing how close or far away from those targets its pupil results were. But the first purpose of bringing this motion to the Chamber is not to challenge the Minister’s general direction of travel but to give you, Minister, an opportunity to explain to us directly why you're content for schools to be able to avoid setting targets in these three subjects in particular.

English and maths and, increasingly, good Welsh-language skills, are still considered essential requirements in any job application. And, even if the new performance framework is about self-evaluation and self-improvement, and even if pupils are doing well in these core subjects, isn't there an argument for keeping these three subjects as a point of focus in every school, bearing in mind their particular status for moving on to further education, training or work?

Now, I accept there's an argument that an individual school may decide that it is in six entirely different areas that it needs to improve. But I can see nothing in the existing or the new regulations preventing setting targets in more than six areas. Until we get into the new curriculum fully, and we can see how the maths and numeracy and languages, literacy and communication areas of learning and experience present, I'm asking Members just to consider that governors must keep these three subjects as annual target items until the new curriculum has worked its way through a little bit, and—unless the Minister can persuade us why not—to support the annulment of these particular regulations.

The second reason for tabling this motion is because it was the only way of getting this issue to the Chamber. This is not the fault of the Minister, but a perfect example of why we as a legislature should exercise caution about leaving too much to secondary legislation where the exercise of Welsh ministerial powers can go unnoticed. Now, these regulations arise from Westminster statutes, but the point applies to our primary legislation too. Here is an important change to the overview, and possibly the status, of English, Welsh and maths within our current education system, introduced via the negative procedure, which I wouldn't even have known about if I hadn't happened to be in a Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee on a given day.

And I'm asking: is it right that we as a legislature are asked to legislate, in the case of the negative procedure, by dint of deemed consent, if we don’t know that these regulations are coming through? And so I'm asking Welsh Government to consider a more proactive way of directly publishing its secondary legislation to spokespeople at the very, very least. The legislation Act is all about the accessibility of law and us as Members having to randomly trawl through the national archives on the off-chance that we might find something really doesn’t count as accessible. And while I repeat, Minister, this is not a matter for you uniquely, I think it is something that the Welsh Government should take account of because it's hindering us doing our work. Thank you. 

Plaid Cymru will abstain on this issue, not because we are sitting on the fence in terms of these regulations, but as a signal of our dissatisfaction with the process. The regulations do scrap the statutory need for schools to set particular targets, because the circumstances have changed. That is sensible, and we do agree with that change, and the move away from that narrow focus on borderline grades, which is that narrow focus on increasing grades from D to C. Now, generally speaking, I think schools welcome the change, and it will give them the ability to develop real meaningful targets that will help to raise standards for all pupils. So, we don’t abstain because of the particular issue covered in the regulations. The reason that we will abstain is to make the point that Suzy Davies has already made as her second reason for tabling this annulment motion—that this is the only way of getting a debate on this in the Chamber. It is important that we don’t use secondary legislation and the negative procedure too much. There is a risk that Ministers will use their powers and make changes without much discussion at all. That isn’t healthy for our democracy. Government needs to be as open and as transparent as possible, and it is important that the legislature can scrutinise fully issues of importance. Certainly, that is one reason why we believe that we need to move urgently towards having more Assembly Members in the Welsh Parliament, so that that scrutiny can happen properly. I agree with Suzy also that it would be beneficial for the Government to adopt a transparent method of introducing secondary legislation. I know that this isn’t specifically a matter for the Minister in terms of the second part of what I’ve just said, but I do hope that this discussion will engender that change that is so necessary. 

I'd like to thank Suzy Davies for raising this issue, because obviously 6 June was a Thursday when we weren't sitting, and it was a written statement, so it could very easily have passed us all by. And I think that the subject under consideration here—it looks very dry and it's quite difficult to understand exactly what governors are going to be expected to do. But, fundamentally, this is a really, really important issue. So, I think it's very much worthy of discussion in the Senedd.

I think we have to avoid teaching to the test, which is what has been going on—certainly in some schools. There is nothing served by learning by rote, because it won't serve the young person well in the future, when the jobs that they're going to need to do in the future simply don't exist. So, we have to have something that's in line with the new curriculum and the areas of learning and the ability of students to adapt their learning to suit unforeseen circumstances. It seems to me that is really, really important.

So, I can see the value of enabling governors individually to be able to look at particular targets in their school. For example, if Estyn has highlighted that music or the dual language offer is weak, then clearly that governing body may want to set a target for how the school is progressing in addressing those weaknesses. But I think what we need to get away from is this narrow focus on the C/D borderline, which does not serve most pupils well. I want to see all schools being judged by the value they add to the learning of each and every individual, rather than the previous method, which was simply allowing schools to tread water in the proverbial leafy suburbs, where it was pretty easy, on the whole, to achieve the targets we were setting them, and simply wasn't judging them against the raw materials that were coming into the school in the first place.

So, I very much welcome this debate. I think it's one we can and should come back to. So, thank you, Suzy Davies.

I'd like to congratulate Suzy Davies for bringing this motion to annul today, and also for alerting me to this motion in the Chamber when I raised this, I think two weeks ago, at First Minister's questions, when I did bring it to the Chamber in another context. Generally, I support what Suzy has said about making it easier and more accessible for spokespeople and, indeed, other Assembly Members to note what is proposed, particularly when what is proposed is significant. In this case, I was aware of these regulations, hence why I raised them with the First Minister. I don't actually recall what it was I read, or what I saw that happened to make me aware of them—I'm very pleased I was. But I also support arrangements to make it easier for us to be aware of the important issues that we really should debate in this Chamber, as we are today, thank you to you, Suzy.

I disagree, though, I think, with a couple of points that you raise—or I at least have a difference in emphasis. I would challenge the overall direction of travel from this Government in terms of school performance targets. I think there is a real issue in Wales, and a real issue—whether it's a Labour-led Government, or having a Lib Dem in the post, there may be differences of opinions. But there is a lack of accountability, there is a lack of ability for parents to make meaningful comparisons between schools, in a way that is taken for granted in England. And when you compare the trajectory and overall performance of the school system in England versus Wales, and note that that has taken place against a background where there has been significantly more information published in England, and presented in a way that parents and others, including elected representatives, can compare, to hold schools and Government to account—I think that is too much to consider that to be a coincidence.

Suzy put the emphasis on the English or Welsh and the maths. And yes, that's part of the threshold too, but it's also five good GCSEs at grade C or above, including English or Welsh and maths. And it is that threshold that's perhaps been the key driver in terms of the targets that have been set in England, and have seen such performance in overall performances against those targets, but most especially in London. Unfortunately, we haven't seen that in Wales. And to move away from this, the one area where schools are required to set a target, on a specified threshold, where we can actually compare them, where there can be pressure put on different schools as to how they are doing, and why it's not better, or how it compares to other schools—. If we lose that, we lose a hugely important lever in driving up, hopefully, school performance. It hasn't been happening in Wales, and I fear that the key reason it hasn't been happening is the refusal to publish information on a consistent basis, to set targets on a consistent basis and to hold schools to account.

I also think that the C/D threshold is a very important one. I have sympathy with arguments around gaming and I think particularly the early entry and the steps that the Minister has taken to at least limit that compared to what we were seeing are good. But actually if you get a C or a D it is very, very significant for that individual. In many jobs, you are required to have at least a level C pass at English or Welsh and maths, and if you don't have that, opportunities may not be available that otherwise would. So, actually, if there is a significant emphasis on schools on trying to get children through that to get five good GCSEs and make sure they're at least the level they need to have in those key subjects, then I think that's something to be welcomed. It is a target that we should have for schools. I greatly regret that the Government is proposing to do away with at least the compulsory setting of that target, and we look forward to supporting Suzy Davies's motion to annul. 

Thank you. Can I now call the Minister for Education to speak? Kirsty Williams.  

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I welcome very much the opportunity to respond to this motion and to clarify the need for these regulatory amendments. I appreciate that the progress of education reform in Wales, as set out in our national mission, is moving at pace, and I always welcome scrutiny at every stage. Over the past year, I have made no fewer than five oral or written statements on matters relating to our new system of school accountability. These have provided updates on policy changes that form part of the implementation of the recommendations arising from 'Successful Futures', something that has received mostly—I'm not quite sure what the Brexit Party feels about it—cross-party support in this Chamber. 

Let me first be clear that annulling these regulations will not reverse the changes I actually announced in May 2018 to key stage 4 performance measures, which were developed through collaboration with headteachers and key stakeholders. It would, however, create an unreasonable situation in which schools would be expected to set targets for achievement measures that will no longer be reported upon. The target setting regulations, as they currently stand, do not align with the key stage 4 performance measures that we will be reporting on—quite rightly, Suzy—from this year. 

The outcome of the consultation on these amending regulations showed that stakeholders, which included schools, local authorities and teaching unions, are generally in support of the proposals and the policy intentions. Requiring schools to set targets based on a narrow set of highly prescriptive indicators has generally been deemed unhelpful by schools and those that have scrutinised our education system, and has driven a very specific focus on elements of quality at the expense of more rounded self-evaluation and reflection.

Mr Reckless might be quite happy with that focus on the C/D boundary, and I don't have any argument with him if a child is on that boundary—a C, of course, is helpful to them. But what about the progress of the child who should have been getting an A* or an A, whose school perhaps had said to that parent, 'I'm going to enter your child for a certain tier of maths paper or English paper', knowing that the maximum that they could get was a C? Now, that's fine for the school's performance measures, but if that child could have gone on to get a B or an A or an A*, they have been denied that chance, and the system that has helped the school achieve what it wants, but doesn't necessarily help the child achieve—[Interruption.] I'll give way. 

So surely, then, what we need is accountability, measurements, targets, ability to compare those, rather than rounded self-evaluation that might otherwise be termed schools marking their own homework?  

What we will have instead, from this summer, is a points-based score system, where every child's achievements—every child, from the highest achievers to those for whom actually getting a D is a massive achievement for them—will be counted. And we will still have headline measures for counting English, maths, as well as science. We're not getting rid of accountability. We're moving to a smarter accountability where every child matters in our system, the performance of every child matters in our system and, crucially, we measure the impact of that child's progress through the education system. So, if you came in expecting a certain grade at year 7, then we can track that child's progress and the impact that that school has had on that particular child.

What we know is—. And, Suzy, I think, in your response to my statement last year, you recognised that the unintended consequences—whether they should have been foreseen by previous Governments or unforeseen—have led to a narrowing of curriculum, and indeed, timetabling that has led to subjects such as history, geography, drama, art, music and French being driven out of the curriculum, as teachers concentrate their timetabling lessons, sometimes for entire half terms, simply on English and maths to the exclusion of everything else I think we want our children to learn and achieve in our schools. 

Now, the purpose of these amending regulations is not to remove quality control from our school accountability system. Schools will continue to be inspected; parents and guardians will continue to receive reports on progress of learners; schools will still be required to set targets for improvement and local authorities will continue to quality assure those targets; and Estyn will also inspect local authorities and regional consortia and judge the arrangements in place in each region, to ensure rigour and consistency. And it is a fallacy to say that parents don’t have access to information. You only have to go onto the ‘My local school’ website here, this afternoon, in the Chamber, and you get a very, very full and rich picture of what is going on in individual schools.

Now, our national mission sets out our vision for an accountability system that is fair, coherent, proportionate, transparent and is based on our shared values for the Welsh education system, and not market values, Mr Reckless. The new evaluation and improvement arrangements will help bring about the cultural change that is ultimately needed to support the realisation of our new curriculum.

Will the Member give way? No-one is suggesting a market—it's just parents having to pay merely being able to compare how well schools are doing, to inform their judgments of (1), where they want their children to go to school, and (2), then how to help those schools get better by holding them to account.

It pretty much sounds like a market to me, Deputy Presiding Officer, and that’s fine. The Member is perfectly entitled to have those values underpinning his approach to education policy. That’s absolutely fine. The reality of living in our country, Mark—the reality of living in this country—is that, actually, children don’t have the ability to move around—[Interruption.] The reality is that we need every school to be a good local school and not to be able to have a situation where parents who can afford to move into the right catchment areas are able to do so. All schools need to be good schools regardless of where they are. And we do not move schools forward by setting them against each other.

At the heart is robust and continuous self-evaluation for all tiers of the education system and not teachers holding their arms around what’s good practice in their school. We need to break that open and share that good practice, and you don’t do it if you create a market system where schools compete against each other, and there is self-interest in not sharing that good practice.

Now, we also need to use these targets, along with professional dialogue, to support learning and improvement, embed collaboration, as I’ve just said, build trust in our profession, drive self-improvement and raise standards for all of our learners. Outside accountability will continue to be a feature of our system, but we will provide greater autonomy for schools to self-improve and develop genuine targets that contribute to raising the quality of education in schools and the standards of their learners’ achievements specific to their needs in their schools.

The requirement for schools' governing bodies to set performance- measure targets at key stage 4 will be removed in favour of increasing the number of non-specific targets that must be set, based on schools’ evaluation. So, actually, we’re asking them to set more targets than they’re actually setting at the moment, but they will have the autonomy to reflect on their own performance and judge where they need to make the improvement. Our plans are about making sure that the way in which we assess schools’ performance represents performance of the school in the round and more trust will be given to our educational professionals who are there, day in, day out, in our classrooms and those who lead our schools to identify the matters that mean the most to them in their local context.

I ask Members to vote against the motion today and not take a step back on an important, practical step in helping to bring about the cultural change that I believe is ultimately needed within our schools and will be needed to deliver on our national mission. I take the point that Suzy Davies makes about procedure. I’m very happy to reflect on the way in which we undertake those procedures in the context of the department for education, and I’m sure that colleagues in wider Government will reflect on the points that have been made today. The procedure has not been there to avoid scrutiny, but I shall reflect on that with any other further legislation or regulations that we bring forward in the education department.

Can I now call Suzy Davies to reply to the debate?

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Thank you very much to all Members who took part in this debate today, and I'm glad, Jenny Rathbone, you thought this was important enough to discuss. Perhaps I can just begin with the Minister's points. This has been brought at a higher level to the Chamber before; it's not complete news to us. But the very specifics of English, maths and Welsh, we hadn't had a chance to discuss those. Even though I agree with what you said in your response to this debate, that we have been told about this before and something needs to change, I don't think you did cover off the English, maths and Welsh part particularly, because those particular subjects, in our current system—not our current education system, but in our current economic system, our higher and further education system—have a unique status. They're always asked for, and I would be very worried if schools were given the opportunities not to make those three subject areas one of the six or more that they're going to be setting targets in the new way on, and that's why I chose these particular regulations rather than any others. So, perhaps you can reflect a little bit more on that.

Teaching to a test—yes, we agree with you there, Jenny, but, as I say, these three subjects are priorities, I think, for any school, however good it is and however well it's been performing in those three areas up until now.

More Members—now then, that won't solve the problem if these regulations are hidden. We can have 160 Members, but if we can't find these regulations, they still can't be scrutinised by anyone. So, I'm grateful to you, Minister, for the final points that you made there.

Will you take an interevention?

Yes, of course.

Having more of us would mean that there are more of us to look for the regulations or anything that is hidden. My problem is that there is a lot that we don't know about, and because there are so few of us, we haven't got time to actually delve into the lack of transparency that Government seems to like.

It's a perfectly good answer, Siân. 'We are AMs, not detectives,' I suppose would be my response to that, but it's not a reason for not having more AMs, incidentally.

Mark Reckless—school performance and how to judge it. Actually, I think this is worthy, perhaps, of a full debate at some point. I'd be very happy for the leader of the Brexit Party to table that. My thinking at the moment is that something has to change, and I'm more than happy to give the Minister's new look a chance to see how it works. It may be that they'll be fantastic and we'll have a really good idea about school performance, or they may not work. We need to give them a chance, and we need to have the opportunity to see if they do work. I hope they do, obviously, for the sake of our children and our teachers and staff. The Welsh Conservative jury is out on that at the moment, but we've got to give it a fair chance. So, thank you to everyone who took part today.

Thank you. The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we will defer the voting on this item until voting time.

Item 6 on the agenda—[Interruption.] I don't mind, I heard 'object', so—[Interruption.] No, no, I heard 'object', and so we defer the voting under this item. I don't care who calls 'object' out; I've heard it.

Item 6 on our agenda this afternoon is a debate on the Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee's report on film and major television production in Wales, and I call on the Chair of the committee to move the motion—Bethan Sayed.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. In the first instance, I want to thank all the industry leaders who contributed to this particular inquiry and everybody who gave evidence. I'd also like to thank the Government for their response to the film and television industry report that we produced. The committee was fortunate to see the up-and-coming talent at the University of South Wales when we launched our report, and we were able to use the green screens there to be creative ourselves, so we enjoyed that. It was very impressive to see the number of high-profile productions and the range of jobs the students are involved in. So, well done to the students there.

There is, obviously, good reason to celebrate the success of the film industry in this country. Over the last decade, growth has outstripped that across the UK, and studios here are responsible for international hits such as Doctor Who, His Dark Materials and Hinterland. But we have to move more swiftly and react faster to the demands of industry in a more agile way, and I simply don't believe that that's happening to the best of our abilities at the moment here in Wales.

So, this report covers the whole spectrum of the industry, from funding, training, production and promotion. But I want to concentrate on funding and the Welsh Government’s approach to support for the sector, and I know that other Members will talk about other elements of the report.

Turning to the media investment budget, we are pleased to finally see the figures on the media investment budget. I understand that some of the projects are yet to reach their full commercial potential. but having waited so long for this information, it is disappointing to see that the actual performance of the fund is so far from initial projections. Of the seven projects managed by the Welsh Government, only one has recouped any money. For a total investment of over £5.1 million, only £75,000 profit has been made, and this is insufficient

The picture looks a little better if we look at the projects previously managed by Pinewood, but it still shows that less than half of the nearly £10 million invested has been recouped. It’s not a case of regretting the fact that the profits are so little after all this time. Rather, it's a shock to see the losses are so great, and I would like to understand the Deputy Minister’s view on the reality of the situation.

The media investment budget was supposed to be an investment fund, generating profits that were to be reinvested in further productions, but it was also meant to guarantee spend by major productions in Wales. The Wales Audit Office report states the intention of establishing a £30 million fund was to generate a £90 million spend in Wales. But, since 2014, only half of the budget has been spent, and it generated just over £25 million in Welsh spend.

So, I would like the Deputy Minister to set out why the investment budget has generated only 15 per cent of the Welsh spend anticipated, and what he is doing to change this particular situation. This budget, after all, has existed for five years. Something, I believe, has gone very wrong. Either the initial estimates were wildly optimistic, or the performances of the projects have been exceptionally poor. Given that concerns about the budget were first raised by the creative industries sector panel in August 2016, there has been plenty of time to learn from mistakes and put things right.

The issues with the Pinewood 'collaboration agreement' have been well documented by the Wales Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee. Has anything changed as a result of these reports?

In terms of Creative Wales, every time I talk about Creative Wales in the sector, there's a sharp intake of breath, waiting for further details. During the growth of the film industry, the Welsh Government has had several initiatives designed to boost the sector. But stakeholders felt that this action lacked focus. Screen Alliance Wales told us that projects have been funded randomly based on the profile of the company, without looking at a long-term, sustainable legacy for Wales. Whenever the committee has asked for greater focus, we have been told this leadership will be found in the yet-to-be-established body called Creative Wales.

Since it was first announced in 2016, we are still waiting for the details of Creative Wales. We were told in February that the Minister would announce details on the form, function, preferred board members and the governance arrangements of Creative Wales in April of this year. The statement that was released in April gives no more information on any of these issues. It's filled with well-meaning phrases such as,

'Partnership and collaboration are key to successful delivery',

and that Creative Wales will embrace the synergies between the economy and culture of Wales. But there was no mention of how this will be done, and the sector is asking how they can be engaged in this process and how they can bid to Creative Wales so that they can benefit from what you as a Government want to do.

So, we are now in July and we are now still waiting for the details, as promised. The Welsh Government’s response to our report says, and I quote,

'We are currently determining the governance structure for Creative Wales'.

What is the delay, because the sector are waiting and waiting? There has been plenty of consultation. We are told that,

'The Team has engaged with...120 companies, public bodies, third sector organisations and unions'.

To what end? What is the outcome of this consultation? And we need answers now. Who is leading Creative Wales? What are the governance structures? What are the terms of reference? Who are they accountable to? And how will success be measured? The lack of information is especially frustrating because the Government has chosen to accept some of our recommendations with reference to the future strategy and funding conditions of Creative Wales. But how can we assess whether our recommendations will be delivered without the details we have been promised since February? This vacuum of no decisions means that people are simply not able to understand how they apply or know where to access funds. Those are real conversations that I'm having with people in the industry on a weekly, if not daily, basis.

The frustration that the committee feels with the lack of detail in response to our report is also felt by the industry. Whilst there are individual examples of success, such as the planned partnership with NBC International, there's a real danger that momentum will be lost. Those looking to invest in Wales need to know what is replacing the media investment budget and how they can access that fund. I have been asking questions about funding and governance since the Deputy Minister came to our committee in July of last year. So, I would be grateful if he could answer our questions today.

I will end there. I know that other committee members would like to contribute to the debate, and I look forward to hearing what the Deputy Minister’s response will be. We had various recommendations on many different issues—from ensuring that we had on-screen talent quotas, which was one of our ideas; we wanted to clarify the apprenticeship schemes; and we wanted to understand what appropriate support could be given to film festivals. We are friendly in that regard. We want to see what's happening here in Wales, but we want to ensure that action now takes place so that we can realise the potential that Wales has to offer in the film industry here in Wales.

I'm pleased to contribute to this debate, although I was not a member of the committee when the report was being formulated. I have been very pleased to follow the work as it moved to publication and was then launched, as the Chair has indicated. I think it has been a very important area of work, and the report focuses on very practical ways in which we can improve film and major tv production in Wales.

I do want to start by saying that I am largely encouraged by the response of the Welsh Government in accepting most of the committee's recommendations, though I do note the Chair's frustration that some of that acceptance is contingent on the operation of Creative Wales when it is established.

I think it's right to note the growth in this sector since 2007—faster than that for the rest of the UK. Again, this has been referred to. But, there is still a long way to go. I think that Wales, as a nation, does extremely well compared to any region of England outside London and the south-east, and possibly Manchester. But, we are still well short of any proportion that was related to population, in terms of the amount of GVA that we generate through the film and tv industry. We could probably increase it by two or three times, and then only just get to a sort of rough calculation of what you'd expect by population. So, while we do have great success and we are one of the major areas for production—our creative industries have performed incredibly well over the last 10 years, and I'm sure it's a sector that will continue to grow—we shouldn't limit our ambition. We should really extend our expectations for this sector.

I think that there is a particular need to invest in Welsh language projects and Welsh language projects that can also be produced bilingually. There's no doubting the potential that we've seen fairly recently in terms of series like Hinterland, which completely normalise the use of Welsh, as well as producing a Welsh language version and a largely English one, but with the use of Welsh. I'm sure that this has done enormous good for people across the United Kingdom to know that it is normal if you are driving around Ceredigion to hear Welsh being spoken. I just think that it really was—. It lifted the heart to see that.

I also think that we should remember that it markets Wales to the rest of the world. Wales is the most distinctive cultural part of the British isles because we have a culture that is a non-English-language culture, as well as, obviously, a Welsh-English culture also and a British culture. All of these magnificent traditions mingle and are incredibly creative, and there's a great appetite out there to share in this, worldwide potentially, which is why I think some clever investment in Welsh film making is warranted. Obviously, you only get the occasional hit that makes it to the award ceremonies of the Oscars or whatever, but I think overall, at that level, that sort of creative excellence has an effect on the general sector as well, and I think we could also align it to the 'Cymraeg 2050' strategy—again, normalising Welsh and portraying our country as a truly bilingual one. So, I think that needs to be looked at, and the funding. It is the one area where we have real responsibility for projecting that aspect of the Celtic civilisation that continues to thrive in western Europe. I think more need to be seeing our drama about that.

I note that there's a need to strengthen the skills strategy. We do pretty well, as we saw when we went to the Atrium building of the University of Glamorgan, but there is still a need to improve skills, particularly relating to Welsh language output.

I also think the Government could do a bit more in terms of co-ordinating film festivals and ensuring that their worth is projected more widely. I know there's a slight difference of opinion on how that's best secured, but I think a more central, co-ordinated approach might be valuable.

Can I just end also with a plea that it's time for Creative Wales to step forward? It was envisaged in 2016, which was when the referendum on Brexit occurred, and at this rate we might get Brexit before we get Creative Wales. I'd be very happy to see Creative Wales 10 times. I'm not going to mention my attitude to the arrival, presumably when it does come, of Brexit.

I would like to thank the Chair and members of the Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee for their report. I had the pleasure of serving on the committee during some of the inquiry and would like to add my thanks to the clerks and all those who took part in the inquiry. It provided us with much valuable insight.

The film and tv sector is a vital part of our economy and Wales has a long tradition of producing high-quality content and being the backdrop for some of the world's most popular films. The creative industries sector is one of the fastest growing sectors in the UK. The likes of Netflix, HBO and Amazon spend as much time on tv production as some Hollywood studios do on movies.

The future of the sector doesn't lie in enticing Hollywood to come to south Wales; it lies in developing home-grown talent such as Bad Wolf. What Julie Gardner and Jane Tranter have done is truly inspirational. Wales is world-class at producing tv shows and, if we are to capitalise upon the growing sector, we need to take the right approach, learning the lessons of past failures. It is essential that we embrace the changes in the creative industries sector that have occurred in the last 10 years; essential that we move away from the old paradigms; essential that we nurture our own home-grown talents rather that entering a bidding war to entice Hollywood to Wales. We can compete with the rest by being the best. We just need the investment. We need to advertise our Welsh talent.

I am therefore grateful that the Welsh Government have accepted the majority of the committee’s recommendations—recommendations that will help us avoid making the mistakes of the past, avoid another Valleywood debacle, and another Pinewood fiasco. The challenge now is to ensure that we keep up with the changing market. As traditional studios try to compete with the likes of Netflix and Amazon, we are seeing an explosion of subscription streaming services. Even the BBC is getting in on the act. The danger with a plethora of competing services is falling consumer demand. So we have to ensure that the traditional studio rush to recreate the US cable networks for the cord-cutter generation does not damage the entire market. We must ensure that Welsh companies continue to produce high-quality content for all platforms, and we have to ensure our indigenous industries have a competitive edge by offering a low-tax economy backed by high-tech digital and physical infrastructure.

Wales is ideally placed to excel in the creative industries sector. We are small enough to be agile and big enough to bring scale. It is now up to Government, both here and in London, to ensure that we have the right conditions to support creative industries and equip future generations with the necessary skills. And we might not be able to compete with Netflix, but we can ensure that its programme line-up is full of content created or produced in Wales. Diolch yn fawr.

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

Thank you very much, acting Deputy Presiding Officer, and I thank the committee for its work and the Members who've contributed to this debate here today. This report makes a number of considered and constructive recommendations on how we can better support creative industries as a Government, particularly high-end television and film production. That is why we have accepted, or accepted in principle, the 14 recommendations directed at the Welsh Government. That’s out of 17 recommendations in total. One recommendation is directed to S4C, and I'm sure they will respond to that. There are two remaining recommendations that have been rejected relating to film festivals, because mechanisms already exist within Government in this area.

As a result of Welsh Government support for the creative industries and the activity that has been engendered by the companies active in Wales, this, as we've heard in this debate, is one of the economic sectors that has grown fastest, with an annual turnover of over £2 billion, employing 58,000 people—50 per cent more than 10 years ago. Cardiff is now recognised as a centre of excellence for high-end television drama and film, and Wales has become a competitive and reliable location for creative industries and an alternative to London and the south-east of England.

Our support as a Government has played a vital role in attracting high-quality inward productions that have contributed to the local economy through spending locally. Thanks to the financial and practical assistance provided by Government, the spend in the film and tv sector in Wales has increased from over £35 million in 2016-17 to £55 million in 2018-19.

We have provided financial assistance to over 20 indigenous production projects, which are not only essential to the sustainable growth of the sector in Wales, but have also contributed enormously in helping to promote the Welsh language—as we heard from David Melding earlier—internationally over the last few years. Since 2011, the Welsh Government, along with S4C, has actively supported 15 Welsh language productions, providing more than £2.4 million associated funding. We've already heard about the international productions by S4C, such as Un Bore Mercher, Y Gwyll and Bang, which have been successfully sold worldwide.

I now want to turn to Creative Wales. Creative Wales will be charged with developing and delivering a robust strategy to support and maintain growth for the screen industry in Wales, as well as other sectors, particularly music, within the creative industries sectors. In line with recommendation 1, which we have accepted, Creative Wales will continue to promote Wales as an excellent location for film and television production, but it will also look to focus on how to develop our skills and the supply chain to an even higher standard than they are at the moment, in order to provide our creative businesses with the ability to create, which will retain and exploit the intellectual property in the Welsh economy.

Creative Wales will develop a skills strategy that will meet demand within the market. There will be timely and responsive training provision through expert providers, as well as ensuring that talents are developed by working in partnership with the relevant organisations and with specialists within the industry.

In terms of recommendation 12, my Welsh Government officials will work closely with colleagues from across Government, particularly with the Skills, Higher Education and Lifelong Learning Division, in order to support the skills agenda and to consider in detail how the screen industry can take full advantage of apprenticeship programmes provided by the Welsh Government.

As detailed in recommendation 2, there have been a number of engagement sessions held across Wales to ask the industry for its opinion on how Creative Wales can best serve the industry’s needs. Input from indigenous companies has been crucial in helping us to understand how to improve our support for the industry and to develop the highest quality creative sector here in Wales.

In looking in detail at the way that funding mechanisms for Creative Wales would work, Government officials have given particular consideration to this process. We will endeavour—and this is a commitment—we will endeavour to simplify the application process for businesses in the creative industries sector, as well as maximising Welsh spend and associated benefits for the Welsh economy and Welsh-based companies. [Interruption.] Yes.

Could you just explain to us when Creative Wales will therefore be operational? That’s the question that’s asked of me. People in the sector don’t know when it will start its work. Has it started its work? If so, how will you promote that?

The process of creating an arm’s-length body within Welsh Government is one that we have to do very carefully. I did that with Cadw, and we are following the same process in establishing Creative Wales. There will, therefore—and I’m not going to give dates, but there will be an advertisement for the role of director for Creative Wales at the very highest appropriate level within Welsh Government.  Once the director, who will be an experienced official, is appointed through an external procurement process, then there will be moves to appoint a chair. And then, once a chair is appointed, there will be a call for board members. So, I am confident that the process of completing the establishment of Creative Wales will have been completed around the same time as Brexit. And if that isn’t sufficiently clear, then I am unable to give you more detail in terms of dates, because any recruitment process depends on the response that we receive.

If I can return to recommendation 10: Creative Wales will place more emphasis on showcasing Welsh talent, and we will consider asking major drama productions to consider carrying out local auditions as a condition of funding. It appears very strange to me that people have to travel to London for auditions when they are then working in Wales.

As suggested in recommendation 11, we’re also investigating how companies in receipt of Welsh Government funding can make greater use of Welsh talents on screen. And while there has been major work done in promoting and recognising the Welsh language as an international language through Welsh productions, we must also focus on building on those successes. And in line with recommendation 7, there will be attempts to promote the Welsh language, which align with the Cymraeg 2050 strategy, and that will be a funding condition for Creative Wales in the future.

In terms of international recognition, as stated in recommendation 15, we are already working to develop Wales as an international centre of excellence, and the considerable work of companies such as Fox, NBCUniversal, Netflix and HBO in choosing Wales for their productions does prove that this strategy is bearing fruit. 

The Welsh Government takes every opportunity, therefore, to promote Wales’s screen industry and its creative talents, which are here in all major international film and television festivals, including Cannes Film Festival, the Toronto International Film Festival, Berlin International Film Festival, the American Film Market, MIPCOM, MIPTV, Realscreen, and the Annecy International Animation Film Festival. It also ensures that there are opportunities for creative talents in Wales to access support to attend those markets—and that support is all in place—and to join with all international trade missions through the support that we as a Government provide, and that support is provided by the Department for International Trade.

However, there is always room for greater international recognition. I'm sure that Creative Wales, which will be established, as I said, according to the timetable that I've outlined today, will lead to the international marketing of Wales's creative industries through the Creative Wales brand. That's the intention. I'm very keen to demonstrate that Creative England and Creative Scotland are not the same things as Creative Wales. I want the body to be seen as one that is part of Welsh Government but which can operate independently on a commercial basis. 

In accordance with recommendation 17, we have provided the expenditure figures, as you have heard. And I am pleased that the figures have been welcomed, although there were some critical remarks, as I would expect, made. We will continue to publish these figures, and I'm pleased to say that the centre in Gwynllyw—in Wentloog, not in Gwynllyw—in Wentloog truly is now making a profit.

Can I ask the Minister: can he draw his remarks to a conclusion, please?

Yes, I think it's a good place to draw my remarks to a close, by celebrating commercial success in a place where some Members insisted it could never happen. 

Thank you very much. Can I now call on Bethan Sayed to reply the debate? Bethan.

Thank you very much, and thank you to the Assembly Members who had thought that this debate was important enough to contribute to. Certainly, it's very important to the economy here in Wales, but it's also very important to the creative industries. 

David Melding, thank you for your contributions in relation to the Welsh language projects. I think it's entirely important, even though the Ministers aren't in the room currently, to try and connect it with Cymraeg 2050, and how we can make sure that the Welsh language opportunities are scaled up. I appreciate that S4C have said to us in their briefing for today's debate that they are working on various films, but on the screens we haven't actually seen that materialise for quite some time. So, I understand that they have a relationship with the independent sector and that they are reliant on co-production somewhat, but we do need to see a bit more proactivity, I think, because S4C are losing out while other people are gaining. But I think Caroline Jones's point in relation to the streaming services is something that S4C are benefiting from. We're seeing the Welsh language programmes, such as Hinterland, becoming successful on those streaming services, where watching foreign films or Nordic noir, for example, is a norm, and people feel that that's something that they can engage with, and watching it in Welsh is just as normal as if they were watching it in Danish or Norwegian.

I think you made a good point in relation to the market—how we market Wales to the world. I think that that is still a challenge in how we make Wales distinctive. Yes, we have the language, but we have to be selling opportunities in relation to the places that people can come to film here in Wales, be it the mountains or the seaside—what it is better to come to do here in Wales than in Scotland. Because at the moment I'm afraid we are losing out to other parts of the UK and other parts of the world, where international companies are seeing that they would want to come here, but processes are not happening as swiftly as we would like and therefore they are moving their operations to other countries. So, I am really, really happy that the Deputy Minister has said that Creative Wales will be announced at the same time as Brexit. But then again, the goalposts might change for Brexit, and the goalposts have changed for Creative Wales a few times as well. So, hopefully it won't be thus and we will be looking forward to the launch of Creative Wales in due course.

What I didn't mention in my speech was what we mentioned in our report, which was asking for a scalable fund. We found that you had the Ffilm Cymru applications, which were small-scale filming opportunities, and then you had the media investment budget and then, in the middle, people were losing out and not able to apply for any of the funding, simply not getting to those MIB levels but, potentially, too big for Ffilm Cymru. So, I'll be looking to hear more again in the future because this isn't the end of the story about how those mid-level opportunities can be promoted for indigenous Welsh companies who want to be able to grow and to establish themselves here in Wales. I think that's absolutely fundamental.

Again, just noting quickly about the streaming services, I note that Netflix has just said that they're going to be located in London, and I think that's something that we shouldn't shun and we should try and work more with in relation to what they would be able to invest in the future here in Wales. Just because they're based in London doesn't mean that they can't come and talk to us here in Wales about the opportunities for filming. It's not just Netflix, there are lots of other streaming services that we can be utilising, but they have decided to base themselves here and that's something that we shouldn't turn our noses to.

I think it's really important just to mention the issues with regard to what Equity said in terms of having those opportunities to have auditions in Wales. This has been something that's been absolutely long-standing. I've got actor friends who've been on the train together to go for a part that's filmed in Wales but they're going to London for those auditions. I mean, it's simply absurd, really. And that's something that I'm glad the Deputy Minister has said he will look into.

Just to finish, I think what's really important is how we look at the skills potential. We acknowledged that the skills were developing, and we don't want to undermine anything that's happening in our universities or in some of the production companies, but what we did hear when we launched this report was that post-production is something that is absolutely crying out for investment here in Wales. So, while it may not have been particularly mentioned in black and white in our report in relation to post-production, we want to assure the industry that that is something that we want to look at. We heard that many women who perhaps had taken time off for maternity leave who would have been capable of doing some of those roles were losing out then when they came back into the system because they were not being provided with the upskilling necessary to do that role, and I think that's something that we all need to be aware of.

I also think that we have to be talking about recommendation 5, which refers to including

'exploring the option for requiring funding recipients to enter into co-production agreements with Welsh companies.'

And:

'The requirement to spend at least 35 per cent of the "below the line" production budget on local suppliers, cast, crew and facilities'.

We wanted to add all those different elements in because we heard evidence in some of the networking events that we had that some of these multinational corporations were bringing in crew and bringing in catering from other parts of the UK, and that's something that we really don't need to happen when we have that wealth of talent in the food and drinks industry here in Wales and also local suppliers that can become part of the procurement trail.

So, this isn't the end of the process, but I'm thankful that everybody's engaged positively with this particular report.

I hope that people can be engaged in what we're doing as a committee in the world of film in future, and realise that it's important that we don't just grow and develop talent from Wales here in Wales, but that we ensure that the world, globally, sees Wales as a location for filming, and sees it as somewhere that's positive to work in. The process needs to develop more swiftly to promote these opportunities for Wales to be seen as somewhere that's excellent to film in. With the beauty that we have in our landscape, why not come to Wales to film? It's something for us all to celebrate, and something for us all to be promoting when we meet people on the street, or when we meet businesses in our local areas as well. So, thank you very much to everyone.

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

We now move on to item 7 on the agenda, which is a debate on the general principles of the Senedd and Elections (Wales) Bill. I call on the Llywydd to introduce the debate.

Thank you. It's a pleasure for me to open today's debate on the general principles of the Senedd and Elections (Wales) Bill. I'm grateful to the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee and the Finance Committee for discussing the Bill thoroughly and to everyone who's taken part in developing this Bill and scrutinising it. I will be responding in writing to the recommendations made by the two committees in full, but I'll respond to some recommendations this afternoon as well. A number of recommendations are for the Assembly Commission and the Welsh Government, and I had constructive discussions with the Counsel General about those recommendations last week.

Before turning to the key findings of the committees, I want to repeat that the general aim of this Bill is to create a more effective and accessible Senedd, ensuring that the framework of our democracy is fit for purpose, remembering that the scope of the Assembly's powers has increased significantly since it was first established in 1999. Now, this Bill is a significant step towards that aim and I welcome the fact that the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee has recommended that the Assembly does agree to the general principles of the Bill. I will be discussing the different parts in the order in which they appear in the Bill.

Now, turning to the change of name, the evidence that the committee received reflects the significant support for changing the name of the Assembly. When this institution will be celebrating its twenty-first anniversary next year, I'm confident that we'll be giving it a new name that reflects its status as Wales's national legislature. Now, different points of view were expressed during Stage 1 with regard to what the new name should be and how the related legislation should be worded. I had foreseen that the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee would express an opinion on the evidence received on those issues. I feel that the members of the committee had different views on this matter, and we would have benefited from seeing these being outlined in the report.

Now, the Bill suggests that the name of the Assembly should be changed to 'Senedd', and that the Senedd could also be called 'Welsh Parliament'. As the committee hasn't suggested a different name, I don't see any reason to amend this part of the Bill. So, it's a matter for the Members in this Siambr to decide what the name should be. It's not just an issue of changing the name of the institution itself, but of reflecting its status in the name of Members too. There's simplicity to the name Senedd, and calling us 'Members of the Senedd—Aelodau o'r Senedd'.

Now, the Bill also proposes lowering the minimum voting age to 16 and I'm pleased to see that the clear support of the public in the consultation 'Creating a Parliament for Wales' has been reflected in the evidence given to committees on this issue. Developing this part of the Bill has been a joint effort with the Welsh Government, reflecting the fact that it too intends to lower the voting age for local government elections. I'm grateful for their support to ensure a consistent approach on this.

It's appropriate that the committees have emphasised the importance of citizenship education to ensure that young people are encouraged to vote. Since I gave evidence to the committee, the strategic focus of this work, namely the democratic renewal group of the Welsh Government, has been established and has met. Civic bodies such as schools and youth organisations will take part in the work under the auspices of this group.

Now, several recommendations asked for more information about the costs and responsibilities of lowering the voting age, and I will, of course, be more than happy to do this and to update the cost assessment before Stage 3. I've discussed the points raised by the committees with the Counsel General, who will respond to their recommendations with further information.

Turning now to the funding and accountability of the Electoral Commission in Wales, the Wales Act 2017 transferred responsibility for devolved elections in Wales to this Assembly and I believe that we need to develop a new relationship between the Assembly and the regulators of those elections, namely the Electoral Commission, before the next Assembly election. I believe that the majority of Members share that opinion. Section 27 of the Bill prepares the way for this new relationship. As Members know, I explained that I foresaw that the Counsel General would table amendments to this section. The Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee is not content with this approach. In the same way, the Finance Committee also asks that draft amendments are tabled before Stage 2 discussions. I understand that this isn't all ideal. I would have preferred to include proposals that are fully formed as we tabled the Bill, but that wasn't possible at the time because delay would have meant losing the opportunity to make important constitutional changes by the time of the next Assembly elections in 2021, such as, in particular, lowering the voting age.

The Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee recommended that we should continue with this work through the local government Bill instead. I've discussed this with the Counsel General, and it seems that the Senedd and elections Bill is the most appropriate legislative medium for achieving this change in time for the 2021 elections.

I have had constructive discussions with the Counsel General in terms of what additional information the Welsh Government can share before we start the Stage 2 debate in response to recommendations made by the Finance Committee. I've explained to the committee my rationale for ensuring that the Electoral Commission should be accountable to a new committee chaired by the Llywydd. I know that other institutions in Wales funded directly from the Welsh consolidated fund are accountable to the Finance Committee, and I appreciate the concerns of the Finance Committee about this different arrangement for the Electoral Commission. But to ensure consistency with arrangements in the rest of the United Kingdom, and according to the wishes of the Electoral Commission itself, I believe that establishing a new committee would be appropriate in this case.

If that were to happen, I would, of course, take steps to get to grips with some of the concerns expressed by the Finance Committee. For example, I suggest that the Chair of the Finance Committee should be a member of the new committee to give the Finance Committee a voice as we scrutinise the work of the Electoral Commission and to ensure consistency with the statement of principles made by the Finance Committee. I've started discussing this with the Chair of the Finance Committee, and I look forward to discussions during Stage 2.

Moving to the section on disqualification: at the heart of this section is the principle that we should allow as many people as possible to stand in elections, and I was pleased to see the support of the committees for these aspects of the Bill and I will consider the specific points that they have made.

The Bill also includes provision to enable Welsh Ministers to implement recommendations on reforming electoral law made by the Law Commission. Even though support was given to the principle of these kinds of amendments, concerns were expressed with regard to the way it would implement them. So, I've accepted that recommendation and will delete section 36.

Now, I believe that the reforms in this Bill are important to strengthen democratic engagement in Wales and make operational changes to our national Senedd. Taken together, they contribute to creating a Parliament for Wales that is fit for purpose for the next 20 years and beyond, and I look forward this afternoon to hearing the opinions of my fellow Members.

Can I call on the Chair of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, Mick Antoniw?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. This is a major piece of Welsh constitutional legislation, and it was given very careful and serious attention by the committee, as would be expected. The Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee scrutinised the Bill between February and June of this year. We undertook a public consultation and we heard oral evidence in formal meetings. We also sought the views of young people about votes at 16, using an online forum, Senedd Dialogue, and during a visit to Ysgol Gyfun Gymraeg Bro Edern in Cardiff, and we'd like to thank all of those who contributed to that work and to the various evidence sessions that were involved.

We made 19 recommendations in our report, aimed mainly at improving the legislation and delivering it effectively with a focus on good legislative practice. Whilst we had some reservations about the approach to legislating adopted in bringing the Bill forward, we nevertheless recommended that its general principles do be agreed.

So, turning to Part 2 of the Bill and the proposals to rename the National Assembly as the 'Senedd', we heard evidence making the case for the monolingual name 'Senedd' or 'Senedd Cymru' or the bilingual name of 'Senedd Cymru' and 'Welsh Parliament'. However, we deliberately did not express a view on a preferred name, as we believe that the choice of name must be a decision that is taken by the National Assembly as a whole, and what I do do is draw the Members' attention to the evidence we have heard on this, which has been set out within our report.

We noted that the Counsel General is considering amending the Bill using wording that may carry the risk of challenge and for that reason and for the avoidance of doubt we believe that the Welsh Government should ask the UK Government to bring forward an Order in Council under section 109 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 to modify the National Assembly's legislative competence such that the risk of challenge no longer arises.

Voting and taking part in the democratic process is at the heart of a healthy, functioning society and we therefore supported the lowering of the voting age to 16 for National Assembly elections, as provided for in Part 3 of the Bill. In our view, reducing the voting age to 16 provides an opportunity to deliver a society that is more engaged in the democratic process over the long term and should be welcomed. We are convinced that lowering the voting age will require adequate awareness raising and educational support to ensure that this opportunity is utilised by young people. For that reason, we are concerned at the apparent lack of a coherent action plan to deliver votes at 16 in readiness for the 2021 Assembly elections. In our view, Llywydd, the Counsel General and the Minister for Education were not clear enough about their plans for awareness raising and education. If 16 and 17-year-olds are to exercise their right to vote in 2021, then a clear, co-ordinated, timetabled and costed plan for awareness raising and civic education is needed as a matter of urgency.

We recognise that there is work under way to formally co-ordinate activity through a stakeholder group, as has been mentioned. Whilst its collaboration is welcome, we remain unclear as to the stakeholder group's make-up, responsibilities and operational time frame; we look forward to the further details that the Llywydd has indicated will be provided in the response on this. Given the potential influence that the stakeholder group may have, we recommended that the Llywydd should publish the membership and terms of reference of the stakeholder group, including the key milestones and time frames for delivery and, of course, the Llywydd has referred to this. Following on from this, we recommended that the stakeholder group should prepare an action plan for the co-ordination of all work related to the preparation of awareness raising and educational materials for the 2021 Assembly election, clearly identifying the lines of accountability as well as responsibility for preparing specific work streams.

We agree with the Llywydd and with the Welsh Government that the Bill should not include specific duties in relation to educational matters. We do, however, consider that guidance is necessary to ensure sufficient and consistent educational provision across Wales to that end, and we welcomed the Minister for Education's commitment during the evidence sessions to consider this matter further following advice from the stakeholder group. Therefore, we recommended that the Minister for Education should issue a statement explaining how citizenship and political education will be delivered in time for the 2021 Assembly election, including the time frame for any accompanying guidance that she intends to issue. We also recommended that the Llywydd should issue a written statement at the earliest opportunity detailing the funding being provided by each body contributing to awareness raising and education in readiness for the 2021 Assembly elections.

I'd now like to briefly cover matters relating to the electoral registration process. The administrative arrangements enabling 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the 2021 Assembly elections need to function efficiently to ensure that the voter experience of the newly enfranchised is not a negative one. This is particularly important given that voting in the first election for which a person is eligible to vote can affect their future propensity to vote. What became apparent to us is the need for greater clarity around who is leading and co-ordinating the delivery of changes needed to ensure that the newly franchised are registered and able to exercise their right to vote in 2021. Clarity is also needed around the funding of the changes needed. We therefore recommended that the Llywydd should issue a written statement covering where these responsibilities lie for all changes needed to the electoral administration and registration processes, as well as addressing the funding of these changes.

I'd now like to address section 27 of the Bill, concerning the oversight of the Electoral Commission by the National Assembly. We agree with the Llywydd, the Counsel General and the Electoral Commission that, as a matter of principle, the Electoral Commission in Wales should be accountable to the National Assembly. However, we consider that fully developed provisions should have been included in the Bill on its introduction, rather than the approach now being suggested of amendments at Stages 2 and 3. The correspondence we received from the Llywydd and Counsel General about section 27 towards the end of Stage 1 only really served to reinforce the challenge of this task: amendments needed to the Bill will need to be significant and complex.

We do acknowledge that it would be constitutionally preferable to have arrangements in place prior to the 2021 Assembly election. In the circumstances, we recommended that provisions setting out the detailed arrangements for oversight of the Electoral Commission in Wales by the National Assembly should be removed from the Bill and, in the absence of a stand-alone Bill, included in the forthcoming local government Bill that has been promised. This, of course, has already been referred to in the comments from the Llywydd, but we believe this would have allowed for scrutiny of those provisions during a Stage 1 process, allowing engagement with stakeholders on the detail of these important provisions. It is for this reason that we made a general recommendation, repeating one made by our predecessor committee in its 'Making Laws in Wales' report, that Bills should be introduced into the National Assembly that can be reasonably considered to be fully developed at the point of introduction.

We welcome the proposals in Part 4 of the Bill that implement recommendations from our predecessor committee in the fourth Assembly, relating to disqualification from being an Assembly Member. Our sole recommendation concerned the Llywydd and the Welsh Government ensuring that they are satisfied with the schedule that lists the categories of persons disqualified and the holders of offices who are disqualified. Finally, as has been referred to, we share the concern of the Counsel General with respect to the undesirability of conferring powers on Welsh Ministers as provided for in section 36 of Part 5 of the Bill. We have consistently cautioned against the use of subordinate legislation to implement significant policy changes, and, therefore, we recommended that section 36 of the Bill should be removed. I therefore welcome the comments and proposal from the Llywydd to remove section 36 from the Bill. Thank you, Deputy Llywydd.

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

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I’m very pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate, to outline the Finance Committee’s recommendations in relation to the financial implications of the Bill. We’ve made 15 recommendations, and I hope that the Llywydd, as I’m sure she will, will take all of these on board as the legislation progresses. She has, of course, referred to some of them, and I will refer to some of those in a moment. The committee recognises the aims of the Bill, particularly the constitutional importance of changing the name of the institution to reflect its position as the primary democratic institution in Wales. However, our main concerns are around the funding and oversight arrangements of the Electoral Commission.

Three days after the Bill was introduced, the Llywydd wrote to me indicating her intention to amend the Bill at Stage 2 to establish arrangements for the Electoral Commission to be financed by the Assembly, and to be accountable to the Assembly, should the Assembly support such a move, of course. The Finance Committee is obviously disappointed that this policy area wasn’t more advanced prior to the introduction of the Bill, as there could be significant cost implications. During the evidence session with the Llywydd, we asked whether the intention was for the Electoral Commission to be funded directly from the Welsh consolidated fund. Since then, the Llywydd has written to the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee to say that this is her preferred option. The Llywydd has also confirmed that her preferred option is for the Electoral commission to be accountable to a Llywydd’s committee.

At the time when the Finance Committee was scrutinising the Bill, we were unable to reach a view on the appropriateness of a Llywydd’s committee, as we didn’t know how the Electoral Commission was to be funded. So, as this Assembly will be aware, the Finance Committee currently has oversight of all of the bodies directly funded from the Welsh consolidated fund, and if the proposed commission is to be directly funded and scrutinised by a proposed Llywydd’s committee, the Finance Committee has concerns that it will lose its oversight role of ensuring budget proposals are set in the context of the wider budget constraints in the Welsh public sector.  

Now, the Llywydd, of course, has indicated here today her intention that if a Llywydd’s committee is established to scrutinise the Electoral Commission, it is likely or possible that the Chair of the Finance Committee will form part of that membership. I acknowledge that that's a positive step, and it's certainly something that the Finance Committee will be keen to discuss further. I have also written to the Llywydd seeking further information on funding of the Electoral Commission. I very much hope that the Llywydd will afford the Finance Committee an opportunity to consider the cost implications of any amendments prior to Stage 2 proceedings.

If I could turn now to some of our other recommendations as a committee. In terms of the name change from the National Assembly for Wales to Senedd, which would take place in May 2020, we appreciate that the Bill tries to take a prudent approach—I think that's the word used—towards doing that, and that more expensive options weren't pursued. However, we are concerned that not all signage, for example, will be replaced on this date, and some may be replaced as late as May 2021 to coincide, of course, with the next Assembly elections. Whilst we see the benefits of this approach, we are concerned, perhaps, that this could lead to public confusion, with some signs changing now and some later on. We recommend that the Llywydd and the Welsh Government work closely together to ensure public awareness of the name change is clearly communicated.

As part of our scrutiny of the Bill, we were also keen to explore ways in which the costs of running elections could be reduced. Given the Welsh Government’s proposal to introduce a local government Bill, this, I believe, seems a good opportunity to flag up some of these important issues. We have made several recommendations that we hope that the Llywydd and Welsh Government will consider and work together to streamline elections and not add to the complexities of the existing system. These recommendations include consideration of a single electoral register for Welsh local government and Assembly elections, rather than maintaining 22 separate registers; and also the potential for automatic registration. For example, 16-year-olds could automatically be registered to vote upon receipt of their national insurance number. We also believe the Welsh Government should undertake a review of the fees paid to returning officers as part of the maximum recoverable allowance, with a view, of course, to considering whether savings can be made.

Finally, turning to the implementation of the Law Commission’s recommendations, I am pleased to hear that the Llywydd has given her commitment to removing section 36 of the Bill. We agree with the Counsel General that it is not appropriate for Welsh Ministers to change electoral law through subordinate legislation as it risks reforms being made without sufficient scrutiny, and we are pleased that the Llywydd has taken this onboard. So, with those few comments, may I say that we look forward to continuing our engagement with this Bill's journey through the Assembly? Thank you very much for listening.

Can I now call the Counsel General and Brexit Minister, Jeremy Miles?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. In opening, may I recognise the comments of the Llywydd on our productive discussions, and thank her for those? I also wish to thank the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee and the Finance Committee for their scrutiny work on the Bill and for their report, and I'd also like to thank the Chairs for their contributions to this debate. I want to address the recommendations that require a response from the Welsh Government—first of all, the recommendations of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee.

In terms of recommendation 4, I can confirm that the Welsh Government will clarify in our explanatory memorandum for the local government Bill how the reforms proposed to current electoral legislation would look in that context.

In terms of recommendation 6, I still believe that it would be within the legislative competence of the Assembly to amend the opening words of the Government of Wales Act 2006. I note the additional comments made by the committee on an Order in Council, but the timetable for ensuring that these important reforms are delivered means that introducing such an order would be extremely challenging.

In terms of recommendation 7, these are issues for the Welsh Government. We work closely with the electoral administrators and the Electoral Commission through the Wales electoral co-ordination board and other fora. We will be publishing further financial information when subordinate legislation amending the canvassing process is brought before the Assembly.

In terms of recommendation 10, the Welsh Government has consulted in the past on improving the registration system. We will improve provisions in the local government Bill, which is in the pipeline. But, in our view, further changes shouldn't be made to the registration process while other changes to the franchise and the canvassing system are being done. That would create great risk for the integrity of devolved elections here in Wales.  

On recommendations 11, 12 and 13, the Welsh Government is creating the stakeholder group and will do as the committee recommends, with the caveat that the work will be wider in scope than recommendation 12 suggests. We are committed to engaging as wide a range of stakeholders as possible in our work on raising awareness about the franchise changes contained in the Bill and in the forthcoming local government and elections Bill. We will publish the terms and reference and work plan for our stakeholder engagement group in the near future.

On recommendation 14, the Minister for Education will issue a written statement to outline the delivery of citizenship and political education across Wales from the summer of 2020. On recommendation 15, these are also matters for the Welsh Government, and will be considered as part of the budget-setting process for 2020-21. As the awareness-raising campaign will cover the extension of the franchise for both Assembly and local government elections, I'm afraid it simply isn't possible to single out the cost incurred for each election in a meaningful way. But we will consider whether there is any other information that we might be able to provide in order to give a fuller picture.

On recommendations 16 and 17, the local government Bill is not, in our view, a suitable vehicle for provisions relating to the accountability of the Electoral Commission. This is a matter for the Senedd and not for local government. The Senedd and Elections Bill is the right vehicle for these provisions, and I don't want to see any delay on this, particularly as the Assembly Commission and the Electoral Commission are in agreement that it should happen, and the Scottish Government intends to legislate, for example, in similar fashion. However, I do absolutely recognise the concerns expressed by committees, and I will say more about that later. Finally, on the CLA committee's eighteenth recommendation, we are indeed satisfying ourselves that the disqualifications set out in the Bill are appropriate, and we will table any amendments we consider necessary at Stage 2.

I turn now to the Finance Committee recommendations. We will work closely with the Llywydd to address recommendations 1 and 2 on signage and local authority costs. Recommendations 3 and 4 on electoral registration are matters for the Welsh Government. We have consulted on this and will include provisions in the local government Bill. But, as I said earlier, we do not intend to pursue further changes at the same time as those for the franchise and canvass reform, as that would create significant risks, in our judgment.

We do not accept recommendations 5 and 6. These are matters for local authorities. Neither, I'm afraid, do we accept recommendations 7 and 8. We do not consider it appropriate to address either the publication of Assembly elections expenditure or returning officer fees in primary legislation, but we do intend to address both those issues by other means. The costs requested in recommendation 11 will be included in the regulatory impact assessment for the local government Bill. We accept recommendation 12. We intend to include a wide membership on the democratic renewal steering group and sub-groups.

Finally, we also accept recommendation 13. As I mentioned earlier, it is my intention to table amendments in relation to the accountability of the Electoral Commission at Stage 2. This depends on a number of factors outside the Welsh Government's control, including whether any Minister of the Crown consent we may need to seek is given. I will provide more information on my proposals on this after the summer recess, but in light of the committee's concerns I have decided to delay moving the financial resolution for the Bill until I am in a position to provide that information. 

As I said when the Bill was introduced, it represents an important step on our devolution journey. It is important that we use our new powers in this area to ensure that our legislature can continue effectively to serve the people of Wales in a changing constitutional landscape. The Welsh Government fully supports the general principles of the Bill.

Deputy Presiding Officer, I hope you'll forgive me for starting in a slightly more celebratory mood because the central purpose of this Bill as far I'm concerned is to extend the franchise to a most important group of people and, for me, the experience of seeing how 16 and 17-year-olds contributed to the 2014 Scottish referendum was real confirmation that this is a positive move. Far from being apathetic, they seized the chance. A survey for the Electoral Commission found that 75 per cent of 16 and 17-year-olds voted in that referendum. Thousands of young people, supposedly uninterested in politics, we thought, attended the polling stations alongside their parents and grandparents despite having no previous experience of ever having done so.

But it was that experience, and how they participated in the debates that accompanied the referendum itself, which further inspired many Conservatives in Scotland to support this cause, and I think it's a really important thing to bear in mind—how the new voters conducted themselves and showed themselves so interested in full participation in that political question. That has certainly inspired me to fully support this extension of the franchise here in Wales.

And it is also about, Deputy Presiding Officer, citizenship, and the preparation for active participation in common governance. We can strengthen the concept of citizenship, its rights and responsibilities by a programme of preparation in our schools and colleges. We face a crisis of citizenship, frankly, and its connection to the duties of running a democracy, and this seems to be one way that we can start to put that right and get idealism back into the democratic process, which it absolutely needs to flourish.

However, I do believe that the extension of the franchise in any nation is a pivotal moment in its history and should be approached with all solemnity that's appropriate. As I said, I personally enthusiastically support the move to reduce the voting age, and so I will be supporting the general principles of the Bill today, and I would also recommend every Member in this Chamber to do likewise. However, as a group, we will be allowing a free vote so that Members can make up their own minds on this important constitutional reform.

However, having said that, and celebrating what we hopefully will do in the coming months, I do think it's important that this Bill is also strengthened. It is less than satisfactory to leave the question of the franchise and lowering it in local authority elections to a future Bill. We should have looked at the principle of lowering the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, or extending it to them, to include all elections under our ambit, and that means local government elections also. We've been promised a Bill and I've no doubt one will be introduced, but this is a highly contentious area in terms of local government reform and that Bill could run into difficulty. I hope it doesn't, in terms of the franchise issues, anyway.

Can I turn to the duty to educate? While there are various arguments for and against the lowering of the voting age to 16, one common concern that's been emphasised is the need for education and awareness raising to accompany this change, and indeed for it to happen anyway, so that citizens are properly prepared for their political duties. The current level of education support was deemed to be sometimes, or even perhaps often, inadequate by a whole range of witnesses. For example, the Electoral Reform Society Cymru stated that political education is relatively poor, and that we have relatively disengaged from devolved politics in particular. That is a weakness. While noting the excellent practice in some schools, even the Minister for Education admitted that there was a variability of provision for citizenship education between schools, and acknowledged that the need for consistency in the messages that young people received in relation to political education through the new curriculum was important.

However, more positively, Welsh students are crying out for better political engagement and education. A 2017 poll showed that 60 per cent of them disagreed that they had received a really good preparation for politics, but that they wanted this to be much better. Many of them, however, did say that much of their information currently comes from sources like Facebook. And, again, I think that we need to tackle that. I think that without a strong education programme behind these changes, we do risk seeing some of the problems they ran into in Scotland, where 25 out of 32 authorities did develop guidance for headteachers—presumably the others did not—but there wasn't much central consistency, and I do think that we could improve things here by generally preparing more effectively and having that central guidance. So, I think that’s an important area.

I realise I'm out of time, but I just hope you'll indulge me in referring to the name. There are difficulties here about legal interpretation, but at the minute, I think we'd all agree that section 2 or clause 2—I can never remember if it’s section or clause—states:

'(1) The Assembly for Wales constituted by the 2006 Act is to be known as the “Senedd”.

(2) The Senedd may also be known as the Welsh Parliament.'

Well, if we got the word 'congress' into those two lines, I think we would have had political bingo and would have been able to shout, 'house'—it may have been appropriate. I think this needs improving. I think we need a bilingual name. That is really important. There are various things I will introduce when we look at this, but our view is actually very—. I should say 'my view', because the group doesn't technically have one. But my view is closely in line with the Counsel General that it should say there will be a Parliament for Wales, which will be known as Senedd Cymru. I think that is where we need to get. I would also have made comments about—

My indulgence is moving.

I know I'm out of time, but can I just record my gratitude, as a former Chair of CLAC, that the recommendations on disqualification will now take forward quite fully the work of that committee in the fourth Assembly? I'm grateful to see that.

May I too welcome the opening words of the Llywydd and congratulate her on her ambition with this Bill? Naturally, I agree with the general principles of the Senedd and Elections (Wales) Bill. After all, this emanates from the announcement in February 2017 on the establishment of an expert panel to provide unbiased advice on the number of Assembly Members, the most appropriate electoral system, and the minimum voting age for elections in Wales. In this Bill we see the name change of the institution—more on that in a moment—the lowering of the minimum voting age, and other issues such as amending the legislation with regard to disqualification. But there's no further mention made of increasing the number of Members or reform of the electoral system. These issues will be aired in the Plaid Cymru debate that follows this one, and Members will be able to vote on both issues, namely increasing the number of Assembly Members and reforming the electoral system.

It's important to note, as the Chair of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee has already done, the importance of this occasion. This is the first step in the implementation of the vital steps to create a Senedd that's fit for purpose here in Wales, and that the people of Wales deserve. Plaid Cymru is entirely supportive of those aims.

In terms of the major provisions, I'll start with lowering the voting age to 16. Of course, lowering the voting age to 16 for the Senedd elections is something that we very much welcome as a party. Some weeks ago, we had the privilege of holding a joint debate here in the Siambr between Members of this Assembly and Members of the Welsh Youth Parliament, so we look forward to and very much support the provision in the Bill for ensuring that all of the young people of Wales can influence this Senedd.

In terms of the name of the institution, this party is of the opinion that the name 'Senedd' should be used as the official name of the institution in both languages, because the Welsh language, as with this Senedd itself, belongs to all of the people of Wales and represents all of its citizens. Of course, there are examples such as the Dáil, the Knesset and the Duma that come from international examples, and enrich our experience. There is wide-ranging use of the word 'Senedd' already over the past few months here. People fundamentally know what a Senedd is. I think it's rather insulting to suggest that the people of Wales, those who can't speak Welsh, somehow can't understand what a Senedd is. I think that can be insulting to those who don't naturally speak Welsh.

It's important to note that the provision in the Bill emphasises that 'Members of the Senedd' will be the title given to Senedd Members in both languages, and that the 'Senedd Commission' will be the official name of the Commission in both languages. In terms of the intention to introduce the descriptor 'Welsh Parliament', I can understand the reason for having that strapline to explain the function of the Senedd, but there's a discussion to be had at Stage 2, as we scrutinise in greater detail, whether the provision as it currently stands in the Bill is the best way to achieve that explanatory aim. The alternative proposal of the Government is an interesting suggestion in terms of how to achieve that aim as well.

So, I'm very pleased that this debate prepares the ground perfectly for the Plaid Cymru debate, in a moment, on continuing with the work of reform to transform our Senedd and our politics here in Wales. Do vote in favour of the motion. Thank you.

Can I start by saying how excited I am to be having this conversation and this debate in this place this afternoon? Deputy Presiding Officer, I think there are times, and I say this with the greatest of respect to everybody taking part in this debate, when the tyranny of parliamentary process can suck the whole life out of any ambition and the most compelling vision. This is about delivering, for many of us, on a century long campaign for home rule and the establishment of parliaments in the British isles. Keir Hardie, when he was first elected to represent Merthyr and Aberdare—Vikki isn't here, but she'll hear about it if I forget that—when he was first elected, he was elected on the platform of home rule, and I hope that we can all, or most of us at least, unite around that ambition.

Devolution, I think, is a dreadfully ugly word; it's all about process and nothing about destination. For me, I hope that the people that I represent will share my vision about a home rule Parliament here in Wales. As Donald Dewar said, self-Government within the United Kingdom, delivering for the people of Wales, delivering for the people who elected us here, with a focus not simply on the institution but the focus on what we're here to do and here to achieve. I agree with everything that David Melding said on all of the other issues. I thought it was a speech that extended our visions here this afternoon. I would endorse the whole of the recommendations that he made. I won't pursue that argument for that reason. 

But, let me say this: we are suffering in many ways today because of a lack of preparation during the 1990s for the creation of devolved Government in Wales. That preparation of course did take place in Scotland and their journey has been far smoother, I think, as a consequence of that. But since then we have had an embarrassment of riches of commissions and committees looking at various aspects of the operation of devolved governance in Wales. And we have failed— failed completely—to take note of all of those people and all of that work. That failure must come to an end today and it must come to an end now. We need the political courage and the vision post 1999 to deliver on what we seek to achieve. 

For me, the term 'Parliament' is important, and I accept that I have moved my position on this. I was persuaded by the Deputy Minister for economy, who's persuaded me of many things in the past, I'm afraid—trouble is never far away—that the term 'Senedd' was identifiable, in a very similar way to the way that Dai Lloyd has described. However, I am persuaded. I have no objection, I should say, to the use of the term 'Senedd' in both Welsh and English. But it has become clear to me as this debate has evolved that people want us to use both languages equally, and those for whom Welsh is not their first language want us to use the term 'Parliament' and not simply the term 'Senedd'. This is not our institution. It is an institution that belongs to the people that we represent. We have an absolute responsibility to ensure that everybody feels equally represented by this institution and within this institution. And, for me, that makes it absolutely clear that this is a Parliament for Wales, for everyone in Wales; it is our Senedd, Senedd Cymru, but it is a Parliament and a Senedd, representing everybody equally, and we need to be able to do that and do that in the title of this institution. 

I listened to the comments made by my good friend from Pontypridd, and I read the report from the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee on how we will go about making this change, and I have to say, it summed up all the difficulties with constitutional change in Wales over the last 20 years. There seems to be a dispute over whether we're able to do everything we need to do because of the 2006 legislation and the rest of it. We need to be able to move more quickly, more clearly and more simply to make this change, and we need to do so along the lines and in the time frame that is being introduced by the Presiding Officer.

And when we do create this Parliament, we call ourselves Members of it. I've heard all sorts of different arguments, and I think we've really got to move away from playground banter in this debate. This is a serious, mature debate about who we are and what we are as a nation. I want to be a Member of the Welsh Parliament, an MWP, which fits well into people's understanding and expectations of what people like us are described as. People are used to MSPs, MEPs and MPs, and people will become used to MWPs. They may not be at the moment, but it's clear that we need to do that. 

My time is up, Deputy Presiding Officer, but I do wish to seek your indulgence as well. A Parliament is more than a gathering and more than a letterhead, it's more than a title. We need to have the Members and the legitimacy of an electoral system that elects those Members to make this place work effectively and to be the Parliament that the people want it to be. I regret that Plaid Cymru have put forward their debate and their motion this afternoon, which seeks to divide rather than to unify. I hope that my party will play its part in ensuring that we do have the numbers here to do the job, elected in such a way as to provide for equality and accountability. We have neither of those things at the moment, but if we are to create a Parliament that will be rooted not just in the legislation of this country but in the hearts and the minds of the people of this country, then we need the political courage to take that argument out, to make the changes, to pass the law, to create that Parliament. Thank you very much. 

I agree with the remarks the Member just made as regards being a Welsh Parliament and being Members of a Welsh Parliament. I only regret that he apparently said the opposite in the process that led to the Bill coming to us in the form it does today, because in the Llywydd's explanatory memorandum, it states, in summary:

'The purpose of the Bill is to: rename the Assembly to "Senedd".'

It then gives two other points:

'lower the minimum voting age',

and then deliver a number of other reforms.

We will be opposing this Bill today, because we do not support renaming the Assembly 'Senedd'. We are not convinced—at least of yet, although I share the views of some of the particularly engaged Members who came to the session we had jointly with the Youth Parliament. I, too, was impressed; I don't rule out being convinced of the case for changing the voting age at a later point, but we are not as yet. And the other reforms—we have mixed views on those.

I was struck, a couple of years ago, by the response when Andrew R.T. Davies, then leader of the Welsh Conservatives, or at least the Assembly group, said that the Conservatives supported renaming this institution 'Welsh Parliament'. And there was, I thought, a surprising amount of media pick-up on that. I didn't think it was a terribly controversial thing to say, but the party having been, perhaps, more sceptical of devolution, at least previously, it was seen as significant. I don't see it as controversial that we should be called 'the Welsh Parliament', because that is what we are. We've had, since the last referendum, full legislative powers, at least on the areas we do, and we make laws—that's what a legislature does—and we also raise taxes. Before, I think we regulated what local councils were doing in terms of how council tax and business rates were raised, but I sat on the Finance Committee for the two new taxes we brought in, and we now also have the Welsh rates of income tax. So, I think a body that passes laws and raises significant amounts of taxes is a Parliament and it should be called such. I only regret that that is not proposed on the face of this Bill. Yes, I'll give way.

I'd like to know the Brexit Party's position—. We know the Brexit Party's position on Europe but not much else. Is it the Brexit Party's position now to rule out ever taking up the UKIP policy of abolishing the Assembly? So, you're absolutely not in favour of ever abolishing the Assembly.

We're not in favour of abolishing the Assembly.

Now, on this language point, we had a consultation, and the Llywydd's explanatory memorandum tells us that 53 per cent thought that the name 'Senedd' described well what this institution does. The explanatory memorandum does not tell us that the consultation showed—or not that I have read within it, and I have looked reasonably carefully—that 73 per cent of the consultation said we should be called a 'Welsh Parliament'. And we have in the National Assembly for Wales (Official Languages) Act from 2012—it states the National Assembly for Wales shall have two official languages, English and Welsh, and they should be treated equally. That is not the case in the Bill as it stands. 'Senedd' is given priority over 'Welsh Parliament', and the English version of the Bill says 'Senedd' rather than 'Welsh Parliament'. I believe that is wrong, and I believe it is a real concern that people out there aren't as engaged as we would like with this place. And that, I'm afraid, is more true amongst people who do not speak Welsh than those who do.

I will just cite the leading comment on the consultation we carried out in respect of whether we should have a monolingual Welsh name:

'Great care should be taken to ensure that it reflects all the population of Wales rather than continue to reinforce the perception of the Senedd as being for a Welsh speaking elite.'

I regret that the Bill has come forward in the way that it has.

In terms of other measures that we have, the Llywydd said in her speech that Members generally wanted to build a new relationship with the Electoral Commission. We do not. We consider that the Electoral Commission is not an effective or strong organisation. We are concerned that it does not follow due process and does not act fairly. Indeed, I would associate myself with the Metropolitan Police's remarks about the Electoral Commission, which they have recently made, and I'm not convinced that having a Llywydd's committee here along with the problems other Members have identified would assist with the Electoral Commission and its positioning. We believe it needs to be replaced. We are sorry that the bulk of this Bill—we do not support two of the key elements and a number of the other reforms. Therefore, we'll be voting against the general principles today.

I'll start with the extension of the franchise. As far as eligibility of residents to vote is concerned, I acknowledge there are some very strong views on both sides of the argument to lower the voting age to 16. From a personal point of view, in principle, I really don't object to the proposal to lower the voting age, but I do think it's contradictory, while we have so many activities that are prohibited until young people reach the age of 18. Both UK and Welsh Governments have concluded that there are a number of things that under 18s may not fully understand the implications of undertaking and so have legislated to protect them. If we're to maintain the principle that there are some things that the law shouldn't allow young people to do until they're 18, how can we also be exercising the principle that people who are 16 are mature enough to be part of the process that decides what they are and what they're not mature enough to partake in? It's contradictory.

Contradictory messages are also being sent to 16 to 18-year-olds right now in other ways. On the one hand, there's a whole list of things, such as intimate piercing, drinking alcohol et cetera, that this place and others have deemed young people too immature to decide for themselves to do under the age of 18. But, on the other hand, this Bill is telling them that they're mature enough to vote to decide who runs the country. I mean, which one is it?

As far as the other elements of the Bill are concerned, I can support the principle of changing the name of the Assembly, but only on the basis that the new name makes it easier for the people of Wales to understand what this place actually does. It was unhelpful in the first place that Wales's elected Chamber was called an Assembly, and I agree with what Alun Davies said earlier about devolution and about the name change for the actual Members of this place. Wales, effectively, got an elected Chamber that amounted to a poor relation's parliament, and both Wales and Scotland were sent on a supposedly evolutionary path that really meant both places would have to fight for governance to be devolved. It was unhelpful. As we all know, devolution has now moved on. So, I understand and I am supportive of the proposal to change the name of the Assembly.

Now, I have no problem with the name 'Senedd' and I also note that section 2 permits 'Welsh Parliament' to be used in place of 'Senedd', reflecting that there are two official languages in Wales, but that's where the bilingualism ends. Sections 3 to 8 rename the organs of the Assembly in Welsh as well as its Members, which is perfectly logical, of course, but then the English translation is a potentially misleading mix of English and Welsh, for example the 'Senedd Commission' rather than 'Welsh Parliament Commission'. The name 'Senedd' is currently used as an alternative for 'Assembly', so when 'Welsh Parliament' is added into the mix, it may seem to some people that the 'Welsh Parliament' is an additional institution rather than just an alternate name. The new names of Members, the Commission et cetera could also lead to the misunderstanding that there's a Senedd and a Welsh Parliament, and the proposed new names set out in sections 3 to 8 don't make our roles or those of the bodies of this place any more understandable. And, yes, you can educate people, but the more unclear you make the names of the bodies and Members of this institution, the more taxpayers' money will be needed to educate the population.

The intention of the name change is to not only reflect the reality of the Assembly's current state as a proper legislature but to aid people's understanding of what we do here. The proposed name changes in sections 3 to 8 don't make it easy for the public to understand what this place and its Members actually do, and therefore don't make it more accessible to the public. 

I feel an opportunity to increase engagement by the public with this place is currently being missed by the Bill disengaging anyone who's not a Welsh speaker or isn't up with the lingo of this Assembly, that is the majority of the Welsh population, because there's an unequal focus on the name 'Senedd'. I would therefore ask the Presiding Officer why the decision has been made to use this mixture of Welsh and English in the supposedly English translation of the Welsh names in sections 3 to 8—[Interruption.] I'm on my last three words.

Will the Member take a point?

Yes, go on. 

Well, English, for a legislature, uses the French loanword 'parliament', and in Welsh we use the Latin loanword 'senedd'.

Well, thank you, but I don't really think that helps because the point I'm trying to make is that 'Senedd', although it's a perfectly acceptable word, it's not accessible for a lot of people. I mean, how many people out there actually instantly understand what 'Member of the Senedd' means? If you've been in connection with the Assembly for some time, yes, you might—you'll be familiar with the word, but—. This is about understandability and accessibility.

So, however, having said all that, I do actually support the general principles of the Bill, and with that, I'll finish.

I just want to speak very briefly about this Bill. I rise with a heavy heart to say that I'll be voting against the general principles today, not because I don't agree with most of what's in this Bill, as I've had many conversations with the Llywydd in the past, but because of this principle of extending the franchise to younger voters aged 16 and 17. And it's not because—[Interruption.] Well, that's not the case, and it's quite an assumption for you to draw on. I'm happy to take an intervention if you want to make one. But we know that having the opportunity to vote is one of the most important privileges in our society and the vote has provided men and women with real power, giving them the ability to topple governments, to turf out local councillors and politicians, to establish new parliaments, and decide our fortunes, of course, with regard to EU membership. And the way it's always worked in our democracy is that adults have the right to vote and children don't, and as has already been said, there's been a common accepted age of responsibility for most things, and that has been at the age of 18. Of course, when I was younger, even when I was 18, I wasn't able to vote—stand for elections, rather—[Interruption.]—because you have to be 21 to be able to stand for election, even though I was able to vote at 18. [Interruption.] I'll happily take an intervention.

I dare him to make that speech in front of the Youth Parliament.

You know what I find fascinating? I hear this challenge on a regular basis. When I go to schools and people ask me what my views are on this, and I explain to them—[Interruption.]—and I explain to them that my principal point is this: it's not that I'm necessarily against 16 and 17-year-olds having the vote, it's that I'm for a common age of responsibility in this country, and that's what we don't have at the moment, because we have different ages of responsibilities—[Interruption.]—for all sorts of different things—. I'll happily take an intervention.

Would you therefore be opposed to anybody under the age of 18 being allowed to join the British military?

I would happily be for a consistent age of responsibility. At the moment, that age of responsibility is deemed to be 18 for most things: for drinking, for example. Even for using sunbeds; we've legislated for that here in Wales, and, as a result of that, therefore, I think that it's recognised that young people below the age of 18, including in their mental abilities sometimes, are not fully developed—not everybody; we know that people develop at different rates. [Interruption.] We know that people develop at different rates, but the fact is that their skin doesn't develop at the—their skin isn't adult skin, which is why we try to protect them. And, at the end of the day, whilst we all know people who are fully mature at age 14, even, the reality is that you're more likely to have individuals who are fully developed at the age of 18. And it's for that reason—this reason of needing a common age of responsibility—that I think that we need to—[Interruption.]—that I think need to change things.

Now, if we're talking about people making the argument that we should be allowing young people to drink at the age of 18, because they're mature enough to make that decision, which is, I think, following the logic of everybody here, the way that people might want to go, I don't advocate that. I don't think we should be reducing the age at which young people can go and buy alcohol on their own. I don't think that we should be—[Interruption.] I don't think we should be reducing the age to 18, and that's why I think that 18 is the better age in terms of an age of responsibility, and it's the one that I would advocate.

And it's a fallacy to suggest that, if you don't have a vote, you can't influence politics, because the reality is that, as politicians, we do engage in our schools, we go into schools. When I ask them what their views are on whether they think they should be entitled to vote, not everybody says that they think that they're mature enough to make an informed decision. This is why political education, of course, is important, and education about our democracy. But the reality is that many people don't feel confident enough at that age and don't think that they ought to have that responsibility put on their shoulders. And those young people inform my views that I bring to the Chamber. The views of their parents and their grandparents, of course, who are interested in the views of young people too, help to shape the representations that I make to Ministers and others in this National Assembly too.

So, in terms of engagement with young people, you can still engage, you can still listen to them, we can still represent their views, even if they don't have a direct say in those elections by extending the franchise. So, let's have a common age of responsibility and some agreement and debate on what that common age ought to be, because I think that that's a more important debate than extending the franchise when we've got different ages for different responsibilities at the moment.

Can I now call on the Llywydd to reply to the debate? Llywydd.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, and, in tabling this Bill, I’m very pleased that Alun Davies has confirmed that I did that in the honourable tradition of Keir Hardie's and Donald Dewar’s home rule tradition. I hadn’t realised when I tabled the Bill a few months ago that I was doing so in that tradition. But it is important constitutional legislation for us here in Wales, and thank you for acknowledging that and reminding us of our history in that regard.

I acknowledge and recognise that both Chairs and their reports had asked for more information, of course, and earlier this afternoon I have committed to giving as much as I can of additional information to be of use to the further scrutiny processes that will face us on the journey of this Bill. I'm very pleased to hear that the Counsel General has confirmed too that he will be in a position on a number of aspects to be giving additional information to meet the needs of the two relevant committees, and the Counsel General in his contribution has confirmed that the remit for the strategic group that will be leading on the work of changing the franchise will be announced and further details will be given to the Assembly before we go on to Stages 2 and 3.

The Counsel General in his contribution also confirmed the Government’s opinion that it isn’t the local government Bill that is the appropriate Bill to introduce the accountability of the Electoral Commission in legislation, but it’s this particular Bill that is most appropriate for doing that, and I agree with that. The point, of course, in terms of devolution of the work of the Electoral Commission and making them accountable in terms of funding and general accountability to this Assembly, is that the same work is ongoing in the Scottish Parliament at the moment and there’s legislation currently before the Parliament in Scotland to introduce this accountability by 2021 as well. I think it would be good for us to run this process concurrently, and certainly the Electoral Commission is eager for that to happen in Wales and in Scotland at the same time.

Thank you to David Melding for his contribution to the debate and being so enthusiastic and robust in favour of lowering the voting age to those aged 16 and 17. That was also shared by Dai Lloyd. Some in the Chamber were slightly less enthusiastic on these particular points, but do remember that this Assembly in a previous vote had supported the principle of votes at 16 and 17 years of age, and I am confident that that majority continues in terms of introducing votes at 16 and 17.

On changing the name of the Assembly, there was a divergence of opinions. Some had changed their opinion from one debate to the next, and acknowledged that in their contributions. I am pleased—. With regard to one specific point on legislative competence on the change of name, I’m pleased that the Counsel General has placed on record his opinion that it’s unlikely on this point that there could be an Order in Council to provide clarity on the issue of competence, so that is therefore unlikely to be a way of explaining competency in a different manner than we have at present.

It’s clear from what has been put forward in contributions this afternoon that there’s a divergence of opinion in terms of changing the name. It’s not an issue for me to table any amendments on that change, particularly because the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee hasn’t put forward any recommendations of its own on that issue, but I’m sure that there will be amendments in that regard as we move towards Stages 2 and 3.

To conclude, therefore, this afternoon, I want to thank my fellow Commissioners for their commitment to collaborating—

Would you give way?

Of course, yes.

I appreciate the way that you have responded to this debate, but there are changes of opinion and differences of opinion across the Chamber, but there is also agreement across the Chamber. Would it be possible for you as Llywydd to hold discussions outwith the legislative process between Members to see where there is space available to reach agreement, and to have broader cross-party agreement across the Chamber before this Bill goes through the legislative process?

Of course, I recognise the importance of doing that, and, if I may say so, I did try to do that before tabling the legislation in the first instance by holding discussions between parties, with individual Members as well, to see where the supermajority lay. And it’s clear that we need to continue to do that work, and I would be very pleased to collaborate with everyone in this place to find a way of achieving that supermajority of 40 Members that will be needed to vote in favour of any change to the name, any change to the franchise, when it comes to passing and reaching Stage 4 in this place. In saying all of that, it's appropriate to remind Members that Stages 2 and 3 will happen in the autumn term, and there will be amendments put forward at that time. Do bear in mind the need for legislation of this kind to have a majority of 40 Members out of 60 before you table any amendments. Do continue to discuss among yourselves the issues where there isn't full consensus at the moment, and I'm sure that we can see, in due course, that this piece of constitutional legislation, which is interesting and important, will receive the approval of this Assembly. Thank you for your contributions this afternoon, and we will move forward to Stages 2 and 3 in the autumn. 

Thank you. The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we defer voting under this item until voting time.

Item 8 on our agenda this afternoon is the Plaid Cymru debate on Assembly reform, and I call on Adam Price to move the motion—Adam.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'm pleased to rise to move the motion in the name of my party and, indeed, to build upon the previous debate's discussion of where we've come from, how we've developed as a Parliament, and how we could develop further. I think, in thinking about this arc of Welsh democracy, if you like, one way of seeing it is that we started as a Parliament that was small in size and also weak in power, and we've now become a small, powerful Parliament.

I think, though, that there is a flaw in that description. A different way of summarising the predicament that we are now in is to say, 'Yes, we have more levers at our disposal, which is welcome, but we've got the same number of hands'. And there is a problem there, isn't there? Because powers that are held but cannot be effectively used can, in some ways, be the worst of all worlds, because they create expectations of wide-ranging transformative change, for example, which cannot then be fully delivered, risking alienating citizens and ultimately undermining faith in the institution itself. In that sense, we are a Parliament with new powers, but without the power to use them to the fullest effect. We are an under-powered Parliament, if you like, with a gaping capacity gap between what we're able to do in legal terms now, and what we're able to do in practice, directly or indirectly, in holding the Executive to account.

Now, the question of the size of parliaments sounds like it's a peripheral issue, it's the preserve of constitutional geeks. It's anything but. It's so fundamental in the development of democracy itself that James Madison and Alexander Hamilton wrote a Federalist Paper about it. And fast forward to today, and the New York Times recently did an editorial on it, making the case for more Members of the House of Representatives elected—as we suggest in this motion—on the basis of single transferable votes in multi-Member constituencies. Now, it's a long way from Capitol Hill to Cardiff Bay, but the essential argument is the same. Our Parliament is too small, and that represents a big danger to the health of our democracy.

Now, over the past 15 years, we've had three major independent inquiries, all coming to the same conclusion—that, if this place is to work effectively, it needs more Members. We had the Richard commission in 2004, the Silk commission in 2012, and finally the McAllister expert panel last year. The fourth Assembly Commission said that we are underpowered and overstretched, and the current Assembly Commission agreed, and that's why they commissioned the expert panel.

How could you not come to this conclusion? As the powers and workload of this place have steadily increased, the case, I think, for more Members has become increasingly incontrovertible. We have a Welsh Treasury, but do we really have a Treasury committee? That's no disrespect to the Finance Committee, but a Finance Committee with six people isn't enough to scrutinise the recently devolved taxation powers and to oversee the £2 billion plus worth of taxation powers. As the McAllister panel put it, quoting the Silk commission,

'good scrutiny means good legislation, and good legislation pays for itself.' 

Now, leaving aside Ministers and other office holders, for example, there are only 44 Members in this place, in this Parliament, that are able to hold the Welsh Government to account and scrutinise legislation as backbench Members, effectively. That compares with 113 in the Scottish Parliament in that position, and 522 at Westminster. The McAllister panel concluded that as a point of principle, Chairs of policy and legislation committees, or other significant committees, should sit only on their own committee, and other Members should sit on no more than two committees. But they said that, with only 60 Members, this is not achievable within the current committee system. As Members, we all know; we're constantly moving from one meeting or one issue to another, and much of the time we don't even have the opportunity to read, let alone reflect properly on, the documents at the heart of those meetings. The monuments to multitasking that are these dreaded computer terminals are testament to the fact that we have too few Members with too little time. We don't even have the time to listen to each other, let alone to think.

Between them, Richard, Silk and McAllister undertook an exhaustive trawl of equivalent small country legislatures around the world. They found that 60 Members was extremely small for a legislative Assembly that also provides an executive. We're way at the end of a long tail. The Electoral Reform Society found that even for devolved legislatures with executive functions like ours, around 100 representatives is the norm internationally. We are the only nation in the world that I've been able to find where the council chamber of the capital city has more members than the national Parliament itself. The average size of national Parliaments for countries like ours, with between 1 million and 6 million citizens, is around 140 Members. Indeed, if you applied the famous cube root rule—now I am fully in constitutional geek territory—the finding by the Estonian political scientist Rein Taagepera that the largest legislative body of a national legislature tends to be the cube root of the population, a number that, when multiplied by itself twice, yields the voting age population, then the Senedd would have around 140 Members.

Now, the McAllister report, of course, advocated the far more modest and reasonable proposal of between 80 and 90 Members, but surely we must accept that 60 is far too few for us to be able to do the job that we've been assigned. We need to do something about that, and we need to do it now. I know that some people today have accused me of playing politics with this, so let me quote someone who is avowedly apolitical, the former Auditor General for Wales, Huw Vaughan Thomas, who said this in his valedictory letter to us:

'ever since my membership of the Richard Commission in 2002-04, it has been clear to me that an increase in the number of Assembly Members is necessary in order for the Assembly itself to continue to be able to scrutinise the executive effectively. With the ever-increasing range of powers being devolved to Wales under the 2015 Act, most notably in tax-raising, innovative finance mechanisms and transport, I consider that the need for additional Assembly Members is now becoming acute'.

Now, I think many Members in the Chamber know the truth that I speak. I think that's why the First Minister and his party, to be fair, have come out in favour of more Members in principle. The essence of the Labour Party's current position as I understand it is a bit in the spirit of St Augustine: 'Make us more effective, but just not yet'. And I fear that we're falling into a very familiar trap here. So many times over the last 20 years we've had maximum ambition but zero urgency, and there are dangers there for all of us.

I do recognise the argument that you put in—that you want it now, and you want it delivered in 2021—but in the commitment that was signed up to by quite a number of existing cross-party Members today to do this, absolutely, but to do it by 2026, recognising a certain realpolitik in order to achieve that, it isn’t only Labour and a couple of Conservative Members and Liberal Democrats and so on, but it is some notable members of Plaid Cymru—people who led Plaid Cymru—who are on that list as well, former Assembly Members here. So, I would ask him simply to recognise that there may indeed be a shared objective here, but the question is how we can build the consensus and achieve this together beyond today’s debate.

But the essence of the argument that I'm presenting is that we cannot afford to wait until 2026. This is not a problem that can be put off until tomorrow, let alone another five years’ time—it’s a crisis in our democracy that we have to put right today. And we can do it today if we support this motion. And for those who are in any doubt about whether we have the time, I’d just remind you that in 1997, of course, by my reckoning, there were 20 months between the 1997 referendum and the elections to the first Assembly. We have 22 months before the next election, and I don’t think any of us would want to argue that we are less capacious than Westminster in bringing forward legislation to strengthen Welsh democracy.

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, certainly.

Adam, I detect that there is support for the position that you are advocating, but for that to happen there is also a requirement for maximum unity, maximum agreement, and would it not be a more intelligent approach were you and others to seek that agreement and not simply put down a motion on a Wednesday afternoon if you're really serious about achieving that sense of unity? Because otherwise, we'll go through the motions again, and it will be lost.

Well, I think we've been very clear and consistent about this. I understand the spirit in which he’s making the point, but where else can we actually have that debate about the future of the Parliament than in the Parliament itself? I’m afraid I’m not going to apologise for that. This is the forum where we can have that discussion. Now, it can be done on a non-partisan basis, and I believe that has been the spirit in which I have made my comments today. Now, I think we could act today. We could act today. We could decide this afternoon to increase the size, and hence the effectiveness of this Parliament. We should not defer this to a future Parliament. We should take responsibility and act now on this issue, before our inability to act effectively in all other areas begins to erode public trust, I fear, in the very foundations of this Parliament.  

Thank you. I have selected the three amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will be de-selected. If amendment 2 is agreed, amendment 3 will be de-selected. I call on Mark Reckless to move amendment 1 tabled in the name of Caroline Jones.

Diolch, Dirprwy Llywydd. I move the amendment in Caroline's name. I thank the Member for his speech. I thought he spoke in a very, very measured way. Others say that he may be playing politics. I think that phrase is often used either when groups are divided amongst themselves as to their position or when a Member’s own position diverges, perhaps, from those that they represent, and I think, perhaps, the leader of Plaid Cymru may have touched both those issues today.

For our group, we are clear—we’ve moved our own amendment. Firstly, we want to note the report of the expert panel on Assembly electoral reform. Even though we may not be able to support it, even at the lower end of the range of AMs that the panel gave, I’m very appreciative of the work that Professor Laura McAllister and her esteemed colleagues did, and I would like to put on record our thanks, and I’m sure I speak for others in that.

Our second point is to believe that there is no appetite amongst the voting public to increase the number of politicians in Wales at this time. We simply believe that is true. It may be that Members want to increase the number. It may be that Members come up with particular arguments, and some of them may be good arguments for doing so, but there is no appetite amongst our constituents for doing this. I'll try and explain why there's no appetite; it's that increase in the number of politicians that I think particularly jars. We bring out a bit of this in the two sub-points of point 2. We'd like to see the 2018 review of parliamentary constituencies at the Westminster level enacted. I don't know what Plaid's position on it is. At the moment, Wales is very over-represented at Westminster. Perhaps they'd like it to be even more over-represented. But I think when we have devolution it is difficult—[Interruption.] They don't want us to be there at all. They sometimes hide that, but not today—the unambiguous support for independence that the First Minister noted yesterday.

I think in population terms, Wales would have 29 seats rather than 40 in the House of Commons. That's what the parliamentary review they had said, but it doesn't seem to be being enacted. So, that would be 11 Members reduced. Then, we're meant to be leaving the European Union; that would lead to four MEPs losing their positions. So, 15 politicians in all no longer paid by the public purse. And in that scenario, Members may wish to put their arguments again and we will engage with those arguments. But at the moment, there is no appetite for expanding the size of this place, and that is partly because we've too many MPs at Westminster and we've MEPs in the European Parliament when we voted three years ago to leave.

The argument that Adam made was that we were small in size to begin and weak in powers, and as we have developed more powers, we should therefore have more people. But surely a corollary of that argument is the institutions from which we've taken power—i.e. Westminster and our representation there and also prospectively, I hope, the European Union—should see those numbers reduced. That has not happened, yet we have this urgency to do this by 2021, potentially before that happens. I think that's what makes this a very difficult motion for him to put forward and why he won't be finding the support from perhaps others in the Chamber that he would hope for. 

I also finally just draw attention to the situation with local government. I think twice, perhaps three times, Labour have sought to reduce the number of councils across Wales. There are quite strong arguments for why they should do that, but each time they have pulled back and we still have these 22 councils that are much smaller on average than councils in the other nations of the United Kingdom. We have these costs for all those 22 councils, many replicated 22 times. If you had less councils, if you had less councillors, as well as—

Fewer.

I absolutely take that correction, thank you very much—fewer councillors. I'm very embarrassed by that. Fewer councillors, 11 fewer MPs, and four fewer MEPs—then perhaps the Member would like to come back with the argument then. But we in our group are not persuaded of the case for increasing the size of the Assembly and do not think other Members will be able to bring the members of the country with them currently. Thank you.

Thank you. I call on Jane Hutt to move amendment 2, tabled in her in name. Jane.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd, and thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this debate this afternoon. I speak to the amendment tabled in my name, and I do speak today not on behalf of the Welsh Government, but as chief whip of the Welsh Labour group in the National Assembly, and also as Jane Hutt AM, to set out the Welsh Labour position on increasing the number of Assembly Members in this institution. We're debating this issue just moments after debating the general principles of the Senedd and Elections (Wales) Bill, which will pave the way to this Assembly becoming the Parliament for Wales and introducing votes for 16 and 17-year-olds—and I'm sure it will be passed later today.

I think, as David Melding said in the previous debate, this is a point of celebration, an opportunity to strengthen citizenship, particularly appropriate after the session we had two weeks ago with our Youth Parliament, a very important step in our democracy. But, I was also pleased to be here—and David was, indeed, and a few others—in 2004, when the Labour peer Lord Richard of Ammanford reported on his independent review of the powers and the electoral arrangements of this Assembly, and I welcomed his recommendations then. It's worth just reflecting on what his recommendation was in terms of the size of the Assembly and its role and responsibility. He recommended a rise in the numbers of AMs to 80—and I quote—as essential in order to enable AMs to increase their scrutiny of Welsh legislation and Welsh Government policies. 

Well, we're 15 years on from that review and we now have primary legislative, electoral, borrowing, tax-raising and varying powers, with the responsibilities and duties to deliver on those effectively. And, last year, we debated the Assembly Commission's report, 'Creating a Parliament for Wales' following the publication of Professor McAllister's report. I was very pleased to speak in that debate as a backbencher, and I particularly welcomed the panel's recommendations to widen the participation of women and young people in the Assembly. And I did say at the time, as one of the original founder AMs, proud to have been elected in 1999 and having served as both a Minister and a backbencher, I want us to take the steps to make our Assembly a Parliament that works for Wales, with women and young people at the forefront of that endeavour. 

Dirprwy Lywydd, Labour delivered devolution and Welsh Labour continues to be a fiercely devolutionist party. Alun Davies was commenting on the word 'devolution' earlier on this afternoon, and I do think that this is about decisions that affect Wales being made in Wales. And we believe in a strong Wales, as part of a successful United Kingdom, as the First Minister said yesterday, but to do that, our party does support the arguments made in the McAllister review that more AMs are needed to do the work of this legislature effectively and to hold the Government to account properly.

Opinion is divided, however, about how AMs should be elected in any reformed system, and when we asked members of our party, the responses supported the view that the case for a new electoral system within a larger Assembly hasn't been sufficiently made yet with the public. It's vitally important that we engage with the public in considering these issues and draw from the extensive evidence gathered by the McAllister expert panel and our own party consultations.

But I would draw attention to the letter from the Llywydd last month, which said that the second phase of electoral reform would not go ahead this term, but confirmed the Assembly Commission would continue to explore these issues relating to the size of the Assembly and how Members would be elected. And the Llywydd helpfully confirmed, in her letter to us all, that this work will continue to assist the public debate and political parties as they consider their views on these matters. So, we believe a cross-party working group to further examine these matters would build on the excellent work already carried out by Laura McAllister and her expert reference panel and group.

Now, I was surprised—

Will you take an intervention?

Of course.

Can I say how much I welcome the tone and the content of your contribution, chief whip—I nearly said 'Minister'? Can I say, the new First Minister—he's in his place, so I've got to be careful what I'm going to say now—[Laughter.]—has shown very real leadership on issues around the future direction of travel of this place, of this Parliament, in terms of numbers, electoral systems and the rest of it? Is it time that we collectively, as Labour Members of this place, showed that collective leadership that the First Minister has shown, and went out and made the case for the change to take place sooner rather than later?

Well, thank you, Alun Davies. I think, like you, I was pleased to sign the Electoral Reform Society's statement today, and it was good to see it signed from across part of the Chamber. But I believe that there's a good discussion, and I expect we'll hear more about it in a minute. Also, the Electoral Reform Society came to our party conference—I don't know if they came to your party conferences—and we had a very good debate. What was interesting was how many members not just of our party, but of third sector organisations and campaigning groups, came to that fringe meeting, and we engaged and we got their views about how we should respond to the Laura McAllister report. [Interruption.]

Can I just finally, then, say that I do believe we can move forward, in line with the Labour amendment to the motion today, which I urge you to support? Our position is that no legislation designed to reform the size of the Assembly and the electoral system should be introduced without a public mandate via a manifesto commitment. But I think work now has to be done. We've done this in the past in a cross-party way effectively, with constructive engagement leading to consensus, and that's what we seek today. Diolch.

Thank you. Can I call on Paul Davies to move amendment 3, tabled in the name of Darren Millar? Paul. 

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Whilst we on this side of the Chamber see merit in the original motion, we can't accept it in its entirety, and so we've tabled an amendment to set out the current position of the Welsh Conservative group. Therefore, I move the amendment tabled in the name of my colleague Darren Millar.

The leader of Plaid Cymru is right: since 1999, the National Assembly for Wales has grown at a rapid pace, continually gaining powers over some of the most important aspects of people's lives in Wales. Devolution has certainly brought decision making closer to the people of Wales, and, over that time, the responsibility and financial accountability of this institution has strengthened significantly. This April saw the devolution of income tax to Wales, heralding yet another step on the devolution journey, cementing the fact that the Welsh Government is not just a spending authority but is now responsible for raising money too. Whilst these steps are welcome and strengthen the devolution settlement, with these powers comes the need for greater scrutiny in monitoring the Welsh Government's actions. Therefore, we on this side of the Chamber fully accept the need to increase the number of Assembly Members so that every action of the Welsh Government is appropriately scrutinised and given the attention it deserves. The people of Wales deserve no less.

It's crucial that the Assembly has the appropriate resources and capacity to effectively scrutinise Government policy and legislation, and it's fair to say that the increasing workload has made it difficult for the Assembly to operate as effectively as it possibly can. Whilst I believe the Assembly is punching above its weight, the introduction of tax-raising powers coupled with Brexit will put an immeasurable strain on the Assembly Commission and its representatives, and it's the people of Wales who will suffer as a result. But, in order to persuade the people of Wales that this place requires more Members, I would suggest that further work is required and further outreach work across Wales must take place to communicate the need for change and the impact that having more Assembly Members would have on people's lives in Wales. The people of Wales—

Will the Member take an intervention?

In a moment.

The people of Wales must be involved, and we as elected representatives must make the case that strengthening the capacity and scrutiny functions of the National Assembly for Wales is in their interests. I give way to the Member for Mid and West Wales.

I hear what the Member says, and I welcome the positive way in which he's responded, but does he accept that there is actually a risk to making this case for the future of Wales that the lack of ability to scrutinise really effectively could mean that something serious would go wrong and, as Adam Price has suggested, we could end up inadvertently undermining the faith of people in this institution because we're not able to effectively scrutinise, and poor scrutiny makes for poor law and poor policy?

I very much accept the point that the Member makes, but obviously we need to make the case as well to the people of Wales that we require more Members in this place.

Now, it's the view of my colleagues and I that any increase in the number of Assembly Members must be funded via savings arising from a reduction in the overall number of elected representatives in Wales. I note that the 'A Parliament that Works for Wales' report gives us detailed costings of the additional recurrent annual costs that could arise from an additional 20 or 30 Assembly Members. And I fully accept that these costs should be considered in the broader context of democratic representation in Wales. As a consequence of Brexit, there will no longer be Welsh MEPs, which I understand is the equivalent of funding 24 Assembly Members. I therefore accept and agree that it is perfectly feasible to increase the number of AMs at no extra cost to the taxpayer, but more work needs to be done to persuade the people of Wales that this is the right thing to do.

Our amendment also calls for any additional Assembly Members to be elected on a no less proportional basis than is currently the case, and I accept that there will be a range of views across this Chamber on how Members should be elected. And that is probably the main sticking point to actually increasing the number of Assembly Members amongst politicians, because it is difficult at the moment to see how parties will agree on what electoral system should be used in electing more Members going forward. Therefore, we on this side of the Chamber believe that the Assembly Commission, in conjunction with political parties, must look at its current arrangements and establish a system that elects Members in a way that carries the support of the people it serves.

Dirprwy Lywydd, my colleagues and I look forward to engaging in a dialogue with the people of Wales that explains the need to increase the capacity of this institution, and we are happy to work with the Commission and all parties to look at ways in which we can deliver future electoral arrangements that will result in increasing the effectiveness of the Assembly's operations. It's absolutely crucial that this dialogue takes place on a much bigger scale than is currently the case, because in many communities across Wales there is still very little understanding of the need to increase the number of Assembly Members. The devolution journey has continued to deliver more and more power to this institution and closer decision making has, I believe, on the whole, been a benefit to the people of Wales. But we are now at a crossroads, and I fully accept the Assembly needs additional Members to function effectively, but, fundamentally, it must come at a cost that's palatable to the people of Wales and delivered in a voting system that is supported by the people of Wales, and I, therefore, urge Members to support our amendment. 

This institution is 20 years old this year, which is a source of great pride for me, and I speak certainly on behalf of most Members here in the Chamber that we can look back at that event a little over 20 years ago where we decided to take that first step along the path of devolution and self-government to Wales, never mind how nervous that initial step was. But it was very clearly noted—and the term has been used many times since then—that it was a process that was being started then, not an event. That’s what we saw at the end of the 1990s, and that process has progressed so much now that one could ask whether we are truly the same institution as the institution established in 1999. The answer to that is 'no, we are not'.

This place was established under the Government of Wales Act 1998 as an Assembly with subordinate legislation powers. It was a corporate body with the Government and the legislature working as one. It was a spending body, with few financial powers that didn’t have much in the way of teeth, which led to the Richard commission, which then led to a second Government of Wales Act in 2006 that separated the legislature and the Government, preparing the way for a referendum in 2011, which led to another kind of Assembly—a far more powerful Assembly, legislating for itself, and which would in time develop, as it has done now, into a tax-levying body, too.

But what hasn’t changed during that period is the capacity of this Assembly to respond to those additional demands that are placed upon us and that have developed as this institution has evolved. Now, because of the work of the Commission and the expert panel, superbly led by Laura McAllister, the case has been made now independently and in an impartial way in tackling that situation. I’m pleased to see a consensus developing on that, and there are good reasons why we should make progress in this area; we’ve heard many of them this afternoon.

Our work as an Assembly is to hold Government to account. We do that not for our own sakes, not for the sake of our political parties, but on behalf of the people of Wales, and the people of Wales deserve to have faith in our capacity to hold the Government to account effectively. There are far too many of us wearing multiple hats in this place; I speak as Plaid Cymru chief whip and as spokesperson on finance, the economy and transport, as well as being a member of the Business Committee. It’s not a matter of complaining about the workload but doubts about my ability to do my work as effectively as I should. I’m grateful to Jane Hutt for reminding us that she is wearing two hats today, speaking in one role rather than as a member of the Government. It does place unfair pressures on backbench members of the Government party—and I see the Member for Blaenau Gwent nodding enthusiastically—who are under unreasonable pressures in terms of workload because many are required to be Ministers within Government.

And I think it’s in the most recent area that we’ve moved into that we need to strengthen our capacity most, and that is taxation. We are moving towards a situation where we will raise £5 billion in taxation between local taxation and national taxation. It’s a wonderful thing, but, as Adam Price said, although we have a Welsh Treasury, we don’t have a Treasury committee, and we don’t have the capacity to have that kind of committee.

It is positive that there is consensus developing across political parties, although it’s not unanimity, that we need to take these steps, but it’s entirely right that we recognise the fact that the support is not unanimous among the public and nowhere near to being that. We wouldn’t expect that. We’re talking about increasing the number of politicians, and let’s be realistic about people’s instincts in that regard. But whilst recognising that, it’s important that we are courageous enough to lead that debate as to why we want to make these changes; how democracy will be improved; how strengthening our Senedd will be a way of transforming and strengthening our politics in the face of evidence that is becoming more and more clear that the old system in Westminster is breaking down. Let us build rather than break down. And now is the time to strengthen and to consolidate what we have here.

Of course, whilst much of the attention, understandably, will be focused on numbers, we have to look at this in the broader context of the need to reform the electoral arrangements too. It’s important to bear that in mind, and that would truly strengthen our democracy.

To conclude, the Member for Blaenau Gwent said earlier that he believed that our motion led to divisions rather than encouraging collaboration. I do reject that accusation and, indeed, I look forward to working with Alun Davies on the creation of this new Senedd that we so need, the new Senedd that the people of Wales deserve. Both of us are agreed on that. But it was important, it was crucial I think, to make the point that if this is something that Wales desperately needs in 2026, then the people of Wales deserve to see this change introduced now, or certainly by the 2021 election. Why would we commit ourselves to another unnecessary five years of an Assembly that—

Are you winding up, please?

—both he and I agree is inadequate? So be brave. 

Thank you. Hefin David.

I'd like to take the Chamber back to 5 May 2016, and particularly a living room in Hengoed, where I was pacing the floor with—it was the evening of the count; the polls had closed and I was very tired, and I'd had a shower, and you know what it's like—pacing the floor with BBC Wales on the telly and academics from Cardiff University looking far too happy that the BBC had announced Caerphilly was too close to call and was, in fact, a three-way marginal. So, it was a funny old evening, and we didn't actually have any indication as to how the count was going until about three or four in the morning. And I went off to the count, and I was pacing the floor of the leisure centre looking depressed because I thought I'd lost and the Plaid candidate Lindsay Whittle was pacing the floor looking depressed because he thought he'd won. [Laughter.] And we eventually came—there's a lesson for you there, Delyth, right? We eventually came out with the result, and the result was: I had 35 per cent of the vote, Lindsay, Plaid Cymru, had 29 per cent of the vote and UKIP had 22 per cent of the vote. And I reflected on that. If that had been a first-past-the-post system, that result would not have been acceptable under a first-past-the post system. We have the D'Hondt system and we were able to see that those people who'd voted Plaid Cymru and UKIP, their votes were represented in the D'Hondt system. And as I say, Chief Whip, I, 100 per cent, want people to vote Labour—and 60 Labour Members would be amazing—but I was delighted to see Steffan Lewis elected on the list and knew that he'd be a fine Assembly Member. And I'll say to Delyth Jewell that I was disappointed that you weren't elected on that list as well, and serving here with Steffan.

But the issue I thought, then, was that the balance of our electoral process wasn't right, and the fact the D'Hondt system was needed to top up those seats and create this dual tier of Assembly Members when, in fact, a single transferable vote system would do it better was what persuaded me. It's actually not much to do with Brexit or the system in the UK, but that persuaded me, actually. For example—and I've read 'A Parliament that Works for Wales'—and, for example, a three-Member constituency may have seen, through the single transferable vote, a Labour, Plaid, UKIP three-Member constituency. Who knows what you would have seen as a result of the single transferable vote? But it would have been fairer; it would have been more proportional, and you would have seen a fairer sweep across the system than was represented even by the D'Hondt system, which itself, I believe, is flawed.

So, my support for more Assembly Members actually starts with a more proportional voting system. So, my call is for a more proportional voting system before we actually start talking about more Members. So I was a little bit concerned about signing the ERS motion because it doesn't talk about the voting system in the proposal. It says for a Parliament fit for the twenty-first century we need the right number of Members. That's a key part of the argument, but a missing bit is that proportional vote as well, which I think is absolutely key.

More Members though will also bring, as has already been said, better scrutiny. I often think, looking at the frontbench now—frontbench, please pay attention, I'm talking to you. [Laughter.] I look at the frontbench and I think, 'What do they want? Would they be happier with more people scrutinising them or fewer people scrutinising them?' Not just you two, not just the two sides over here, but me as well—you'll have more people like me, too, scrutinising these people there.

More of you.

More, absolutely more. And I can see the First Minister nodding away vigorously there. [Laughter.]

I've had conversations with Members, as recommended by the Llywydd in the previous debate. I've had conversations with Members across the Chamber. I've spoken to the leader of Plaid Cymru and to Siân Gwenllian today, I've spoken to Jayne Bryant, and one of the things that Jayne Bryant said to me is we need to look at representation as a whole across the UK and how our representation works. I buy into that argument.

One of the things I was disappointed with Plaid Cymru—I could have signed up to their motion but for that '2021'. Personally, I'd like to see it by 2021, but you've got to have, as Huw Irranca-Davies said, realpolitik, and you've got to bring people with you. I don't want to see another referendum in this country, I'm sick of referenda, and I think they're alien to representative democracy, but I still think you need a mandate for this particular change, and that mandate has got to be put into a manifesto that is presented at an Assembly election. I think if we had Liberal Democrats, Labour and Plaid Cymru particularly, but inviting all the other parties to join in and say, 'We are united on this,' then we'd have that mandate going into 2026. Who knows who will be in Government? Who knows who will be implementing it? But we know it would be implemented because there would be a cross-party majority—[Interruption.]

No, I think he's almost coming to—

I'm being told by the Dirprwy Lywydd that I can't.

But the last thing I'd say is that this is just part of a bigger picture, and I think we also need—I say to the First Minister, when representing us to Westminster—we need a federalised UK as well. I think we need a federalised system across the UK with regional Parliaments in England that recognise devolved power, but we need a system of devo max in Wales that is balanced across the United Kingdom. I think that is absolutely fundamental. We have the opportunity here in this Parliament to lead the way on it, and I hope and will do my best with my colleagues to persuade the Labour Party that that's what we need in our manifesto in 2021.

The building that we're debating in is often celebrated for its architecture, its concave ceiling, its sloping walls. The contours of the space itself remind us of not just the principles of openness and transparency in democracy, but also the, at times, circuitous path we've taken to get here, winning the vote in 1997 by a whisker and the work that's happened in the past 20 years to engage the public, to build trust, to endeavour to make this a Parliament we can be proud of. But it is not without its faults.

I have been a Member here for five months, and already I can see how limited we are in our ability to scrutinise Government, because of how many statements, debates, questions and committees we each cover. It is for the good of our Parliament and our democracy that this place is able to function properly and scrutinise decision making effectively. The point has been made already this afternoon that the Silk report concluded that good legislation pays for itself. The same is true of legislatures.

Dirprwy Lywydd, this is not an issue that should divide us along party lines. In no area is the desperate need for more capacity in this place clearer than with Brexit, with statutory instruments being waved through with little time for debate, and the added burden worsening the lack of capacity available to hold the Government to account. This is not good for Government or for opposition. The lack of a second Chamber here means there is no legislative safety net for the Assembly. As flawed in some ways as the House of Lords is, it is a revising Chamber, and it often improves legislation. That safety net does not exist in Wales. Good legislation that can make a difference to people's lives depends on effective scrutiny by a small number of backbench AMs whose time constraints are considerable. It is not an option to do nothing.

The McAllister report on electoral reform looked at options to improve scrutiny, including increasing sitting weeks and extending the working week. It concluded that this alone would not be sufficient and that

'the severely limited time available for just 60 elected Members to carry out their responsibilities'

limits the capacity of the Assembly to be truly a Parliament that 'works for the people of Wales.'

That is a damning indictment. As that sentence indicates, this place needs to work for the people of Wales, and the people of Wales need to see themselves in it. That isn't just true of the building—these sloping walls. It's also true of the elected body who sit in it. We should reflect the make-up of a modern, vibrant Wales, which is why, as well as increasing the number of Members, we should take steps to encourage diversity in our membership. It is ironic that these calls for reform and better representation will be used by some groups as a means of entrenching the divide between politicians and their communities, to appeal to this nefarious sense of distrust in our institutions. It would be a shame—not just on those groups, but a shame for us all—if that argument were to win out.

In this, as with so many issues at the moment, it feels like we are at a crossroads for our politics. Public faith in our institutions is at a low point. Sometimes, it is in these moments of fracture, like we are in now with all the attacks on our politics, that the foundations of an institution need to be strengthened. As my beloved Leonard Cohen has it:

'There is a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in.'

This fracture point in our politics demands a reinvigoration of democracy, a re-engagement with the public through people's assemblies, a coming together, and, yes, a strengthening of our institutions. Democracy is not a shining city on a hill. It is not a museum of plinths and pedestals. It is a circular room, with a roof opening out to the sky and the communities we represent. This place has come so far. We should be proud of it and, to paraphrase Gerallt Lloyd Owen, it is 'darn o dir yn dyst i stori ein cenedl'. How far we have come, but we have not come this far to only come this far.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Let me begin by thanking all those who have contributed to the report, 'A Parliament that Works for Wales'. It is a robust and thorough piece of work, and it's timely and necessary, as our institutions of Government and scrutiny and democracy in Wales continue to grow to meet new challenges and deliver better for the people of Wales.

The title, 'A Parliament that Works for Wales', carries so much within those few words. It is not a Parliament that works for a political party—a Parliament that works for Plaid Cymru or for Labour or for the Conservatives or assorted others. The title and the intent of the report is to envisage a Parliament that works for Wales and for the people of Wales. The title is also a recognition that the current Assembly, faced with an Executive growing as it has done—and continues to do so—in powers and confidence and maturity, has not commensurately grown its capacity for democratic scrutiny.

I agree with this fundamental finding of the report. The majority of Assembly Members here work exceptionally hard and diligently on behalf of their constituents and for Wales. But, we are underpowered, not in effort but in simple numbers. We can say this confidently in light of comparisons with other regional Governments and Assemblies across Europe and the wider world. I say this confidently as a former member of the UK Parliament too, who has served as a backbencher and a Minister, a parliamentary aide, a committee Chair, and more in Westminster. We are doing ourselves no favours by pretending that we can continue as we are. More importantly, we are doing Wales no favours by keeping up the pretence that we have the capacity to work with our new powers and our new demands, by showing a brave face and saying that we can just work harder and work cleverer. As the report actually says, we are doing that already. It is just not enough on its own. Numbers really matter.

So, the case is compelling. The question is: are we, as the masters of our own destiny, so compelled to act? Or, do we wait and wait and wait, putting off the difficult political decisions forever and a day, until we and the Assembly collapse under the weight of inertia?

But, the report is not only focused on the need for an increase in the numbers of Assembly Members. It's also underpinned with clear principles by which we can deliver progressive change in our democracy and our legislature in Wales.

Will you take an intervention?

So, let me highlight some key principles. I'll come back in a moment if I can.

Voter choice, where the chosen system of election going forward should enable voters to select or indicate a preference for individual candidates; where the electoral system should deliver Members with broadly equivalent mandates that afford equal status; where we have at least the current level of proportionality as the current system, and ideally more; where votes should have the same value; where the system is as simple and intelligible as possible to voters; and where it's futureproofed to changing needs and trends, and which can deliver government accountability, effectiveness and stability, whether those are majoritarian governments or coalitions. Now, I won't rehearse the full and thorough detail of the report—others can read it at their leisure—but it leads to very clear and well-evidenced conclusions: that we need more Assembly Members to do effectively the job of scrutiny for which we are elected, and that no amount of clever working will make up for a current and a growing capacity gap, and also that we need to consider a new system of election that, together with more AMs, will not only deliver on the principles outlined in the report, but will, together with the recommendations on positive action to promote gender equality, lead to all parties and the Assembly as a whole leading the way on greater diversity in action, not just in words, and by making all votes count equally can promote higher voter turnout. I will give way.

Diolch yn fawr. I agree with you entirely that the case is really totally compelling now. So, therefore, why do you want to wait another five years before you change it?

Thanks for that intervention, Leanne. I mentioned in my earlier intervention on Adam Price, leader of Plaid Cymru, that there is also realpolitik, and it is a question of having this within a mandate of manifestos going into the election. So, that's your answer. [Interruption.] You may agree or not agree with it, but that is the realpolitik of taking this forward. And, again, I would appeal—

You sound like Tony Blair.

I'll continue; I'll ignore that remark and continue.

The report refers to itself repeatedly as a call to action, and I agree. But our actions must flow from building a dialogue and a consensus here and across Wales that recognises the challenges we face and is willing to put forward democratic and electoral reforms for the good of Wales. But let's be clear as well what this is not about: it's not about the number or election of councillors or Members of Parliament or MEPs, or the over 900 and growing members of the House of Lords. This is about the capacity of this place—this Senedd, this Welsh Parliament—to deliver effectively for the people of Wales. We now have Parliament in reality indeed, which has seen its role change from a very limited Assembly when established in 1999, through successive iterations driven by Government of Wales Acts and Richard and Silk commissions, and a 2016 tax Act, to become a muscular legislature on a reserved model similar to Scotland, with primary law-making powers and tax-varying powers. Yet, our capacity of effective scrutiny in 2019 as a democratic institution remains constrained by the then necessary electoral compromises of 1999.

So, Dirprwy Lywydd, in supporting the Government's amendment today we need also to work across parties and across Wales to build that consensus that will indeed create a Parliament that works for Wales and the people of Wales, now and for the challenges of the future, and I look forward to playing a full part in building that consensus.

I get a bit annoyed sometimes when I hear everyone going back to 20 years ago and so on, because some of us actually go back to the time of the Kilbrandon report and remember the contribution leading up to the first referendum in 1979—a referendum that we lost very, very substantively, in a very demoralising way. At the time there were various reasons given for that; either what was on offer wasn't enough, or what was on offer was too much. The fact of the matter was that the politics of the time didn't allow for us to actually succeed with that. But as is the case with referenda—and I agree with the comments about the inadequacy of referenda—the people changed their mind, and called for a second referendum, and that second referendum actually did support devolution and the establishment of this Assembly. I remember also the debates at the time that what was on offer then wasn't enough when we came to the Government of Wales Act, and, of course, we had the referendum and we won by 7,000 votes. I do take the view that, if we had been more ambitious—and there were many of us, on all sides and parties, who would have liked to have seen more—we might well have lost that referendum. So, I raise the point in terms of the importance of carrying the people with you in terms of anything we do and anything we change, and avoiding the temptation, the seductive arrogance there can sometimes be, where we look at our position here within this Chamber and we sometimes forget that is in the ownership of the people of Wales and that we have to carry the people of Wales with us.

Now, what is very, very clear is that there is a considerable area of agreement between us, there's a lot of common ground, but there are clear dividing areas, and that's why I think this motion, as it's phrased, is inappropriate, because any change we do wish to make will have to have consensus. Now, I have my own particular views as to the sort of system I'd like: I would like to see 80 Members here; I would like to see two per constituency; I would like to see one-male, one-female constituency, so that we actually institutionalise gender balance; I would like to see a single transferrable vote system of voting. But I know, equally, that there are half a dozen different views as to what form any reform or increase should actually take.

Now, we work within our own political parties, we also work within our constituencies, and we have particular views as to how we actually achieve change, so I think it's important that I put on record here that I think the position, when we have discussed this within the Labour Party in our own conferences, that we have adopted as to making change—the policy position we have is this: there is broad support for the argument that the Assembly requires more AMs to function effectively, although opinion is currently divided on how AMs should be elected under any reformed system. That's just a statement of fact, certainly within our party. We have two other particularly important points: no legislation designed to reform the size of the Assembly and the electoral system used for its election should be supported or introduced without a public mandate via a manifesto commitment; and then, as the party that delivered devolution, it is important that we maintain the confidence of the people of Wales when deciding upon the future of Welsh democracy. It is therefore right that the party takes time to further debate these issues to ensure that our position provides a durable and sustainable system for the long term. Now, there may be those who disagree, who may think that that's too cautious or it's the wrong approach, or whatever, but it is the approach that we have adopted. And if we actually do wish to achieve change, then it could only be done by consensus. That is the reality of the situation. Consensus in this place means that there has to be a two thirds majority, so the important way of actually proceeding is recognising the reality, recognising the different approaches and starting, actually, that debate, rather than a resolution that effectively seeks to railroad a policy decision by 2021 that is incapable of being delivered, I think, within the Assembly at the present time.

I agree largely with the spirit of consensus, actually, which has characterised the debate if not the motion. I hope that we'll be able to move forward on the basis of this. I've campaigned for devolution all my life. I'm facing retirement now, and the people of Blaenau Gwent might insist that I retire in a couple of years' time, but I hope that we will be able to settle some of these questions and settle the question of devolved Government in this country. For 20 years, this place has grown. I think it has grown within the hearts and minds of the people, as well as grown in stature in the country and also with the powers that it has accrued and used in that time. I'm convinced in my own mind that it is time now for us—

Will you take an intervention?

Yes.

If you believe that we have grown and we have matured, then will you take back your comment that you said that regional AMs are mostly anonymous?

I think that the dual system is not a good system. I've served as a regional AM—

That's not the point.

—as you will remember—I'm making the point—as you will know. And I know that the experience of being a constituency Member and a regional Member is different, and I do not believe that regional representation is effective representation. I do not believe that the people of Blaenau Gwent—

Will you take an intervention? [Laughter.] I've been a regional Member in this Assembly for 12 years, and part of that time alongside you and others, and I cannot sit here and listen to you saying that you believe that regional representation, somehow, is less representation. So, I'm afraid I'll have to completely and utterly disagree with your comments.  

I actually hadn't said that, but I was just about to. [Laughter.] I do not believe—. I recognise what you're saying, Joyce, and I recognise, of course, why you're saying it, but I do not believe that regional representation is real representation, I'll be absolutely clear about that. I do not believe—[Interruption.] I don't believe it. I'm afraid I don't believe it. And do you know what? I think most people in Wales agree with me. It might not be a popular or a comfortable thing to say in this Chamber, but I think most people in Wales agree with me. 

So, let me say this: I believe that we do need a system of electoral reform that provides for equality of membership of this place. I believe that we need a system of electoral reform that does hard-wire proportionality into the system. One of the foundations of this form of devolved Government was that of proportional representation. I do not believe that we should, in any way, move away from that founding principle of this Welsh democracy. I believe that proportional representation has to be hard-wired into our constitutional settlement, and that is why I support the single transferable vote as a means of representing everybody in Wales equally, across this Chamber and across this country. And we need to do that in an intelligent way. 

I recognise the power of the argument that's been made by my colleagues in the Labour Party over this matter, and I recognise the importance of an electoral mandate. I think that is an important matter and it can't be simply dismissed. I'm afraid the wishes of the people of this country can't be dismissed as an inconvenience. I feel the frustration of those who have seen and watched commissions come and go, reports written and published, debates taking place and then put away because there isn't the political courage to take those decisions and to make those changes. I believe that four Wales Acts in 20 years is not a triumph of parliamentary deliberation or democracy. It is time for a stable settlement in this country. It is time for a settlement that reflects the needs of the people of Wales. I have argued time and time again—in this place and, as a Minister, I argued it from the position of the Welsh Government—that we need to see devolved Government in Wales that is fit for purpose. I've argued for the devolution of policing and criminal justice, I've argued for the devolution of those powers that enable this place to function properly and to deliver for the people of Wales. But I will also argue that this place needs to change as well, that this place has to function, in a way that Adam Price and others have, in fact, argued. But what I will say to Plaid Cymru this afternoon, and I'll finish on this point: withdraw this motion this afternoon. Do not divide this place on this matter. Look for unity. Look for consensus. Look for unity of purpose. The people of Wales will not—

I'm out of time.

The people of Wales will not thank politicians—[Interruption.] The people of Wales—[Interruption.] I'm sure the deputy Presiding Officer will let me carry on until you allow me to finish my sentence. 

I might not, so get on with it. 

The people of Wales will not thank an Assembly, a Parliament, that looks inwards and forgets about what they want and forgets the people that they represent. I want the people of Blaenau Gwent to be represented by a Parliament that works for Wales, but they also need to be given the opportunity to give the consent that they have for that. And that means a consensus across the Chamber, throughout the country, and that we move forward on the basis of that consent.

Thank you. That was a very long sentence; it was almost into a paragraph, that. But given the lateness of the evening, I'll let you off with that one. 

Can I now call the Llywydd to respond on behalf of the Assembly Commission. Llywydd. 

Thank you to Plaid Cymru for bringing forward this debate this afternoon, for the amendments and for the thoughtful and interesting contributions that we've received so far.

This is a very different Parliament to the one that was established in 1999, and as its powers and responsibilities evolve, so does the case for increasing its capacity to create an organisation that’s truly fit for purpose. It's worth beginning by reminding ourselves, as others have already, of the journey so far.

Only five years after the opening of the Assembly, the Richard commission suggested that Wales needed 20 more Members if it was to operate effectively. A decade later, a similar recommendation came from the second part of the Silk commission on devolution. Following this, in 2015, the Assembly Commission agreed unanimously that this place needed more Members if we were to ensure that the cradle of Welsh democracy was to deliver all of its responsibilities and operations effectively.

The Wales Act 2017 gave the Assembly the powers to implement these recommendations for the first time. It isn’t a matter for the Westminster Parliament to make changes of this kind; it’s now in our hands. That development led to the creation of the expert panel on Assembly electoral reform, led by Professor Laura McAllister, which gathered and analysed a range of evidence on how to create a more sustainable Parliament. The work of the panel culminated in a wide-ranging report including recommendations such as lowering the voting age to 16 and increasing the number of Assembly Members to between 80 and 90, alongside reform of the electoral system.

Members will be aware that the Assembly Commission had pursued a programme of electoral reform in light of these recommendations. Part 1 of the programme has already come to fruition, and we have just discussed the Senedd and Elections (Wales) Bill this afternoon. You will also be aware that we had hoped to proceed with part 2, namely the recommendations on increasing the size of the Senedd and reforming the electoral system. The Commission had already consulted the public on these particular issues and received the agreement of a majority of responses. However, last month, it emerged that we could not proceed with part 2 of the programme during this Assembly.

There’s no doubt that the case for more AMs has been argued effectively, but parties are still considering the implications of changing the electoral system. Some parties have a firm policy and some have differences of opinion on that. So, I very much hope that we will soon reach common ground and agreement on an electoral system that can win a supermajority so that we can introduce legislation to achieve this.

Arguing against creating a Parliament with the necessary capacity to serve the people of Wales to the best of its ability is increasingly impossible. There has been a growing consensus amongst the parties and civil society that it is inevitable that there should be more Assembly Members, and I am confident that the vast majority see the rationale for this. Our powers continue to increase, as we’ve heard: on taxation and on Brexit. The commission on justice is also expected to report in the autumn. With the case in favour of increasing the Assembly’s powers in that area also increasing, there’s a real possibility that we need to establish a justice committee to scrutinise the resulting work.

That is a likely flavour of what is to come in future—more responsibilities, more expectation to scrutinise, but the same number of Members and hours in the day. But there is a better way that could be chosen that is more representational. As the expert panel acknowledged in its report, calling for more politicians will never be a popular step, but it would be irresponsible to ignore and refuse to acknowledge the problem of delivery.

International and domestic comparisons highlight the lack of scrutiny capacity. If we look at the number of Assembly Members per head of population, Scotland and Northern Ireland are better off than Wales. In Scotland, there is one MSP for every 42,000 of the population, in Northern Ireland it’s 20,000 of the population. In Wales, we have one Assembly Member for every 52,000 of the population on average. As has already been mentioned, nine of our 22 local authorities have more elected members than our national Parliament. And there are plenty of other examples overseas. The expert panel's report states that if the Assembly had the same number of Members per head of population on average as the 16 European legislatures with similar populations, then we would have 86 Members in this Assembly. If we also included the nine American states with similar populations, we would have 91 Members in this Assembly.

Will the Llywydd give way?

Yes.

I'm very grateful to the Llywydd. She said that Scotland and Northern Ireland were more fortunate than us by having more Members. Will she also recognise that the range given by the report that Professor McAllister chaired, even at the lower end of that—the 80—that would give us more Members per head than we see in Scotland?

I think the point that is made in the report is that the international comparisons and those within the United Kingdom show that there is under-representation of the people of Wales in their national legislature. So, the international comparisons demonstrate that that under-representation makes it more difficult for us as a legislature to do our scrutiny work as compared with similar Parliaments in other parts of the world.

To turn to the issue of cost, which has been referred to also this afternoon, we have to remember, of course, that it all comes down to money at the end of the day for many people. The expert panel figures are the latest available in this respect. It is estimated that an additional 20 Members in this place would cost £6.6 million per annum, with a further 30 Members costing £9.6 million. By comparison, the 2013 Treasury figures—the most recent figures, that is—estimate that spend for the four Welsh Members of the European Parliament is over £7 million currently. So, in terms of the public purse, the four Members of the European Parliament represent more than an additional 20 Assembly Members. And do remember that, if Brexit happens.

So, what next? Because of the lack of consensus, but dependent on today's vote of course, the possibility of legislating by 2021 appears to be unrealistic. With that in mind, my recommendation would be to establish a temporary committee of this Assembly to build on the work of the expert panel on increasing the number of Assembly Members and reforming the electoral system. I will be asking the Business Committee to consider doing just that. There is a precedent for establishing temporary committees to look at constitutional issues, and that was particularly true in the second Assembly. By gathering evidence from relevant experts and stakeholders, we could ask a committee of that kind to report on their work before the summer of 2020, in the hope of assisting the parties as they discuss this further.

I strongly believe that maintaining momentum on this issue not only merits our time and resources, but is also necessary if this Senedd is to stand the test of time and the challenges it brings. Today's debate has been a useful milestone, and I very much look forward to continuing this debate with an eye to legislating to increase the number of Members of this Senedd sooner rather than later.

Thank you. Can I call on Adam Price to reply to the debate?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I think we have had a considered and useful debate. And that is what you get in parliaments when a motion is tabled. There is a range of views. We have seen, if truth be told, some common ground emerging in some of the contributions, and some fundamental differences of opinion, and I make no apologies at all for tabling this motion, because it is important that the people of Wales do see where the common ground exists and where there are differences of opinion.

Let me be entirely honest: this wasn't our first choice in terms of bringing this question forward. There was a process, as we've already heard from the Llywydd, of discussing between the parties. I know, because I was a Commissioner at the time. The reason that that realpolitik had failed in the attempt to deliver consensus was that one party, by the way not our party, had decided that they didn't want to act within this Assembly term, and that was the Labour Party. Now, you cannot blame us because you had come to that position, which I believe is entirely contrary to the substance of what many of your Members had said with great sincerity.

We truly need these changes in Wales now. Let's be clear: there are some things more important to me than party politics. I've shown that over the past few days, and the quality of our national democracy is one of those things. So, this isn't a matter of playing party politics. That's not what we're doing here, but we are urging the Labour Party mainly, many of whom I believe in their own hearts do sympathise with what we have to say, our analysis of the situation and what drives that—. I urge you, even now, in this next vote, or in any future negotiations that will happen in the cross-party committee that we have just heard mention of—we need to take action now. We have a mandate that is more comprehensive, and that is the mandate that we've had through two referendums to create a democracy that delivers for the people of Wales, and we can't deliver that in the current climate.

I disagree with him about the mandate. The mandate will come through a manifesto commitment that will then be voted on by the people in the next election and that commitment wasn't universal at the last election. 

Well, it was in our manifesto in terms of increasing the number of Members, and therefore you cannot blame us for the fact that you haven't reflected the position. [Interruption.] Where have you been? The chief whip has just—[Interruption.] The chief whip of your own Government has just said—[Interruption.] If I may finish the sentence, Mick. The chief whip has just said that she had felt, when Richard reported 15 years ago, that this needed to be resolved. What is being proposed is that we deliver that 22 years after that commission reported. Surely, that simply highlights the need for us to take action on this and to take action on it now.

Thank you. The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we defer voting on this item until voting time. We have reached voting time. Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will proceed to the first vote. Okay. 

So, the first vote this afternoon is on the motion to annul the School Performance and Absence Targets (Wales) (Amendments) Regulations 2019, and I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Suzy Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion five, 19 abstentions, 27 against, therefore the vote is not agreed—sorry, the motion is not agreed. 

We now move to vote on the debate on the general principles of the Senedd and Elections (Wales) Bill, and I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Elin Jones. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 42, no abstentions, nine against, therefore the motion is agreed. 

We now move to vote on the Plaid Cymru debate on Assembly reform. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. If the proposal is not agreed, we vote on the amendments tabled to the motion. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 11, no abstentions, 40 against, therefore the motion is not agreed and we vote on the amendments. 

If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 and amendment 3 will be deselected. I call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Caroline Jones. Open the vote. Close the vote. For amendment 1 four, no abstentions, 47 against, therefore amendment 1 is not agreed.  

We now vote on amendment 2. If amendment 2 is agreed, amendment 3 will be deselected. I call for a vote on amendment 2, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote. Close the vote. For amendment 2 27, no abstentions, 24 against, therefore amendment 2 is agreed. Amendment 3 is deselected.  

So, I call for a vote on the motion as amended.

Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amended motion 35, no abstentions, 15 against, therefore the amended motion is agreed. 

We now move to the short debate. If Members are leaving the Chamber, can you do so quickly, quietly, please?

We now move to the short debate and I call on Jayne Bryant to speak on the topic she has chosen—Jayne.

'Newport Carers Forum saved my life. It's like having a second supportive family.' These are the words of Chris Kemp-Philp, one of my constituents. They demonstrate the vital importance of providing support to carers and what that support means. I'm delighted to see Chris, Janet Morgan and other familiar faces from the forum in the public gallery this evening. Newport Carers Forum was formed by Janet in 2010 and gives carers the opportunity to speak to others who understand what they're going through. I know that you all carry out your caring roles with such dedication and humility and would like to take this opportunity to say 'thank you'—thank you not just to those of you who are here today but to all those carers and those supporting them across every part of Wales. Your contribution to our society is often overlooked, and so many stories go untold. This has to change.

Increasing awareness is crucial, and it was a pleasure to host a recent event in the Senedd marking Carers Week. It's always important to celebrate and focus our minds during Carers Week, but we know that being a carer for many is a 24-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week, 52-weeks-a-year role. That event, like this short debate, is a means of shining a light on a hidden unpaid workforce, of highlighting an issue here in the Senedd that affects thousands of people across Wales. At one time in our lives every one of us is likely to be either cared for or a carer ourselves. With an ageing population living longer, many with complex needs, it's crucial to ensure that we have a professional workforce ready for now and the future, yet we also know that staff recruitment and retention in this sector is facing a crisis. While a paid care workforce will be crucial now and in the future, we will always as a society rely on unpaid carers, usually a family member, loved one or friends.

Carers hold families together, ensure people can be cared for at home, saving our health and social care services. They underpin our national health service and social care system, and there's no doubt that we could not do without them. Caring roles in Wales have been valued at £8.1 billion, yet sadly 72 per cent of carers feel that their contribution is not appreciated. This is incredibly unbalanced. Caring saves the Welsh economy around four times the amount spent on all forms of social care, and this comes at a personal cost to the carers. As a society, we need to acknowledge the impact caring has on someone's health and their future prospects and the importance of respite. We must recognise the unique expertise carers have and how valuable they are to our community and our society.

The impact that caring can have on both physical and mental health can be debilitating and long lasting. The survey conducted last year found that 40 per cent of carers said that they had not had a day off in over a year. Carers need regular breaks to safeguard their own health and well-being, enabling them to continue caring and to allow them to live a life alongside their caring responsibilities. As the Older People's Commissioner for Wales has said, respite should not be viewed as

'a break from the burden of caring'

—not just that. We must do more to support and look after our carers. Quality of life can be adversely affected by caring, particularly for older carers. Conditions like arthritis, high blood pressure and back problems are common amongst older carers and, if left without the right support, the physical process of caring can exacerbate this even further. Carers can feel mentally exhausted, which is often worsened by worry, anxiety and lack of sleep caused by the challenges of caring. Around 65 per cent of older carers, those aged 60 to 94, have a long-term health problem or disability themselves. Sixty-eight per cent of carers say that being a carer has had an adverse effect on their mental health, with a third reporting that they have cancelled treatment or an operation for themselves because of their caring responsibilities.

Many will give their all to support a loved one, but nobody should be put in a position where they're sacrificing their own health. And if the health of a carer fails, then it often puts the cared-for in a crisis situation. Increasing numbers of older people assuming caring responsibilities have highlighted the need for the UK Government to review carers allowance as the main benefit for carers. The allowance currently stops when the state pension starts, and many carers feel strongly that carers allowance should be paid in addition to the basic state pension. Their efforts save millions for the NHS, and I'd welcome the deputy Minister's assurance that the Welsh Government is exerting pressure on the UK Government to review carers allowance payments.

More must be done to support carers in work. Carers UK have found that about 600 people a day across the UK are giving up their jobs to look after an elderly or sick relative, and there's a hidden exodus from working life we don't discuss enough. Better workplace support for people juggling paid work with caring for a loved one is becoming an increasingly important issue, and I'd like to hear from the Minister about how we can change that. Many carers face considerable financial pressures if they have to give up work because of their caring responsibilities. On top of this, many carers use their own income or savings to buy equipment or products, leaving them struggling financially and unable to save for their own retirement. The University of Birmingham are conducting one of the many programmes of research to compare care systems across the UK. Funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, the main objective of that particular programme is to increase understanding of economically and socially sustainable care, in particular how to achieve well-being for care users, their families and paid care workers. I'm interested to know if the Welsh Government will draw upon the findings of this research programme and programmes like this. 

Looking after a relative, friend or loved one is simply something that many people just do. This is especially so with young carers, and if people don't consider themselves as carers, identification and recognition of their needs is a significant challenge. The children's charity Barnardo's run a project in Newport especially for young carers. I had the privilege to meet that group and it was very powerful to listen to those young people describing how much they value the opportunity to spend time with others facing similar situations. The meetings allow them to talk about their experiences and share any concerns or frustrations that they might have. It also gives them a chance to have a break and spend time with others who understand what they're going through.

The vital support network, like the Newport Carers Forum, and this, is something many carers don't have. The importance of such a network was really brought home to me recently by the experience of a young person in my constituency. Following their mother's terminal diagnosis, this young carer struggled with anxiety, depression, self-harm and suicidal thoughts. But as they told me—and I quote—'one thing that helped me greatly through all of this was a support group at my school for young carers. It was nice to spend time and do activities with other people my age who were in a similar situation to myself. We did lots of fun activities such as camping, going on trips, and meeting for cakes and coffee as a group.'

Carers Trust Wales youth council have recently launched their Support not Sympathy campaign. I'd encourage everyone to watch the video they've produced, detailing six things not to say to young carers. These include phrases such as 'I'm sorry for you' and 'It will all be fine one day'. The youth council want as many people as possible to see this video, so that we all understand why it's important to offer support not sympathy. They instead encourage us to ask, 'What can I do to help?' With this in mind, I strongly believe that it's our duty to lead the way in protecting and supporting carers. I know that the Welsh Government has already made significant strides. In the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2015, for the first time, the same rights are extended to carers as those who they care for. This was an important development in gaining recognition for carers, but there's still a long way to go and so much more to do. It has to make a tangible difference to carers' lives.

Better identification of carers in all NHS settings is paramount among the positive steps that could be taken. Examples of what would help include: a quality mark for carer-friendly GP practices that enable carers to identify GP services that can accommodate their needs; adoption of carers passports, and clear guidelines for their use; developments to electronic health records that allow people to share their caring status with healthcare professionals, wherever and whenever they're present; and better transfer of information across health and social care, so that carers don't have to constantly repeat information.

It's a common feeling that, after caring for an extended period, many carers feel like they've lost their own identity. As a full-time carer, it's often difficult, if not impossible, to maintain a social life or pursue a career. Many thousands of people who are doing something that, as a society, we should value immensely find themselves feeling left behind, with little to look forward to in the future. We can't leave carers behind. They give us so much, and we should be extremely grateful. They're our unsung heroes who deserve our respect, our recognition, and, most of all, our unwavering support.

Thank you. Can I now call on the Deputy Minister for Health and Social Services to reply to that debate? Julie Morgan.

Diolch. Thank you very much, Jayne Bryant, for bringing this debate here to the Chamber this evening and putting so eloquently the situation that carers are in. And it's very good that the Newport Carers Forum are also here.

It is a privilege for me to have the responsibility for unpaid carers in my portfolio, and I want to ensure that carers do feel valued, that they don't face stigma in society, or in schools, when they say, 'I am a carer'. Across Wales, there are at least 370,000 people caring for someone else for at least an hour a week. And Jayne Bryant has already mentioned their huge contribution to the Welsh economy—more than £8.1 billion every year, and providing 96 per cent of care in the communities of Wales. She is absolutely right—we just could not manage without them.

So, I'm really delighted today that we are highlighting the amazing work that all of our unpaid carers in Wales do for their loved ones, families, and friends.

Will you take an intervention?

Oh, yes, certainly.

I just wanted to ask whether you knew that the figures that you quote are correct, because we know that this figure has been quoted for quite some time, and lots of unpaid carers don't actually define themselves as that. So, I was wondering if there was any work that you were doing as a Welsh Government to update yourselves on that. Many of us in this Chamber have raised this debate on numerous occasions—I could cut and paste most of what was said earlier to things we've raised, especially with young carers. So, any progress that you can give today would be very welcome.

Yes. I think that's a very important point—that these are the minimum figures; these are 'at least'. Because I think we all know that there's a huge issue about self-identification as a carer, and that is one of the things that the Welsh Government is trying to do—to try to get more people to identify themselves as carers, and then maybe we'd be able to give more help.

Obviously, there's the key issue that you raise also of young carers. The critical importance of this agenda was recently raised on 16 May, in the debate about young adult carers in this Senedd. Because I know this is something that has been debated here, and has been debated here for many years. It is obviously vital that we remember that caring can take place at any age, not just as an adult. So, one bit of progress—we are already responding to the calls from young carers for a national young carers ID card. And officials are meeting with local authorities, with a very constructive discussion, actually, just yesterday, to discuss how we would make this national card a reality. I met a group of young carers last week, and they reiterated how important the support groups are that Jayne Bryant referred to, where they can talk with people in a similar situation to themselves, and share some of the issues that they are coping with.

Securing recognition of all carers, I think, is absolutely critical—as Bethan said. We want individuals to access the right kinds of care and support in a way that meets their requirements and at the right time. And so it's therefore really important that we do help people recognise when they become carers, because, as Jayne Bryant has already said, our social services and well-being Act, which came into force in 2016, gives all carers an equal right to support, the same as the person they care for. Later this year we'll be launching a new information campaign, initially focusing on the rights of older people, and then following with a strong emphasis on the rights of carers and of young carers. So, that's something we'll be doing later this year.

But, of course, legislation won't do things by itself. In November 2017, we published our three national priorities for carers. These were developed in co-production with many stakeholders, including carers organisations and the wider third sector, and those three priorities are: supporting life alongside caring, which is so important, and particularly important for all those people who are caring, that they do have a life of their own where they can do things that they want to do, and is really very key in recognising that, in order to cope, you do need the other things in life as well; the second priority is identifying and recognising carers; and the third is providing information, advice and assistance to carers. Our three national priorities for carers are not just for adults or parents of children with care and support needs, or older carers, but also for young carers.

I recently met with members of the carers ministerial advisory group, created in 2018, which includes leading representatives of carers organisations in the third sector. I set out my thinking about how we can take our strategic policy and national priorities for carers forward into 2020-21 and beyond. So, following consideration of the National Assembly Health, Social Care and Sport Committee's inquiry report into the social services and well-being Act and its impact on carers, after we've had an opportunity to consider that, I'm planning a new strategic action plan, and I want this plan to clearly set out the key drivers and actions we will need, how we can all work together as Welsh Government, statutory authorities, health boards, commissioners, Social Care Wales, carers organisations and others to deliver a real impact in carers' lives. I certainly take on board what Jayne Bryant said about the importance of the carers allowance and when it stops, and the influence the Welsh Government can try to bring on the Westminster Government.

It's also vital that carers have a break from their caring role to recharge, and the importance and benefits of respite are certainly recognised in one of our three national priorities—supporting life alongside caring. Respite provision of whatever form, not just the traditional overnight stay in a care home for the person with care needs, is important for individuals and carers, and young carers must also be able to access such services.

As part of the remit of the carers—

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, certainly.

Thank you. Could I ask whether the Government would consider looking at the impact of women having to work much longer now on the availability of care, or their availability equally if they have to stop working in re-entering the workforce? So, it's not only the carers themselves who might be subjected to those changes, but the knock-on effect in the family unit.

Yes, I think Joyce Watson makes a very important point there, and I think Jayne Bryant also raised the issue of employment and how important it is for carers to be able to continue with employment, for financial reasons if for no other reason. The fact that women have to work longer now is bound to have an impact on their caring roles. So, I think that is definitely an area that should be followed up, so thank you for making that point.

So, as part of the remit of the carers ministerial advisory group, its members will be developing ideas and solutions in response to the different issues faced by carers, including new and more flexible forms of respite. I know that some carers are already trialling different ways of using direct payments to purchase respite care or breaks. Since 2017-18, we've given £3 million of additional recurring funding to support local authorities to provide additional respite care for carers based on the need of carers in their area. This money has now been placed into the local government revenue support grant, but we are continually asking all local authorities in Wales to tell us how they're using this and what changes and innovation this is helping them to pursue. This year—

Will you take an intervention on that point? Basically, it is down to funding at the end of the day, and social care. Can I commend Jayne Bryant's presentation, in the first place, and also Joyce and Bethan's interventions, because what we're finding, certainly from my professional experience as a GP, is that people who used to qualify for social care, local authority-provided domiciliary care in their own homes, now no longer qualify because obviously the thresholds go up to receive care because of the lack of funding? Now, nobody's blaming anybody other than somebody up the road in Westminster. So, the funding for local authorities is absolutely vital. So, how can we track that to make sure that the money is there so that local authorities don't always shift up the thresholds and so that deserving people who need care can get care?

Again, a very important point, and the additional money that we've given, obviously, we've been able to track that. This year, we agreed to £1 million of funding to support carers, but also £1.7 million has been awarded in total across Carers Wales and Carers Trust Wales as part of the third sector sustainable social services grant. So, we do give money to fund the third sector in order to support carers. I think that's very important, because I think the third sector plays a crucial role in working with carers.

I'm pleased that a new three-year third sector sustainable social services grant scheme was announced earlier this year, and it's currently open for applications. Carers are one of the priorities that the grant can support. We also provided £1 million of funding last year and in 2019-20 to local health boards and partnerships to improve awareness of the issues and needs of carers. And this funding can be used within GP surgeries and health centres, as well as improving the engagement of carers when the person they care for is discharged from hospital. So, I think the more that we can make this all available and raise awareness, it's very important—.

An example of how carers themselves can be engaged in driving this agenda forward is—and I think Jayne Bryant already mentioned this—the volunteers from Newport Carers Forum, who have been working to update carers notice boards in GP surgeries throughout Newport and to encourage GP practices to appoint carers champions. 

Regions also need to continue working on and developing integrated seamless care to meet the needs of their population and to support this, and regional partnership boards are using the integrated care fund to support carers, which is intended to strengthen integrated working. And an extra £15 million of funding into the ICF was announced on Carers' Rights Day in November last year, to specifically develop preventative services for adults in need of care and support for carers. 

But, as Bethan said in her intervention, how do we know we're moving forward? The Welsh Government is committed to monitoring the impact of the social services and well-being Act and publishing data, and I'm pleased to say there is a wide range of work under way to drive forward the evidence base used by the Welsh Government in relation to carers and carers data, including an external evaluation of the 2014 Act. I will also make sure that we look at the research that Jayne Bryant referred to in her contribution. 

To end, I just want to say this: I absolutely understand that all Assembly Members, stakeholders and, most important of all, carers want to see support for carers improve. I believe that support today is much stronger than before the introduction of the social services and well-being Act. The requirements and rights that we introduced with the 2014 Act about support for carers is stronger than that contained in the previous Carers Strategies (Wales) Measure 2010. That required officials to write plans, but our Act gives real and tangible benefits. But I absolutely acknowledge there is still a long way to go and the current situation isn't perfect, but that doesn't mean that we haven't already achieved a great deal in the three years since the implementation of the Act. My clear objective is to continue our upward trend to ensure that Wales really is caring for all carers and making them know that we value so much the work that they are doing and certainly we could not manage without them. 

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