National Assembly for Wales

Good afternoon. I call the National Assembly to order.

The first item on the agenda this afternoon is questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government, and I call on Hannah Blythyn to ask the first question.

Plans to repeal aspects of the Trade Union Act were included in the First Minister’s legislative programme statement made yesterday, and this will be brought forward during the first year of this Assembly term.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. As a proud trade unionist, I welcome this Government’s commitment to repeal aspects of this pernicious piece of ideological and ill-thought-out legislation, legislation that is causing more industrial unrest than less. The Act has the potential to undermine the productive and partnership working relationship that we have, which we champion in Wales, between Government and trade unions. Will you give further commitment to continuing and building on this partnership working?

Well, the Member is absolutely right in saying that the reason why we are opposed to these aspects of the Trade Union Act is because we think they will make things worse, in terms of industrial relations in Welsh public services, and not better. And the partnership approach that we have had in Wales means that, while strikes across our border have gone on in the fire service, amongst nurses, and amongst doctors, we’ve had none of that here in Wales, and that, I believe, is because of our commitment to the partnership approach. We are committed to continuing that approach. I met with the joint secretaries of the workforce partnership council yesterday, and our proposals for the Assembly Bill to repeal those aspects of the Trade Union Act will be discussed at the next meeting of the workforce partnership council, on 14 July.

I welcome the announcement that the Welsh Government is seeking to repeal the Trade Union Act as it applies to devolved matters, but I’d like to ask the Cabinet Secretary whether he’ll go a couple of further steps, actually. Firstly, will he commit to reviewing all the regressive anti-workers legislation passed in the 1980s and 1990s, with a view to repealing elements that apply to devolved functions? And, secondly, will he commit this Welsh Government, in the future, to supporting proposals to outlaw immoral working practices, such as the misuse of zero-hours contracts, even if that means pushing the boundaries of devolution?

Well, Llywydd, we have to act within the boundaries of our devolved competence. As well as wishing to repeal aspects of the Trade Union Act because of its effect on industrial relationships and our partnership approach, as the First Minister said yesterday, our opposition to them is based on our belief that they trespass into the devolved responsibilities of this National Assembly, and that’s why we will seek to repeal them.

In answer to the Member’s questions about previous trade union legislation, the workforce partnership council is exactly where we discuss those things, and, where there is agreement between us, trade unions and employers, we will continue to review all aspects of such legislation. As far as zero-hours contracts are concerned, there’s a considerable amount of work going on across Government on that issue, and other Members of the Cabinet will be bringing forward proposals during the rest of this Assembly term.

Cabinet Secretary, many of the employment protections offered to workers in Wales are based on protections emanating from the European Union. We’ve already seen indications, as I mentioned yesterday, from some of the leading Brexiteers, that they see part of the negotiations around the UK’s exit from Europe as a chance to undo much of this employment rights legislation, including anti-discrimination laws and guarantees on minimum paid leave, maximum working hours, and maternity and paternity provisions. What confidence can trade unionists in Wales have that the rights of workers will continue to be protected post-Brexit?

Well, the Member asks a very important question, which places our decision to repeal—to ask the National Assembly to repeal—aspects of the Trade Union Act in that very important context. The case for continuing EU membership was predicated on the social protections that membership of the European Union provided to working people. Without those protections, and with the UK Government in the hands of people who argued to leave the European Union, then we are right to try and maximise the amount of protection that we are able to afford workers in Wales, through the actions that this National Assembly is able to take.

I thank the Member for that question. The Welsh Government remains concerned that the impact of the pensions Acts of 1995 and 2011 will disproportionately affect a number of women who have had their state pension age raised significantly without effective or sufficient notification. We will continue to raise these concerns with UK Ministers, who remain responsible for these matters.

You’ll be aware of the campaign group, WASPI, which is the Women Against State Pension Inequality, which is a group across Wales, and many will be in our constituencies, who fought these deeply unfair consequences of the Pensions Act 2011. This legislation, as you say, has left tens of thousands of women out of pocket, born after 6 April 1951. The official figure I’ve seen is £12,000, although I met constituents Janet Davies and Julie Peach last week, and they said that it was up to £38,000 that they would personally be out of pocket. My colleague Vikki Howells had a statement of opinion, which was signed by cross-party Members, although notably not by any Conservative Members. Will you join my constituents and agree to continue to campaign—I’m pleased you did—and call directly, by writing, on the UK Government to introduce fair arrangements?

I thank the Member for drawing attention to the Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign, who have a major demonstration today and who’ve been so effective in drawing attention to this issue. Lesley Griffiths, who held equality responsibilities in the last Assembly term, wrote to Baroness Altmann, then Minister for State for Pensions, in February of this year, expressing the Welsh Government’s concerns about the impact of the two pensions Acts. The Member is quite right in saying that the call from the campaign is for fair, transitional state pension arrangements. Their objection is not to fair arrangements; it’s to the way in which changes to their pensions have twice been introduced, disadvantaging them on both occasions, without adequate notice. The House of Commons Work and Pensions Select Committee said that more could and should have been done to provide those affected with proper information. That’s absolutely the position of this Government, and it’s one we’ll continue to press on their behalf.

Minister, the gradual equalisation of the state pension age of 65 for both men and women was first set out in the Pension Act 1995. Rather than increase the state pension age overnight, successive Governments have introduced changes incrementally. Given that the employment rate for women is at a record high, does the Minister agree that the equalisation of retirement age for men and women is a major step in tackling gender inequality and puts the state pension on a sustainable footing by taking into account increasing life expectancy?

Well, those who are campaigning on this issue, Llywydd, are not objecting to gradual equalisation on an incremental basis; what they are campaigning about is the directly discriminatory way in which a group of women born between 1950 and 1953 have been adversely affected by twice having their state pension rate raised and without adequate information and notice. That campaign is about trying to find a way of mitigating that. They have put forward a very practical proposal for doing so, and it’s one that I think Members in this Chamber would wish to support.

The WASPI demonstration and lobby of Parliament today will no doubt have been drowned out by other events going on. But I think it’s very important to recognise that the Work and Pensions Committee in the House of Commons came up with a solution to this problem, to allow women to claim their pension early at a reduced rate. What is there that you can do to persuade the UK Government, particularly Stephen Crabb in his current position, that they should reconsider these transitional arrangements, which seem entirely reasonable and won’t cost the taxpayer any more money?

Well, Llywydd, my understanding is that Baroness Altmann has agreed to meet with the WASPI campaign following the demonstration today. She’s on record as saying that she had been gagged by her previous Secretary of State, Iain Duncan Smith, on this issue and I know that the women who will meet her today will be looking forward to seeing her without that impediment. In the meantime, we will continue to lobby on behalf of women in Wales for whom this is a very serious issue.

We now move to questions to the Cabinet Secretary from party spokespeople and, first this week, the Conservative spokesperson, Nick Ramsay.

Diolch. Cabinet Secretary, welcome to you your new role and thank you for your initial discussions with me about some of the challenges that we face over this Assembly term.

Secretary, the last week has certainly seen a seismic change in the political landscape, welcomed by some more than others in this Chamber. We are now faced with a number of key questions about the future funding of Wales. As you develop the new tax regime and the new tax legislation that was mentioned by the First Minister yesterday, can you update us on what progress is being made with the fiscal framework?

I thank Nick Ramsay for his opening remarks and for agreeing to meet me to share some information about the challenges that we are currently facing. He’s absolutely right to say that those are shaped by the post-referendum landscape. I have had a discussion already with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. We agreed in that telephone conversation that we would meet before the summer recess, and the plan we talked about then was for a series of meetings during the autumn in order to agree the fiscal framework that will be absolutely necessary for us to operate within once tax-raising powers come directly to Wales. The meeting before the summer recess is in the diary and will take place. No doubt we will have to calibrate some of the plans for the autumn against some of the events—a further budget, for example—which we know are now going to take place.

Thank you, Secretary, and, as you know, you have our support in terms of developing an effective fiscal framework. As you will know, I’ve long been concerned about the mechanism for making reductions to the block grant, following tax, particularly income tax, devolution. If we get the wrong mechanism, Wales could be significantly short-changed over time in a way that may almost force tax rises. Scotland got an agreement with the Treasury that variables such as population change should not be a risk borne by the Scottish proportion of income tax and it should be factored into the block grant. Are you seeking the same deal for Wales?

It’s absolutely true to say that Scotland has already been around this track in agreeing a fiscal framework to surround the devolution of tax powers to the Scottish Parliament. In many ways, we are fortunate to be following them around that track, both because the Scottish Government has been generous in sharing their experience with us and providing us with some insights into their discussions with the Treasury. It’ll be no surprise to Members here who followed that story in the press that those discussions were not always plain sailing and had their acrimonious moments. The acrimony revolved around the key ‘no detriment’ principle. It is absolutely essential to us here in Wales that when there are adjustments to the block grant to take account of taxes that we will now raise in Wales, that those adjustments reflect decisions that are in the hands of the National Assembly, for which we must all be willing to take responsibility, and must not be based on decisions over which we have no influence at all. The population dimension, which Nick Ramsay referred to, was at the heart of some of those discussions. The Scottish Government successfully argued that the block grant adjustment should not penalise Scotland for changes in their population, which were more influenced by Westminster decisions than by decisions taken in Edinburgh. I will certainly expect that any deal for Wales would reflect exactly that ‘no detriment’ approach.

Secretary, I don’t have to tell you that this is an extremely complex area, but it is one that is very important to our future fiscal well-being here in Wales. On the Barnett formula itself, clearly, withdrawal from the European Union and the subsequent loss of EU funding will make Barnett reform even more imperative than it was before. What assurances are you seeking, or have you sought, from the Treasury that the Barnett floor that we all agreed to is permanent? And will there be an ongoing review of the Barnett formula over the months and years to come to ensure that it is delivering for Wales and the amount of money we get is not adversely affected by decisions across the UK?

Again, I thank Nick Ramsay for those two important points. Members here will know that my predecessor in this post, Jane Hutt, after a great deal of negotiation, succeeded in obtaining an agreement to a funding floor from the Treasury for the length of the current comprehensive spending review period. In the fiscal framework negotiations we will be arguing hard for making sure that that funding floor is made permanent. It needs to be a permanent part of that framework and the landscape that it provides here in Wales and that is one of the ways in which our negotiations will need to go beyond the position established in Scotland. However, as Nick Ramsay went on to say, the uncertainties created by last week’s vote—not simply in relation to our United Kingdom relationship with Europe but relationships within the United Kingdom as well—mean that the whole Barnett formula has to be revised. The First Minister wrote to the Prime Minister on 27 June and made it very clear in that letter that the time is now to examine and re-examine the Barnett formula. The time is surely right, he, said to introduce a needs-based formula in Wales so that a United Kingdom outside the European Union is seen by its citizens as fairly recognising their needs and circumstances. And I think that is absolutely correct.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Adam Price.

Last week shows us to be a politically divided country, but the economic divisions perhaps run even deeper, which may be one of the underlying reasons for the result. The financial Secretary has signalled his determination to win full financial recompense for Wales in the wake of our leaving the EU and he’s just referred to the need to revise the Barnett formula. Can I ask if he or his officials have now made an initial assessment of the financial shortfall that Wales may face? And, given the political vacuum currently, can the Welsh Government turn this to Wales’s advantage, not just in calling for the Barnett formula to be revised, but in setting out in detail the formula that they’d like to replace it with?

I thank Adam Price for those questions. I think he makes an important point in opening about the way that patterns of voting in the referendum follow economic lines right across the United Kingdom. As far as estimating the impact on Wales of last week’s decision, there are two particular ways in which we have to assess that, one of which is easier than the other. There will be the direct loss of European funding that would otherwise have come to Wales, I think, during this current structural funds period. We would’ve been able to draw down funds under this period up until 2023. We will have left the European Union, it seems, before then and at that point our ability to draw down European funding will end. We have committed over £700 million of the current round already. That is 40 per cent of the total that we would be able to draw down during the 2014-2020 round and we will be looking to maximise the potential draw-down of those funds. The First Minister argued in his letter to the Prime Minister that he should be negotiating for us to be able to continue to draw down those funds over the whole of that structural funds period. But, we will have to await the outcome of the negotiations for that. But, on those figures I think we are well placed to make an assessment—and some of the facts of that I’ve just mentioned.

The second way in which Wales will be affected by the economic consequences of leaving the European Union will be through the budget that we now know we face in the autumn of this year: a budget in which we are told there will be tax rises and public expenditure cuts and those expenditure cuts will no doubt feed their way through into the Welsh budget. It’s much harder to make any assessment of that, but in the Welsh Government we will certainly be doing what we can to prepare on a contingency basis for them.

It is right that Wales, of course, should not lose a penny as a result of the loss of the structural funds. But is it also not the case that this level of funding was necessary, but insufficient? Because, I mean, over the course of the last 17 years since we’ve had Objective 1, the prosperity gap got bigger. What Wales needs, surely, is not the equivalent level of regional aid, but more. A Marshall plan for the Welsh economy—not just additional funds, but new tax powers that could give Wales a competitive advantage in the new economic landscape. Now that the European Court of Justice Azores ruling on tax competition is no longer set to apply, will he be making the case for Wales, like Northern Ireland, to set its own corporation tax rates, as well as gaining other powers over research and development tax credits and capital allowances?

Well, people who listened to the claims made by the ‘leave’ campaign during the referendum will have gone away, I believe, not thinking simply that Wales would do as well as we had done under the previous regime, but that there would be a new flow of funds into public services, and into places where it is most needed as a result of that decision. And of course as a Welsh Government we would want to argue exactly that case.

The Wales Bill, if it reaches the statute book, will provide us with some new powers to propose new taxes here in Wales. Whether corporation tax should be amongst them, I think is something that we will no doubt want to debate—personally I’ve always felt the case for it to be very weak, and much more likely to result in a race to the bottom, in which we take less money from corporations to fund public services than we have in the past. It’s a dilemma you will see being actively rehearsed in Northern Ireland at this very time.

Well, the finance Secretary speaks of a race to the bottom—I have to say to him that economically, it’s a race that we in Wales comprehensively won. And that’s the problem that we have to address. Now, asking Westminster for new fiscal levers is an important response to the economic challenges we’ll undoubtedly face, but so is using the ones we have now more effectively. Currently, the Welsh Government has committed to financing three programmes using the non-profit distributing model of financing investment, totalling £1.9 billion.

Figures we produced during the recent election campaign showed the Welsh Government had the capacity to more than treble that figure to £7.3 billion—three times the structural funds programme that he referred to. While we wait for others to act for us, isn’t it time that we, in this Chamber, started to demonstrate that when the circumstances demand it, we too can be bold? Or is the Welsh Government going to demonstrate the same absence of proper planning and true leadership that is currently turning Westminster into a Parliament of clowns?

Well, we certainly don’t need to wait, because as the Member said in his question, we have already begun to do just this. There are three schemes already under development, and a range of other potential schemes that could follow down the same route. So, the non-profit distribution model is a means of trying to draw into the Welsh economy ways of financing capital investment in particular, at a time when public capital is diminishing so very rapidly.

We will learn a lot, and need to learn a lot, from the three schemes that we have already started to develop, if they can be made to succeed. There is a great deal of work to be done to find out whether they can succeed, and Scottish colleagues who’ve been round this course already have found that classification decisions that they weren’t anticipating, by Eurostat and by the Office for National Statistics, have meant that they’ve had to re-draw the schemes that they began with. So it’s not a matter of being able to take something off the shelf that you can simply apply. Eurostat may not be a problem for them in the future, but ONS will be. So there is no model that you can simply pluck off the shelf and apply, and say, ‘hurry up and do it’. There is a lot to learn to make sure that we develop a model that is right for Wales. We have three schemes in the pipeline; there’s more we would like to do, or we will need to learn it as we make it happen.

UKIP spokesperson, Gareth Bennett.

I would like to congratulate the Minister on his latest appointment. I slightly regret to remind him that he was once my local councillor on the old South Glamorgan County Council. There may be more regret on his part when I recall that this was some 30 years ago; I was, of course, myself a mere boy at the time. My first question relates to local government reorganisation. I see that Sian Gwenllian has a question on this point tabled, but it’s number nine and we may not get there, so I hope she won’t mind if I pinch her question—[Interruption.]

Excuse me. Can I just say—? You listened to the spokespeople from other parties with some silence and dignity, and I expect the same for Gareth Bennett. Diolch.

Thanks, Llywydd. I’m sure Sian won’t mind if I pinch her question, which is: what is the timetable for local government reorganisation?

I thank Mr Bennett for his opening remarks and for reminding me of my own lengthy political history from 30 years ago. Local government reorganisation the last time happened while I was a councillor, just to show how far back that happened. The timetable that I’m hoping to pursue is as follows: there is a necessary period over this summer in which I want to spend my time listening and learning from those who have a view of this matter. I met with trade unions this morning from local government to hear what they had to say, and I’ll be meeting with local authorities and others. I want to see whether it is possible to create some sort of consensus about the way forward. I recognise the corrosive effect of delay on the lives of people who work in local authorities, and I’d like to be able to bring that to a conclusion as soon as I can. But, that does depend on creating a sense of shared purpose in the future of local government organisation here in Wales. If that matures quickly, I hope to be able to come forward early in the autumn with a statement. If it takes a bit longer, it will be a bit later in the autumn, but that’s the timetable that I’m working to at the moment.

Thanks for your comments. I’m glad to see that you will be pursuing a consensus and hopefully there will be a better outcome than the last proposals we had from your predecessor. But on that subject, what will your thoughts be regarding voluntary merger proposals such as we had between the Vale of Glamorgan and Bridgend a year ago, which were rather cavalierly rejected by Leighton Andrews?

I don’t think it would be right for me to reach conclusions this afternoon having just said that I wanted to spend a period of time listening and learning. I’ve met about half of local authorities in Wales, Llywydd, so far, so I’ve got half still to go. I’m meeting Pembrokeshire, Carmarthenshire and Ceredigion tomorrow, and I want to make it clear to them that I’m just as open to what they have to say as anybody I’ve spoken to so far. The merits of voluntary mergers have been advocated by a number of people that I’ve met in the first half of my visits around local authorities in Wales, and I’m very open minded to hearing what other people have to say. I’m not in any way ruling them out of the future way that we do business in local authorities in Wales. But I’m not coming to a conclusion until everybody who has a right to be part of this conversation has had a chance to make their views known.

Thanks, Minister, for that; that sounds hopeful. Another issue we have at the moment in many areas, particularly Cardiff, is proposed major housing developments, which are often opposed by local residents. Concreting over the green fields is a fairly apt description of the current proposals for Cardiff, which have been alluded to several times by the new Plaid Cymru regional Member. Now, the UKIP Assembly manifesto included a proposal for local referenda on controversial major housing developments. Would the Minister be minded to consider such legislation, and would he be likely to look favourably upon that kind of proposal?

A draft Bill was put forward by my predecessor, which included a great deal more than simply changing boundaries on a map. It included proposals for altering local referenda. They would not have done it in the way that the Member proposed, and I don’t have any current intention to move in the direction that he advocated.

I thank Joyce Watson for that question. In March this year, following extensive engagement with stakeholders, Welsh Government published its eight equality objectives for 2016 to 2020. These objectives focus on tackling the most entrenched inequalities in Wales and promoting cohesive communities.

Thank you for that answer, Cabinet Secretary, but the referendum campaign, particularly towards the end, became infected with intolerance, and that poison has seeped into public life. We’ve all seen the reports of racist abuse on our streets. We’ve also, thankfully, seen the reaction to it in Llanelli and elsewhere where local people are standing by and speaking up for their eastern European neighbours, and I am led to believe that the First Minister will be visiting the Welsh Polish Mutual Association in Llanelli tomorrow. But the fact still remains that Dyfed-Powys Police have reported significant increases in hate crimes compared to this month last year. So, we do now need clearly to heal wounds. Will you therefore, Cabinet Secretary, with the Welsh Local Government Association and other partners, take steps to safeguard and strengthen community relations between people of all nationalities and cultures during this very unsettling time?

Let me associate myself very strongly with the last thing that the Member said. I think she is right—something happened during the course of the referendum campaign that has somehow legitimised, in the minds of some people, views that are abhorrent to, I’m sure, Members in this Chamber and have no part whatsoever to play in our community life. Even prior to that, there had been a 65 per cent increase in reports to the National Hate Crime Report and Support Centre Wales here in Wales. I hope that part of that rise is because of a greater willingness of people to report such incidents to the police. I think it’s very important that we encourage anybody who has been on the receiving end of such appalling behaviour in the last few days to make sure that they always make those incidents known to the authorities. My message is the same as Joyce Watson’s, to all those people from around the world and from around Europe who make such a contribution to the richness of life here in Wales: that they are welcome, that they are most welcome, and that this National Assembly supports a thriving, multicultural society here in Wales. [Assembly Members: ‘Hear, hear.’]

You both have alluded to the increase in racist incidents during and post the referendum, and I share your view in condemning those occurrences. But could you go further than just making a statement in the Chamber today? Are you able to consider running a campaign to raise awareness and educate people about the contribution that people from the different countries of Europe and the world make to Wales?

I thank the Member for her comments. Of course, it’s very important that we do more than simply speak here in the Chamber, so there are a number of things that I’m doing personally over the next week: I have a meeting with the WLGA on Friday—I will be speaking to them—and I have a meeting with the Muslim Council of Wales next week. It is important that we do come together in that way in order to discuss what we can do, to strive to improve things together and to be clear about what we want to do here in Wales and to do it together, exactly as the Member mentioned.

Thank you very much, Eluned Morgan. Wales has enjoyed a positive relationship with the European Investment Bank throughout the devolution era, with nearly £2 billion invested in both public and private projects, including water, aviation, the motor industry and housing.

Thank you, Ysgrifennydd, for that. There are other projects, of course, that have been funded with European Investment Bank funding, including the Swansea campus, the A55 and, crucially, projects that are in the pipeline like the south Wales metro. Now, the European Union treaty is clear that members of the European Investment Bank must be members of the European Union. Nevertheless, the European Investment Bank has invested in four countries of the European free trade area, and I just wondered whether the Ysgrifennydd wouldn’t be able to put pressure, during the negotiations, to ensure that we will still be able to participate in European Investment Bank funding.

Can I thank Eluned Morgan for a very important supplementary question there? She’s quite right that the European Investment Bank is wholly owned by its shareholders and all its shareholders are the 28 European Union member states. The United Kingdom has a 16 per cent shareholding in the EIB and is, therefore, one of the four main shareholders in the bank. And in leaving the European Union, we will have to leave that direct membership of the EIB as well.

Now, Eluned Morgan is right to say that the EIB is able to lend to countries outside the European Union, but EIB lending outside the EU is governed by a series of EU mandates in support of development and co-operation policies in partner countries. In other words, every time it has a relationship with another country, that has to be specifically mandated by those countries that are the shareholding members of the EIB. So, we will have to put pressure on to negotiate exactly that sort of relationship in order to allow us in Wales to go on benefitting from the funds that the EIB has provided in the past, and are pivotal to some of the plans that we have for the future.

The likelihood, under the proposed timetable for Brexit, is that institutions in Wales—the Swansea campus being one of them—will still have loans from the European Investment Bank as we withdraw from Europe. Have you had discussions, therefore, with the Treasury and the EIB as to how the current loans are going to be managed? Will those loans have to be shifted to another bank, perhaps on less favourable terms, or will it be possible for the loans owing today to be carried forward until that is paid off?

The supplementary to that, if I may: are you considering, as Adam Price suggested, as a Welsh Government response to this decision, that we need an investment bank for Wales in any case?

In answering Simon Thomas’s first supplementary question, I’ve not yet had direct discussions on the very important issue that he raises of Wales-based services that are already in a relationship with the EIB that will need to extend well beyond any exit from the European Union. Now, the EIB itself has said that it’s unable to provide any certainty on a whole range of issues in relation to relationships it has right across the United Kingdom without clarity, as it says, on the timing circumstances and conditions of a withdrawal settlement. But the successor arrangements to arrangements that are already in place with the EIB post a Brexit will be an important part of that discussion.

Alternative arrangements that might be possible either for Wales alone or on a co-operative basis with other UK nations were rehearsed here in the Chamber yesterday, and the First Minister, I know, responded positively to the suggestion that we ought to pursue that with our other UK partners.

Will the Minister make a statement on his priorities—oh, sorry; wrong one. Apologies.

Thanks to Suzy Davies for that question. Good local government plays a vitally important role in the lives of all citizens in Wales. Each and every one of us has a direct interest in shaping how public services are delivered.

Thank you for that very encouraging answer, there, First—Cabinet Secretary; I will get the hang of this. [Laughter.] There are, of course, many examples of partnership working between local authorities and others, especially health boards, on the delivery of social services, but I think that word ‘delivery’ really says it all, particularly about the way we as a population work to support those whom we seek to help. I think the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, for all its faults, points very firmly in the direction of co-production, the role of mutuals and other society-based organisations as fertile ground for developing new models of sustainable services, including social services. Do you see these, as the response to the Williams commission report suggests, as a last resort when the public sector fails or do you agree that we need to look ahead to a new balance between state and society to ensure the best fit for public services and the public they serve?

Well, I understand the point that the Member is making. In my discussions with trade unions earlier today, they emphasised their anxiety at the way in which, sometimes, alternative models can be seen as a first resort for the provision of public services. That’s not the position we take in Welsh Government. The action plan for alternative delivery models in public services makes it clear that we should come to some of these alternatives only when we are sure that it is no longer possible to go on directly providing services.

But in other areas I think the ground is more promising. The Member pointed to the social services area where the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 places a specific duty on local authorities to promote co-operative ways of providing services. To my mind, they can offer a way of bringing some of these services back closer to the public realm. So, I think we need to think of it slightly more differentially and think of what is right in particular service contexts. Where I definitely agree with the Member is that we need a different relationship between services and citizens in which we regard the people who use our services as sources of strength and assets in that joint way of doing things and treating them as equal partners in the way that services are designed and delivered.

Diolch, Lywydd. I actually think that the Cabinet Secretary has probably just answered my question, but I’ll ask it anyway. I think, Cabinet Secretary, we can all be rightly proud here in Wales that we have not seen wide-scale privatisation of local authority services as we’ve witnessed in England. That’s built on the premise that our key public services are at their best and most efficient when retained in-house and provided by directly employed workforce. So, will the Cabinet Secretary make a statement on the stance of the previous administration, which reinforced the view that not only should privatisation of key public services be discouraged but also that other outsourcing options, including mutuals and co-operatives, should only ever be considered when this is the only alternative to privatisation?

I agree with the Member, undoubtedly, that public services should not be run for private profit. That is why, in this Government, we have always believed that public services should be publicly funded and publicly delivered. Now, in very tough times, I understand that those responsible for providing services sometimes have to look for other ways in which their services can be provided. Then, not-for-profit distributing mutual models can sometimes provide an alternative, but that alternative is to be pursued only at the point when the preferred model of a publicly provided, publicly delivered, publicly funded way of doing things is no longer able to be sustained.

The supplier qualification information database makes it easier for Welsh suppliers to compete for Welsh public sector business. It is a requirement of the Wales procurement policy statement to which all local authorities are signatories.

Can I thank the Cabinet Secretary for that response and managing to get out what SQuID actually stands for much better than I could have done? I’m going to carry on with SQuID, though. [Laughter.] SQuID is an excellent scheme that allows smaller contractors to compete across a range of projects, and Welsh Government policy is that all local authorities should use it. A survey by the Electrical Contractors’ Association shows that while all local authorities use it, only seven of the 22 councils use it exclusively. Can the Minister investigate this and try and get all councils to use it for all their contracts?

I thank Mike Hedges for that and, of course, I welcome feedback from the Electrical Contractors’ Association and others who have an interest in procurement here in Wales. Mike Hedges is quite right that the evidence shows that SQuID has made a positive impact on the construction sector. Prior to its introduction around 30 per cent of all contracts in Wales were won by indigenous suppliers. At the end of the last financial year, only two months ago, 82 per cent of major construction contracts awarded through Sell2Wales were won by indigenous Welsh businesses. So, it is a success story. I read the research that the Electrical Contractors’ Association were drawing on. It is Welsh Government’s policy to encourage all public authorities to make the maximum use of the SQuID approach, and I’m very willing to ask my officials to make further efforts to make sure that its use is maximised across all public procurement.

And, finally, Janet Finch-Saunders.

Whilst we broadly support the SQuID procurement process it is fair to say that probably one of the reasons that only seven out of 22 local authorities are using it—the point that my colleague Mike Hedges made—was the fact that there is still a lot of bureaucracy and red tape involved with very small companies trying to actually tender for lots of works taking place within a local authority. How do you intend to work with our local authorities over this next term to ensure that we do keep the pound going around in our own localities and that we allow some of those small businesses who haven’t got the time or the resources to spend finding their way and navigating their way through this bureaucracy and red tape, so that they can actually have a piece of the action and some of the money for local jobs?

Can I thank Janet Finch-Saunders for that question? I think it’s important to say that the Electrical Contractors’ Association’s own research said that only seven of 22 councils use the system in full—far more of them use it for parts of what they do. So, it’s a matter of building up from what they do already to use it in even greater dimensions of their work. I understand the point she makes about trying to keep bureaucracy to a minimum. The SQuID approach is deliberately designed to try and make it easier for small indigenous firms to compete for business by making access to procurement and potential contracts easier for them. I’m very happy to say that we will continue to work with local authorities and others involved in this field to bear down on unnecessary bureaucracy wherever that can be identified.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary.

We now move to the next item on the agenda, questions to the Assembly Commission. No questions were tabled on this occasion.

The next item, therefore, item 3, is the debate by individual Members under Standing Order 11.21, and I call on David Melding to move the motion.

Diolch yn fawr, Presiding Officer. Can I thank you and the Business Committee for selecting this topic for discussion as an individual Member’s debate? I think, from the range of interest it’s sparked and the number of Assembly Members that signed the motion for debate, the interest of this subject is something that marks us deeply in the Assembly.

I’d like to start, really, with ‘Lost in Care’, this report that changed the way, I think, we viewed the care system and had an impact all across the UK. It was published nearly 17 years ago, and I’ve actually brought my copy. It’s quite a tome, as you can see. For me, it’s really marked the history of the Assembly because it was one of the very first subjects that commanded our attention from the word ‘go’ and has remained with us, really. The implications, the recommendations that are in this report and the issues to be addressed are still ongoing. There have been advances, but many of the challenges still remain. For me, it’s something of a personal disappointment that perhaps we’ve not made more progress. I will talk about some of the issues in particular where I think we need to do much more, but of course the welfare of looked-after children is something that we should always consider. It’s hardly a box we can tick and then just move on.

Ronald Waterhouse’s report actually looked specifically at care in Gwynedd and Clwyd in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s but many of the issues that were identified, as I said, were found across the UK once the services were properly examined. At least we can say that, from the publication of this report, in the public eye, the welfare of looked-after children has been emphasised and has attracted great public attention. I suppose that attention has primarily focused on safeguarding rather than outputs and improving outcomes for looked-after children directly. But, of course, when the report was published, it was the horrific examples and instances of abuse that commanded the media and public attention. I can say that, in the first Assembly, in the Health and Social Services Committee, it absolutely dominated the work that we did, and it had a real impact, emotionally as well as politically, on the Members. I suppose if we don’t get things right for looked-after children there’s always the danger in future that we’ll actually regress, and we’ll find that outcomes will once again be very, very poor indeed, even on issues like safeguarding.

I want to turn, then, to outcomes. I should say, in terms of safeguarding, there is no room for complacency, but things in general, just because of the inspection regimes and the interest that politicians take in these issues, both in councils and here in the Assembly, and at a Government level—safeguarding issues are something that perhaps we don’t focus on as much as we did then. It is appropriate that we actually move and look at outcomes, and I suppose that when we look at outcomes, the effective joint working of the various agencies is key, because we’re looking at health, we’re looking at education, we’re looking at housing, we’re looking at skills—all these things inter-relate, either directly, for looked-after children, or when they leave care, for care leavers. But it’s also a matter of great importance to work jointly within Government, and here the better co-ordination of different departments, I think, is something that would allow for the more effective co-ordinated delivery amongst various public agencies as well. We should mirror that type of co-ordination in Government itself, because this isn’t just an area of concern for one particular department.

In this respect, I turn to the Prison Reform Trust’s report, which, whilst looking at the experience of looked-after children in the criminal justice process, did call for the formation of a Cabinet sub-committee to provide national leadership, and, indeed, the Westminster Government did respond and has established a sub-committee. When the First Minister announced the formation of the current Government, in congratulating him and wishing him well for the work of the current Government in the fifth Assembly, I did ask whether you would look at this, and whether a Cabinet committee could be established in the Welsh Government, and I believe that is something that is now being looked at. The Prison Reform Trust did call for more effective joint working, proper regulation and policy development across the Welsh Government, so that’s the direct reason we have the motion in front of us today.

At the heart of our approach to the care of looked-after children is the concept of corporate parenting. Now, this rests principally with local authorities, but I think it’s very important indeed that we realise that we’re part of that responsibility to deliver effective corporate parenting as well, and that’s why we are discussing this very particular proposal in terms of how the Government should improve its co-ordination.

The number of looked-after children has increased substantially since the publication of the ‘Lost in Care’ report, so again this redoubles the need for us to be vigilant in this area and to be ambitious for better outcomes. In 1999 there were 3,657 children in care; now that number has risen by nearly 2,000 to 5,617. Abuse or neglect remain the main reasons for children entering care, and obviously many of them have had very, very challenging and difficult experiences. So, the work of professionals is to be greatly valued in this area, because to achieve outcomes requires application, ambition and great persistence, but we need to be part of that ambition here in the Assembly.

Most looked-after children are now in foster placements. In the last generation or so, this has been quite a big change: from residential homes to foster carers. But these placements are not always stable. In 2015, just last year, 9 per cent of looked-after children had three or more foster care placements in one year, and 20 per cent of them experienced two or more changes. So, in the last year for which we have figures, nearly a third of looked-after children experienced a change in their care package.

I want to just say a few words about educational attainment. I think this is an important area, because it is probably the best proxy we have for the general standard of care that we give to looked-after children. It’s not the only thing: I was reminded earlier today in a meeting that the emotional well-being of looked-after children is crucial and, indeed, their whole educational experience; it’s not just about educational attainment. You would say that too of the general population, but it is a measure we can come back to and it does give us hard data. It has, I think it’s fair to say, been a focus in the Assembly, really, for the last 15, 16, 17 years. Things have improved, but not by as much as we would like. Only 18 per cent of looked-after children achieve five GCSEs at A to C, including English and maths—18 per cent. For the general population, it’s 58 per cent. So, that’s 40 per cent more. Only 7 per cent of care leavers aged 19 were in higher education. So, that’s 24 students at the moment. And, obviously, compared to the general population, it’s much, much lower.

I do want to commend some of the work that’s gone on, and the Welsh Government has not been backward in trying to address these problems, and there have been many, many policy developments. For instance, under the provisions of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014, the Welsh Government is producing a national approach to looked-after children to improve collaborative working. That’s important. In January, a strategy was published by the Welsh Government to raise educational attainment, and it included a call for greater ambition, which I really, really welcome. So, there is work going on and we need to follow that through and ensure that it reaches the standards we need.

I think, generally, to conclude, we should aim in Wales for outstanding best practice. By that, I don’t mean copying current best practice, I mean taking it further. We could be a world leader. We have done it before. For example, the learning disabilities strategy, started in the mid-1980s, transformed that public policy area and led to changes worldwide. You had people wanting to work in Wales from across the world because we were developing that area of policy so effectively. I would also urge Members to read the recommendations that a group of charities in the field of looked-after children made when we conducted the election for this fifth Assembly. There, some very concrete things were emphasised, like the focus on outcomes, with emphasis on the responsibility of corporate parents—including us, not just local authorities, the recognition of emotional well-being as a priority, improving the permanence and stability of care and educational placements, listening to the voices of looked-after children, a key area, and appropriate and stable accommodation for care leavers. And can I just say, I think the participation of looked-after children is really, really important in all of what we do, including the training and the inspection of facilities? In all these things, we could involve looked-after children much more effectively. Finally, can I just say we need to really value the care system, because when it works it can deliver outstanding care and opportunities to looked-after children?

As a parent, I know how important my advocacy is on their behalf, and it pains me—and many of you, I’m sure—that children who’ve already had a tough start in life often don’t have someone with the love and passion of a parent to fight their corner. The damage done to the life chances of these children is a stain on us all, and the responsibility to do better falls on us all—all services, businesses, all sectors.

I’d like to briefly focus on one area, taking on what David Melding has said. And I’d just like to briefly pay tribute to the leadership David Melding has shown in this area over a number of years, in setting up and leading the all-party group. He has a genuine and sincere passion for it, and I’m very pleased to be working alongside him in that group, as a new Member.

He mentioned the shocking statistic that, in key stage 4—the year leading up to GCSEs—there’s a 40 per cent difference in academic performance between children who have been in care and those who have not. Just 18 per cent of children who have been looked after achieve 5 GCSEs grades A to C. So, it’s little wonder that the Buttle Trust found in 2011 that only 7 per cent of care leavers were in higher education. As I say, a stain on us all. So, it’s self-evident that we need to be far more demanding of ourselves, at every stage of the school journey, to support looked-after children to achieve their potential.

Now, there is specific guidance in place, in the form of learner support services and learning pathways, which state that young people aged 14 to 19 will have access to personal support, through their schools’ or institutions’ pastoral support services. And there are many examples of where schools and further education colleges do provide strong pastoral support for looked-after children. For example, further education colleges report that extra capacity to help support students makes a big difference. Designated learning coaches to provide advice, teaching support, signposting and advocacy are available, but they are costly, and we know that FE has been under strain not just in terms of resources, but growing pressure from supporting the needs of vulnerable learners. But it shows what can be done when we decide to make this a priority.

The current guidance has begun to create opportunities for all learners to have access to a wider curriculum. In making their choice to progress to FE or stay in school, young people will rely on their parents and relationships in school to inform their choice. And there’s clearly a need for specific support for looked-after children, and I hope the Cabinet Secretary will consider looking at the provisions in place to enable children in care to receive the best support in choosing to study at FE, in work-based learning, or in sixth form, and on to HE, if they desire it. This is already required by statutory guidance, but we need to be satisfied that the current efforts are sufficient. Thank you.

Whether we refer to looked-after children, or children looked after, we’re talking about the individual lives of those who depend on us to give them life chances. As we heard, at 5,617, the number of looked-after children in Wales in 2015 was up 200 on 2011, and 1,000 on 2008. And, as I stated when we debated this in 2011, looked-after children have much poorer psychological and social outcomes when compared to their peers. A 2004 study found that the prevalence of mental disorders for children and young people aged five to 17 and looked after by local authorities in Wales was 49 per cent. Another study found that psychiatric disorders are particularly high among those living in residential care and with many changes of placement.

Although 94 per cent of looked-after children do not get involved in the criminal justice system, research in 2005 showed that up to 41 per cent of children who end up in custody across the UK will have some history of being in care. The Centre for Social Justice report, ‘Couldn’t Care Less’, stated that the treatment of many children in care and those leaving the care system deserves to be a source of national shame. These children, they said, too often go on to experience lives characterised by unemployment, homelessness, mental illness and addiction. We’re picking up these enormous costs through the criminal justice system and the health service and these are set to rise.

The 2009 Westminster Children, Schools and Families Committee report found that the state is failing in its duty to act as a parent to children in care, by not adequately protecting them from sexual exploitation, homelessness, and falling into crime, with children in care, aged 10 and over, more than twice as likely to be cautioned or convicted of an offence. It also revealed evidence of organised, targeted exploitation of girls in residential homes and hostels and warned that the vulnerability of young people leaving care was a matter of great concern.

The Children’s Commissioner for Wales 2010-11 annual report stated that the provision of advocacy for looked-after children, care leavers and children in need is inconsistent across Wales. Lessons from Sir Ronald Waterhouse’s report ‘Lost in Care’, the Carlisle review, ‘Too Serious a Thing’, and our own ‘Telling Concerns’, they said, are that advocacy is an essential element of safeguarding, enabling children and young people to speak up when they perceive that something is wrong. He added that if this is to happen for all children and young people in care, we would expect that all of them would be actively encouraged to have an advocate with whom they can build up a trusting relationship.

What the paper also showed was that other countries seemed to be much more responsive to the needs of the children they’ve taken into care, and often with better results. The previous children’s commissioner also spoke about his frustration at the ‘initial slow response’ to recommendations he’d made about independent advocacy in his 2012 ‘Missing Voices’ report and the follow-up 2013 report, ‘Missing Voices: Missing Progress’. We therefore need to know whether local authorities and Welsh Government will implement together a national model for statutory advocacy services to meet the requirements of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014. We also need to address the attainment gap between looked-after children and that of all pupils, rising from 23 per cent at foundation phase to 40 per cent at key stage 4, with only 18 per cent of looked-after children achieving five A* to C GCSEs, including English or Welsh and maths.

The 2009 children’s commissioner’s ‘Full of Care’ report referred to the advantages that a young carers identity card could bring, and, four years ago, I attended the official launch by the children’s commissioner of the Barnardo’s Cymru and Flintshire County Council Access to Action card for young carers, looked-after children and care leavers. This was the first of its kind in Wales, designed to help young people to receive recognition and prompt access to services they need. Although this should have been a template for an all-Wales card—something I raised with the Welsh Government at the time—I now understand it’s not received the support it needs and I urge the Welsh Government to address this and expand it across Wales.

And as the Centre for Social Justice’s ‘Survival of the Fittest’ report states, and I conclude, we must address

‘the extreme loneliness and isolation felt by care leavers, by finding ways to foster enduring and supportive relationships, with birth families, siblings, former carers and children’s services, that last long after 21.’

As we’ve heard, of course, already, children in care are especially vulnerable, and outcomes are too often much poorer than we would wish, with those in care likely to have fewer qualifications, being at an increased risk of homelessness, mental health problems and the risk of ending up in the criminal justice system. Now, the number of looked-after children in care has steadily risen over the past 15 years, from around 3,500 back in 2000 to over 5,600 last year. Now, this clearly indicates that pressure on the services will continue to rise and that changes are necessary to ensure better outcomes for these children and young people. And, looking at the graph, you could see that there is a clear jump after 2008, after the economic crash—not immediately maybe, but about a year or 18 months later. Some might argue that that might have coincided when the cuts and austerity measures started to bite. There may be evidence out there to prove or disprove that, but I have to say that the jump was quite striking when you looked at the graph. And if there is a correlation between the recession and the number of children in care, then we have to ready ourselves for a potential further increase in demands for services in this post-referendum Wales. So, there is, I think, a huge imperative on the Welsh Government to act now to ensure that we do all we can to meet this challenge. And we all recognise, I’m sure, that a lot has happened in terms of legislation and strategies, but I think the time now is for a more relentless focus on the outcomes that we are looking for.

Education, of course, being one of those that has already been highlighted and how well looked-after children do in school, and whether they go on to further training or employment as well, of course, is often considered to be an important measure of how well this group of children have been supported. There are excellent examples out there of successes, of course there are, but the general statistics tell us quite a grim story. Indeed, there is a wide gap between the attainment of looked-after children and that of pupils generally.

The Member for Llanelli referred to this earlier. At foundation stage, the gap is 23 percentage points; at key stage 2, the gap is 24 percentage points; at key stage 3, it increases to 36 percentage points; and, as we heard earlier, the gap is at its widest at key stage 4, with a 40 per cent difference—up from 30 percentage points in 2004, by the way. The latest statistics show that 45 per cent of care leavers aged 19 were not in education, employment or training last year. Whilst that is the lowest percentage in the past nine years, it’s clearly still unacceptably high.

Looked-after children need stability, of course, as we’ve heard, rather than being continually moved between placements. If children are moving too frequently, then clearly changing schools also has a disruptive effect on their education as well as being more likely to suffer in terms of mental health too. As David said, in Wales, around 9 per cent of looked-after children had three or more placements in the year, and, although this is a gradual decline from 13 per cent in 2004, clearly it’s still too high.

There is too, I have to say, inconsistency within the education system on how adopted or fostered children are dealt with and the possibility that the perception of them being different may result in bullying. Some schools appreciate the issues and offer excellent support, but there are others out there that do not.

Estyn reported today that pupils educated outside the classroom often miss out on the benefits of the wider curriculum and specialist help. I haven’t had time to look at whether the report particularly considers looked-after children in any way, but I do know that the Government set up the task and finish group last year to consider those in education other than at school—something, of course, Keith Towler, the previous children’s commissioner, referred to as a cinderella service back in May 2014. Now, that task and finish group reports in September, and I would ask the Secretary maybe to discuss with the education Secretary whether that task and finish group could actually specifically consider looked-after children as a particular group within this particular context. Another suggestion made earlier today as well was whether Estyn could actually undertake a thematic review maybe of work with looked-after children in schools across Wales to better inform deliberations and strategies in this respect.

Plaid Cymru has been broadly supportive of the approach taken in the last Assembly and, clearly, I would support efforts to strengthen the current arrangements as long, of course, as it has that relentless focus now on improving the outcomes.

I am very pleased to contribute to this debate to seek to speak up for the needs of our looked-after children here in Wales and to pay tribute to the many fantastic individuals working with them, loving them and supporting them. Without their incredible dedication to our most vulnerable children, many would be left without the individual comfort and love that only a parent or carer can provide. This debate follows a recent report from the Prison Reform Trust as regards looked-after children and the link that my colleague, Mark Isherwood, made, calling for good joint working, proper regulation and policy development across Wales.

Schools with pupils who are looked-after children are eligible for the relevant pupil deprivation grant funding, which, alongside Communities First, is concentrated in our most deprived areas, but, again, is there to help looked-after children. The Welsh Conservatives have previously highlighted our concern though that this grant lacks effective outcome measures, and I would urge the Cabinet Secretary today to look into that and ask what consideration he will give to the impact of Welsh Government funding on the education outcomes of looked-after children, particularly in Communities First areas. What outcome measures will the Welsh Government place on the pupil deprivation grant to ensure that it is being utilised to effectively improve outcomes for all children, including our looked-after ones?

Since the establishment of the National Assembly for Wales and the shocking findings of the Waterhouse inquiry, we have seen numerous strategies put forward with the aim of improving welfare and, most importantly, protection for our children. However, we do still see a marked difference in outcomes across the board, with some of the statistics requiring improvement. I have casework experience where looked-after children are in foster care and then they move into adoption and there seems to be a void then of support, and support is actually withdrawn. I know that families have come to me quite desperate, really, wanting a continuum of that support, because otherwise if they don’t get that support, quite often, sometimes those children can end up back in foster care or back within the local authority. It’s important that if we have families willing to love and nurture these children that they’re given every opportunity and every support. Furthermore, 45 per cent of care leavers aged 19 in Wales were not in education, employment or training and that is compared to 34 per cent in England and 31 per cent in Northern Ireland. So, there is work to be done there to bring those figures up.

Blind Children UK Cymru this week were concerned at the lack of children’s habilitation specialists in Wales and, again, this is another possibility that our most vulnerable children are missing out on this kind of support. Blind Children UK Cymru found also that only two local authorities reported involving parents and children in the decision-making process when considering their eligibility for services. It does raise concerns for the involvement and engagement of looked-after children and their carers—particularly for those who have more than one placement. I know in one of my examples I had three siblings of one family and for them to try and access services in that environment was very frustrating for their adoptive parents. On this note, I find it a particular concern to note that 9 per cent of our looked-after children had three or more placements in 2014-15 with a further 20 per cent having two placements. So, we’ve got to do everything we can to ensure that we match the right children with the right sort of families and that we do everything in our power to support them. Stability and consistency are valuable and reassuring mainstays are for a productive and positive home life, but we do need proactive joint working between social services, foster carers and children, with real input from the children throughout the process.

Llywydd, the future of looked-after children is, by the very definition, not just in the hands of those who come forward to help and support, but in our hands also. And, for every concern I raise today there are indeed some positive and wonderful outcomes for our looked-after children across Wales. However, we must be vigilant to ensure that there is consistency—a seamless transition and a seamless provision of care and support. We need a collaborative approach, to ensure that local authorities, social workers, schools, the third sector and, most importantly, children and their fosterers are involved in developing appropriate care plans and that we take any steps to improve the education and engagement here to secure a positive outcome for these amazing children across Wales.

Can I just declare an interest as a trustee of Friends and Families of Prisoners in Swansea? Some young people, of course, have very good news stories as David Melding said in his opening remarks. The number of young people leaving care to go into higher education, for example, has gone up considerably since 2004, when, of 11,000 young people leaving care in England and Wales, only 60 went to university. But it’s still only seven per cent of care leavers that go into higher education now. The fact that in January this year we still needed a strategy for raising the attainment of children who are looked after shows that, even today, corporate parenting is not wholly successful in helping children seize better life chances. As we heard from Mark Isherwood—[Interruption.] Yes, by all means.

Thank you, Suzy, for taking an intervention. Would you agree with me that children are not able to move on? I’ve heard an awful lot of stats today, but these are individuals with individual needs. Would you agree with me that, unless their emotional well-being is addressed first, then you cannot expect any levels of attainment while they’re still carrying that emotional baggage with them?

I agree completely, because it’s not about the lack of opportunities, it’s the inability to be able to seize those opportunities that I think is at the heart of what we’re talking about today. We heard from Mark Isherwood, of course, that we are awash with research and reports and there’s another report being launched by the children’s commissioner today. If the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 is to mean anything, it has to succeed at breaking down silos and silo thinking about how, in this case, we take responsibility together for corporate parenting. I think it’s about far more than just Government departments; otherwise, all this research and all these reports won’t lead to fundamentally life-changing results for young people in care, and the access to the opportunity that Joyce was just talking about.

In the last Assembly, the Children, Young People and Education Committee conducted an in-depth inquiry with a later follow-up inquiry into adoption. In the course of both those inquiries, we heard from adoptive parents who adopted in ignorance of issues affecting their child at the time of adoption, or who did not receive support to deal with behaviours that manifested themselves as the children grew older. And one of the points I would really like to press home today is the fact that some formerly looked-after children don’t cease to have high needs just because they’ve been adopted. The scars of abuse and neglect, parental incapacity or absence or extreme family dysfunction don’t heal just because a child has found a new family to love and nurture them. So, in examining how cross-departmental corporate parenting can be better in today’s debate, we must remember the challenges facing adoptive families too, because the act of transferring parental responsibility must not mean washing our hands of those children. For every step we take to improve the value we place on foster parents and the essential place that they have in raising looked-after children, so we should do the same for adoptive parents. Llyr was absolutely right to talk about looked-after children and adopted children in the same breath.

However good our foster parents are, as David Melding said, many looked-after children will go through a series of placements, reinforcing the lack of stability and incomplete attachment that led to the state stepping in to protect many of them in the first place. There’s one particular type of separation that I want to speak on today, because it lends itself to targeted support but is complicated by the devolution settlement, and that is the children affected by an imprisonment of a parent.

Not all children with a parent in prison go into care; there are about two and a half times as many children with a parent in jail as there are children in care, and not all children in care have parents in prison, of course. In fact, in families where the father goes to jail, the overwhelming majority of children stay with the family at home with the mother. However, when it’s the mother who goes to jail, only 5 per cent of children stay at home with the father. The majority are looked after by kinship carers—grandparents mainly, but other family members as well—and this informal care, as with adoption, is not consistently recognised as an arrangement that requires active support by Government. Just because a child is not being formally corporately parented doesn’t mean that they are immune from the same development and emotional behaviour issues that arise from separation and lack of continuity and security as looked-after children do.

Now is an appropriate time to applaud organisations like Friends and Families of Prisoners and Barnardo’s, as well as the excellent work done in Parc prison to maintain strong family bonds between, in these cases, fathers and their children. But it’s an opportune time to remember too that while children generally stay at home with mum when dad is in jail, when mum is in jail 12 per cent of those children go into care. Jailing mothers not only creates a greater call on unsupported kinship care, but it brings more children into the care system. We know that a greater number of care leavers become offenders than their peers. We know that a greater number of children of prisoners become offenders than their peers. These children are doubly at risk of going into prison themselves, and I hope that any moves towards improving corporate parenting takes this particular cohort of children into particular consideration. Thank you.

I call the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children, Carl Sargeant.

Can I say I’m very pleased to take part in this really important debate that’s been brought by cross-party Members? Can I start my contribution by quoting from the children’s commissioner’s report on the review of children’s rights in residential care, which was launched today, a quote about not lacking anything? Phoebe, aged 13, has been in care since she was six months old, had more than 25 placements and she was quoted as saying:

‘I wanna stay until hopefully the sun comes out and gives me a nice life.’

Well, there but for the grace of God go I, for many. Let’s make sure we can work together to achieve this.

I’d like to say thank you to Assembly Members across the Chamber today for tabling this debate. It’s particularly clear that there is consensus amongst Members from all parties that looked-after children should be supported so that they have the same start in life and opportunities as those for all other children. I was really concerned when David had the book on his desk, because I wasn’t sure whether they were going to be questions or what. But I’m very grateful for the Member’s contribution and continued support in this.

I support the motion. I will be working to facilitate effective collaboration across national and local Government and with all our partners in the community and third sector to improve outcomes for looked-after children. But they’re just words on my paper, and I think the real key here is about how we are able to implement those processes.

I listened carefully to the contributions of Mark Isherwood and many who mentioned the Prison Reform Trust with regard to the children’s sub-committee that David also mentioned. I think that, when the report came out, we were in a slightly different place because the legislation then was very different to what we have now. In the last Government, we introduced the well-being of future generations Act, which now places a duty on 44 public bodies, including Government, on how we work very differently together. I can tell you that, as a Minister of the last administration and a Minister of this administration that, in only very early days, it is a very different way we operate in terms of joined-up working. I know that the First Minister and I are very keen to try and understand whether the sub-committee would add value or whether the legislation that we have in place now will commit and demonstrate that we can work differently across organisations. I would ask Members just to give us some space in order that we can achieve that. We are in the same place with you. The First Minister has made it very clear that he would like to see a more collaborative approach to policy development, and the policy portfolios demonstrate this and strengthen our ability to work collaboratively—

Will the Minister give way?

Of course, David, yes.

He’s asking for a bit of time to see how current processes are working and, you know, he probably wants to avoid too bureaucratic an approach if what we want to achieve is now going to be increasingly likely given new processes. After a year or so, if you want to review things, that’s fine, but will you come back and report on how interdepartmental co-operation in the Welsh Government is now producing better outcomes?

Indeed. The Member raises a very valid point, and I have no doubt—. I would be very happy to come back in 12 months, or before if I think there are some issues. I am absolutely committed to making sure that we can do something about this. I’m grateful for the Member’s suggestion.

As the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children, my priority is to improve the well-being and economic prosperity of individuals and communities, and I am clear that the roots of well-being and economic prosperity lie in childhood. We must invest in our children so that they can have the best possible outcomes to contribute effectively to society for the future. We know that the outcomes of looked-after children do not compare favourably with other children. Many have been quoted today. They are less likely to achieve good educational qualifications, have greater health and housing needs, and these young people are more likely to become involved in substance misuse and to come into contact with the criminal justice system, and this is not acceptable.

I did listen very carefully to some of the arguments about the five GCSEs and attainment level at certain ages, and what I would like Members to consider in that proposal is that we need a much more holistic approach to what we must tackle because educational attainment is not everything; it’s about the roundness of the individual as well. I’ve seen a study recently, where—. It was a study about NEETs, where five GCSEs weren’t attained by individuals trying to going into employment. But the study of the local area also looked at people who were employed and, actually, the people who were employed outweighed the number of non-NEETs with people who had no qualifications in work. The problem I have with that is about—well, what is it that looked-after children or people with fewer than five GCSEs—. What is the roundness of them growing up? I’ve been doing a little bit of work with Public Health Wales and I’ve sent David a link during this debate about what Members should perhaps have a think about—the adverse childhood experiences that Public Health Wales have been working on. I would suggest that many of the children found in the care system have had more than five adverse childhood experiences. One of the Members—Suzy—mentioned incarceration. I know that young people who have five hits on adverse childhood experiences are 20 per cent more likely to find themselves incarcerated later in life. We must do something about the prevention end, about making sure we look after children early on as well as in the system currently. It’s a twin-track approach that my department and my team will be working to achieve.

Will you take an intervention?

Indeed, I will.

Thank you. Cabinet Secretary, I’d be very grateful then—. Listening to what you have to say brought joy to my heart because this is an area I’ve been very concerned about with the Donaldson review. Therefore, given what you say about having five GCSEs at C grade or above as being the measure by which we measure the people here in Wales—and we have so many young people, just under a quarter of young people, with learning difficulties who will struggle to get that attainment, will you talk with the education Secretary, and actually review during the Donaldson Review two things—one about how you can look at that very much tick-box exercise we have, to measure the academic achievement of individuals, and secondly, how we might be able to bring what you’ve just mentioned, that learning skill, to develop the rounded person? Because you’re absolutely right—a good education is not to do with exams, and not to do with syllabus, but much more about developing a good citizen.

I’m very glad the Member intervened. You know, we’re a victim of our own success. We chase targets far too often without looking at people. And the rights and wrongs of that, with opposition parties and politicians, is that there’s a great chance to chastise people to say, ‘You haven’t made the 5 GCSEs’, when, actually, we’re forgetting about the individual, and particularly looked-after children. So, my priority and my team’s department priorities will be making sure that we can tackle ACEs early on—adverse childhood experiences—which we think, longer term, will give us a better outcome, and a rounded person, for people who, hopefully, won’t even enter the care system in that process.

Over the last two years, we have seen a reduction in the number of looked-after children in Wales, but I ask Members again to look with caution at the numbers in care, because we bandy those numbers about, but, actually, sometimes, it is the right thing for children to be protected in their environment. And I will be looking to reverse the trend and make sure that we continue on a reduction as it’s safe to do so, and supporting communities in this Assembly term.

I will be reconvening the improving outcomes for children strategic steering group, established by the former Minister for Health and Social Services, to drive forward reform and develop a national approach to looked-after children in Wales. Since its establishment, in September 2015, the group has brought together key stakeholders who will, and have looked at looked-after children’s foster carers and adopters. There’s much more work to be done here, and across Government departments. I reflect again what I said earlier about the WFG Act, where all departments across the Government are looking at education, housing, tackling poverty and public health—how we all can make a contribution to the benefit of young people.

Going forward, the group will identify what early intervention and preventative action could be taken to help reduce the numbers of children taken into care, and consequently bringing down the incidences of adverse childhood experiences. The group’s work programme will be based around three key themes. One, preventing children entering care and early intervention; two, improving outcomes for children already in care; and supporting care leavers to have successful futures and independent living. Successful outcomes in this area require collaboration and leadership across departments within national and local governments, and I heard the Members raise issues around the synergies between social services and education, and that’s absolutely the right thing to do. For children already in care, we are committed to improving the provision of high-quality placements that meet their needs, and give them the stability and support they need in order to thrive. This includes implementing a new national fostering framework, reviewing our special guardianship orders and promoting greater support for kinship carers.

We particularly want to ensure that all children and young people reach their full potential in education. The Welsh Government published a joint education and social services strategy in January, to raise the educational attainments of looked-after children, which sets out clear actions for improvement. I will be reviewing those numbers. [Intervention.] Indeed.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. You touched on this, but how much work have you done on looking at that transition period between the age of 18 and that period when children in care are going on into adulthood? Because I’ve spoken to a number of young people who feel that the transition is too abrupt, and they go from a very cared, look-after environment into an environment where they really don’t feel equipped to deal with the world.

Of course, and I think the Member’s right to raise that issue too. Look, we are talking about some very special people here. The programme we run is When I’m Ready, and making sure that is ready for the individual, not when it’s good for service providers. It’s about real people here—that’s what we’ve got to get underneath. Regardless of the age profile, I think we just need to understand better how we deliver good-quality services.

So, finally Presiding Officer—I’m very aware of the time and she’s been very kind to me this afternoon—can I say that what we need to do is work together? The cross-party group will continue to work with us—I take advice, and listen very carefully to you. I will report back to the Senedd about our progress in this very important area to me, and I know to Members, and it has cross-party support. So I urge Members today to support the motion; the Government will.

And to reply to the debate, Julie Morgan.

Diolch, Lywydd. Thank you very much for all the contributions to the debate. I’m very pleased to wind up this debate about the ways we can strengthen inter-departmental working to improve outcomes for looked-after children. Making sure our children have happy, fulfilled lives must be one of the most important functions of this Assembly. Children don’t have a voice, so that’s why we have to speak up for them, and looked-after children particularly don’t have a voice.

In his opening speech, David Melding, once again, showed his commitment to looked-after children and the great job that he’s always done in this Assembly to look after their interests. He talked about ‘Lost in Care’, 17 years ago now, and the way that practice has changed since then, but the challenge still remains. He called for something similar to the Cabinet sub-committee that is recommended by the Prison Reform Trust, as well as covering, in a wide-ranging speech, educational attainment, the permanence of education and the participation of children in the decisions about their lives.

Lee Waters talked about the further education system. He talked about the need for specific support for looked-after children in FE, the sixth form and higher education. He gave examples of good practice, such as having designated learning coaches, and wanted to know what we could do here to pursue those ends. Mark Isherwood mentioned the fact that advocacy is inconsistent across Wales and called on the Government to tell us what the timetable is for the implementation of a national approach to statutory advocacy.

Llyr Gruffydd called for a relentless focus on outcomes and asked whether the task and finish group that is looking at the outcomes for children not in education, employment or training could maybe look at the outcomes as well for care leavers within that particular group.

Janet Finch-Saunders paid tribute to those looking after children and wanted to look into the impact of Welsh Government funding, especially the pupil deprivation grant, on the outcomes for children who are in care. She also stressed the need for after-adoption support, and how important that is. This was something that was also reflected in Suzy Davies’s contribution: that children are often placed with parents, and after the placement, there is nowhere to turn. So, that was an important point made there. Also, she raised a very important point about what the effect is on children when parents are imprisoned, particularly when the mother is imprisoned, and how often that does lead to an admission into care and how we have to deal very carefully with those very, very difficult areas—contact with fathers in particular. I think that was a very important point.

Then, the Cabinet Secretary told us about his commitment to doing something about this very important area of work. He started off by saying the quote in Sally Holland’s recent publication:

‘I wanna stay until…the sun comes out’.

I think that really says what we feel about this particular subject—that we don’t want our children in care to be feeling that everything is insecure—and I think that quote covers it all. He said that we must invest in our children and talked about the importance of the well-being of future generations Act. He gave a commitment that, during this Assembly, we would be working, and the Government would be working relentlessly as a Government, to raise the quality of life for children who are in care and to ensure that they get the sort of support and commitment that children who live in their own families do. So, I’d like to thank everybody for taking part in this debate today and I think it’s a first step in all the work that we will be doing in this Assembly over the next five years.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? If not, the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

And the next item on the agenda is the Plaid Cymru debate on the electoral system, and I call on Sian Gwenllian to move the motion.

Thank you. We’ve tabled this debate today because it’s become clear that there is a need to change the present democratic process. Forget about the referendum for a moment, if you can, because, generally, people believe or feel that their vote doesn’t count. There is a need for them to see that there is a purpose for them voting and reforming the system is one way of tackling this complex issue. So, Plaid Cymru is of the view that the Wales Bill should make a provision to introduce a single transferable vote in order to secure equitable representation for every political viewpoint.

Before coming to that, I will touch on two other issues. The first is the need for young people between 16 and 17 to be allowed to vote. That is vital by now, because young people were angry and frustrated that their voices were not heard in the referendum, and there is also a need for us to create a youth parliament in Wales, because Wales is the only country without such a parliament. We must move forward in order to bring young people into politics. Obviously, it would make it easier for them to vote, by introducing online voting, for example, and introducing political education in schools would also be important.

But, turning to this subject, then, in 2012 only 39 per cent of people voted, and in this year’s National Assembly election, just over 45 per cent voted. So, it’s obvious that people feel there’s no point in voting, because it’s the same people who win all the time. I’ll give you two examples. In 2012, in the Sketty ward in Swansea, the Liberal Democrats won five seats with only 37.5 per cent of the vote. Labour received 29.2 per cent, and the Conservatives 20 per cent, but yet again, they weren’t able to win any of the seats. And, in a more notorious example, in 2008, in Cardiff, the Liberal Democrats won the majority of seats with only a third of the votes. Over the years, every party has benefited from the first-past-the-post system, and every party has suffered because of it also, but that’s not what I’m talking about here.

The STV system is used successfully in both Scotland and Northern Ireland. Scotland uses it in local elections, and nobody—no-one—in Scotland is elected without opposition. It has improved accountability and it’s actually made politics more vibrant, and it’s not just me saying this, but the Labour leaders in Glasgow and Edinburgh. In Northern Ireland, they are doubtful whether the peace process could have been agreed without it. And the Richard commission had actually recommended STV for our Assembly here.

I turn to some of the arguments that are presented to oppose STV. The idea of proportional representation was rejected for the 2011 elections, but it wasn’t a proportional system that was in hand—some of us will remember the campaign at the time: ‘No to AV, Yes to PR’.

Some people say that STV is difficult to understand, but I reject that totally, because that’s a bit of an insult to the voters in Scotland and Northern Ireland who have no difficulty whatsoever in understanding the system.

So, this idea that it stops any particular party from winning or always leads to coalition, well, that’s life sometimes. Sometimes that happens in a democracy, and the modelling on STV that has been undertaken in this country shows that it can create one-party Governments if those parties do well in an election. And the current system is also creating a system of no clear control.

There are advantages in introducing STV in Assembly elections. Regional Members would be selected directly by the electors rather than by a party list system. It would lead to more positive politicking, because political parties would compete for the electors’ second and third choices. And so, that would lead to more positive and mature campaigning.

Those who would gain would be any politician that would work in a positive and constructive manner, and those who would lose out would be those who take the electors for granted. It would mean that the politics of Wales would gain, and, ultimately, this is very good for the people of Wales, and that is what we should have uppermost in our minds. Thank you.

Thank you. I have selected the amendment to the motion and I call on the First Minister to move that amendment tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. First Minister.

Formally.

Thank you. David Melding.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I just say that the Conservative group will oppose the motion? But we will support the amendment, and, if the amendment carries, we will then support the amended motion. The problem I have with Plaid Cymru’s approach is it endorses STV and I think we need to have thorough consideration of how it would operate in practice in the different levels of government. We don’t have a line, as a group, on whether we should use a particular form of electoral arrangement, but we do think the power should come to the Assembly so that we can examine the choices.

Will the Member give way?

I’ve barely started, but I will.

I just want to elicit a little bit of information at the start. You said you don’t have a line. Do you nevertheless accept the recommendation of the Richard commission that STV should be used for local government in Wales, even if you haven’t made a decision around the Assembly itself?

Well, I was going on to say that I think all electoral arrangements have their advantages and disadvantages. Now, for a long time, I’ve thought the disadvantages of first-past-the-post in an increasingly multi-party system, or in Wales where you have—or used to, anyway—a dominant party system, meant that we should look at other forms of election, but it is something I think we need to just carefully look at. Now, you can look at the Scottish experience and weigh up how people feel about living in large multi-member wards. Is that always appropriate for local government? I don’t know. I think that’s the sort of issue, the practical outcome, we need to examine and assess. So, ‘yes’ to us having the powers and ‘yes’ to us fully looking at the various options.

Will you take an intervention?

Yes.

Will you agree with me that the current situation, where we do have large multi-member wards in our large inner cities, combined with first-past-the-post, really is anti-democratic, just as the example outlined?

Well, you know, I’ve said that I think there are advantages and disadvantages with whatever system you use. Frankly, the most elegant thing to do would be to use similar systems. So, there are implications: if you do it for local government, should you be doing it for the Assembly and quite a small legislature, and how would that work? As I say, I don’t have a closed mind, but, speaking as the constitutional spokesman for the group, I have to emphasise that STV’s not something we are prepared to endorse.

I have to say, Gwenllian, I greatly enjoyed your mischief and the outrageous examples of liberal over-representation that you gave. I’m sure it would’ve entertained everyone in the Assembly, but I have to say that I come from a tradition where we’ve been on the receiving end of a system that rewards our 20 per cent of the vote with no representation at all for a long time, but my party has to face up to the fact that it’s been sort of calmer in terms of outrage when it comes to a UK level, because we’ve often benefited greatly from winning general elections with sub-50 per cent performance, if I can put it as neutrally as that. So, look, it’s appropriate that the power comes to the Assembly and then we fully consider it. I think, having said that, we would be looking to change some of the current systems, and we want to do that based on good, hard evidence.

We’ve had democracy in the UK for some time but it has evolved gradually over the years. There were two great reform Acts of the nineteenth century that considerably extended the vote and eliminated many rotten boroughs. Some Members may recall from their reading of history the example of Old Sarum in Hampshire where the only elector was said to be a cat. Well, rotten boroughs of a sort still exist here in Wales: places like Blaenau Gwent, where one party—and I won’t say who—won 81 per cent of the council seats on 55 per cent of the vote. There are other similar examples. Regardless of which party benefits, first-past-the-post is clearly a system of election that frequently creates a situation that the Labour Members like to refer to as a democratic deficit. Scrutiny and oversight of a council is clearly more difficult in a situation where one party holds a large majority of the seats. In such circumstances, the delivery of council services may suffer accordingly. Here in UKIP, we support the introduction of STV as a more democratic system. We will work with whoever else in the Chamber supports us on this issue. Thank you.

I’d like to thank everyone for their contributions. First of all, of course, there is an amendment before the Assembly that would broaden the scope of the case that has been put already in the Chamber. The purpose of the debate, of course, is to concentrate on the fact that the National Assembly will have the power to change the electoral arrangements at a local level, but also at an Assembly level, ultimately. And, of course, I am extremely supportive of that, as are these benches. It’s very important that it’s this Assembly that controls the system and the means by which we elect Members to this Assembly in future.

Of course, it’s true to say that the Wales Bill itself doesn’t allow that only 51 per cent of the vote is required to change the system, and I think that’s quite right, because, with such a fundamental change, it’s very important that more than one party should support any change in the electoral arrangements. I wouldn’t argue against that. But, for me, the problem that we have at present is the fact that the debate, as set out in the motion, is too narrow, because, instead of arguing that the Assembly should have the power to change the electoral system, it argues that the Assembly should have the power to change this system, but only to one alternative model. So, it narrows the debate, rather than broadening it.

So, what the amendment seeks to do, therefore, is to ensure that, first of all—

I’m very grateful to the First Minister. Perhaps he can help me with a constitutional difficulty that I have with the motion before us today, namely that this Assembly is asking, once again, for Westminster to legislate, as I understand the motion, on constitutional issues that should belong to us in this place.

I think that’s quite right. What we should say, of course, is that we want the power—and it has been given to us—to change the electoral system to any system that the Assembly should vote for, rather than restricting ourselves to one system. What we have at present is a wording that states that we ask Westminster to change the system to a particular model, rather than us having the power to change the system to the system that the National Assembly thinks would be the best for Wales.

What the amendment does is to broaden the scope of the motion that we have before us in order to ensure that, yes, the Assembly would decide what kind of system would ultimately be adopted, but without narrowing the debate to considering only one system and saying that we should only consider one system when we ask for the power from Westminster. So, for me, the amendment broadens the powers that the Assembly would have, and, ultimately, it would be up to the Assembly to decide on a cross-party basis what kind of system should be adopted in this Assembly and in local government.

Thank you. I call on Simon Thomas to reply to the debate. Simon.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I’m pleased we had this debate. It was short, but sweet, and I think Sian Gwenllian set out extremely well in a very concise but well-targeted and focused opening speech the reason why we brought forward this debate.

Of course, when we did table this debate, we didn’t know that the Assembly itself would be voting today using a kind of proportional representation, because you’ve had a second-preference vote to choose your committee Chairs today, and you’ve accepted that you don’t get first-past-the-post all the time for everything that goes on. So I think that’s a small chink in the arguments against first-past-the-post, and a small step forward for more proportional representation. If we have it for our committee Chairs, then surely we should have it to elect our Members. [Interruption.] Some of the committee Chairs, yes—quite. I was open for an election; I don’t mind.

I just want to put one thing to bed, because there’s been a little bit of mischief making by the First Minister, ably assisted by Dafydd Elis-Thomas, I’m afraid to say, on the precise wording of this motion. The motion is very clear:

‘Believes that the Wales Bill should make provision to enable the National Assembly for Wales to introduce the single transferable vote’.

We as Plaid Cymru support STV, so of course we will want to advocate STV. But there’s nothing in the motion that says that we can only introduce STV under the provisions of the Wales Bill. We want the Wales Bill to make provision to enable us to introduce STV. We could introduce another system—of course we could—and therefore there isn’t actually anything between our motion and the Government amendment, apart from the Government not accepting STV, because that’s the reality of it: the Labour Party doesn’t accept STV.

It would be much more honest if the Government amendment just said that. At least the Conservatives spokesperson was very honest and said, ‘We don’t know what we want at the moment’. I think that might have something to do with the fact that we have a Conservative Government that could call a referendum on leaving the EU having been voted in with a majority of 12 on 37 per cent of the vote. And that cannot continue. [Interruption.] That cannot continue. [Interruption.] I agree it’s in the manifesto, of course it is, but you should never have the majority. You should not have a majority in Westminster on 37 per cent of the vote. There should be 82 UKIP MPs—there should be 82 UKIP MPs. And if we’d had a Westminster that had reflected UKIP’s voice for the last 10 years, we may not have had a referendum. We may have had more subtle ways of exploring the great depths and the well of unhappiness that people have with the electoral system, that wouldn’t have come then to a binary choice, saying, ‘If you’re unhappy with politics, vote out’, but would have been a much more subtle way of expressing those strong views in the proper electoral system. And maybe if we’d had those MEPs—MPs; not MEPs, but MPs—from UKIP over the last 10 years, expressing those frustrations that they have and the perfectly acceptable policy positions they had, we wouldn’t have had a situation where, just last week, people thought, ‘It’s time to say “no” to the kind of politics we’ve had for so long, and the way to do that is by voting out of the European Union’, therefore cutting off their nose to spite their face. But that’s the situation we have.

Plaid Cymru’s wedded to STV. We may not win the argument for STV in the long run, because there might be a force here in the Assembly that argues for a different kind of proportional representation. After all, we have a kind of proportional representation now with the list system. But we’ll continue to argue for STV in the absence of any argument for an alternative to improve politics, which neither the Conservatives nor Labour have suggested today. Unless we do something about first-past-the-post, we are condemned to always polarising debate and to having the sort of decisions we had last week. Let’s awaken our politics, let’s bring in young people, let’s give them the vote as well, and let’s ensure that we have a better forum and a better representative parliamentary democracy at Welsh level and UK level that properly, therefore, expresses people’s frustrations and complaints and doesn’t lead us to the false promises and false choices that we had last week.

Thank you very much. The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Thank you. We’ll defer this vote, then, until voting time.

Item 5 on the agenda is the Plaid Cymru debate, the ministerial code, and I call on Dai Lloyd to move the motion.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. It’s a pleasure for me to open this debate, and I will also conclude the debate in a little while. Of course, our motion calls on us all—calls on the National Assembly to believe that the principles of open government should be maintained in all areas of responsibility, that the ministerial code should be laid before and approved by the National Assembly for Wales, and that an independent adjudicator should be appointed to report publicly on any alleged breaches of the code. Now, for obvious reasons, therefore, there are specific demands on Welsh Ministers. As I move forward, I will state now that we will oppose the first amendment in the name of Jane Hutt, but we will support amendments 2 and 3, which add to the fundamental points that we make in our motion on the issue that we are considering.

Now, as I said, there are specific requirements on Welsh Ministers, and each of them, including Deputy Ministers, do have to comply with the ministerial code, which sets standards of conduct. Now, of course, this isn’t an opportunity to revisit any specific incident, but a debate to strengthen transparency within the process, and it’s part of the same kind of debate that we’ve just heard about from Sian Gwenllian and Simon on how people perceive politics these days. Very often, as politicians, we are decried, and we see all sorts of complaints made against us—sometimes on the basis of the conduct of an individual—but I think this is also part of the process of how we respond to that vote in the referendum of last week. We do have to demonstrate to people that we are entirely honest, open and transparent in everything that we do. And part of that process is the ministerial code, which does need to be transformed.

There has been cross-party support in this Assembly in the past to see full transparency in the process, by including an independent adjudicator in the system, so that the First Minister can report any alleged breach to an independent adjudicator and then that independent adjudicator will gather evidence and present a report.

Now, our aim is that the First Minister should not lose the right to appoint and dismiss members of his Cabinet. That’s not the aim of this debate. But I don’t support his right to decide who should be subject to an independent adjudicator or a report if there is a breach of the ministerial code either. And, of course, a member of the public or a Member of this institution should have the right to complain directly to a standards commissioner, just as they would with any complaints about an Assembly Member of the backbenches, and the commissioner should evaluate that complaint, formulate a report, and provide that report so that the First Minister could take a final decision.

As I’ve already mentioned, a crucial characteristic of our objective this afternoon is to look again at this adjudication process and to ensure that the ministerial code is more open, in order to actually rebuild the public’s faith in politics, which has been damaged recently—it is a faith that has been damaged over a number of years. We saw the response, as Simon already said earlier, in the previous debate.

So, in the midst of the anger, the hatred and the untruths that have been flying around the place over the past few weeks, we are very much aware, as politicians, that many of our people have become entirely disillusioned with politicians and with politics, and they have no confidence in us and very little respect for us. There are all sorts of stories of misconduct in the past—I won’t go into those now—but, following last week’s vote, we have to respond robustly, as politicians and as an Assembly, to the substantial challenge that we face. Part of that response is to show very high standards of conduct in this place, which should be weighed up in an open and transparent ministerial code. Thank you very much.

Thank you. I have selected three amendments to this motion, and I call on the First Minister to move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt.

Formally, Dirprwy Lywydd.

I call on Andrew R.T. Davies to move amendments 2 and 3, tabled in the name of Paul Davies.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I formally move the amendments on the order sheet, in the name of Paul Davies. I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. I can well remember, in the last Assembly, the debates, the discussions and the First Minister’s questions that the former leader of the Liberal Democrats used to use to cajole the First Minister into bringing forward a truly independent ministerial code, and, ultimately, obviously, bring that transparency to the governing process, where Ministers are referred to the ministerial code. It does seem slightly bizarre that you can be all things to all people, as the current code is, with the First Minister being the ultimate arbitrator, sorting it all out, rather than any independence at the heart of the process.

I do hope that the First Minister, when he does respond to this debate this afternoon, will respond in a positive light, because the arguments that are being put forward here today are not new arguments. And I know the First Minister, some two or three years ago, was making the point, ‘Well, we’ll have a review, we’ll have a look into this, I’ll see what I can do’. Well, it’s two years on; hopefully he’s got the answers to maybe some of the questions that were posed back in July 2014.

In particular, I do think there’s an opportunity to look at the way the commissioners are appointed—the children’s commissioner, for example, and the other commissioners, who, over time, have come from this institution, and have proved to do a power of good in the areas that they are charged with delivering. And, in fairness to the Welsh Government, they have reached out to the parties here and formed working groups to, obviously, make those appointments. But that really shouldn’t just be at the behest of the Government. It should be the Assembly as a whole that instigates the selection procedure and the appointments, because those commissioners do need to be acting in the name of the National Assembly for Wales, I would suggest, rather than just, obviously, the Welsh Government.

From my own personal point of view, and in the Conservative manifesto back in May, we would have liked to have seen hearings into the appointment of special advisers undertaken as well, because a feature of modern Government today, in any Government in fairness, has been—. I accept that in all Governments, the role of special advisers has increased dramatically over the years—the last 40 years in particular, from their inception in the early 70s, to the more formal role they now fill, and they do play an important role in advising Government Ministers, in carrying out Government function. And, yet, again, that particular role, and those appointments, are completely at the behest of the First Minister. Again, I do believe that there would be a welcome spotlight put on the process of the role of special advisers, and in particular, the way they’re appointed, and in particular, the suitability that they might have to take such important roles within Government, albeit not ultimately removing from the appointments process the ability of the First Minister to approve that, or, as an example in Westminster, the Prime Minister. That’s not a political point I’m trying to make about the specific special advisers here in Cardiff. They are an important piece of the political landscape that you see in all parts of Government, wherever they exist across the United Kingdom and, indeed, anywhere else in western democracy. I do believe that, along with the appointment of commissioners, that would be very welcome in bringing transparency to a very opaque procedure that people outside of this institution know very little about.

I’d also like to move the second amendment in Paul Davies’s name, which refers specifically to the education Minister’s manifesto commitment, and the wording in the manifesto about the ministerial code. It does speak, the Liberal Democrat manifesto—it says,

‘it’s no wonder voters lose confidence when Labour Ministers can apparently breach the Ministerial Code with impunity’.

I read that directly from the manifesto. And so I do think that now, obviously, the Liberal Democrats are formally part of the Government, it is important that the First Minister does give assurances, if nothing else, that Labour Ministers haven’t been breaking the ministerial code with impunity, as I’ve just read out from the manifesto. And, if it is the case that that was a correct assertion, what measures will the First Minister be taking to give confidence back to people that such a statement was, shall we say, reckless to put before it if it didn’t bear any relation to the workings of Government? This debate can now, hopefully, after the last two years that the First Minister’s had the chance to think about how the ministerial code should develop—because a lot of these questions were first put round when Alun Davies had to resign from the Government in July 2014, and legitimately put down as well, I might add. So, the First Minister, in that folder that he has before him, has hopefully now got the answers to the review that he undertook at that time and some of the changes, rather than standing and saying, ‘We’re just keeping the status quo’, and that he will be able to enlighten the Chamber as to the changes that he will be making to the current ministerial code, to make it more open, to make it more transparent, and, above all, for that openness and transparency to reach across the whole of the new Welsh Government in the fifth Assembly.

I just want to add one thing to the debate, really, when we talk about ministerial codes and codes of conduct, because, constitutionally, there’s one person in this building who is not affected by any of this, and that is the First Minister. Now, in terms of democratic accountability, that cannot be right, because if some of us think that, perhaps, the First Minister may have misled this Chamber in some way, or not, as the case may be, there is no recourse for any Member of this Chamber and there is no recourse for any member of the public to challenge this wrongdoing. So, what we have here, constitutionally—[Interruption.]

Can we just all calm down and listen to what the Member who is on his feet is saying? Then others will get the chance later.

Diolch. What we have here is a democratic Chamber where we all should come and listen to people giving their points of view, no matter what the points of view are, no matter which party, and I ask every single Member to respect that.

Right, moving on. So, if there is a dispute, as I mentioned earlier, there is absolutely no recourse for any member of the public, any Member here, and that cannot be right in a democratic chamber. What we have here is a huge, huge constitutional gap, where, potentially, any First Minister can come here and say what the hell he or she likes—anything at all. There is absolutely no recourse for anybody here. That cannot be right. So, what I’d like to finally say is that, as well as ministerial codes and as well as codes of conduct for Members, what we need here is a way to hold the First Minister to account constitutionally, because I know from my experience, both as a Member of the public and as a Member of this Chamber, that there is no way of doing that. Any First Minister can come here and they can potentially mislead this Chamber; they can potentially lie and there’s nothing we can do about it. That is not right.

No, no. Wait a minute. Have you finished?

I have finished.

I would ask you to just think about that last sentence and whether you could change the wording in that last sentence. Nobody lies in this Chamber while I’m in the chair.

What I did say, to qualify, was ‘potentially’—’potential untruths’, shall we say? I don’t know. I’ll go with your guidance, Chair.

Okay, we’ll check the Record. First Minister.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. Can I thank most Members for their contributions? [Laughter.] Just to explain first of all—to deal with the amendments. I know that Members are concerned that the ministerial code should be open—it is; that it gets amended and reviewed from time to time—it is; and that Members are aware of what the ministerial code actually says. What the amendment does, of course, is ensure that I continue to review the ministerial code and indeed the way that it operates and that will continue for the future.

The second amendment, in the name of Paul Davies, about the commissioners, is related, I suppose, to openness in Government, but I really ask the question: is this really a problem? We know that the commissioners should be independent and they are once they are appointed. They would be no more independent if they were appointed by the National Assembly; somebody has to appoint them. What’s important is that they are able to operate independently as soon as they are appointed. That is something, I believe, that has indeed happened. They don’t operate in the name of the Government any more than they would operate in the name of the Assembly if the Assembly appointed them, and so, from my perspective, certainly I believe that commissioners have operated independently and have fulfilled their duties properly. At no time has it been suggested that the commissioners are in some way hamstrung in terms of being able to express their views and express those views properly.

In terms of special advisers, this is not something that happens at Westminster. Special advisers are appointed by me; they are subject to a code as well and that is something that I, again, keep in mind as they are appointed. Special advisers are expected, of course, to keep to rules in terms of their job and particularly in terms of the way in which they separate their political life, in terms of campaigning, from their work as a special adviser.

On the third amendment—

I take the response that the First Minister has given. I take that point that it’s not a situation that occurs in Westminster, namely confirmation hearings, but don’t you think that we shouldn’t always try and replicate what Westminster do? This would be groundbreaking, because they are an important part of the Government architecture, special advisers are, and having a form of confirmation hearing would bring public awareness to the role that they fulfil in advising Ministers.

My answer to that is: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Special advisers have never been called into question in terms of their behaviour. They are indeed expected to behave in accordance with their own code. I see no reason why there should be hearings for the appointment of special advisers.

In terms of the third amendment in the name of Paul Davies, this is a mischievous amendment, let’s be honest, as the party opposite well knows. There are Members here who will know that, where I take the view that the ministerial code has been breached, then action is taken. I don’t think that I can be accused of doing nothing if there are issues that need to be dealt with. Those decisions have been difficult and painful for all involved, but nevertheless it has been important to take those decisions. The suggestion is that somehow no decisions are ever taken in terms of breaches of the ministerial code. Members know otherwise. Besides, I know that the Cabinet Secretary for Education can act, now that she is in Government, as a guardian in terms of this in any event. I have no doubt at all that, when it comes to the Government that we have set up in the last few weeks, the ministerial code will be adhered to. All Ministers have been made absolutely aware of the code and have been informed that they must read the code as well.

Just on that point, could you therefore confirm that all your Cabinet Secretaries and Ministers have signed the ministerial code? Did the Cabinet Secretary for Education give her views to you on the ministerial code?

The answer is ‘yes’ and she did, as she’s just informed you. As all Ministers are bound by the ministerial code there is no question of them being able to pick and choose, and there never has been. That code will apply to all and it is known what the consequences are if the code is broken.

Well, I won’t comment much on what the Member Neil McEvoy said. His obsessions are well known to this Chamber. He has his own furrow that he wishes to plough. He was not brave enough to make any allegations and, therefore, his comments in this Chamber are not worthy of a response.

So, with regard to amendment 1, as I say, that is something—[Interruption.] You’ve had your view. That is something that I’ve already formally moved. We will not be supporting amendments 2 and 3, nor indeed the motion itself as unamended.

Thank you very much. I call on Dai Lloyd to reply to the debate. Dai.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. May I thank everybody else for their contributions? Just to return to the nub of the debate, a number of different principles have succeeded in creeping into the debate, but the fundamental point was regarding the ministerial code. We call for the principles of open government to be maintained. People have said some very nice things about that standard, and we want to see it upheld, and we want to see the ministerial code being laid before this Assembly and being approved by this Assembly. We also call for an independent adjudicator to be appointed to report publicly on any alleged breaches of the code. That, basically, is the point of this debate, in order to persuade and convince the public that we are responding affirmatively and positively to what happened in the referendum last week. We must have a strong response to show that we as politicians are standing up for the right things. Thank you.

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

The next item on the agenda, then, is item 6, which is the Welsh Conservative debate on air pollution. I call on David Melding to move the motion. David.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Perhaps, with your indulgence, I could apologise to Sian Gwenllian, who’s still in the Chamber, for getting her name wrong earlier. Esgusodwch fi—I’m very sorry.

Air quality needs to be a high priority in this fifth Assembly. It does not currently appear as a specific Cabinet responsibility. I did check the list of responsibilities that the Cabinet Secretary has and it’s not there, despite the length of the list. And before I, sort of, fall back into a sort of pit of complacency, air pollution didn’t really get very much attention during the Assembly election campaign and I don’t think it appeared specifically in any of the parties’ manifestos. So, I think we’re all in the same category of perhaps not giving this the priority it deserves. But air pollution is key to public health and it’s a real challenge because while many advances were made after 1970, principally in the shift from coal to gas, we have lost ground since the mid-2000s, as we’ve seen the use of diesel, in particular, increase in terms of motor traffic.

Wales has some of the worst air quality in the UK. Crumlin recently made the news because its pollution levels were higher than anywhere else in the UK except Marylebone Road in London. Normally, if we’re being compared to Marylebone I would be happy, but in this case it was bleak indeed. And we now have the benefit of advances in research that demonstrate the harm caused by air pollutants. We are perhaps in a similar place as we were a few years ago to passive smoking. In fact, I think air pollution, generally, is probably more of a risk, and it is estimated that over 1,300 deaths a year can be attributed in some material way to poor air quality in Wales. So, that is indeed very, very significant.

Air pollution is largely the result of human activity, through vehicles, industry and agriculture. However, individuals have very little control over their own exposure. I don’t know if any of you have ever watched a video that actually demonstrates the flows, of air pollution and particulate matter especially, around urban areas and buildings. Its extent and intensity is truly shocking. I have to say, when I saw that first, I was really, really surprised. You do not have to be on top of an exhaust to actually suffer the pollution and inhale deep into your lungs particulate matter.

The prevalence of air pollution is higher in Wales than in Scotland or Northern Ireland. It should be said, however, that it is lower than in England. Cardiff is the most polluted area in Wales with a particulate matter concentration of 9.5. I’m new to this brief—please don’t ask me 9.5 in what. [Laughter.] Perhaps I shouldn’t have conceded that. [Laughter.] That’s compared to an average for Wales of 7.5 concentration. [Interruption.] Ah, I with great relief give way to the noble Member for Aberavon.

Thank you for taking the intervention. It’s actually 9.5 on, I think, a scale of 10. There’s a scale that is allocated, and 9.5 is in that scale. So, it’s the highest value.

I am very grateful to the Member. And then the prevalence of pollution through nitrogen oxide seems to be increasing, with eight out of 10 monitoring sites in Wales recording an increase last year.

I just want to turn to some of the health impacts, because inhaled particulate matter and exposure to nitrogen oxide causes a considerable increase in morbidity. It is calculated that it reduces life expectancy on average by between seven and eight months. Of course, there are many, many vulnerable groups that suffer much greater risks to their health, a point that’s been more strongly made quite recently by the British Lung Foundation, and I commend their work on this to Assembly Members.

The whole sort of health harms that occur to society come at a cost, and also they cause other harms in terms of the use of public services, the effectiveness of the economy and business as days are lost to ill health. And, indeed the Royal College of Physicians estimate, that the cost to the UK is about £20 billion a year that can be attributed to air pollution. It really is quite remarkable.

I want to turn now to how we achieve cleaner air, and it has been a challenge. I mean, in the 1950s it was first apprehended, and, as I said, by 1970 they had begun to make very significant progress, but perhaps in the modern age now, with the rapid increase in car use and frequency of its use, it’s something that needs very particular attention. And I should say also—I don’t particularly like turning to this point—but in post-Brexit Britain, all Governments need to co-operate to improve air quality—all Governments within the UK. There are responsibilities here shared across the different Governments. And, of course, what we do can affect other parts of the UK, so it’s very, very important. The legislative guidance and regulations that are currently embedded in the EU must not be lost, and in the work that now follows, as we unpick our membership of the EU, it’s very important that those safeguards are continued and, where appropriate, planted in our own regulatory and legal frameworks.

I think also in terms of Brexit, the future of the metro needs to be very carefully considered. In my view, help with this project is something we can quite legitimately take to the UK Government and say, ‘This is key to the progress of our economy in south Wales, but in particular to health and well-being and opportunities people have via public transport.’

And better air quality monitoring is also required, especially in Wales’s 36 air quality management areas and in particular, I think, monitoring of air quality near schools. The impact on young people of air pollution is particularly acute.

We must ensure that the Welsh Government delivers effectively on its own national air quality strategy, and that is something that we will pay a lot of attention to in the Welsh Conservative Party. And I’ve no doubt that the Minister will pay a lot of attention to this as well, as to where the general policy framework will now have to be strengthened in terms of taking forward the consequences of Brexit.

There are opportunities. There have been some advances that create real opportunities for the future of air quality and its improvement. I turn to the Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013. If that’s taken up extensively, if local authorities in particular use the tools that are in it, then I think we could see some marked decrease in the use of vehicles, especially in urban areas—in the centre of urban areas—and people taking up opportunities to walk and cycle, which will lead to direct health benefits to them as well as improving the quality of the air we all breathe. So, there are double benefits there in terms of the advances we can make.

I think also we face a wider challenge to redesign our urban spaces, and perhaps I slip slightly here from just being the Conservative spokesman to talking about one of my pet enthusiasms. There are too many cars in urban places, basically. I think the next generation will look back and think, ‘How on earth did they allow their urban environment, especially the most precious parts of it around schools and the centre of cities, to be dominated by car or more generally vehicle use?’ I mean, I have a car—it’s a—. I nearly said ‘Mini Metro’. It’s a Fiat 500, which is the same genre, perhaps. I do barely 5,000 miles a year, but lots of people need to use their car more frequently. But I think, whatever the car use appropriate for people, they can take other opportunities, other than the car, when they are presented. Certainly, we need to design our urban areas so that people can park in satellite areas and then take public transport into the centres. We need to reform the way that children get to school and try to unravel the school run and how that has dominated the current generation when it never used to happen before. There are important things that we need to do, and they will create ways where we can improve the general quality of the environment and of life.

I also think direct alternatives to car use need to be promoted, and this is why, as I said earlier, the metro is so important. I’m an enthusiastic user of the bus, of the train; I often walk to the Assembly; I sometimes have to drive. That ought to be a typical profile for citizens. It shouldn’t be exceptional. It should be how, certainly in urban areas, we all make our journeys.

Every large van in the UK runs on diesel. Now, how have we got there? They’re highly polluting, some of those vehicles—visibly polluting. It’s just astonishing the black muck that comes out of those vehicles. There are alternatives—liquefied petroleum gas, for instance, scores on some environmental measures. I know that it does have some carbon implications, but it does lead to cleaner air, and there is a good infrastructure in place to use LPG. So, that could be looked at. Taxi fleets could also run on LPG. There are definite ways we could improve air quality in that direction as well. Local authorities need to act decisively when air pollution levels are seen to be and are recorded to be too high. They need to be more active.

Finally, can I just say that we do need a greater understanding amongst the public so that we can move forward with full co-operation? At the moment, the harmful health effects and also the harmful effects on the economy, I don’t think, are fully appreciated. So, there is some work for us to do in the fifth Assembly. Thank you.

Thank you. I have selected the two amendments to the motion. I call on Simon Thomas to move both amendments—1 and 2—tabled in his name. Simon.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I thank David Melding for opening this debate. It is a crucially important debate, as he’s already outlined. The link between air pollution and health is now robustly developed and one that we must tackle. I stand here as someone—. As we are admitting what cars we drive, I have a diesel vehicle. When I bought that vehicle five years ago, there was no mention of the fact that emissions from diesel vehicles were so damaging to health. The story sold to customers was that diesel was better for the environment because of climate change and carbon dioxide. We now know that nitrogen dioxide is far more dangerous directly to our health. I also bought a diesel vehicle because, it now appears, the people making those cars had told barefaced lies to their customers and had engineered the cars in an artificial way. For example, I now understand that the engine in my vehicle, if it is colder in Wales than 18 degrees Celsius—and it’s often colder than that in Wales—switches to something that is far more problematic for air pollution. That wasn’t explained in any way to people at the time.

We also now understand, because the WHO has just come to a decision, that emissions from diesel vehicles are a group 1 carcinogen—that is, the most dangerous of all. So, we must tackle this issue. There is some disagreement on numbers. The WHO said that around 29,000 deaths per annum in the UK are linked to air pollution. The British Lung Foundation says that the figure is as high as 40,000. But everyone is agreed that it is far more than are killed on our roads themselves; that is, air pollution from diesel vehicles specifically actually kills more people in the UK than do accidents on our roads. So, we must tackle this problem.

Some of the solutions, to be fair, have been outlined by David Melding. We would want to see the Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013 being used far more to encourage people to walk not just to schools, but also to work, and to cycle far more. It’s true to say that, in many towns and suburbs, it is difficult to walk and cycle because of the air quality. It can be very difficult to cycle in cities and large towns because of the air quality, and therefore I would like to see us being far more experimental here in Wales.

I do support what David Melding said about actually looking again at our town centres. We have to plan so that the individual comes before the car in our town centres. We must look at large towns and cities that have experimented with carless days or carless zones. There are towns that I have personally visited, such as Amsterdam, where the pedestrian and the cyclist always come before the car and people move very easily. Outside Amsterdam train station there is a bike park that is far bigger than the car park. That is what we can do in northern Europe. It is something that is done by nations that are similar to ours, and it is something that we can achieve here in Wales.

Rwy’n meddwl mai’r pwynt olaf i’w wneud yw hwn: er ein bod yn torri’r rheolau hyn mewn tua 38 o barthau yn y Deyrnas Unedig, a rhai ohonynt yng Nghymru, ar hyn o bryd, cyfarwyddir ansawdd aer gan ddeddfwriaeth Ewropeaidd. Cyfraith yr UE yw’r gyfarwyddeb ansawdd aer. Nid yw wedi’i gorfodi arnom, gyda llaw; cytunasom iddi’n hapus. Nid yw wedi’i gorfodi; roeddem yn cytuno â hi. Mae Llywodraeth y DU, dro ar ôl tro ar ôl tro, yn tramgwyddo yn erbyn y gyfarwyddeb hon. Nid wyf am i ni gael gwared ar y gyfarwyddeb wrth i ni adael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd. Yr hyn sydd ei angen yw i Lywodraeth newydd y DU sy’n debygol o ddod yn yr hydref ailymrwymo i egwyddorion y gyfarwyddeb ac egwyddorion rheoli ansawdd aer, a gwneud yn well yn y dyfodol i gydymffurfio â’r egwyddorion hynny nag y maent wedi’i wneud yn y gorffennol.

Mae hon yn ddadl bwysig. Mae llygredd aer yn lladd mwy o’n dinasyddion yn gynamserol nag y mae damweiniau ar y ffyrdd. Rwy’n credu bod angen ailystyried y ffordd rydym yn adeiladu ein trefi a’n dinasoedd a’n systemau trafnidiaeth i sicrhau bod dileu llygredd aer yn flaenllaw ymhlith y targedau y mae hynny’n ei gyflawni. Y peth olaf heddiw yn y cyd-destunau hynny, wrth gwrs, yw dweud na fydd M4 newydd o amgylch Casnewydd yn gwneud dim o gwbl i helpu i gyflawni’r nod hwnnw.

Studies have shown the danger to public health that follows from repeated exposure to air pollution. Air pollution increases the risk of mortality by cardiovascular and respiratory conditions. The risk is particularly acute for children, with their exposure linked to diabetes, cognitive function, birth outcomes and liver and kidney damage. It is worrying, therefore, to note that Wales has some of the most polluted areas in the United Kingdom. There is a clear link between air pollution, deprivation and health.

Some of the most polluted areas are in my South Wales East region. In Torfaen, for example, 18 per cent of adults are being treated for respiratory illness. In Blaenau Gwent, the figure is 17 per cent. Across Aneurin Bevan health board areas as a whole, 15 per cent of adults are receiving treatment for breathing problems. Recently, I was concerned to discover that the A472 between Pontypool and Crumlin has the highest level of nitrogen dioxide, which my colleague, David Melding just mentioned; it’s higher than near Madame Tussauds in London. Indeed, the level recorded in 2015 and 2016 was higher than anywhere else apart from central London, as he said earlier.

Under the Environment Act 1995, local authorities—in this case, Caerphilly County Borough Council—have a duty to review local air quality and assess whether health-based air quality objectives will be achieved. In November 2013, Caerphilly declared an air quality management area and a further assessment was undertaken last year. Again, excessive levels of air pollution were confirmed. As a result, the council required a complete air quality action plan for the area. I understand that they are currently consulting with local residents, businesses and other key stakeholders to have input into production of the plan. It is estimated that a draft action plan will be ready for consultation in November this year, Minister. Could the Cabinet Secretary confirm this is the case and will she work closely with Caerphilly County Borough Council to explore all the options to bring air pollution levels down to safe levels?

Presiding Officer, air pollution contributes to over 1,500 deaths in Wales. It is clear we need to develop an effective and coherent emissions strategy to reduce this deadly scenario. We already have the active travel Act to improve pedestrian and cycle routes to encourage healthier lifestyles and to reduce pollution in Wales. We have the tranquil, greener and cleaner places, and grant schemes to support local authority projects to improve air quality, such as traffic flow changes in Merthyr Tydfil and the planting of trees on the Gwent levels. It is essential that Welsh Government monitors the funding of these schemes to ensure they deliver that improvement to the air quality in Wales that we all wish.

As earlier contributors have already mentioned, there are certain measures to be taken: some cars and heavy goods vehicles should be stopped from going to congested areas and highly populated areas in this part of the world. Also, one area that I’d like to ask the Minister about is, in London, when you go, there are so many bays that have bicycle hiring in central London by different banks. So, why can’t we have some of these areas in Swansea, Cardiff and Newport, and, in the north, some in the Wrexham area, where some of the banks can put bicycles for people to hire in congested areas in Wales also? Thank you very much.

Thank you. David Rees.

Diolch, Lywydd—Dirprwy Lywydd, sorry. I welcome the opportunity to speak in today’s debate. Air pollution can have extremely detrimental effects on our health, as has already been mentioned by several speakers. It’s associated with a wide variety of respiratory and inflammatory conditions, as particulates, including sulphates, nitrates and black carbon, penetrate the cardiovascular system. It particularly affects those with pre-existing health conditions.

There is also evidence that prolonged exposure can lead to severe heart and lung disease and, on occasions, cancer. Outdoor air pollution is now the biggest single killer, globally, with over 3 million people—and I know David Melding has highlighted those in Wales—more than HIV/AIDS, actually, and malaria, so you can see the level we’re at. As urban air quality declines, the risk to individuals with those pre-existing conditions increases.

Dr Flavia Bustreo of the World Health Organization, assistant director general for family, women and children’s health, has said:

‘Air pollution is a major cause of disease and death. It is good news that more cities are stepping up to monitor air quality, so when they take actions to improve it they have a benchmark…. When dirty air blankets our cities the most vulnerable urban populations—the youngest, oldest and poorest—are the most impacted.’

The air quality in my constituency and hometown, Port Talbot, is often in the headlines due to the high levels of pollution, or, perhaps more accurately, particulates, occasionally reaching as high as 9—not 9.5, but 9—on the scale, but actually reaching that on more than 10 occasions. There’s an upper limit of 40 occasions that should exist in a year and we’re getting to 25 per cent of that limit. That’s really unacceptable.

Of course, Port Talbot is a predominantly industrial town, but it also has the M4, a major trunk road, running through a very narrow coastal strip. If you know Port Talbot, you’ll know it’s very narrow, and you’ll also know that there are mountains on one side so the flows of the air clearly are affected as a consequence of that.

Both the council and Welsh Government have put measures in place to monitor high pollutant emissions, and Natural Resources Wales oversees general regulation, including compliance with European Union legislation, whilst a specific Welsh air quality forum measures headline air quality indicators across Wales. That’s great news. But, seeing that some of the most recent data that have been published only take us up to 2013, I do ask the Minister, or Cabinet Secretary, to scope and update guidance, especially in light of the recent publication of a longitudinal study by the World Health Organization, which demonstrated that outdoor air pollution has grown by 8 per cent globally in the past five years.

The WHO also identified Port Talbot as one of the worst affected towns in the UK. It was identified as the worst town in the UK for PM10s and only fared slightly better on PM2.5s, so I am very concerned about the implications that has on the health of my constituents if we don’t increase our efforts to improve air quality and reduce PM10s and PM2.5 emissions.

Environmental legislation for the past 25 years has led to continued reduction in the levels of harmful pollution in Wales and more widely across Europe in fact. I applaud the Welsh Government for continuing to commit to improving air quality and seeking ways to progress and streamline the way that air pollution is managed, not only to meet legislative requirements, but also to enhance the health of people in Wales.

In light of the result of the EU referendum, the environmental impact of a ‘leave’ strategy should also be of great concern to all of us here in the Chamber. The EU had been safeguarding compliance and producing regulations around issues such as air quality and safe levels for many decades. We must not lose the benefits of this key overarching guidance, such as the industrial emissions directive 2010, the air quality framework directive 2008, and the integrated pollution prevention and control directive 2006, just to name three. In the coming negotiations with the EU, we must ensure that environmental concerns stand at the forefront of the agenda. I hope the Welsh Government will continue to look to Europe for guidance and leadership on these issues and ensure that safeguarding both the health of our current population and the environment for future generations continue to be embedded in governmental policy and practice. This will include sustainable and substantial investment in our public transport systems, and active travel routes to encourage more people to leave their cars at home as much as possible.

We must also look at schemes that reduce emissions, particularly in industrial developments, whether that be through a greater use of renewable energy, which we are very much for here in Wales, or through schemes that build upon recycling developments, such as the proposed power plant in the steelworks in Port Talbot, which is actually about using waste gases, so you’re reducing the emissions and making them beneficial. You actually reduce emissions twice, because you’re reducing the emissions from the waste gases, but you’re also reducing emissions from extra electricity being generated, because you’ve got it: win-win situation.

The Welsh Government published a short-term action plan in 2013 for Port Talbot, aimed specifically at cutting PM10s, and it’s still alive. We need to review it, modernise it, and learn from it to ensure that we tackle the challenges ahead not only for Port Talbot, but for the whole of Wales.

Perhaps I should declare an interest in supporting amendment 1, having received very recently the dreaded letter from Volkswagen in respect of my own car.

If I leave open my bedroom window in my Swansea home overnight, I’ll be waking up with a good old smoker’s cough, except, of course, it’s not a smoker’s cough, is it, it’s a Port Talbot cough. It’s brought to me across the bay from a part of my region—

Will you take an intervention on that point?

Yes, by all means.

Are you defending the bad air?

I will defend the bad air in the sense that, clearly, there are very few occasions when the wind is blowing in the direction of Swansea; it mostly actually comes off the coast into Port Talbot.

Well, actually, earlier on, you said that the mountains behind Port Talbot actually shove it all my way. But I can tell you that’s what it is anyway. David Rees has already mentioned the problems with Port Talbot, and I don’t want to over-highlight those. Perhaps I should admit, though, to contributing to that poor air quality when I drive my artificially deflated car into Swansea every day. When I do that, I pass one—or two, I think, actually—of the six electronic nowcaster boards that are a mysterious feature of the Swansea city landscape. These are signs that are designed to take data from 47 monitoring stations around the city, identifying which areas are becoming over-polluted at any one time, and then re-directing local traffic to avoid those hotspots, or those cough spots. I’m not sure if they’re supposed to reduce air pollution in themselves, or protect us from it, because at the moment, they actually do neither. These signs, which cost the Welsh Government £100,000 back in 2012, are still not working.

Just last month, the World Health Organization identified Swansea—not just Port Talbot—as now exceeding ambient air quality guidelines, and even though it does name Port Talbot, I don’t think the title of the most polluted town in Wales is one we should be fighting for, even against Crumlin. I don’t think it takes, to be honest, Public Health Wales to find a direct correlation between air pollution and an increase in respiratory diseases—although of course it’s pleasing to have the obvious confirmed there. Respiratory diseases are particularly prevalent amongst older people in Wales, and last year DEFRA advised that as older people are more likely to suffer from heart and lung conditions, more effort should be put into making them aware of the effect of air pollution in their own environment.

A total of 29,776 people died of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in 2012 in the whole of the UK. That’s quite a high number I think anyway, but 27,000 of those were over the age of 65. Over 45,000 people in Wales are admitted to hospital each year with respiratory conditions like COPD and lung cancer, and with the health of older people—which already presents complex challenges to the NHS—being more likely to be affected by pollution and low air quality, surely there’s a strong argument, isn’t there, that a clear and effective low-emissions strategy for Wales, properly implemented, would reduce impact on the Welsh NHS and social Services—not just in the terms of the £20 billion that one of the earlier speakers mentioned, but in reducing the personal poor experience of many older people who have a range of co-morbidities.

I’m a great believer in people being part of solving their own problems. Take the fabulous, although sadly late, now, Margaret Barnard of Breathe Easy Neath Valley, who, having being diagnosed with COPD back in 2005, spent the next 10 years of her life working with the British Lung Foundation locally, to raise awareness of respiratory diseases and their causes, and fighting for the improvement to the design of portable oxygen. She also got me to do an abseil to overcome my fear of heights to raise money for the British Lung Foundation, so that’s how persuasive she was.

But sometimes, it’s got to be Government that really takes the lead—and I think this is one of those occasions. While we all, of course, need to take control of our own behaviour, to avoid a range of diseases and conditions as we get older—you know, eating better, doing more exercise, stopping smoking and so on—it isn’t as easy to control our exposure to poor air quality. Because one electric car—let’s be realistic here—doesn’t make the difference. This need population-level action and I think all Governments of the UK should look across the world, not just to Europe, for inspiration on this, not least about what to avoid, but also, of course, what to adopt. I know it was some time ago, but in 1996 the UK Government introduced PowerShift grants to assist companies to convert their fleets of vehicles to LPG, which is 88 per cent less polluting than diesel. But the scheme was cut short in the 2000s, with the result that businesses, and potentially members of the public, turned their backs on LPG and went back to petrol and diesel. And it’s only now, some 20 years later, when the hybrid and the electric cars are becoming more familiar, that we recognise that was an opportunity missed there.

While I think that carbon taxes can be part of the answer, heavy-handed application makes them an easy target, doesn’t it, for blame when industries run into trouble. I think that nudges to our driving culture can help us as individuals make a meaningful and whole-population contribution to better air quality.

I’m pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate today, and I thank David Melding for initiating it. As has already been mentioned, there is the situation in Crumlin on the A472, of course, where the emissions there are the highest in the UK outside of London. Of course, it’s more than just a reading on a sensor—this is about the health and well-being of people, and Government and local authorities have a statutory duty to further the public health of people, and to take steps, indeed, to protect their health. The issue in Crumlin is a public health issue, not simply a transport issue. The emissions readings that have been referred to there have sadly not yet resulted in a comprehensive plan from either local or national Government, although as other Members have suggested, that work is being consulted upon at the moment. Indeed, whilst I note the improved road layout in the area since the time of the sensor readings, I know that there are many residents—some I’ve spoken to—who are concerned that the new layout there may actually exacerbate the air quality, due to the high speeds now that vehicles are able to reach because traffic has been freed up.

In her contribution to this debate today, I’d be very grateful if the Cabinet Secretary would address a few points for consideration. First, can she enlighten us in terms of whether or not Natural Resources Wales have, or are planning to, extend their monitoring of PAHs—polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons—and also pollution in waterways, especially in relation to traffic pollution? As David Melding said, this is a new area for many of us, so I’d be grateful if Members didn’t ask me to repeat these acronyms again. Members will also appreciate that the residents in Crumlin are most concerned about not just the problem with the air pollution, but about finding a solution to the air quality in their area. In the short term, I urge the Welsh Government to ensure that all buses using the route through Crumlin are encouraged to either use low-emissions buses or even electric buses, and I’d be grateful if the Cabinet Secretary could elaborate on any proposals to extend or to use the UK Government’s low-emissions bus scheme. Also, I think it might be worthwhile for the Government to convene a summit of hauliers to explore the possibility of them being supported to upgrade to low-emissions or electric vehicles in the future. It’s vital, in an industry that is facing difficulty, that they are brought in and are seen to be part of the process of helping us to tackle problems with air pollution in this country.

In the longer term, I wonder if the Welsh Government would consider the introduction of low-emission zones in Wales along the London model in high-emissions areas of this country, perhaps starting off in communities like Crumlin as pilot schemes. The Cabinet Secretary will be aware, I’m sure, of the plans some decades ago for a new road to alleviate the specific problems in Crumlin. Such plans were lost following the dissolution of Gwent County Council in the 1990s. I wonder whether she has had discussions with Caerphilly County Borough Council on the possibility of resurrecting plans for a new road in the Crumlin area to alleviate the problems in the residential area on the Hafodyrynys hill.

Llywydd, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, this is a public health matter, and the first priority of any government must surely be to uphold and further the health and well-being of its citizens. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I’m very grateful for the opportunity to take part in this particular debate because, of course, I come from an area where air quality is actually very, very good—on the north Wales coast. In fact it’s so good that historically it’s been one of those places that has received investment in its health services in order to look after people who were impacted by poor air quality from many of the cities, historically. So, Abergele Hospital, for example, was a hospital that was established to treat those individuals who had TB and other lung conditions, because of the excellent quality of the air in that particular area. But I know that this is a problem for many other parts of Wales. Like David Rees, I agree that the EU, and our membership of it, has actually helped to improve air quality, and thank goodness. It’s a long time since we’ve had any of the sort of inner-city smogs that we used to get as a nation, which killed thousands and thousands of individuals each and every year. I was just looking at one of the briefing documents for today’s debate, and I’m told that the London smog of 1952 killed 12,000 people, which is an astonishing number when you think about it. So, although we have made significant improvements in recent years, it is alarming that we are still, as Simon Thomas quite rightly said, seeing more deaths from air pollution and poor air quality than we are from road traffic accidents. I think that should spur all of us into wanting to see some more action on this particular issue.

Many people have referred to public health. Of course, the impact of air pollution actually starts before somebody is actually born. So, it’s in the womb during gestation while lungs are developing that we’re actually hindering the next generation unless we actually get on top of this problem. Of course, if you’ve got underdeveloped lungs—if you’ve got underdeveloped capacity within your lungs—that has a lifelong impact right through into your old age, and people living with chronic lung conditions very often were brought up in smoke-filled areas or in inner-city areas when we had those historical problems with air quality in them.

Nobody so far has referred, to a great extent, to indoor air pollution. Of course, we know that that is also a problem across Wales and here in the UK, and it’s not just the headline hitters like carbon monoxide poisoning, which is still an all-too-frequent problem here in Wales as a result of people not servicing their gas appliances at home. I think, also, we could actually take some action on that through the regulatory system, to require carbon monoxide equipment and test equipment in the same way that we have fire alarms in our homes in the future. I think that that’s something that does need to be considered going forward.

Neither has anybody mentioned the impact of asbestos in some of our public buildings—and I know this is something that my colleague Nick Ramsay has championed in the past—in terms of the residue of asbestos that’s still in many of our schools here in Wales. This is something that we really need to be moving on to address now, given that many of these buildings have had asbestos in situ since the 1960s. Not to mention the fact that the other thing that impacts on air quality indoors, of course, is cleaning products, sometimes, and simple things like air fresheners, which very often trigger things like asthmatic attacks for people with asthma and other problems, and for people with lung conditions that can be irritated by that. So, I think there’s an awful lot that we can do through the regulatory framework here in Wales to complement action that is taken at a UK level and beyond to improve our game. We mustn’t also neglect the fact that many of these air pollutants also have an impact on climate change. That in itself brings costs to the public purse in terms of trying to address the impact of climate change, particularly flooding, which has been a big problem here in Wales over the years.

There’s one final point I’d like to make, and that is the role of trees in helping to address air pollution. We know that trees and vegetation, particularly in our city areas, not only add to the attractiveness of those areas, but they also actually help to filter the air in a very positive way and have a positive impact on the air quality in our urban towns and cities. So, I’d encourage the Cabinet Secretary to consider these things as she looks to developing the air quality strategy in the future.

The focus this afternoon in this debate seems to have been mainly on cars, industry and individuals, and of course sensible efforts to reduce emissions from these sources are to be commended. However, there’s a far bigger polluter than cars or people.

There are approximately 90,000 cargo ships on the world’s seas. They burn 7.29 million barrels a day of the dirtiest and most polluting fuel left over from the oil refining process. The stuff is so dirty and heavy that you can walk on it when it’s cold. Cargo ships produce 260 times the pollution of the world’s cars each year. Because of that, Wales and the UK could shut down every facility producing carbon and other pollutants and take every car off the road and it wouldn’t even dent the amount of air pollution being created by these cargo ships.

Air pollution is a global problem and Wales and the UK need to work with the IMO and other global bodies to encourage the development and introduction of alternative means of fuelling these cargo ships or reducing the pollution in other ways, such as requiring cargo ships to be equipped with technology such as scrubbers, catalytic conversion and developing alternative energy sources. Otherwise we’re just trying to empty an ocean with a thimble.

With the ever-increasing understanding of the importance of safe air quality on quality of life and on health and well-being, precisely because of this, I wanted to speak in this debate, in particular due to the fact that I’m a chronic asthmatic, and my son has been hospitalised on many occasions due to his asthma. There is unease at levels of air pollution, and I note that Crumlin in Caerphilly has the highest nitrogen dioxide levels recorded outside of London, which is a key factor. This sits in my constituency of Islwyn and exists topographically in a constricted, high-sided valley containing key arteries for heavy-goods vehicles that go to Ebbw Vale, Caerphilly, Torfaen and beyond.

As a new Member, last week in this Chamber I raised this very important issue with the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs, and I have written to and am meeting with key authorities in this matter. It is clearly not acceptable that the A472 in Crumlin, according to Government data, has nitrogen dioxide levels only exceeded by Marylebone Road in central London—bearing in mind that London exceeds its annual mean of nitrogen dioxide safe levels in just eight days. I want to place on public record my appreciation to Welsh Labour councillor Andrew Lewis, who represents Crumlin on Caerphilly County Borough Council. He has passionately taken up the case of air quality for his residents and was featured in last week’s ‘Caerphilly Observer’ once again giving this issue public prominence.

I was going to give key data and facts in terms of COPD and asthma, but that’s already been referenced by other Members. I asked the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs what action can the Welsh Government take to work with the local authority and other stakeholders to lift the scourge of air pollution, and I was reassured by the Cabinet Secretary’s answer to me that Welsh Government has sought strong assurances from the local authority concerning the actions they intend to take to improve the local air quality. The local authority is, as has been referenced, establishing a steering group and seeking to gather input from local groups and residents, and will then develop a strong air quality strategy. This will include a list of strategic traffic-management options for the area and appropriate measures to tackle air quality in the area. The authority have indicated an initial date of November for when this will be implemented, and I am assured that the Welsh Government will keep monitoring this ongoing work and ensure that we are responding to an obvious problem that needs remedying.

It may seem like common sense, but it’s also important, if we are serious about having the best data possible to monitor air quality, that it monitors it as closely as possible to the location in question. Welsh Labour councillors Jan Jones and Philippa Marsden from Ynysddu have also raised with me the issue of air quality for Wattsville and Cwmfelinfach. Local residents need reassurances that it is adequate that air-quality readings for a site in Nine Mile Point are calculated by co-location studies, but ones that are based in Blackwood high street and White Street in Caerphilly. They have been told that there are no continuous monitors within the area in Wattsville itself. So, there are no co-location studies being undertaken in the area of interest. If we are determined, as is needed, to assess and monitor air quality, then the validity of data we rely upon must be the most accurate that it can practicably be.

I note that the Welsh Labour Government wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 3 per cent every year and achieve at least a 40 per cent reduction by 2020, compared to figures from 1990. The Environment (Wales) Act 2016 sets a target for emissions to be reduced by at least 80 per cent by 2050. This is to be celebrated and not amended post-Brexit. While I understand the right to chair a committee under our constitution, I will not be alone in being concerned that the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee is to be chaired by UKIP Assembly Member, Mark Reckless, the man who wanted the very green Margaret Thatcher airport. To quote UKIP Welsh party leader, Nathan Gill—

Can I just make the point that you had the opportunity to object to that Chair yesterday; today—

I’m referencing it, Llywydd. I’ll move on.

I would agree with this motion that it is beholden on the Welsh Government and all of us to safeguard the quality of life of our planet and to ensure that the people of Wales enjoy the highest standards of air quality.

As my colleague said earlier, the World Health Organization states that 29,000 people in the UK are affected by premature deaths due to air pollution, and 1,500 by road accidents. Listening to what has been said around the Chamber in this debate is very worrying, and it’s good to hear the warm words from every AM. But, I think probably part of the reason I’m stood here now, actually, is the huge contradiction between the warm words in this Chamber from the Labour Members and the reality and results of their policies. Just for a change, I’ll talk about Cardiff’s local development plan and other local development plans in my constituency, because what the Labour Party in the City of Cardiff Council, here, what you—. [Interruption.] I’ll give way.

Thank you for taking the intervention and before you go on to the Cardiff development plan again, you mentioned that there were warm words from me, as an example. Do you not agree that the Labour authority in Neath Port Talbot and the Labour Government have taken action to monitor the quality of air in Port Talbot to ensure there’s a plan in place so that we can ensure that that comes down, and that’s positive action?

Well, in speaking for my constituency, the action taken by your Government and your council—[Interruption.]—your Government and your council—is to increase air pollution where we live. And that is the irony—that is the irony—because you may very well monitor it but your policies increase it, and that is the key point.

Now, I’ll give you some local examples. Llantrisant Road—if you sneeze in the morning, you’re bumper to bumper, and what your policies are doing is bringing tens of thousands of extra cars on the roads, and it’s going to be the same in Caerphilly unless you take action there. What is happening in Cardiff, and, indeed, in the whole of South Wales Central, is that greenfield sites are going and green—. [Interruption.] I’ll not give way this time. Greenfield sites are going and we’re seeing proposals where traffic will be bumper to bumper. The danger now with the possible loss of funding with the metro is that there is no viable transport plan for our region—for the whole of south Wales, actually. And what we should be doing, rather than talking and saying, ‘Isn’t this air pollution awful and, you know, it’s really bad, and we’d like to make things better’, what we should be doing in this Chamber is legislating—legislating—using the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 to stop these local development plans destroying our local environments and forcing people in this region to breathe in polluted air, because those are the results of the policies that this body here has passed and what your councils in this area are also doing. So, what I’m asking, really, is for an end to the hypocrisy of saying, ‘Isn’t this awful, we’d like to improve things’, and take concrete measures to improve the environment and the quality of life in this region. Diolch yn fawr. Thank you very much.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs, Lesley Griffiths.

Diolch, Presiding Officer. I would like to thank the Welsh Conservatives for tabling this debate on this very important issue, and I’m very happy to support the original motion. I’m very sorry that David Melding, the Member for South Wales Central, wasn’t reassured enough last week by my answer to him, that, yes, I am absolutely responsible for air quality; it is within my portfolio. And it is absolutely key to public health, something I’m very passionate about, and it does obviously have a significant impact on the health of people in Wales. Around 1,300 deaths a year can be linked to long-term exposure to fine particulates. Concern regarding the health effects of emissions from diesel vehicles is very topical following the Volkswagen emissions scandal and the news about diesel emissions below temperatures of 18 degrees last week. Simon Thomas referred to that in moving amendment 1, and, again, I’m happy to support that amendment.

I do support calls for the European Commission to clarify the regulations on emissions from diesel vehicles. I think regulations on the testing need to be much more transparent, and I think many Members made the point—Simon Thomas certainly did—that the EU legislation that covers us now, we signed up to it willingly. There is an opportunity—Andrew R.T. Davies, I hope you’re listening, because you were asked for three opportunities, so here’s one for you straight away—and I do think that going forward we are able to strengthen it, and it’s certainly something that I’ll be very happy to look at.

Several Members raised the issue around the poor levels of air quality in Crumlin. My colleague Rhianon Passmore, the Member for Islwyn, raised it with me last week, and it is obviously a very serious local problem. Since Rhianon Passmore raised it with me last week, I’ve made it very clear to Caerphilly County Borough Council—I’ve written to the leader to emphasise the importance of the plan, particularly the timetable that they’ve now given me—that they will consult on a draft air quality action plan by November. I think it’s really important that they keep to that, and my officials will be monitoring it very closely.

The Welsh Government has developed a very clear and agreed approach to local air quality management in Wales. We’ve established statutory air quality objectives through the Air Quality (Wales) Regulations 2010. Every local authority is required to review their air quality and provide an annual report on their findings. Where those air quality objectives are not being achieved, the authority must designate an air quality management area and then develop a local action plan.

We also issued statutory guidance to ensure local authorities follow best practice when reviewing air quality and developing action plans. New Welsh policy guidance was published in March this year and is being used in local authority reports already. I am also going to consider options for enforcement if necessary, again including using my powers to issue directions to local authorities in relation to local air quality management. But, of course, there’s always more that we can do.

I think we need to better utilise data gathered by local authorities and use them to inform the new state of natural resources report and area statements produced by Natural Resources Wales. And, I think they should be used to then inform the assessments of local well-being and associated plans produced by public services boards.

We are going to consult soon on proposals to improve the local air quality and noise management regime in Wales, and we’re going to build on the discussions that have previously been held between Welsh Government and local authorities. This will involve streamlining processes and developing a robust procedure for following up overdue progress reports and action plans. This consultation will include an open-ended question inviting comments and suggestions on any potential ideas for improving air quality in Wales. I very much look forward to receiving responses from interested parties. However, it is clear our local efforts must work alongside a national approach to air quality that tackles the main causes of pollution and protects people from them.

The Welsh Conservative motion calls on us to develop an effective low-emission strategy for Wales. I absolutely support this and I think we need to go even further. I think we need an approach that reduces emissions where possible, ensures that pollutants are effectively dispersed before they reach people if they cannot be prevented, and reduces the health risks from unavoidable exposure to pollutants. Steffan Lewis raised the question of possible low-emission zones and that’s something that, I think, in the upcoming consultation we have, I’d be very interested to hear people’s views on. But, at the moment, they are an existing option for local authorities.

I think it means there is very little point in developing a stand-alone strategy for air quality in a single silo. I think it’s really important that air quality is embedded across all policies on infrastructure, planning, transport, active travel and public health, to name a few. So, my officials are in the early stages of canvassing local authorities on how we do improve national planning policy and guidance in relation to air and noise pollution. We are also working closely with partners, as no organisation or sector can obviously tackle this issue on their own.

Natural Resources Wales, for example, have been undertaking research on the air quality benefits of trees. They’ve estimated that trees remove around 250 tonnes of air pollution from the atmosphere each year in the three urban study areas of Wrexham, Bridgend and the Tawe catchment. This is the equivalent in monetary terms of over £1.5 million-worth of savings to the NHS every year from the resultant respiratory conditions. We’re also working with regulators and industry to address the specific challenges associated with air pollution from industrial sources in Port Talbot and the Swansea valley. Simply complying with air quality objectives in the relatively few areas where they are breached is not enough if we are really going to reduce the health burden of air pollution on society—

Cabinet Secretary, will you take an intervention?

Yes.

It’s just on this particular issue of trees and shrubs alongside roads in particular. I’ve noticed that there’s been a significant move to fencing roads at the moment to act as buffers for sound, as opposed to planting, which, obviously, would have the added benefit of reducing pollution. Is this something that you will look at, with your Cabinet colleagues, to see how that might be reversed—that situation?

Well, I think it’s about getting the balance between air pollution and noise pollution, but it’s about, as I say, getting that balance. That hasn’t been raised with me before, but I’m very happy to look at it.

Beyond Wales, there are many areas of non-devolved activity that are needed to bring down emissions as quickly as possible. For example, the House of Commons’s Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has recommended the UK Government launch a diesel scrappage scheme, and that would give grants to cut the cost of a low-emission vehicle for an owner scrapping their diesel vehicle. So, after Simon Thomas’s confession, maybe that’s something that I’m certainly going to watch closely, but maybe Simon Thomas would like to do it also.

Work is also taking place at the current time at an EU level, but, as I’ve already said, we didn’t sign up to EU legislation kicking and screaming: we did it because it’s right for the people of Wales, we did it because it’s right for public health, and I do think this is an opportunity where, going forward, we can look to strengthen it.

I met this morning with the Future Generations Commissioner and, obviously, air quality is something that forms part of the ongoing implementation of the Act. One Member referred to taxis, and something that I discussed with the commissioner this morning was, in Quebec, they have just brought forward a taxi fleet of electric cars. So, again, there are examples. Somebody asked me if I’m looking across Europe; well I’m actually looking across the world to see what examples of best practice we can take lessons from.

Finally, I will be, obviously, supporting the motion, but, in relation to the second amendment from Plaid Cymru, I’m absolutely supporting that. That’s in line with the aims of the Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013 and our recently published active travel action plan. Thank you.

I call on David Melding to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. You would have noted that nine Members in addition to myself and the Cabinet Secretary took part in this debate. I think that’s a great sign of the importance people place in this policy area.

Simon Thomas started off and referred to the air directive that we base our current policy on, which comes from the European Union. This is key and was referred to several times in the debate, most passionately in a very pro-EU approach from Darren Millar, that we need to carry forward this framework and even improve upon it. He did then also mention the importance of indoor pollution, which is a key area.

Mohammad talked about the risks to children in particular, and David Rees then followed up and emphasised that vulnerable people are often in the most vulnerable urban areas and so get a double hit. It’s very, very important we’re aware of that. David also talked about the fact that air pollution is a world-wide killer and that the World Health Organization is trying to raise awareness of this and encourage Governments to improve approaches.

Suzy is a Volkswagen-owning abseiler, which is quite something, but, on Volkswagen, I think it’s important to remember that the consumer has been misled in this area, and it’s quite shocking, because, when people want to invest a bit more and improve their own performance in terms of emissions and reduce them, then they’ve been let down in this way. That’s no way to form the partnership we need with the public in terms of encouraging them to make good choices.

Suzy then talked about the low-emission strategy that would bring great benefits, a point that was taken further by Steffan, urging low-emission zones. The Minister seemed quite responsive to that and certainly wants to look at it. Steffan also talked about other approaches like using electronic buses, because buses do pollute quite a lot in urban areas.

Michelle Brown talked about cargo ships, something I’d not thought of. In terms of its impact, it is important. I mean, it is outside our jurisdiction mostly—not when they actually finally enter port—but it is something that needs to be looked at by states and Governments across the world. But it was a really important point, I thought, that was made and one often—well, I’d overlooked it, so possibly others have as well. So, thank you for that.

Rhianon Passmore talked about her own experience and that of her family. It does come down to this, doesn’t it? This impacts people and can have a real impact on health and well-being. As the representative of Crumlin talked about the role of the local authority in terms of trying to improve the situation there, it’s something that needs careful planning because, sometimes, if you can improve traffic flow, it just speeds it up and makes it a more popular route, and you’re back to where you began again.

Neil McEvoy started globally but got to Cardiff pretty quick. [Laughter.] I did agree with him on the metro. I thought that is really, really key.

Can I finally say I thought that the Cabinet Secretary made an outstanding response? You really took on what Members had said and took on the suggestions, and emphasised—you know, broadly, I think we would agree that there’s a good framework here. It’s not an area where we could say that there has been a lack of action, but we need to go further. The challenges are great. And, in particular, you have our support in looking at a low-emissions strategy, strengthening the EU directive, and using data more effectively across agencies—I thought that was a key point. An excellent debate, and I seem to, in my first minority party debate, be on the verge of a modest victory, so that encourages me to try harder again in future. Thanks.

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? The motion is therefore agreed without amendment in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

We now move to voting time, and it’s been agreed that voting time will take place before the short debate. Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will proceed directly to voting time.

We will vote first on the Plaid Cymru debate on the electoral system, and I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Simon Thomas. Open the vote. Close the vote. For 13, against 39. Therefore the motion falls.

I call for a vote on amendment 1 tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 39, abstentions one, and against 11. The amendment is therefore carried.

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

Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 49, abstentions one, against two. Therefore the motion as amended is agreed.

We now move to a vote on the Plaid Cymru debate on the ministerial code, and I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Simon Thomas. Open the vote. Close the vote. For 13, against 39. Therefore the motion is not agreed.

We will move to amendment one tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 30, abstentions one, against 21. Therefore amendment 1 is agreed.

I now call for a vote on amendment 2, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 22, abstentions zero, against 30. Therefore the amendment falls.

I now call for a vote on amendment 3, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 52, no abstentions and no votes against. Therefore the amendment is agreed.

The next vote is on the motion as amended.

Open the vote. Close the vote. For 29, abstentions one, against 21. The motion as amended is therefore agreed.

The next item on the agenda is the result of the secret ballots for committee Chairs. Therefore I will share with you the results. All the results will be published following this session.

First of all, therefore, the Children, Young People and Education Committee: Julie Morgan 25 votes, Lynne Neagle 31 votes, and one abstention. I therefore declare that Lynne Neagle is elected Chair of the Children, Young People and Education Committee.

The second committee is the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee: Russell George 41 votes, Janet Finch-Saunders 13 votes, and three abstentions. I therefore declare Russell George is elected Chair of the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee.

The next committee is the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee: John Griffiths 33, Lee Waters 13, Jenny Rathbone nine, and two abstentions. As John Griffiths received more than half the first preferences in the ballot, I declare him elected Chair of the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee.

Next, the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee: Dai Lloyd 43, Rhun ap Iorwerth 14, and no abstentions. I declare Dai Lloyd is elected Chair of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee.

Finally, the Public Accounts Committee: Darren Millar 17, Mark Isherwood seven, Nick Ramsay 31, and two abstentions. As he received more than half the first preferences in the ballot, I declare Nick Ramsay elected Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.

May I congratulate all the new committee Chairs of the Assembly, may I wish them all well, and may I thank everybody who has participated in the first process of electing the National Assembly Chairs?

We now move on to the next item on the agenda, namely the short debate. For those of you departing or quitting the Chamber, please could you do so swiftly and quietly?

So, we begin the short debate and I call Rhianon Passmore.

Diolch, Lywydd. It is a great honour for me, representing the people of Islwyn, to rise to give the first short debate of this fifth Assembly by an Assembly Member elected in May 2016. As a former teacher, lecturer and former cabinet member for education in local government it comes as no surprise that I have decided to focus this debate on the greatest issue that this home of Welsh democracy is responsible for—education.

Llywydd, I am grateful to the following Welsh Labour Assembly Members who have asked me to speak in this debate. Following my speech I will cede a minute of my allotted fifteen minutes to the following: Mike Hedges AM, Hannah Blythyn AM, Hefin David AM, David Rees AM and Huw Irranca-Davies AM.

I would like to take this opportunity to personally and formally welcome the Cabinet Secretary for Education to her role on behalf of the people of Islwyn. I wish her well in her vital role and she should know that she will have my support in ensuring that we leave no child behind in our drive to lift educational outcomes.

‘Education is “the guardian genius of our democracy.” Nothing really means more to our future, not our military defences, not our missiles or our bombers, not our production economy, not even our democratic system of government. For all of these are worthless if we lack the brain power to support and sustain them.’

Those are the words of the thirty-sixth President of the USA, Lyndon Baines Johnson. Education was a cornerstone of President Johnson’s worthy dream of a great society for the American people, and it is the cornerstone of the Welsh Labour programme of government. As a teacher by profession, I am also old enough to know what it was like literally to walk and use the chalk. I recognise the journey that we have travelled. It is thanks to Welsh Labour policy and recognition of the importance of transformational teaching and learning, and those learning environments, that we stand today in the knowledge that these are innovative schools and fit-for-purpose educational establishments built in Wales, and that they are second to none. It is because of the twenty-first century schools programme that I say that it is more than a building programme.

The Welsh Government plans to invest £700 million between 2014-15 and 2018-19. Match-funded by local authorities, this would result in £1.4 billion capital investment in schools and colleges in Wales, supporting 150 projects across all local authorities by April 2019. Let me repeat that with the Welsh Labour Government and local Welsh councils working together £1.4 billion will revolutionise the educational landscape of Wales. It is an unprecedented commitment to our children and an unprecedented commitment to the future of Wales by this Welsh Government. It is of vital importance to our communities, our children and our skills and qualifications economy, and it would not have happened without a Labour Government.

It is no exaggeration to say that the twenty-first century schools programme is a flagship policy that marks out Welsh devolution. It aims to deliver: learning environments in Wales that will enable the successful implementation of strategies for improvement and better educational outcomes; it will deliver greater economy and efficiency for learning environments through better use of resources; and it will deliver a sustainable education system in Wales that meets national building standards and reduces the recurrent costs and carbon footprint of education buildings.

It is because of this groundbreaking programme here in Wales that Wales is envied across the UK. In January 2016, our former Minister, Huw Lewis, gave an up update during scrutiny of the 2016-17 draft budget. He confirmed that Welsh Government’s overall target is for 150 schools and colleges to be refurbished or rebuilt by the end of April 2019. Members of this Chamber and our dedicated teaching workforce across Wales are very painfully aware of the state of school buildings in the 1980s and 1990s. This is a time, as a school governor then, where I recall with genuine horror being forced to consider not curriculum planning but the sacking of excellent teachers that we could not afford to lose; a time that I do not wish to replicate, when we also should have been building schools as cathedrals of learning, not portakabins in the playground, as they still remain in some quarters. [Interruption.] Not at the moment. I’ve got enough, thank you.

Very recently I donned my own very hard hat here and wellies to tour the rapidly emerging example in my constituency, the Islwyn High School. As part of the ambitious twenty-first century schools programme, Caerphilly County Borough Council announced in 2013 that both Oakdale and Pontllanfraith comprehensive schools will close in 2016. Pupils from both schools will transfer to a brand-new, shiny, purpose-built, state-of-the-art £24 million school to be built on the plateau 3 site within the Oakdale Business Park. This is thanks to a Welsh Labour Government and the Welsh Labour Party and Welsh Labour policy in action.

The school will initially accommodate 1,150 pupils transferring across from both schools and will be built to permanently educate 1,000 mainstream pupils from the catchment area, and 50 with complex needs, in a specialist resource base, from across the county. Partner primary schools include Bryn, Cwmfelinfach, Penllwyn, Pontllanfraith, Rhiw Syr Dafydd, Trinant and Ynysddu. The main school will be three storeys high, and a sports hall of a similar height will be linked to a two-storey building that will be the school’s dining hall. It will be built in a modern design and plans will include an eco garden and water features. The school will also boast a floodlit 3G sports pitch and a 200-metre athletics track, along with a multi-use sports pitch for netball and tennis. This school will truly be a community school with close working links with all stakeholders, including parents, partner primary schools, local employers and the people living in the local area.

I recently invited a number of children from both Oakdale and Pontllanfraith comprehensives to accompany me on a tour of the new school site. These children, from years 7, 8 and 9, ranged from 11 to 14 years of age, and they will be the direct beneficiaries of this policy and of this new school. What I saw in their eyes was a genuine appreciation of the possibilities that lay before them and a real excitement for their future, and an appreciation, unspoken, that we, as politicians, value them and that society invests in them, and that their futures, by ensuring they learn in such a magnificent environment, will be safeguarded.

I was struck, as we left the building site, by the questions that the children posed to the construction team from Willmot Dixon. The new Islwyn high is being built on the site of the old Oakdale colliery—part of that community’s legacy—which closed in 1989. Whilst looking to their future, it was those children, those pupils, who asked, ‘What is the history of this coal mine?’ and could it be reflected in the physical build of their new school. Welsh twenty-first century children in a Welsh twenty-first century school cognisant of their community’s heritage and proud history, which forms the tapestry of the Welsh story, but in a globalised future—true evidence that twenty-first century schools is more than a building programme, with the true potential to transform lives.

But, twenty-first century schools is more than buildings and concrete; it is integral to our nation’s progress and our place in the world. The long-term aim is to develop an overarching capital investment programme for all education sectors, including both further and higher education sectors, which will aim to deliver priority improvement objective project programme. My good friend behind me, John Griffiths, AM for Newport East, would have spoken in this debate if we did not already have so many speakers. He is rightly proud that the centre of Newport could become the heart of learning for the whole of Gwent if a £60 million-development between the city’s university and Coleg Gwent goes ahead. The University of South Wales and Coleg Gwent have teamed up to develop plans for a new knowledge quarter on the banks of the River Usk. This scheme involves a major development at the university’s city campus, with institutions sharing space in the new building or buildings. Although formal funding arrangements are yet to be finalised, investment is expected from the Welsh Government. As a spokesperson from Coleg Gwent has stated, if we can only realise this ambition, students will be able to come in at 16 or as adult learners to a new, state-of-the-art further education college in the centre of the new city.

Such actions are non-accidental and are purposeful, and they have unleashed Welsh Government resources into an education arena of spending, coupled with a groundbreaking curriculum and Donaldson impacts. I have no doubt these will affect positively pupils’ future life chances and their opportunities—the reason why I came into politics—everything that Labour values and Labour policies achieve in tandem, and for all in our community and not just for the top 5 per cent. Such programmes demonstrate a powerful impact on people and are why I am here today. Education is indeed the key to the social mobility so often spoken of in academic circles, but which in reality protects an individual so that they do not have to rely on zero-hours contracts from an uncaring UK Government. It provides a real pathway forward to a satisfying, rewarding and useful life. Community-focused schools here, and community-flexible hubs of the future are a huge theme within the twenty-first century schools programme, alongside carbon reduction and BREEAM excellence standardisation.

So, comrades—I will say that again to the Chamber—I commend this programme of transformational improvement to our pupils’ teaching and learning environments in the knowledge that research backs the importance of the impact on educational achievement, attainment and attendance, all key drivers for our nation in building our nation’s skills, employability, growth and productivity.

The impact of Brexit and not being able at this point in the future to draw down further European structural funding streams that we currently bid for will, I have no doubt, cause hugely significant challenges to our Welsh Government programme in the future, for phase 2. But this is a challenge that we will collectively as a Government and a nation seek to meet. There is no greater priority than ensuring our Welsh children are equipped to go into the world ready to compete with anybody in the world, and, as such, I am proud to commend to this Chamber the Welsh Labour Government’s twenty-first century schools programme—that it is more than a building programme. Diolch.

You’ve left three minutes for six speakers, so if your six speakers can all do 30 seconds they can all get in, but if they take longer than that then I’m afraid the others will drop off the end. So, we’ll see how we get on. Mike Hedges.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I first of all thank Rhianon for giving me the opportunity to speak in this? In Swansea East, two replacement secondary schools and one replacement primary school have been built. One replacement primary is under construction and planning has been applied for another replacement secondary school. Demountables have been replaced by permanent buildings. These new schools improve the educational environment for their pupils. I spoke to a head of one of these schools who said that when it rains, there is no longer a worry about where the water will come in. They improve the streets in the area and make it look better for those living around it. They provide employment and boost the local economy. I remember when the replacement of schools meant that we expected them to last well over 400 years. Let us hope this scheme will continue for many years to come.

Well done; there you are—he’s shown you how to do it. Hannah Blythyn.

Thank you, and thanks to the Member for Islwyn for this opportunity to talk about the fantastic new learning centre being built in Holywell, nearing its final stages, in my constituency. In fact, I was wondering whether I should declare a tenuous and random interest as the site is of significant importance to me as it was the predecessor school of Holywell Grammar School where my parents met in the sixth form. But, fast forward to the twenty-first century and, today, twenty-first century schools, it’s more than bricks and mortar, as my colleague was saying; it demonstrates the commitment of both Welsh Government and Flintshire County Council, in my case, in investing our community and our future. Ysgol Treffynnon, as it will be called, is a big building that will bring pride back and has even bigger ambitions for our community to ensure that the school becomes a community hub, a centre of activity in the evenings and in the daytime, a venue for sport and recreational clubs, engagement evenings for hard-to-reach families, and a forum to provide support and advice for families, really putting the school at the heart of the community. The headteacher at Holywell wishes to thank those that have made this happen, because, in his words, ‘They’ve helped to ensure a much brighter and promising future for our pupils’ in what is a clear and visible statement in Wales that Wales cares about its young people and its future.

Thanks very much. Hefin David.

Okay, short, short version. Rhianon did a fantastic job as cabinet member for education and now she’s stepped down to be an Assembly Member. Last week, I visited Heolddu Comprehensive School, which has benefited from a new technology block thanks to Welsh Government funding, and Kirsty Williams was there to open it, and it was a great occasion—’I bawb ei gyfle’ is the motto of the school. Finally, twenty-first century schools has led to the building of Y Gwyndy in Caerphilly town, the new campus of Ysgol Gyfun Cwm Rhymni, Cwm Ifor Primary School in Penyrheol, and Greenhill Primary School in Gelligaer, which is where I live, and it is fantastic to welcome twenty-first century schools. What a great programme; absolutely wonderful.

David Rees.

Diolch, Ddirprwy Lywydd. I’ll be very, very quick. [Laughter.] Can I thank the Member first of all for bringing this important issue to the Chamber, because what we are doing is providing opportunities for our young children in new, modern facilities to ensure that they’re able to develop into the twenty-first century? Cabinet Secretary, I just want to ask one thing. I’ll be quick. The business plan, when we look at these things, is important, because sometimes we’re taking schools out of communities. We need to ensure those communities are not damaged in any way, but also that we provide safe routes to schools for some of those children as well. So, as part of the plan, could you please ensure that that happens whilst we build the new facilities that are fantastic for those young children?

Finally, Huw Irranca-Davies.

Maesteg high school, Coleg Cymunedol y Dderwen, Ogmore Vale Primary School—

No, no, no. [Laughter.]

[Continues.]—Brackla’s co-funded Archbishop McGrath Catholic High School—the roll call of investment goes on and on. There is more to do, but the investment in bricks and mortar is only surpassed by, I have to say, the labour of love by teachers and support staff, governors and parents to improve the life chances of our children and young people.

So, in these challenging times of increasing pressure on squeezed budgets, can I commend the continued leadership of Welsh Government and that of local authorities like Bridgend, and Cabinet member Huw David, in investing in our schools and investing in the future of our young people?

Well done. Now, you’ve all proved that you can do very short speeches and still get your points over, so we expect that to carry on. I now call on the Cabinet Secretary for Education, Kirsty Williams.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and thank you very much to the Member for bringing forward this debate this afternoon. May I congratulate her on her first short debate, and the speech that she delivered with such aplomb?

As we heard from Hannah Blythyn, indeed, schools are not just a building programme, but obviously, a space for budding romances too. I’m grateful to the other Members for their contributions. I’m sure that their schools will very much appreciate the name checks that they have received here this afternoon.

Now, the twenty-first century schools and education programme does represent the biggest capital investment in our educational infrastructure since the 1960s. As we have heard from Rhianon, the first five-year wave of this programme will see £1.4 billion investment that will pay for the rebuild and the refurbishment of over 150 schools and colleges across Wales. All 22 local authorities will benefit from this investment in our schools and colleges, which is funded 50 per cent by the Welsh Government. Since its launch in 2014, 105 projects have been approved within the programme. Of these, 78 are either under construction or, I’m pleased to say, have been completed.

From the very start, this programme was wider than just construction; it has been designed to ensure strategic investment across our nation and this will continue. The programme drives three key areas: the reduction of poor-condition school buildings; making our building stock more efficient to run; and the reduction of the number of surplus places so that we can serve local pupil demand.

The programme is also designed to take wider learner needs into account, such as the need and demand for Welsh-medium education and for faith education. By having the right schools in the right condition, we can create an asset base that is fit for the future. And by making these assets more efficient and fit for twenty-first century teaching, we can ensure that our teachers can concentrate not on buckets, Mike, but can concentrate on teaching, so that educational standards within their schools can be driven forward and upwards.

Finally, by making sure that our schools are the right size and in the right location, we can ensure that we meet pupil demand both now and into the future. This programme is moving forward, and this is largely due, as was commented upon by Huw Irranca-Davies, to the innovative and collaborative nature of this investment. We do, indeed, work on a co-construction basis, which sees strong partnerships between Welsh Government, the Welsh Local Government Association, individual local authorities and others throughout Wales. This work will continue, but I would like to see the pace of the programme quickened. I will be asking and working with officials to see what we can do to achieve that.

This investment, however, is not just about providing buildings. We want to drive real value through the programme, ensuring that we provide environments that are both inspirational and cost-effective. To date, 41 projects have been completed and these include new state-of-the-art facilities, such as those at the Aberdare Community School in Rhondda Cynon Taf and the Rhyl High School in Denbighshire. Together, these schools provide places for 2,800 pupils. However, this investment is not just about learners; it’s also about driving value for the wider community around our schools and our colleges—for example, through providing additional facilities through our schools that can be accessed by both the school and the public. This includes nursery provision, community rooms, leisure facilities such as new 3G and 4G pitches, and in doing so, that links to our aspirations arising out of our well-being of future generations Act.

We should also not ignore the employment and training opportunities that capital investments of this nature bring. Through our use of regional procurement frameworks, we drive community benefits such as training, apprenticeship opportunities, school engagement in STEM subjects and job creation. We also see huge benefits to the local supply chain, seeing that our investment provides jobs and growth for the people of Wales.

The programme to date has seen the support of schools that meet local demands for educational provision, such as the new 3-19 Ysgol Bro Teifi in Llandysul, Ysgol Hafod Lon, providing special needs facilities in Gwynedd, primary places in our capital city here in Cardiff and investment in Welsh language secondary provision in Ysgol Glan Clwyd in Denbighshire.

We currently have a number of major schemes under construction, and I’ve seen the progress of the new £25.5 million Islwyn High School, which will provide places for 1,100 pupils in Caerphilly, the 1,200-place Eastern High School in Cardiff and the Llandudno Junction primary school in Conwy, all of which are very excellent examples of what can be achieved for pupils, staff and the wider community.

But, post-16 learning has not been forgotten. They, too, have been an important part of this project, with investment in Cardiff and Vale College’s £40 million campus in Cardiff and a post-16 hub with Coleg Cambria in Flintshire.

Delivery of this major strategic investment programme is anticipated to run over a number of bands of investment. Our current programme of £1.4 billion runs until 2019 and my officials are now working to develop our plans for further investment beyond this date. If those who campaigned to leave the European Union keep their promises, there should be no negative effect on this programme.

This major investment in our schools and colleges to benefit future generations of learners in Wales is far more than just a building programme. It is part of this Government’s wider holistic approach across education, regeneration and employment. Our schools and their wider communities, if we can continue to deliver this, will truly become twenty-first century. Thank you.

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