National Assembly for Wales

Order. I call the National Assembly to order.

The first item on our agenda this afternoon is questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children, and the first question, Suzy Davies.

The Communities First evaluation by Ipsos MORI in 2015 recognised that Communities First clusters are engaging with a range of local and national partners, who are essential to the delivery of the programme. These partners include communities, the third and the statutory sectors.

Thank you for that, Cabinet Secretary. The activities of Communities First weren’t popular with town and community councils on all occasions, or indeed with some local groups, and I’m not the only one who heard about community activists, about tanks on lawns and takeovers, and so on. Now, I don’t care who’s right or wrong in this, but I am concerned that a silo mindset and an unwillingness to share responsibility has become rooted in some cases. Do you believe, with the mechanism of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, that it’s possible to trust the organisations already in existence within our communities to share power and responsibility for enhancing the power of communities to deal more directly with their own challenges without the need for an artificial creation such as Communities First?

I think we’ve got to recognise Communities First programmes have done some great work in many constituencies around Wales. There are some great examples of partnership working. As you will be aware, I’ve made a very clear statement that I will be reviewing the Communities First programme, and making a statement in the early new year about the future of that particular programme.

I very much appreciate the work done by Communities First in Swansea East and hope that that work on improving health, educational attainment, reducing fixed outgoings, and finding employment will continue. How does the Cabinet Secretary see the role of local councils and public service boards in building resilient communities and continuing these much-needed and very good schemes?

Thank you, Mike, for your question. You are, and continue to be, a great advocate for Communities First in your particular area. Local authorities have a crucial role in building resilient communities, as place shapers as well as service providers. Local councillors are elected to represent their communities, so they also have a key role to play. Partnership is key for the delivery of good service.

Following the recent announcement of the Cabinet Secretary, some people have contacted me as they are very keen to protect some specific aspects of the work of Communities First for the future. Môn CF in Holyhead, for example, are very proud of several aspects of the work that they’ve been undertaking in the town, and I congratulate them on that work. They have emphasised that they’re willing to work constructively towards a new system. But how can the Government ensure that example of good practice from Communities First is recognised and protected, and disseminated to other areas on Ynys Môn and other parts of Wales under the new system?

I’ve visited Ynys Môn, actually, under the Communities First programmes in the past, and I’ve seen some great work that goes on and the activity in that area. But as you’re aware of my statement, we are doing a full review of the Communities First programme. Communities for Work and the Lift programme will be a protected part of that procedure as we move forward. I have given commitment for the future of that, and the rest of the programme is under review. We have a consultation process under way as we are in that current phase. I will be making a statement in the new year.

I thank the Member for Monmouth for his question. Our childcare offer will provide working parents with 30 hours of Government-funded early years education and childcare for three and four-year-olds for 48 weeks per year. We will begin piloting the offer in specific areas of six local authorities in September of 2017.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Whilst we welcome your proposals to extend provision, I wonder what consideration you’ve given to enabling parents to use their free hours more flexibly. In most cases, the current provision of 10 free hours weekly must be spread, as you know, over five days, so that’s around two hours a day. Who can travel to and from work and get any work done within two hours? I’m sure you’ll agree we should be making it easier for parents to return to work and contribute to our economy. So, will you give more consideration to making those free hours far more flexible?

I agree with the Member in terms of the ability of parents to have some choice and the ability for flexibility in the system. Ensuring that we have good-quality childcare and services is a discussion that I continue to have with the education Minister, and other Ministers within Government, and the pilot schemes will enable us to learn from that programme.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for your response on the question. I certainly welcome this initiative as yet another example of the Welsh Labour Government delivering on its manifesto commitments. We’ve heard, increasingly in recent years, of the adverse impact of the Government’s austerity measures and welfare cuts for many in our society. I talked about, yesterday, the in-work poverty becoming a reality alongside poverty experienced by those not in work. For some in work, they’re limited by the hours that they can work and the type of contracts that they can accept, and so, even for those able to take full-time work, the cost of childcare for many is too great.

A recent study revealed that, where the average number of children living in poverty across Wales is 28 per cent, in my constituency of Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney it’s 31.8 per cent. So, that’s of concern to me. So, can the Cabinet Secretary confirm, therefore, that the Government’s childcare offer is being viewed as a key component in the Government’s strategy on improving prosperity across Wales and that reducing the cost of childcare for working parents would be a significant factor in moving more children out of poverty?

Indeed, and the Member is right to raise this very issue. There are two components within my department, and we’re moving that out across all our intervention opportunities around economic well-being and jobs, skills and growth for communities and individuals, but also the well-being of an individual as well, tackling issues around adverse childhood experiences and well-being. The childcare pledge is a fundamental part of the jigsaw about enabling people to get into work and, hopefully, it will allow some parents to increase the hours they’re able to work, with in-work poverty being a problem that the Member has raised before. But it is an ambitious programme, and it is one of the most effective ones in the UK in terms of delivery, and we look forward to the pilot starting in the autumn of next year.

One of the drivers of the free childcare policy, of course, is now the prominence that’s been given to early intervention or prevention—the welcome prominence, I should say—and given of course that the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 as well is leading us in that direction, which, again, is something that I would welcome—. But with that in mind, what discussions have you had with the Cabinet Secretary for Education regarding the pupil deprivation grant, because I’d be interested in understanding the rationale whereby young children—reception- age children—receive barely half the sum that older children are allocated, and maybe it would add more value to the childcare policy if that was front-loaded?

I think that’s an interesting prospect from the Member. I’ve been having many meetings with the education Cabinet Secretary. We’re looking at the manifesto, which is very clear in terms of its proposal for delivering for three and four-year-olds. What we’re looking for is a seamless progression between foundation phase and childcare, but also looking beyond that to our whole offer for young people, which is something that we are constantly aware of—making sure that we have maximum intervention opportunities with the limited funding that we have available.

Questions to the party spokespeople now. Spokesperson for the Welsh Conservatives, Mark Isherwood.

Diolch, Lywydd. Last Friday, I spoke at the Meaningful Change conference in Llanrwst in north Wales, organised by the Co-production Network for Wales, which focused, amongst other things, on learning about inspirational examples where co-production has been effectively adopted and discussed ways in which we can increasingly involve people in the design and delivery of services in accordance with the Wales well-being goals. Given the figures from the End Child Poverty Coalition last week that 28 per cent of children in Wales are living in poverty—that is still the highest amongst the UK nations—how do you feel or what consideration have you given to an application of co-production principles to help you to tackle that, as you take forward new models for tackling poverty in Wales?

I think it’s a fair question from the Member; I think it’s just about the use of language. I think what we’ve actually done in Government is legislate for this in terms of the well-being of future generations Act. Forty-four public bodies now are being enabled to deliver on the five principles of the Act, where intervention and engagement are part of that process. So, the Member uses the term ‘co-production’, but I don’t think it’s far away from the principles of the WFG Act, which was legislated for last year.

I hope you’ll agree with me that actually it’s not just not far away, but core to it, because last week’s Future Generations Commissioner for Wales ‘Talking Future Generations’ report gave many examples from stakeholder group meetings across the length and breadth of north Wales, including north-east Wales, where we both live, and she said that there’s a

‘Need for change in cultural thinking within public bodies, making changes real…empowering local decision making, demonstrating leadership and appetite for delivery, overcoming institutional inertia’,

and then specifically saying

‘This…needs to be co-produced, taking into account community engagement, power sharing and sharing. Everyone has expertise.’

Do you agree with the commissioner?

I don’t disagree with the commissioner; I think it’s the use of language. As I explained earlier, I think the commissioner’s role as WFG commissioner is typical of the way we’ve embedded policy development in this organisation and the other public bodies that she also holds to account.

Thank you. Clearly, it is language, but this is a global movement with a global term, to which hundreds of organisations across Wales have now signed up. So, finally, you may have heard me—I think you did yesterday—refer to a report sent to me by the North Wales Women’s Centre, ‘Leading change: the role of local authorities in supporting women with multiple needs’, and although an England report, they referred to the information being applicable to our aims and joint working in Wales. This, again, states that meeting women’s needs should

‘be complemented by working with them to develop their own strengths and to build resilience—an approach sometimes referred to as “asset based”…places emphasis on a person’s strengths rather than on their “deficits” ’.

That is, the core principle at the core of co-production. How, therefore, do you respond to that and to their statement that seeking to identify and address unmet needs in young women, applied properly, would lead to

‘how many fewer women might be in abusive relationships if young women developed resilience and self-esteem through projects such as this; and how many fewer children would be involved in child protection proceedings or in local authority care if young women were supported in their own right and not just in relation to parenting abilities/capabilities’?

That is, turning it upside-down and applying co-production principles.

I agree with the principle of the organisation and what they’re trying to set out, but I have a duty to make sure that we have consistency across all of Wales. That’s why we recently announced the issue around resilient communities and what they look like. Engagement is a key part of that, making sure that we understand from stakeholders and service users about their real-life experiences. That’s why I’ll be seeking to invest in an ACEs hub, which will start to understand how we make early interventions and prevention for the very issues the Member raises with me in the Chamber today.

The Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Bethan Jenkins. 

Thanks. My first question is to concentrate on Rent Smart Wales and the ongoing publicity now that the registration is coming to an end. We’ve seen that there’s been a final burst of publicity, which might cause problems with the administration processes in handling a high volume of applications, including those who opt to do the training online. Will there be enforcement action against those who try to register before the deadline but then don’t complete the process until afterwards?

Anybody who has been active in the way of engagement in terms of seeking to register will not be the first port of call for any enforcement action.

Thank you for that. A recent court case about the legislation found that there are only nine enforcement officers employed by Rent Smart Wales. Will you commit to urgently publishing details of how you will be implementing the new legislation, and would you agree with me that there should be extra resources given to Rent Smart to enforce the law, ensuring it focuses on rogue landlords?

I think the Member is right to raise the issue—not particularly about Rent Smart Wales and process, but actually the reason why we introduced this in the first place, and the Member is right in raising the issue about rogue landlords. What we do know is that there are many good landlords in the system, but there are far too many rogue landlords. It is disappointing, but not unexpected. The deadline date is upon us in terms of Rent Smart Wales, and there is a rush to register. I understand that, but there’s been a long lead-in time for people to register in that process. I said earlier on we won’t be seeking anybody who is proactively looking to have registered or has, through no fault of their own, been unable to register and can evidence that, but what we are keen to do is make sure that, once we’ve got the registration profile in place, then we look at the people who haven’t engaged in the process to make sure that we are able to start enforcing the legislation. I’m confident that the local authorities are in a position to be able to do that, but it’s early days in the system.

Thank you, and I’ll obviously want to track progress on that particular issue.

My third and final question is: obviously, you will know I met your officials last week with regard to financial inclusion. The Money Advice Service report out this week shows that two thirds of 16 to 17-year-olds cannot read a payslip, while a third have never put money into an actual bank account. Now, this report is very worrying, especially at an age when children are potentially leaving their homes to seek higher education elsewhere. Has the Welsh Government compared the cost of providing financial inclusion to adults in the community against providing it to young people in schools, and is the approach that the Welsh Government is taking to teaching financial education sufficient to provide them with the skills that they need as adults? I have recently written to the education Minister with regard to the work stream with regard to financial education, but I think it’s urgently now in need of progress to ensure that our young people are leaving schools with those key life skills.

I think the Member has continued on her plight to ensure that we get the best outcome for young people in terms of financial literacy. It’s a conversation I’m grateful she’s able to have with my officials. I saw the minutes of the meeting that she had this week, and I would urge her to continue those discussions with my team and that of the education Minister to see how we can get a better offer for young people and, indeed, adults that are in need of financial literacy, and it becomes the norm, as opposed to an add-on.

UKIP spokesperson, Michelle Brown.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Will the Cabinet Secretary make a statement about mental health provision for young people In north Wales, please?

Mental health provision in north Wales is still a position that we continue to support. There is a fine facility in Darren Millar’s constituency, and it’s something that we recognise in that there are pressures in the system, but it’s an important one that we must continue to help.

Okay, thank you. This year, the Children, Young People and Education Committee held a follow-up inquiry into adoption services in Wales. Whilst progress has been made in setting up a national adoption service in Wales, evidence from the casework has indicated that access to post-adoption support and life-story work remains inconsistent across Wales. Can the Cabinet Secretary make a statement on adoption services support in Wales and how you’re going to improve coverage, please?

Well, I think we’ve done—the previous Government and the Ministers involved in the creating of the National Adoption Service did a great job, and I think what we are learning continuously is about where there are pressures within a system that we either have not recognised, or they’re new to the system. I will take into consideration her question, and will issue a written statement on the position of the National Adoption Service in the near future.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary. And my last question is: can you make a statement about school transport arrangements in Wales, with particular regard to the closure of John Summers High School in Deeside?

That would be referred to Ken Skates, in order—. He’s the Minister for transport, and the Member may wish to write to the Member.

I thank the Member for her question. We will be providing over £1.5 billion in this Assembly term to support affordable housing. We’ll be encouraging new design, developing new schemes, working closely to deliver affordable homes with all our partners, and abolishing the right to buy.

Thank you, Minister. The Welsh Government’s announcement of £1.3 billion being allocated across the term of this Government to support the delivery of 20,000 affordable homes and to complete the task of meeting the Welsh housing quality standard highlights the passion this Government has on this issue. Will the Minister outline how my constituents and their families in Islwyn will benefit from these ambitious plans?

I thank the Member for her questions; she’s very passionate about the issue of supporting housing in her constituency. We will provide housing across tenures to meet the diverse housing needs and aspirations of your residents. Investing in housing will benefit the local economy and create employment opportunities. New homes also increase local investment through planning obligations, council taxes, and provide wider community benefits for her and her constituents to enjoy.

This year, Carmarthenshire County Council, under the leadership of Plaid Cymru, introduced a scheme to provide 1,000 new affordable houses over the next three years. As part of the scheme, they’ve got different methods of doing this: managing additional tenancies in the private sector, bringing more vacant homes back into use, and also buying new private homes in order to put them out to rent. Do you agree with me that this is a commendable scheme and offers innovative solutions, and also that we should recommend this way of working to other local authorities throughout Wales so that they can learn from this good practice and respond to housing problems in their areas?

Of course, there are many good practices across Wales in terms of housing solutions. Indeed, the Labour-run authority of Flintshire have also introduced a council-house building scheme and, indeed, are protecting the asset base on the basis that they’re applying for the abolition of the right to buy, too. So, I do commend people who are investing in their communities, whichever party that may be.

Cabinet Secretary, a report by the late Professor Holmans estimated that Wales needs up to 240,000 new housing units or 12,000 units between 2011 and 2031—it means within the next 20 years. This is nearly double the number delivered in 2014-15. Why has the Welsh Government rejected the findings of Professor Holmans and instead has committed to delivering a target for housing that falls well short of his projection of the needs of Wales?

I’m grateful for the Member’s question. Indeed, the spokesperson for housing seems to have passed on the baton to the Member on the backbench there. I would urge the Member to read all of the report of Alan Holmans’s estimates. Indeed, 174,000 homes or flats will be needed—this equates to around 8,700 new homes each year, which would mean around 3,300 would be non-market social housing.

The Member keeps portraying this issue as the one and only solution. Actually, our 20,000 homes are only part of the solution. The market has to deliver other housing solutions as well, but we will be making a £1.5 billion investment in this term of the Government for community solutions to homes.

Focusing on the 20,000 homes that your Government’s committed to building, I was surprised in committee to learn that, of those, only 1,000 at the moment are going to be built to the new eco standards of warmth. Given that some 40 per cent of people living in social housing can’t afford to heat them properly, I wondered why you haven’t looked more carefully at Pentre Solar, the six homes that are being built in Pembrokeshire by Western Solar, using a mere £141,000 of Welsh Government funding and bringing people off the council waiting list. Now, they would like to build another 1,000 homes, just this one company, but the barriers to them are land to be available and also the financing of it. Given that they’ve been so successful with so little money, why do you think the Government can’t do much more in terms of building homes that are fit for the twenty-first century?

Well, I’m not convinced we can’t do more. I think what we’ve said is the 20,000 model that we’re using is a starter and the process of looking at financial modelling and the ability to deliver 20,000 homes. I’m very relaxed about shaping the way that looks in terms of the make-up of the 20,000. If we can get more energy-efficient, cheaper homes to run longer term in a similar period to the investment profile that I have to deliver this, I’m very happy to have those discussions. That’s non-specific to a product—but actually I’ve got my teams looking at innovation, and working with the housing sector and the land division to see what we can do to help the Member, indeed, with the positive activity she pursues in terms of energy efficiency in housing.

The Rent Smart Wales team has been under immense pressure, particularly in recent months, with the late rush of registrations. Inevitably, some queries have taken longer than usual to answer. I applaud the huge effort, though, put in by the team to manage demand, which includes recruiting more staff.

Cabinet Secretary, I heard your response to Bethan Jenkins earlier. When I raised this with the leader of the house recently, I was assured that you as Cabinet Secretary would look at this issue. With just one week to go, Rent Smart Wales appears to be, I would say, in chaos. It seems there are not sufficient staff to take calls. Some people are unable to make payments online and staff are completely overwhelmed by demand. This isn’t good enough, but do you think that it is right to bring forward legislation if you’ve not got sufficient resource to attach to it?

It’s absolutely the right thing to do. In fact, the Members opposite, I think, voted against the legislation so I’m not surprised you’re complaining about it now. Let me tell you about the staff. I’ve visited the facility, and I dare say I don’t think the Member has visited the facility, and to suggest that they’re in chaos is just completely rubbish. As of midnight last night, 11 months after Rent Smart Wales came into force, almost 50,000 landlords were fully registered with Rent Smart Wales, with 1,100 registrations being completed yesterday alone. I don’t think that’s an organisation in chaos. They’re doing a very good job. The fact is, this has been an 11-month process to register, so don’t come and claim to me that today the programme is in chaos—the Member wasn’t supportive of it when we introduced it; I’m not surprised he isn’t now.

I’m really surprised to hear the Minister say that it’s not in chaos, really. I think that’s, basically, perfectly evident. As you’re stood here today, more than half of landlords have not registered. So, my question is: will you extend the deadline to avoid criminalising decent, hard-working people?

Well, you’re—. ‘No’, is the answer to the Member’s question, and I haven’t said we’re going to criminalise them, either. You’re making that up again, as you do on your leaflets, generally.

I’m grateful for the Member’s question today. We are working across all Welsh Government-related policy areas to develop strategies to increase children’s play opportunities. These are areas outlined in ‘Wales—a Play Friendly Country’, including schools, planning, traffic and transport, and health and well-being.

Thank you for that, Minister. You referred to Wales as being a play-friendly country, and I’m sure you appreciate the vital role that exercise plays in having a healthy upbringing and making us healthier adults. However, these spaces are under immense pressure. They’re being sold off or they’re just disused or just plain nasty. People don’t want to go there, because they don’t feel safe. What safeguards, Minister, can you put into place to ensure that these public spaces are protected and well maintained so that adults and children alike can enjoy the great outdoors and have a healthier lifestyle?

I absolutely recognise the Member’s concern. Indeed, I came into the world of politics because of play areas in my particular area—wanting to do better for the community, and, indeed, very selfishly, for my daughter, when I was taking them to the park and it wasn’t up to standard. So, I think the Member has a valid point. We have introduced play sufficiency assessments for local authorities; they have a statutory duty to assess and secure sufficient play opportunities for children, and local authorities are required to deliver against their play action plans each year.

The whole ethos of this Government is about early intervention and prevention, and particularly young people—introducing a children’s Minister is a very specific point that we value the contribution of young people in our communities and across Wales.

We know that safe, accessible and fun play spaces for children are important and an integral part of our local communities. It’s equally as important that children have their say in shaping that which affects them. With that in mind, I’m very pleased to see that Ysgol Merllyn’s school parliament, led by their prime minister, Tony, are here in the gallery today. Can I ask, Cabinet Secretary, how children’s groups and organisations such as the fantastic Ysgol Merllyn school parliament, are supported and encouraged to help shape play facilities in their areas?

I’m grateful to the Member for Delyn for asking me that important question. It’s great to welcome Ysgol Merllyn and the prime minister, Tony, with his historic name, to the Chamber, too. The Member raises a very important point. Indeed, the statutory guidance, ‘Wales—a Play Friendly Country’ sets out what is required by local authorities in fulfilling their role—the youth clubs and school councils. The guidance also encourages local authorities to have a play champion to raise the profile of play with young people. I urge all authorities to engage with young people in terms of what the requirements are that they see for their communities and the needs that are required within them, and I wish the school a safe journey back to your constituency.

Talk really is cheap, and I wonder how you marry the contradiction between what is said in this Chamber and the fact that play centre after play centre has been closed by your party in my region. In Cardiff, Grangetown Play Centre’s been under threat for years; we have the Cardiff Central Youth Club and the play clubs around that under threat—well, basically, told that they’re going to close. They’re told they’re going to close. So, what reassurance can you offer those parents whose children’s play centres are threatened by your party?

This Assembly has obviously got a very strategic role in the way that we manage and create policy. The Member may wish to readdress that question, as he is a councillor in the local authority he talks about. It’s an interesting position when he says about ‘your party’ closing play centres and schools, et cetera. That was the man who was in our party, but he changed position, he went into another party, but that’s not new either. So, I thank him for the question, but another pointless one, again.

Cwestiwn 6, Bethan Jenkins.

Oh, sorry, I can’t stop laughing.

I thank the Member for South Wales West for her question. Communities for Work is operational across Wales. It plays a key role in supporting my commitment to increase employability as a route out of poverty. The programme is already making a real difference to people in our most deprived communities, supporting 5,630 people, of which 898 have entered direct employment.

Thank you for the answer. You came to the equalities committee, where I asked you some questions on this, and I would just like to have more information on the programme’s budget, how many staff it specifically employs through the budget from your department and how many people it has helped since its birth. Because, on the website, it says that a lot of this money comes from European funding, and I’d like to understand, when that funding comes to an end, how you will be able to progress with this particular programme, and also, if it is there to replace Communities First, how you, potentially, will expand on it, or if you will expand on it, if you think that this is the right scheme to go ahead with.

I think it would be fair just to clarify about the Communities First programme. I’ve not made a decision on that yet, as the Member well knows, and I’ve also not said that this programme is intended to replace a Communities First programme, albeit I have said, as long as we can maintain a programme in Lift and the Communities for Work programme, I will continue to do so, despite that being a 12-month budget round. But I am keen to pursue that for longer. I will give the Member a more detailed response on finance, and I’ll write to the Member, if I may, in terms of the breakdown between European funding and investment from Welsh Government. But, as I said, our overall target process—the milestone of providing 4,000 opportunities by the end of November is nearly complete, with 3,919 of those training programmes already being opportunities for individuals across Wales.

Can I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his answer, because I think I also have concerns over the future of this programme, and the Lift programme in particular, which helps people back into employment and targets deprived areas? I think he gave reassurances that they are there for the future. Can he also give assurances that, as he considers and deliberates on the consultation following his mind to end the Communities First programmes, how those will work in those areas, because they actually are focused upon Communities First and they are partly integrated with Communities First at this moment, so that we can ensure they go on beyond a possible end to Communities First?

Again, not to pre-empt my decision, of course, and I know the Member wasn’t intending to suggest that, I believe that the Lift programme and Communities for Work are doing a great job in our communities. I have asked my officials to discuss with the Welsh European Funding Office options to extend the Communities for Work programme beyond April 2018. I've asked them to submit advice to me on this and, again, as with Bethan Jenkins and yourself, I will keep you informed, and other Members, in the statement I’ll make in the new year.

Cabinet Secretary, we know that the major cause of poverty is economic inactivity, and this programme is aimed at helping those most distant from the labour market. They’ve either always been economically inactive or have been for a very long time, and aiming at low skills, aiming to get mentors who can talk to these people and inspire them and give them the confidence to go forward, and to give them that training in places where they will be comfortable to receive it—it’s not easy to go to an further education college if you feel intimidated by that sort of environment. But these programmes are heavily reliant on EU funding—£7 million in the latest round, and we must protect this funding. It must be given priority, as we plan for future budgets.

The Member is absolutely right, and I believe that, as I mentioned earlier in my contributions, the two areas of concentration for this Government have to be around economic regeneration and building the jobs, skills and opportunities and confidence for people to get into the market, to give them long-term stability. This programme, Communities for Work, and Lift are just one of the elements of the jigsaw, including the 100,000 all-age apprenticeships and the childcare pledge, which is a suite of tools to enable people to get back into the market. I certainly recognise the significant European investment. I’m grateful for the Member’s recognition also, and it will be useful to join forces when the exit programme from Europe comes about, to ensure that we are fully funded to an amount that does make a difference in all our communities that are represented here in Wales.

I thank John Griffiths for his question. ‘Taking Wales Forward’ sets out our commitment to ensure services and facilities support community development. We will promote community pharmacies, strengthen community provision across the NHS, develop community schools and pilot community learning centres, as well as develop a made-in-Wales approach to community assets.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for that. Your announcement that you are minded not to continue with Communities First has, of course, created considerable concern, particularly in community centres that are not currently delivering Communities for Work or the Lift programme or other programmes that you’ve stated will continue. So, I wonder, Cabinet Secretary, if you could offer some reassurance that, in the process of considering the way forward for community development in Wales, the role of these community centres in that position will be carefully considered, given that they do provide very valuable services that are very important to local communities across Wales.

I’m grateful for the number of discussions that the Member, and, indeed, Jayne Bryant, the neighbouring Member, have had with me, particularly around Newport. I can’t commit to the future of any programme, and I’ve said very clearly, and I’ve written to all AMs, that I will be making a decision over the coming month, which will be well informed. The issue around Communities First is that it is a tackling poverty programme, so we have to carefully assess the impact, and where it also touches other areas, such as Communities for Work and the Lift programme. I’m very keen that we are able to present a resilient communities programme as we move forward, and I’m not in a position currently to make that decision. However, I’ve noted the Member’s comments, the strong discussions that we’ve had, and the representations that he’s made, and I will give that further consideration as we move forward.

At this time of year I think it’s appropriate to remember that many of our community centres are actually memorial halls and originated, particularly, after the first world war. I was pleased to be able to commemorate Remembrance Sunday in my local community centre, which is a memorial hall in Penparcau in Aberystwyth. Talking to the trustees there after that event, it was clear that they are struggling on occasions to make memorial halls that originated with two world wars relevant to today’s young people, and the way that that community centre can once again be a focus of that local community. So, in your plans going forward, what can you do to both help on the capital side, perhaps, of rejuvenating some of these community centres—although Penparcau has been rejuvenated, I’m glad to say—but more importantly, assisting trustees and volunteers to make sure that the memorial halls of the past are relevant for the young generations of the future?

I’m grateful for the very pertinent question the Member raises today. He’s absolutely right—we should not forget the historic value of some of these buildings, and also the sentimental value and respect that they represent. Of course, we have the programmes looking at a made-in-Wales approach to community asset transfer, but we are in a difficult period of austerity, and we are having challenges on budgets. We have to be very careful making sure that our investments are well targeted. The Penparcau example that the Member raises is great to see—that there are local residents making good use of that facility.

Parents have access to a range of services that promote positive parenting, delivered by partners in local government, health and education. This forms part of a package of measures to promote positive parenting, including the ‘Parenting. Give it time’ campaign and our significant investment in Families First and Flying Start.

Thank you for that answer, Cabinet Secretary. You’ll know that I’m a huge advocate of positive parenting, particularly given what I think are premature plans from your Government to ban smacking and criminalise parents. However, I note that you as Cabinet Secretary agree that positive parenting is something that ought to be available to all parents who need it. Unfortunately, though, in spite of your efforts, that isn’t the case. There have been about 3,000 positive parenting courses delivered over the 15 months to June 2016. A third of those were in Cardiff, and in some local authority areas, including Conwy, there have been none whatsoever. What action are you taking to make sure there is equitable access to positive parenting for all parents across the whole of the country?

Well, I’m working with my team now to push out the next phase of positive parenting. I think the Member is absolutely right—we have to engage with parents. I’m not convinced, actually, as we sit here today, that poster campaigns or website-based programmes are the real deal for positive parenting. I think there is a lot of peer-to-peer support or mentoring through community groups, whether that be religious church-based groups, or in school settings, or mother and toddler groups, or father and toddler groups. I think it’s really important that we’re able to share examples and it’s a much more positive way of engaging.

The suite of tools that I’m looking at is to provide a package around positive parenting delivered through trusted sources, and then we will also make sure that we legislate, which I know the Member isn’t favourable to. But this is a suite of tools on positive parenting, and we will legislate at the end of that to remove the defence of reasonable punishment.

Would the Cabinet Secretary agree that one of the best ways of supporting parents is by groups where parents support each other and learn from each other parenting skills? Would he congratulate the organisations that have been set up by parents for mutual support, in particular Single Parent Wales, which is working in partnership with Gingerbread, and which I met recently, and which are there to support each other and to promote healthy living, and which went on a very successful ramble around Barry Island last weekend?

Indeed, and who am I to argue with Julie Morgan in this field? Of course, I wasn’t invited to the ramble—maybe that was a good idea. [Laughter.] But the Member is absolutely right: I think it is about the interventions that we have with each other. Relationships—what works well and what doesn’t work well, and a non-stigma approach to how we are able to enhance the development of young people is important. I’m giving that some very serious consideration, because the campaigns that we currently have are process driven, rather than personalised and individual. I think the Member raises a very important point.

I thank the Member for Neath for his question. Welsh Government recognises the valuable role social enterprise-delivered childcare services make to the provision of childcare in Wales. We provide support to enhance their resilience through guidance to local authorities, funding through our children and families delivery grant and by providing business advice and support through Business Wales.

I thank him for that statement. Tomorrow, as he knows, is Social Enterprise Day. Many childcare settings are delivered via social enterprise, as he’ll know from his familiarity with settings in my constituency. Ensuring the resilience of the sector is vital, and that includes both front-line skills, of course, but also, importantly, skills to do with running the organisations themselves. As part of the initiatives into childcare ahead, will he look at the prevalence in the sector of the skills and experience to deliver those functions as well—management, accountancy and even marketing—and look at how we can spread best practice that does exist in parts of the sector?

Indeed, the Member is right. This isn’t just a childcare offer—there is a whole raft of skills required behind that, in terms of business acumen, opportunities and training. I’ve started discussions with the education Cabinet Secretary, the skills Minister, the children’s commissioner and a raft of other organisations that are interested in making the best of what we’re trying to deliver here. Social Business Wales, funded through Cwlwm, the childcare consortium, and local authority business support, is something that I’m keen to make sure continues out in the community, supporting the very investments that the Member talks about.

Our 2015 programme for children and young people highlighted the many pieces of legislation and policies we’ve delivered promoting children’s rights and participation across Government.

Cabinet Secretary, you know as well as I do that there’s a duty on local authorities and local education authorities to ensure that the UNCRC is promoted in our schools. Unfortunately, this is not subject to inspection at the moment by Estyn. I feel that it ought to be in order to make sure that young people are able to understand what their rights are and how they can ensure that they can be realised. What action will you take, in conjunction with your colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Education to ensure that the Estyn inspection regime is able to reflect upon this and whether there might need to be a change to it?

I’m grateful to the Member for raising that in the Chamber today. We do currently have, with the Cabinet Secretary for Education, a review of inspection services about to start, and we will look at that carefully.

I thank the Member for his question. Through Vibrant and Viable Places funding of £8.89 million, Swansea has made a series of strategic acquisitions to enable delivery of a central business district on the Kingsway.

Thank you for that response, Minister. Further to that, of course, there have been great delays on the Kingsway, and the main route in the centre of Swansea has begun to look quite dilapidated. There are a number of projects, and you have referred to one, which not only relates to the local authority but also, of course, involves the Government here. So, could I push you further to ask what influence you have to hasten that work that is happening at the moment to regenerate the Kingsway in Swansea?

I’m very grateful for the Member’s question. I’m not familiar with the delays that he assumes are related to the Government. What I do know is that the VVP investment in Swansea will lever in about £103 million in additional investment and accommodate 675 new jobs in 14,000 sq m of newly refurbished commercial space. Indeed, pressing on with the creation of change to the central business district on the Kingsway, VVP funding has been able to acquire some of those difficult buildings that the Member talks about. The one that he may be familiar with is the former Oceana nightclub, which, indeed, has been purchased for transformation in that particular area. We should be very positive about Swansea council and the opportunity that they’re bringing to the communities that they represent.

And finally, question 12, Russell George.

We’re supporting a range of regeneration activities across the Severn valley. We’ve awarded a recyclable capital town-centre loan to Powys County Council of £1.25 million.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his answer. The Cabinet Secretary will be aware that the Newtown bypass is developing well, and I’d be very grateful, Cabinet Secretary, if you could let me know how the Welsh Government can support the towns—particularly Newtown, Llanidloes and Welshpool—that sit in the Severn valley to take best advantage of that Newtown bypass once it’s complete.

Indeed, I’m grateful for the Member’s recognition of this Labour administration’s past commitment to the Newtown bypass of around £92 million. But the Member should be very careful of asking for a bypass one minute and then asking for investment in his community the next, when cars will be bypassing his village, I expect, because of the bypass.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary.

The next item is the 90-second statements and the first this week is from Angela Burns.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. There was a day in February 2015 when my husband was told to expect the worst, and my devastated family put their lives on hold. I had sepsis and the battle to beat the bug wasn’t going well. Who knew—not I—that a cough could open the door to a ruthless and determined enemy intent on destruction? Today we launched the cross-party group on sepsis to a packed room of survivors, Assembly Members, clinicians and the bereaved. The aims of the group are threefold: firstly, to raise the profile of sepsis—it kills more people than lung cancer; secondly, to encourage greater prevention and ensure that there’s a programme of support to help those who are living with the consequences of the disease, such as Jayne Carpenter, a nurse from the Royal Gwent, who lost both of her legs, an arm and four fingers as a result of sepsis; and thirdly, to achieve a clear sepsis pathways and an increase in public awareness. Not everyone is lucky enough to talk about their sepsis story. A third of us with sepsis die, a third suffer consequences like Jayne and a third walk away relatively unscathed, but no-one escapes scot free. Please help us to change that. This is a cross-party group that is aiming for its own extinction, and with your help, we can make that difference.

Russell George.

This weekend, celebrations will take place to mark the two-hundredth anniversary of the birth of one of Wales’s most famous musicians, John Roberts, Harpist of Wales or ‘Telynor Cymru’. His life and works will be marked with two days of performances, talks and events exploring his life and how he and his family, who lived in Newtown, became one of Wales’s best known musical acts of their day. The celebrations are part of the Gregynog Festival taking place at Gregynog Hall. Born to a Romani mother and a Welsh father in north Wales, Roberts lived in Frolic Street in Newtown for much of his life and is known to have performed at Gregynog Hall during the mid-nineteenth century. He and his family performed at the Bear Hotel in Newtown and also performed on nine triple harps in front of Queen Victoria whilst she was visiting north Wales. In 1848, he won the world harp competition at Abergavenny, as well as the harp prize at the National Eisteddfod in Cardiff in the same year. Roberts put Newtown firmly on the musical map and remains a significant figure within Welsh culture. He was one of the most famous musicians in Victorian Wales and I’m pleased to be able to mark his two-hundredth birthday in the Senedd today.

Rhun ap Iorwerth.

I’ve always fancied myself on the back of a motorbike and I had an opportunity a few days ago. Unfortunately, it wasn’t moving at the time—I haven’t passed a motorcycle test. But, I was in Holyhead outside Ysbyty Penrhos Stanley on the back of a wonderful motorbike called Elsa II, to draw attention to the launch of the new blood bike service in north-west Wales. For those of you who don’t know, Blood Bikes Wales is a charity that has, for many years, offered a very valuable delivery service for the NHS across Wales. But there was one part of the jigsaw missing: the north-west of Wales was the only part of the country where this service was not available. Blood Bikes Wales is a group of volunteer bikers and they raise the funds needed to run the service. They will carry all sorts of products between hospitals, from blood and plasma to samples or medical documents, and they do so as a matter of urgency and free of charge. They save a fortune to the NHS, which would otherwise, outside the hours of its transportation staff, have to employ taxis or other couriers to provide this very service, or they may even have to use the police or ambulance services.

Felly, ar ran pobl Ynys Môn a gogledd-orllewin Cymru, a gaf fi ddiolch i’r beicwyr brwdfrydig am sicrhau y gallwn ni hefyd bellach, fel gweddill y wlad, elwa o’u caredigrwydd?

I thank all three Members.

The next item on our agenda is the motion to approve the Assembly Commission’s budget for 2017-18, and I call on Suzy Davies to move the motion on behalf of the Commission.

Diolch, Lywydd, and I move the Commission’s budget motion for 2017-18 and ask that it be incorporated into the annual budget motion. This budget is for 2017-18, the second year of this fifth Assembly, and in the budget, the Commission is seeking £53.7 million, which is an increase of 1 per cent above inflation compared to this year. The budget is made up of three parts: £34.4 million for Commission services; £15.5 million for the remuneration board’s determination; and £3.8 million for ring-fenced, non-cash budgets—the accounting provision required by the Treasury for the Members’ pension scheme would be an example of that. This budget will ensure that the Commission can address the imminent challenges that face the Assembly. It properly supports the delivery of our strategic goals, which are: providing outstanding parliamentary support; engaging with the people of Wales and championing the Assembly; and using resources wisely, whilst being mindful of the wider public sector financial position.

The Commission exists to support the Assembly and Assembly Members, and we recognise that the pressures on Assembly Members are greater than ever. An already demanding range of work for committees and Plenary has been intensified by further constitutional change, tax-varying powers and managing the exit from the EU. The legislative, financial and scrutiny responsibilities of elected Members are unique and paramount, so it is critical that we maintain the delivery of excellent services to support Members as you discharge those responsibilities.

At the beginning of this week, the Llywydd sent a message to all Members setting out the Commission’s new plans to make our parliament fit for the future: giving young people a voice in our democracy, communicating effectively with the public and fulfilling our statutory duty to enable the Assembly to undertake its legislative and scrutiny work, including taking forward work to address the capacity of the Assembly. Wales needs good government, and good government can only be delivered when it is improved, scrutinised and held to account by an effective parliament. Should the Wales Bill pass, and the Assembly decide to exercise its new legislative powers in this area, we are determined to do what is necessary to equip our parliament with the capacity to deliver a strong and sustainable Welsh democracy. As you will appreciate, this work is only just beginning. As we move forward, the Commission will consider the budget implications and come back to the Assembly for your scrutiny at the appropriate point.

As for this budget year, the budget that you’re considering today, I would like to thank the Finance Committee for their scrutiny. As a publicly funded organisation, the Commission must consistently demonstrate that it uses its resources efficiently and effectively. The committee’s scrutiny is an important part of that, so we are making sure that we approach the process with the aim of being clear, open and transparent. The committee made four recommendations and we, as a Commission, have accepted all four. And of course we welcome—of course we welcome—the fact that the committee supports our request for resources for 2017-18. In our budget strategy, we also provided indicative figures for the remainder of this fifth Assembly, but due to the level of uncertainty in the years ahead, including the Commission’s plans that I mentioned earlier, we share the committee’s view that we should revisit these longer term figures in future years.

The committee had three other specific recommendations. Firstly, they’ve asked us to send them details of the outcomes from the annual capacity planning exercise so that they can see where additional staff resources will be deployed; secondly, we’ve agreed to provide details of how the Commission uses any underspend against the remuneration board’s determination; and, thirdly, in future budgets we will provide more detail about the investment in ICT services. Finally, I want to assure Members that we will continue to work in a way that delivers value for money and strive to be as efficient as possible whilst providing all Members with high-quality services to support you effectively in your roles.

I call on Simon Thomas to speak on behalf of the Finance Committee.

Thank you, Llywydd, and may I thank Suzy Davies, the Commissioner for budget and governance, for presenting the Commission’s draft budget? As outlined, the Finance Committee has discussed the budget and appreciated the way in which Suzy Davies and officials came before the committee and answered our questions in an open manner and, of course, provided more information promptly following the evidence session.

We made four recommendations and, as suggested, the four have been accepted and we’ve received the Commission’s response to all four as well. We’re very pleased with that process. I think that the Government could learn a great deal from that process in terms of responding so quickly to committee recommendations.

The Commission’s draft budget sets out the intended expenditure plans for 2017-18, as well as indicative plans and financial requirements through to the end of the fifth Assembly. Our first recommendation supported the overall request for resources for the year in question, and I’m pleased to say that the Finance Committee recommended that the Assembly endorse the Commission’s draft budget. However, whilst the indicative spending plans up to 2021 are useful, due to the current uncertainty surrounding key challenges—such as the timing of the Wales Bill and Brexit, which have already been mentioned—we came to the conclusion that it would be inappropriate for the committee to make any comment on the wider spending plans at present. So, our recommendation appertains to the next financial year.

The Commission has requested an additional investment of almost £1 million for staff resources. We’ve heard already from Suzy Davies why that is needed: there will be investment for supporting an additional two committees, additional legislation, responding to constitutional change and also implementing the Commission’s priorities. But, there was a lack of detail in the draft budget on where this significant investment in staff would be made, so we did request additional information on how the money would be allocated following the Commission’s consideration of its capacity plans. We are pleased that the Commission committed to writing to us with the outcome of that in due course. Of course, Members will have received a letter from the Presiding Officer and the Commission since the tabling of the report as regards the work that’s being undertaken on the expansion of committee capacity, and so on, in the Assembly.

As has been the case in the previous years, the Commission is seeking the maximum amount of funding required for the remuneration board’s determination on Members’ pay and allowances in order to meet Members’ full entitlements. This was, of course, the only aspect of this budget on which there was any kind of dispute in the Assembly last year. Neither the Commission nor the Finance Committee are responsible for the remuneration board; they are responsible for the funding that is allocated for the pay and allowances of Members. Recognising that this approach may result in un-accessed funds, we agreed with the fourth Assembly’s Finance Committee and the Public Accounts Committee that we should have greater clarity on the use of this surplus allocation.

We are not talking about insignificant amounts here. The Commission’s accounts last year show an underspend of over £1 million. So, in order to avoid the possibility that this is some kind of reserve account that is used without it being obvious exactly how it will be spent, our third recommendation asked for updated information from the Commission towards the end of the financial year on this projected underspend and the way in which these surplus funds will be used at the end of the financial year. I’m pleased, once again, that the Commission agreed to provide this information in March 2017, and therefore we will note the full details of that expenditure in the annual report. I hope this will bring greater clarity to the way in which any reserve funding in the process will be used by the Commission.

Finally, we commend the Commission on the success of its ICT transition programme. It’s true to say that I am speaking a day after a number of us were without our e-mail for a day, but it has been successful when you think of the substantial financial saving that has been made by becoming more independent as regards ICT in the Assembly. We are grateful for the additional information on expenditure supplied by the Commission, but another of our recommendations was that future budgets should contain detailed costings associated with ICT investment projects. I therefore welcome the Commission’s commitment to include more information on this to include more information on this work over the ensuing years.

So, the Finance Committee and I are very happy to commend the commission’s budget for the financial year.

In the context of the commission’s responsibilities to use resources wisely, I just wondered whether you could elaborate a little bit on how much money we spend on the catering service, where we have a contract with Charlton House, and, in the context of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, and the Environment (Wales) Act 2016, whether there are any clauses in there to ensure that we reduce, reuse and recycle as far as possible.

Obviously, in the context of food waste, a third of all food gets thrown, and I’m afraid that in the catering industry it’s even more than that—57 per cent of food in the catering industry, which includes restaurants and cafes, gets thrown away before even touching anybody’s plate. So, I just wondered whether you are able to give me any details of what the tonnage of food waste is at the moment, or in the last available period, how that compares with the previous year, and whether there’s anything in the contract to encourage the caterer to focus even more on this issue.

I call on Suzy Davies to respond to the debate.

Diolch yn fawr. Thank you very much, Simon Thomas and Jenny Rathbone. I’ll start with Jenny Rathbone’s question, if I may. What I can’t give you off the top of my head is the specific amount that we spend on the contract. It is actually in the report, which, of course, I haven’t brought with me. But I can certainly make sure that you get a note on that immediately.

In terms of the food waste question that you asked, obviously, you’re quite right, in terms of using resources wisely, there’s an obligation on the commission to ensure that we do that. And, on the data that I’ve got to date, at the moment, as of 1 April this year, a total of 7 tonnes of food waste has been recorded, compared to the total for the previous year of 12.5 tonnes. But, of course, you’ll accept that we haven’t got the full year’s details yet. But, just extrapolating those figures, they’re actually going to be broadly similar. So, I’m grateful to you for raising the concern with this.

Of course, part of this is out of the control of the commission, or any of its staff, because of the way that organisations coming in here order their buffets and so forth, and we have to rely on their details in order to tell us how many people will need food, and, if fewer people come, there’s precious little we can do about that. But we’ll always be grateful as the commission for ideas that actually help us reduce food waste. So, please, don’t hesitate to contact us about that if you have something specific you’d like to tell us.

I’d like to thank the Finance Committee again for the careful consideration of the commission’s budget and support of plans. As I said in my opening remarks, we will be accepting all your recommendations, and further details will be provided to the committee as they arise; you won’t have to wait for the annual report.

And, in terms of the remuneration board, obviously, you’ve explained that that’s outside the commission’s direct control, but, as the Finance Committee is aware, they are able to offer recommendations on how part of the underspend of a given year can be directed.

I’m sure that Members will also join me in thanking our chief accounting officer, who’s overseen the complicated procedure of budget preparation and delivery, through years of considerable change for the Assembly. Claire Clancy is, of course, the Assembly’s Chief Executive and Clerk as well, and, as this is likely to be the last annual budget that comes through your hands, Claire, I hope you won’t mind me taking this opportunity, on behalf of commissioners, past and present, to acknowledge the supreme effort and success you’ve brought to the role, and for the insurance and confidence that you’ve given the commission as well, and the Assembly as a whole. I think we have enjoyed that as a result.

I think the importance of the work of the commission has been recognised in the two contributions made today. The greatest challenge for the commission ought to be to ensure that the Assembly, charged as it is with this greater responsibility, but within the constraints of being the UK’s smallest legislature—I don’t think we should forget that—is properly equipped to do its job. Our aim is to set and maintain high standards during a time of close public scrutiny and to enhance our international reputation as an effective, open, world-class parliamentary institution.

So, on behalf of the Llywydd and my fellow commissioners, I assure you that we’re doing all we can to use the resources provided by this budget to ensure that we meet those challenges in accordance with our strategic goals, and I commend the budget to Members. Thank you.

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

The next item is the Plaid Cymru debate on overseas workers in the Welsh NHS, and I call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to move the motion.

Thank you, Llywydd. I move the motion and ask for your support to that motion tabled in my name.

The future of NHS staff who have been trained abroad has come under the spotlight this year following the change in the political climate since the referendum on membership of the European Union. NHS staff trained overseas face uncertainty because of two main factors. One is the likelihood that we will see more strict immigration rules as a result of that change in the political climate, particularly the rhetoric of the type that we heard in relation to doctors at the Conservatives’ conference. This will also have an impact on those who may continue to have a right to remain here, working personally, but that may not be the case for their husbands, wives or other members of the family. The uncertainty exists because of a second factor, namely the increasing enmity towards migrants that makes Britain, it would appear, a less attractive place to work.

We are using this debate today to tackle that first factor that I mentioned, and we call on the Welsh Government to try and secure the powers so that they can issue work permits for foreign nationals who could work in the Welsh NHS.

We already know how dependent the NHS is on foreign nationals. Some 30 per cent of doctors in Wales were trained overseas—over 2,500, with one in six of those from other EU nations. We know that high numbers of nurses come from abroad to work here, and we know of recruitment campaigns in Spain, for example. We don’t in reality know how many overseas nationals work in social care, because many are working in the private sector, but we do know that that figure has increased substantially and that the sector is already saying how difficult it is to find staff. We know that we will have an ageing population, and that will mean that we will need more care workers, more nurses and more doctors, and we can’t rely on the training placements available in Wales to meet those needs, at the moment at least.

This is not just a matter of those specific difficulties in terms of obtaining work permits for foreign nationals. Other changes to the immigration system are also likely to add to these problems. I’m talking about the decline in foreign students, perhaps, and that would perhaps restrict the ability of our education sector to make provision for Welsh students, as that would lead to the loss of a significant income stream for our universities. So, why are we calling for Wales to have the power to issue work permits?

Pam rydym yn galw am gael cyhoeddi trwyddedau gwaith yma yng Nghymru yn hytrach na’i adael i swyddogion yn Llundain? Mae’n debygol y bydd y ffaith nad yw Cymru yn gallu pennu ei hanghenion gweithlu ei hun, nifer y meddygon a nifer y nyrsys sydd eu hangen arnom, sy’n debygol o orfod dod o wledydd eraill, ac unrhyw system fewnfudo newydd sy’n datblygu yn y DU nad yw’n ystyried anghenion Cymru, yn rhoi ein GIG mewn perygl.

Bydd gan Gymru anghenion gwahanol i wledydd eraill y DU. Mae gennym boblogaeth hŷn, sy’n fwy tebygol o fod angen triniaeth ar gyfer cyflyrau cronig, yn gysylltiedig, yn rhannol o leiaf, â’n gorffennol diwydiannol. Ar hyn o bryd mae gennym broblemau eithaf dybryd o ran prinder meddygon teulu, problemau’n ymwneud â gwledigrwydd a phrinder meddygon ysbyty mewn arbenigeddau penodol, ym maes damweiniau ac achosion brys a phediatreg ac yn y blaen. Mae gennym brinder nyrsys mewn meysydd penodol eraill. Mae gan rannau eraill o’r DU eu problemau eu hunain gyda phrinder. Dyna pam na allwn dderbyn y gwelliannau a gyflwynwyd. Mae’n ymddangos yn rhyfedd i mi fod Llywodraeth Lafur Cymru yn teimlo bod Llywodraeth Geidwadol y DU yn gwybod beth yw anghenion gweithlu Cymru yn well na hi, a’i bod, felly, yn hapus i ymddiried ynddynt.

Nid yw gwelliannau UKIP yn ei gwneud yn ofynnol i Lywodraeth Cymru wneud dim—o leiaf mae gwelliant y Llywodraeth yn caniatáu ar gyfer archwilio opsiynau—ac roeddwn o dan yr argraff mai holl bwynt y blaid honno oedd adfer rheolaeth. Rydym angen rheolaeth ar ein gweithlu yma yng Nghymru, wrth gwrs.

Yn amlwg, mae angen i ni hyfforddi mwy o staff yma—mwy o staff o Gymru. Rydym bob amser wedi bod o blaid hyfforddi mwy o feddygon o Gymru, i ddatrys ein hargyfwng recriwtio, er enghraifft. Cymru sydd â’r nifer isaf o feddygon o gymharu â’r boblogaeth yn y DU. A dweud y gwir, mae prinderau’n arwain at wasanaethau’n cau mewn mannau, ond ni allwch sicrhau bod meddygon o Gymru yn cymryd lle meddygon eraill dros nos. Mae’n cymryd amser. Os yw gofal claf yn dioddef yn awr oherwydd prinderau, yna mae angen i ni weithredu yn awr i ddiogelu’r dyfodol. Nid wyf am i bobl gymryd yn ganiataol fod hyn yn ymwneud â meddygon yn unig—fel rwy’n dweud, mae’n ymwneud â’r ystod gyfan o weithwyr gofal iechyd proffesiynol, gan gynnwys gofalwyr yn y sector cymdeithasol ac mewn nyrsio, wrth gwrs.

Oes, mae angen i ni ddatblygu ein rhaglenni hyfforddi i gynyddu capasiti hyfforddi yng Nghymru, ond mae’n rhaid i ni wneud ein GIG yn GIG croesawgar i staff o’r tu allan i Gymru a’r DU, ac yn groesawgar i’r rhai sydd eisoes yn gweithio yn y GIG yn awr a’r rhai y buasem yn hoffi iddynt ystyried dod yma yn y dyfodol. Gwyddom y buasai ein GIG yn chwalu hebddynt. Buasai Llywodraeth Cymru â phwerau i gyhoeddi ei thrwyddedau gwaith ei hun yn gam mawr ymlaen tuag at roi’r sicrwydd sydd ei angen arnom ynglŷn â’r gweithlu. Felly, gofynnaf i chi gefnogi’r cynnig hwn.

I have selected the three amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for health to formally move amendment 1 tabled in the name of Jane Hutt.

Formally.

I call on Neil Hamilton to move amendments 2 and 3 tabled in his name. Neil Hamilton.

Formally.

You can speak to your amendments.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Lywydd. Well, I do regret the way in which Rhun ap Iorwerth introduced this debate, referring to uncertainly for existing NHS staff and their family as a result of Brexit, because we all know that the Government has given a commitment that anybody who is here lawfully will be allowed to remain. That is the position under the Government’s treaty obligation. [Interruption.] Yes we do, yes we do—because it is the treaty obligation of Her Majesty’s Government. The second thing in particular that—

Will you give way on that point?

In a 30-minute debate, where I’ve only got a couple of minutes to speak, I don’t think I can give way, I’m sorry. But I’m quite happy to see the Member outside afterwards.

But that will not be on the record.

I also very much regret the reference to increasing enmity towards immigrants. Apart from a very small minority of reprehensible individual, there is no enmity towards immigrants amongst the British people at all, particularly towards those who work in the NHS.

About 5 per cent of the staff of the NHS throughout the UK are from overseas and are EU citizens. They do play an extremely important part in the delivery of health services, and that, no doubt, will continue. Nobody is asking to build a wall down the middle of the English channel and stop movement either way. What we want is sensible controls. These controls are already in existence as regards the rest of the world. There are a very large number of people employed in the national health service who come from the Indian sub-continent—India, Pakistan and other places—and who are already subject to visa controls. So, we’re asking for nothing that is very remarkable in relation to EU citizens.

No-one can deny the growing alarm on the part of very large numbers of people as a result of the uncontrolled immigration that has taken place within the EU since, particularly, 2004. In 2001, there were 59.1 million people in the UK. By 2015, that had gone up to 65 million, and estimates for 2026 are 70 million people, on current population trends. These are very, very rapid increases in population and they are having an enormous impact upon certain communities in different parts of the country. It is that popular concern that has given rise to the Brexit result. I have no doubt of that whatsoever.

We’ve no difficulty in acknowledging the contribution that immigrants do make to this country. All that is being asked for by millions of people—. Seventeen million people voted for Brexit—they’re not all bigots and racists. Only a tiny minority may be bigots or racists and they are not worthy of our consideration in the context of this debate. All that we’re asking is that immigration should be controlled. Every country in the world controls its immigration to a greater or lesser extent. We’re only talking about a question of degree, not a question of principle. The motion, in a sense, ignores the important role that is played by those who come from other parts of the world outside of the European Union. As a result of introducing controls on unskilled immigration from the European Union, we’ll be able, perhaps, to be more generous towards other countries in the visa regime that we apply to them. It’ll be for the British Government to take these decisions and not the European Union, and that, I believe, is an important democratic gain.

I do have some sympathy with the Plaid Cymru position that the Welsh Government should have a role in this, but we have a UK and a UK immigration policy and the correct way in which the Welsh Government feeds into that is in the normal relations that exist between Cardiff and Westminster.

So, I believe that the future of those who work inside the NHS who are people who are citizens of other countries is assured under the current arrangements and that will continue, and that we will have the flexibility in a regime for visas and work permits, which can be introduced in due course, to provide for whatever needs there are as a result of skills gaps in the NHS. So, whilst deprecating any form of bigotry or racism, I think we should, nevertheless, accept the concerns of millions and millions of people that immigration should be controlled and that there is no necessary contradiction between wanting to have plenty of skilled people to fill the gaps that exist, not just in the health service, but in all other forms of economic activity, and yet, on the other hand, control the numbers that are creating so many difficulties for so many people in different parts of the country.

Can I thank Plaid Cymru for bringing this debate before us? Because it is a very important issue that we need to be dealing with at this moment and it’s very immediate, of course. In my previous life as Unison’s head of health here in Wales, I had a high level of engagement with the Welsh NHS as an employer, and my experience in that position made me acutely aware of how crucial to the NHS overseas workers employed across the whole of our health service actually are.

As an aside, as Rhun ap Iorwerth has already said, it is worth mentioning that, whilst this debate is about NHS workers, we shouldn’t forget that it’s not just our health service that relies on overseas workers; many more are employed in social care services, which play an increasingly integrated role in the delivery of healthcare.

According to the most recent figures, almost 31 per cent of doctors in Wales were trained overseas, and about 6 per cent of those were trained in EU countries. That equates to about 518 doctors here in Wales trained overseas, not just in the EU. Of nearly 26,000 registered nurses in Wales, 262 qualified in another EU country—just over 1 per cent—with a further 6.5 per cent qualifying in non-EU countries. As recruitment from the EU in particular has been a key component in addressing current staff shortages, it’s probably likely that that figure is now slightly higher. But I don’t think this debate is really about statistics. I don’t believe any of us could fail to be aware of the tremendous contribution that staff from the EU, the EEA and many other parts of the world make to our NHS, working alongside Welsh and UK workers. We know that the health service would struggle without them.

In this Chamber, we’ve unfortunately had to express, on a number of occasions, our outrage and despair at the rise in incidents of racism being reported since the vote to leave the EU on 23 June. If that were not enough to raise concerns amongst these staff over their future in this country, there will be many who will now be fearful about what leaving the EU will mean for them when that finally happens—just one more reason why it’s particularly unhelpful that, despite what Neil Hamilton says, the UK Government is unable or unwilling to provide any clarity over its negotiating position in respect of the free movement of workers. There’s no doubt that the NHS will not just be reliant on the EU and overseas workers it currently employs, but, if the targets for overcoming shortages are to be met, there will be a reliance on bringing in more overseas workers in the years to come.

As I said at the outset, I am grateful to Plaid for bringing forward this motion. But I’m afraid, as often is the case, I think they risk not achieving the desired aims by turning this into an issue around an argument for more powers—something, I think, that can be a long-term objective, but, on this issue, it’s something we need to deal with fairly quickly. So, the amendment from Jane Hutt, on the other hand, maintains the thrust of the motion, which aims to ensure that we can secure the EU overseas workforce and develop our workforce into the future, but without getting ourselves embroiled in technical or legal issues around further devolved powers.

I certainly don’t intend to dwell on the fairly predictable amendment that we’ve seen from UKIP. We all know the scale of the current challenges we face with staffing in the Welsh NHS, so why anyone would want to introduce a work permit and visa scheme, which could only serve to act as a deterrent to future recruitment from overseas, is really beyond my comprehension. It’s our duty to ensure that our NHS can continue to benefit from the skills and experience provided by overseas workers, and Welsh Government should do everything it can to make sure that there is no impediment to making that happen.

I’m grateful for the motion before us today, because it reminds us all of the immense contribution made to our NHS by many workers from overseas. I’d like to take this opportunity to send them a clear message of thanks and gratitude for all that they have done for our country and continue to do so. There are already some huge shortages in certain staff areas. Between 2013 and 2015, there has been a 50 per cent increase in nursing vacancies. For doctors, there’s been a 60 per cent increase in vacancies full stop. We need to recognise that we simply cannot train enough people to keep up with the growing number of posts and the growing specialisations. The BMA, for example, says it takes around 15 years for a medical student to become a consultant, so, therefore, that makes workforce planning extremely difficult.

And, of course, the pressures on the NHS are changing. We have a growing population that is older and has more complex needs. So, we’re lucky to be able to recruit workers from abroad, and they add far more value to our NHS than just a pair of hands or technical skill. The rapport with patients, the bedside manner, of some overseas workers is wonderful to behold and really adds value to our NHS and adds value to our practice, particularly in the areas of social care and nursing.

The vote to exit the European Union did change the playing field, but it is my sincere belief that the vast majority of Wales’s people, despite voting to leave, would not want to see an end to doctors and nurses from overseas continuing to practice here in Wales. We cannot close the door to foreign workers. I admit that we must respect that the majority of those who voted for Brexit did so for a multiplicity of reasons, but predominantly because they wish to see some form of reduction in the freedom of movement and less immigration from the European Union into the United Kingdom. But that is why I think that we, as Welsh Conservatives, would absolutely support the Welsh Government amendment, because we think that we need to ask the Welsh Government to explore all the available options on the table with the United Kingdom Government so that we can continue to recruit these outstanding people to support us, our communities, our national health service and our social care.

Donna Kinnair, the director of nursing policy and practice at the Royal College of Nursing, has said:

‘Nurses trained in other countries have contributed to the NHS since its inception.

‘The health service would not cope without their contribution, and with the future supply of nurses looking uncertain this situation will not change any time soon.’

Let me just say that little bit again:

‘Nurses trained in other countries have contributed to the NHS since its inception.’

I, for one, have no intention of turning my back on them now.

Galwaf on Cabinet yr Secretary for Health, Vaughan Gething.

Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I’m pleased to speak in today’s debate and recognise the contributions made by other Members on the invaluable contribution that our NHS workforce makes to the health of our nation. Staff are at the heart of our NHS, and our priority is to ensure that the Welsh NHS has the right workforce it needs for the longer term. We will not discriminate against those born or trained elsewhere, but welcome them as the valued assets to our NHS workforce and wider communities they have always proved to be. I am particularly pleased to recognise the points made by Rhun ap Iorwerth and Dawn Bowden about the wider social care workforce as well.

Now, we’ve heard many times before that consultant, GP, nurse and overall staff numbers in NHS Wales are at their highest levels ever. We do, though, still face recruitment challenges, competing to attract doctors at a time when other countries also face shortages in particular medical specialities, but also across a wide range of other specialities within the health service too. I believe, however, that the debate around the NHS workforce, training and recruitment should only be about how we can continue to provide the best possible care for people in the face of rising demand and increasing complexity of care.

More than £350 million a year is invested in the education and training of health professionals, supporting more than 15,000 students, trainees and staff. We will continue to invest in education and training opportunities for a wide range of healthcare professionals. This September, for example, saw the highest level of nurse training places commissioned in Wales since devolution—a 10 per cent increase in the number of nurse training places commissioned last year, which is in addition to the 22 per cent increase in 2015-16. We do not want to see controls introduced that would harm the Welsh economy or Welsh public services, including the NHS. We will participate constructively in discussions with the UK Government and other devolved Governments on this subject, as well as engaging widely with stakeholders and people across Wales.

At the same time, we make no apology for saying yet again we will not stand for any form of racism or xenophobia in the NHS, in Wales, or in wider public life or private life. We will tackle any unacceptable behaviour and comments head on. It is essential for us as a Government that we remain outward-looking, internationalist, open for business and proud of our public service values and ethos. Our commitment to fairness and opportunity for all is clear and undiminished.

Part of what has bound us together in the four different countries that make up the NHS family since 1948 is a collective understanding that people from different parts of the world working in the NHS make a huge contribution. This is in stark contrast to the current approach being taken by the Conservative UK Government, who believe that foreign doctors and NHS staff are only welcome here whilst they’re needed. That approach is damaging to the reputation and functioning of the NHS in all four countries at a critical time, and I’m happy to recognise the very different tone and approach struck by Angela Burns in this Chamber compared to the approach taken in the UK Government.

Just to deal with Neil Hamilton’s point about India and Pakistan and different visa controls that exist, well, those visa controls do not help the national health service in Wales or any other part of the United Kingdom. Those controls have nothing to do with looking after the best interests of the NHS and the public that it serves. Protecting the rights of citizens of other EU countries and beyond who currently live and work in Wales is a critical issue, and we have seen a rise in intolerance since the Brexit debate. Regardless of what side you were on in the Brexit vote, we should not ignore or try to minimise the real harm and damage being done to Welsh citizens since that particular vote. This Government will not treat valued members of our NHS as bargaining chips in the fallout of the EU referendum.

So, this Welsh Government makes it clear that we remain committed to exploring all options to facilitate recruitment and retention of the NHS workforce from the EU and beyond the UK, and those who leave the EU. However, we do move our amendment as there are no specific arrangements in place for leaving the EU, particularly not known by the Government—they don’t appear to know where they are going—so we want to have a more open arrangement as opposed to tying ourselves into a specific mechanism for achieving our objectives. It should of course be no surprise that we oppose the UKIP amendments. This Government is proud of our NHS staff and will continue to value them, wherever they have come from, for the contribution that they will continue to make to life within and outside our national health service.

I call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to reply to the debate.

Thank you very much, and thanks to everyone who participated in this afternoon’s debate.

Gadewch i mi ymateb yn syth i’r sylwadau a wnaeth cynrychiolydd UKIP. Rydym i gyd yn gwybod y dywedir wrthym nad oes unrhyw broblem gyda phobl sydd yn y DU ar hyn o bryd yn aros. Dyna’r math o sylw difeddwl, diystyr a oedd yn nodweddu’r ddadl Ewropeaidd. Mae’n ymddangos bod UKIP wedi gwneud arferiad o gyhoeddi gwarantau ffug nad oes ganddynt awdurdod o gwbl i’w gwneud. Yn ystod y cwestiynau i’r Prif Weinidog yn San Steffan heddiw, gofynnodd Alberto Costa, yr Aelod Seneddol Ceidwadol, am beidio â chael ei roi mewn sefyllfa byth lle y byddai gofyn iddo bleidleisio ar y posibilrwydd o allgludo’i rieni, sydd wedi bod yn y DU ers 50 mlynedd. Ymatebodd Theresa May drwy ddweud y buasai’n hoffi gallu gwarantu hynny, wrth gwrs, ond nid yw hi, hyd yn oed, yn gallu gwarantu hynny ar hyn o bryd. Felly, rwy’n anwybyddu’r sylwadau a wnaed unwaith eto gan UKIP.

Rwy’n croesawu’r sylwadau a wnaed gan Dawn Bowden. Mae llawer o’r sylwadau yma yn dangos bod gennym amcan ar y cyd, y rhan fwyaf ohonom yn y Siambr hon, i sicrhau ein bod yn gwneud GIG Cymru yn GIG Cymru croesawgar.

Dywedodd Dawn Bowden ei bod yn ofni bod Plaid Cymru mewn perygl o fethu â chyrraedd ein nod drwy ddadlau am fwy o bwerau, ond fel rydym yn ei ddatgan yma mor aml, mae’n ymwneud â chael pwerau pwrpasol. Fy ofn yw, wrth roi ffydd yn Llywodraeth y DU, y mae hyd yn oed Angela Burns ar feinciau’r Ceidwadwyr yma wedi dweud nad oes ganddi lawer o ffydd ynddi mewn perthynas â staffio’r GIG, a rhai o’r synau rydym wedi eu clywed gan wleidyddion Ceidwadol y DU, mae angen i ni wneud yn siŵr fod gennym yr arfau gorau posibl yn ein harfogaeth yma yng Nghymru i amddiffyn ein hunain wrth i ni symud ymlaen.

Heddiw, er bod y pleidiau eraill yn dweud nad ydynt yn gallu ymrwymo iddo ar hyn o bryd, rwy’n meddwl ac yn gobeithio ein bod wedi hau had syniad y gallwn barhau i ddadlau’r achos drosto fel ffordd o gael y sicrwydd mewn perthynas â’r gweithlu y bydd ei angen arnom yn y dyfodol. Rydych wedi dangos eich ffydd heddiw—eich ymddiriedaeth—yn Llywodraeth y DU. Rwyf wedi cyrraedd y pwynt lle nad oes gennyf ffydd o’r fath yn Llywodraeth y DU i roi’r camau angenrheidiol ar waith er mwyn diogelu gweithlu ein GIG yn y dyfodol. Mae hwn yn syniad y byddwn yn ei godi eto, hyd yn oed os nad yw’n cael eich cefnogaeth heddiw, oherwydd rydym am i Lywodraeth Cymru allu gwneud yr hyn y mae angen iddi ei wneud er mwyn sicrhau bod gennym GIG sy’n addas ar gyfer pobl Cymru yn y dyfodol.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will defer all voting under this item until voting time.

The next item is the next Plaid Cymru debate on the mineworkers’ pension scheme, and I call on Steffan Lewis to move the motion.

Diolch, Lywydd. I’m pleased to move the motion laid in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. The issue of the mineworkers’ pension scheme surplus forms part of an unholy trinity of miners’ injustices, along with past state brutality and the intentional de-industrialisation of their communities. But I hope that all Members on all sides can agree that the motion before us today is not controversial and simply seeks to address an injustice that occurs every day of every week.

The MPS closed to new members in the mid-1990s, with the number of scheme members declining from 700,000 in 1960 to around 200,000 last year. It is a scheme that includes an investment reserve valued at over £1 billion and a bonus augmentation fund, and, in addition, the sum of all expected future benefits is expected to be worth some £19 billion. Under an agreement reached in 1994, the UK Government guarantees the solvency of the scheme, with the exception of the bonus augmentations, and the annual indexation of guaranteed pensions, in line with price inflation.

When the agreement was reached to split the fund’s valuation surpluses 50/50 between the fund and the UK Government, no-one expected the fund to perform as well as it has—no-one anticipated that the UK Government would have benefited to the tune of more than £3.5 billion, gobbled up for general Government spending. Indeed, at the turn of the millennium, the Coalfield Communities Campaign said:

‘The guarantee was struck on actuarial advice. Hindsight may have shown that the advice was too cautious but that is now history.’

The point is that the funds are in a robust financial position and, under the current arrangements, the Government has no real liability.

Indeed, the National Audit Office in England has estimated that over a 25-year period, the UK Government can expect to reap £8 billion in surplus payments from the fund. In 2014 the Treasury received £750 million, and last year saw a further £95 million taken as part of the surplus split.

It is argued that the UK Government’s share of the surplus is justified because it acts as the guarantor, but in effect, Dirprwy Lywydd, the UK Government’s potential exposure is accounted for by an existing triple lock—the surplus payments themselves, the value of the investment reserve and the fact that the Government does not guarantee the bonus augmentation element.

So, surely, any fair-minded person absorbing these facts will conclude that the current arrangements regarding the surplus do not rightly balance fairness for retired miners and the potential exposure of the taxpayer. Plaid Cymru’s motion today comprises two primary principles: first, that we support the National Union of Mineworkers’s calls for a review of the pension’s valuation surplus; secondly, that we mandate the Government of Wales to build alliances with other devolved administrations and regional leaders in England so that pressure can be brought to bear on the UK Government to deliver that long-overdue review of the MPS surplus. This is not about reviewing the MPS in general or reconsidering the UK Government’s role as guarantor and, for that reason, Plaid Cymru will not be supporting the Conservative amendment today. This is strictly about delivering justice as far as the surplus is concerned.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I was born during the miners’ strike of 1984-5 and I’m just the second generation in my family not to have worked underground. I know many here lived through that event and, indeed, were directly involved and impacted upon. The legacy of our industrial heritage lives with all of us today, regardless of our age or background, but with no group more so than former miners, who are today pensioners. A famous slogan of that strike was, ‘The miners united will never be defeated.’ Llywydd, if this Assembly speaks with one voice today, if it is united, it could provide a mandate for our Government that might—just might—result in a long-overdue victory for miners and their families. Diolch.

Diolch. I have selected the amendment to the motion. I call on Paul Davies to move that amendment 1 tabled in his name. Paul.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I’m pleased to take part in this very important debate today and I move amendment 1 tabled in my name.

Of course, securing and protecting pensions is of the utmost importance to ensure that people are rewarded and not disadvantaged following the end of their careers. Therefore, it’s important that former mineworkers’ pensions are protected and that any arrangements with the UK Government are appropriate, transparent and fair. Now, the National Union of Mineworkers inform us that about 25,000 miners are thought to be in receipt of this pension in Wales, and so it’s right that we are discussing this very important matter this afternoon. I’m sure Members in this Chamber will all agree that the viability of this pension scheme is essential in order to ensure that those former mineworkers receive the financial security they deserve and are entitled to. It’s crucial that a pension scheme of this nature is guaranteed by the UK Government and I understand that, over the years, the guarantee has given the trustees the freedom to invest in a more varied way, and, as a result, the scheme has seen substantial surpluses and the UK Government has not yet had to inject funds into the scheme to ensure that former mineworkers receive their pension. And of course, I would assume that the fact that the UK Government has not had to inject funds into the scheme demonstrates that the pension scheme is successful and has been successful over the years. It clearly functions above its intended monetary remit and it seems to me that the trustees are making good decisions when it comes to investments within the scheme.

However, I very much agree with point 3 of this motion, which strongly argues for the continuation of the UK Government to act as a guarantor of the scheme. It’s quite clear that the existence of the guarantee enables the trustees to pursue a more varied investment strategy, and a significant proportion of the scheme’s assets remain invested in equities. For that reason, I hope that Members would support our amendment to this debate, which seeks to strengthen today’s motion.

I very much understand the widespread calls for a review of the current arrangement with the UK Government, and that is something that we on this side of the Chamber support in order to ensure that former mineworkers receive an appropriate proportion from the pension scheme and that it adequately serves the needs of former mineworkers, and that it’s fair. Therefore, we support point 3 of the motion, which calls on the Welsh Government to work with other devolved administrations and local and regional leaders in England to secure a UK Government review of the mineworkers’ pension scheme surplus arrangements. I understand from news reports that the Welsh Government has already made representations to the UK Government on this matter, and I’m sure that the leader of the house will update us on the Welsh Government’s progress and, indeed, position in responding to this debate.

With regard to point 1 of this motion, I understand that there are different interpretations over the amount of money received by the UK Government under the current arrangements, but whatever the figures are, it’s quite clear that the UK Government has received substantial amounts of money, and that’s why we believe it is appropriate that a review takes place. It’s important that this review offers the opportunity for this matter to be publicly scrutinised, given the large sums of money involved, but the principle of the UK Government continuing to act as a guarantor is an important one, and that role must continue. Therefore, the purpose of our amendment is to simply strengthen the motion and to recognise the importance of the guarantee and the UK Government’s essential role in this scheme.

So, Dirprwy Lywydd, in closing, the Welsh Conservatives support the calls for a review of the surplus arrangements of the pension scheme, and we are happy to support any representations made to the UK Government on this matter. I urge Members to support our amendment and work together to deliver the best possible outcome for former mineworkers from their pension scheme.

I come from a very similar community to Steffan Lewis, not so far away, and as a representative of a former mining community, I welcome the chance to take part in this debate and welcome the issues that Steffan Lewis raised. I, too, was very disappointed when the UK Government announced that it would not proceed with a public inquiry in the battle of Orgreave, and reviewing the arrangements of the miners’ pension scheme gives us the opportunity to right another injustice towards the miners by giving them a fair deal on their pension and improving their livelihoods.

Many of us here today, particularly those of us who grew up in mining communities, will remember the way that our industry shaped our localities and continues to do so. Many of us will also remember the miners’ strike—and I do remember it—over 30 years ago and the effect that it had on the people who worked in the industry and their families. I’ll be 40 next year, but I remember—my father was a Rhymney valley district councillor, and I remember at the time feeling the incredible injustices of friends of mine in school on dinner tickets because their parents were on strike, and the difficulties and divisions that this caused in the school in which I grew up. I was fortunate my father didn’t pursue his career option to be a mining engineer and instead went into teaching, but that could just as easily have been me.

We cannot change the attitude that the Government at the time took towards coal mining, but we can do our bit to hold the present Government to account and make sure that they give our miners a fair deal. Many hardworking miners paid into their pension pot in good faith, in the expectation they would get a decent income in retirement, and the privatisation of the coal industry has put this in jeopardy, with the National Union of Mineworkers assisting many who are on benefits because of low pensions, and that can’t go on. There’s no need for the UK Government to carry on taking 50 per cent of the miners pension fund surplus now that deep mining has ended in the UK.

I fully support the Welsh Government and the NUM and, indeed, Steffan Lewis and his calls for a review of the pension arrangements while maintaining the UK Government guarantee. Our former miners worked hard for many years in potentially dangerous conditions. Many of them have developed associated long-term health problems and need support in their lives. I don’t feel that Paul Davies’s amendment adds anything to the substance of the motion, and therefore I’ll be supporting the motion only today. The least we can do is to support miners in getting a better deal and we can start by pushing the UK Government to review the pension arrangements to make sure there’s a fairer split between the Government and the miners.

I commend Plaid Cymru for bringing this motion before the Assembly today and for the way in which Steffan Lewis introduced the debate. I have to declare an interest, because my mother is a pensioner under the sister scheme, the British Coal staff superannuation scheme, and I’m well familiar with the arrangements of the mineworkers’ pension scheme itself. I believe that there are injustices in the current situation that need to be corrected. As Paul Davies pointed out, 25,000 Welsh miners are currently in the scheme, and they’ve all paid in to get the benefits that they are drawing—5.5 per cent of salary. So, this isn’t an act of charity in any way, shape or form, it is a contractual benefit.

The guarantee that the Government gave on privatisation of the industry does have a value and of course it is right that any surplus should be shared with the Government, but the 50/50 split now looks very far from the definition of fairness. That guarantee has never actually been called upon, and I think it’s very unlikely that it ever will be called upon, because actuarial valuation is not exactly an exact science because you’re projecting ahead for many decades, very often, and making assumptions about interest rates, but we know that interest rates are now at record lows and can’t actually go very much lower. So, it’s likely that, in future, any increase in interest rates will substantially reduce the potential deficit and increase any potential surplus in the scheme. So, that means that the value of the Government’s guarantee in cash terms is very much less than might have been anticipated at the time that it was undertaken. And in those circumstances, it must be right for the current split of 50/50 between the beneficiaries of the scheme and the Government to be reconsidered. The Government has drawn already nearly £3.4 billion out of the fund since 1994. That’s a very, very substantial return in exchange for a guarantee that has never actually been called.

The £8 billion referred to in the motion actually refers to an estimate of what the Government is likely to gain from the scheme, which was arrived at by Binder Hamlyn for the period of 25 years from 2006, so we don’t actually know whether that figure is going to be realised. But, I think we can pretty well imagine that a very substantial sum of money is going to be taken from the scheme by the Government. As Hefin David pointed out in his contribution, there are lots of miners who currently are on very low pensions, and those could be substantially increased if that 50/50 split were to be changed, so, UKIP is pleased to support the Plaid Cymru motion today.

May I commend Steffan Lewis for bringing this debate to the house and for bringing the motion, which I support? I support the Welsh Government’s position and the calls of the NUM over many years for a review of the surplus sharing arrangement.

Parts of my constituency were built on the mining industry. Many, many people still claim under the pension as beneficiaries—people who’ve paid in for decades and whose hard work built the communities that I serve now in this place. They are people who deserve a fair pension settlement.

We welcome the guarantee. In these turbulent times in terms of pension valuations, clearly, the existence of the guarantee is a good thing. The question is: what price is paid for that guarantee? We’ve heard from the speakers already today about how small the cost of that is, in effect, to the UK Government. What we can’t have, or what is not defensible, is a formula that gives the UK Government a windfall on the back of miners’ pension contributions over decades. The arrangements should be sufficient to cover any cost to the Government, but no more than that.

So, it is time for a review. As Hefin David mentioned, there’s been no deep mining industry in the last 25 years; it’s a quarter of a century almost since the arrangements were agreed. There have been profound changes even since then in the mining industry. There will be no more calls for support and for subsidy for that industry. There was a time when the House of Commons debated subsidy to the mining industry as a matter of course, and I note the comments that Neil Hamilton made, which are at odds, really, with the approach he took at that time when he described support for the industry as the most expensive pit prop in history. So, I’m glad to hear that his thoughts have moved on since that time.

It certainly isn’t for miners to subsidise the UK Government, so it is time for review. May I just say, as I hope we get to a position where we do review those arrangements, those of us who attend miners’ welfare events and Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation events will note that, nowadays, the majority of attendees are women rather than the miners themselves? I think we would do them a great service if, in the course of this review, we could look at the arrangements that we have in place to support the widows of miners who’ve given their lives to build our communities.

Thanks to Steffan Lewis for raising this very important issue and for bringing the motion to us today, which I fully support, and I also fully support the comments of the majority of colleagues who have spoken already in this debate.

As Steffan said, the issue does date back to 1994 when the John Major Conservative Government put in place the new arrangements that would underwrite the future loss, and we’ve already talked about that. In addition to the fact that the UK Government has already taken the estimated £8 billion out of the fund since its inception, pensioner miners will also remind us that the National Coal Board took pensions holidays for three years in 1987. They took further pensions holidays in 1991 and 1994, which delivered another £5 million on top of that for the Government.

What we can’t escape is the fact that this arrangement is part of an agreement that was concluded back in 1994. We’re not discussing the legality of such an arrangement, just whether it’s morally right for the Government to continue taking such huge sums out of the pension fund, when the fund has performed much better than anyone could have envisaged in 1994. Surely, therefore, it is right that the mineworkers should be the beneficiaries of this rather than the Government.

In considering this issue, like other colleagues I’m thinking about the contribution that coal miners and their families—many of whom were from my constituency—have made to the economy, the history and the heritage of Wales. They gave their all, many paying the ultimate price. ‘The hardest work under heaven’, as Michael Pollard referred to in his book, ‘Life and Death of the British Coal Miner’. And, for what? To find themselves crushed in 1985 by Thatcher and her acolytes, one of whom I’m afraid was Neil Hamilton at the time. In a vendetta against their union, the National Union of Mineworkers, or ‘the enemy within’ as the Tory Government of the time, including Neil Hamilton, preferred to call them.

As Hefin David said, the sacrifice of those who worked in the coal industry goes on for many miners whose health has suffered irreversibly as a result of working in an industry that was the lifeblood of many of our communities across the length and breadth of Wales. There were all too many that, as a result of the injuries suffered while mining our coal, have never benefited to any significant degree or even at all from the miners’ pension scheme. So, I am particularly pleased that we’re now considering this here in the Assembly as I know that the NUM in Wales has campaigned over many years, going back even to the pre-privatisation days, for a fairer distribution of the surpluses arising out of the scheme. They’ve lobbied consistently for a review of the 50/50 arrangement, and I would say that in this they have been ably supported by the MPS-elected trustee for the region, Mr Anthony Jones, a former miner at Betws colliery in Hefin’s constituency, and who has the wholehearted support of the south Wales NUM in this role.

Deputy Presiding Officer, an argument has been used by successive Westminster Governments that the surplus they take was needed to assist and to subsidise the coal industry. I assume that no-one here in this Chamber needs any convincing on how unsustainable such an argument is today, now that the British coal industry is virtually a historic relic of our industrial past. I hope therefore that every Member will be able to support the call to maximise the benefits available to those who are still able to draw a pension from the scheme and will vote in favour of this motion calling for a review of the arrangements.

Thank you. I call on Jane Hutt.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I’m very glad to have the opportunity to respond to this debate on behalf of the Welsh Government today and thank Steffan Lewis for moving this motion today, which we support. And I thank Members also for their contributions to this very important debate.

Of course, I need to state at the outset that pensions aren’t devolved and are matters for the UK Government. However, the Welsh Government acknowledges the need for proper, safe and well-managed arrangements for this pension scheme, particularly in the light of recent concerning events around large-scale pension schemes.

When we look at those who benefit, as of 30 September 2015, there were 162,684 pensioners and 37,807 deferred pensioners in this mineworkers’ pension scheme in the whole of the UK. In June of this year, 2016, approximately 22,000 former miners and coal industry workers in the scheme were from Wales. In recognition of this, the First Minister wrote to Amber Rudd, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, on 22 June, on the mineworkers’ pension scheme, supporting the position of the National Union of Mineworkers in calling for a review of the funding arrangements.

It has been said in this debate, following the privatisation of the British Coal Corporation in 1994, that the UK Government provided a solvency guarantee to the mineworkers’ pension scheme that guarantees that basic pension entitlements will always rise in line with inflation and should not fall in cash terms regardless of the performance of the funds.

This motion seeks today to address the apparent unfairness of the current arrangements. The UK Government case is that the current division of surpluses between the membership and Government represents fair and reasonable recompense for taxpayers’ past investment in the schemes during the industry’s period of public ownership and for the risks they continue to bear through the Government guarantee, which will continue until closure of the scheme, expected to be in the 2070s. The guarantee arrangements that were negotiated at the time by the trustees, with the support of all the mining trade unions, gives scheme members the opportunity to share with UK Government in benefits of any periodic surplus in the scheme’s funds. In practice, I understand that this has meant that members enjoy bonus pensions worth almost 30 per cent of their index-linked benefits. It should be pointed out that the UK Government doesn’t make investment decisions; that is for the scheme trustees. But, in response to the First Minister’s letter earlier this year, the UK Government has indicated that, whilst they would consider any proposals, they appear not to have any plans to make changes to the current arrangements at this present time. So, this debate today and this call for a review are very important and timely and we have a strong message to send to the UK Government.

The heart of the matter in this motion is the question of the large surpluses that are generated, and there is a recognition from that that these need to be reviewed, as Members have so clearly identified. The mineworkers’ pension scheme has been a hugely successful scheme, generating substantial surpluses. It’s clear that the amount of money being taken out of the fund by the UK Government is in desperate need of a review. The funds in the scheme were earned by the miners themselves and should be used for the benefit of those miners and former employees of the mining industry, and indeed, of course, their families—those miners who, for over a century, were the backbone of British industry, many of whom sacrificed their health and, in too many cases, their lives for the benefit of Britain’s industrial prosperity. It’s only right, as Hefin David and Jeremy Miles have said, that we want to see the best for them for the debt we and the whole country owe them.

Dawn Bowden drew attention to the longstanding and ongoing campaign by the National Union of Mineworkers for a full review of the current arrangements, which we fully support. Of course, they’re not calling for an end to the Government guarantee—we must make that clear; they want to ensure that the way in which any surpluses are divided is fair and proportionate. The NUM has a just cause and made a strong case for review. The Welsh Government gives them our full support and supports this motion to ensure that this review is undertaken in full in terms of what the motion calls for, working with all those in devolved administrations who can make this happen. For the same reason, we oppose the amendment proposed by Paul Davies on behalf of the Welsh Conservatives.

Thank you. I call Steffan Lewis to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Ddirprwy Lywydd. I’d like to express my thanks to Members for their contributions today and to the leader of the house for her response. I thank Paul Davies for indicating that his group will be supporting Plaid Cymru’s motion today and congratulate him on taking a different view to his party’s Government in London.

Hefin David spoke eloquently of his memories of the 1984-85 strike and shared with us how life could’ve been very different and difficult for him and his family had his father made a different career choice. And he’s absolutely right, of course, to say that 30-plus years on from that strike, it is now time to address all injustices against the miners and their families, including the issue of the miners’ pension surplus. Neil Hamilton was right to point out that miners paid into this scheme, and it is not an act of charity for them to benefit from that scheme: the money belongs to miners and their families. Jeremy Miles put the key question, which is at the heart of this whole debate: what is it that is a fair price for the UK Government’s backing as guarantor of this scheme? And surely all of us agree that a 50/50 split is not a fair price, at least not for the miners and their families. Dawn Bowden was right to point out that this isn’t a legal matter; this isn’t a matter that is being contested legally, but it is most certainly a moral one.

I was thankful to the leader of the house for sharing with us the correspondence between the First Minister and the UK Government, and bitterly disappointed to hear the response of the UK Government to the First Minister’s representations. I hope that the very united voice of this Assembly today will aid the Welsh Government and the First Minister in future endeavours in relation to this matter.

In concluding, Dirprwy Lywydd, I want to thank and pay tribute to campaigning miners who’ve kept this campaign in the public spotlight, particularly those who’ve launched petitions that have received over 8,000 signatures. I want to thank and join other Members who’ve already thanked the National Union of Mineworkers, who’ve campaigned on behalf of mineworkers and their families, not just on this issue, but on many others, and who continue to support miners and their families on the range of challenges that they still face today.

Dirprwy Lywydd, former miners and their families and communities have endured deindustrialisation, disputes, pneumoconiosis, chronic bronchitis, osteoarthritis, vibration white finger and more as a result of their employment. When they were robbed of their jobs, an attempt was made to take away their dignity too, and, as they now enter their autumn and winter years, let us work together for them, in order to ensure them dignity in retirement, with justice in their pensions. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, the motion without amendment is therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

We move on to item 6, which is the Welsh Conservatives debate on older people, and I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to move the motion.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. And I move the motion tabled by Paul Davies AM, which seeks to recognise the immense value our older members in our communities contribute to our economy, but also to recognise the needs that they deserve now to, hopefully, assist them to have a long and quality life.

People are living longer—into their 80s, 90s, and even longer. They’ve gone further, to create a wealth to our economy of over £1 billion, through unpaid care, community work, supporting families, and volunteering roles. The UK Government’s triple-lock guarantee on basic state pension means that pensioners now are £1,125 better off per year since the Conservatives came into office in 2010. The Welsh Conservatives share the UK Government’s ambition to continually improve the lives of older people here in Wales, and, through our debate today, we invite this Chamber to do likewise.

From 2012 to 2030, the number of people aged 65 or over in Wales is projected to increase by 292,000. My own local authority of Conwy has the highest proportion of over 65s in Wales, making up 26 per cent of the population. Yes, there is demographic variation across Wales, but we are here to fight for everyone considered an older person in our society. We need innovative and practical solutions to the problems facing our older people across our nation.

A key area that we must improve is in the access to the vital services they require to provide the quality of life they deserve. Access to services for those with disability is key, access for those with sensory loss is vital, and access to services for those with memory loss is crucial. By ‘access’, I mean easy and well signposted, not having to struggle and having to navigate your way around the services that are actually available. For example, 33 per cent of older people report finding it extremely difficult to make a convenient appointment in primary care. We know that older people are disproportionately affected by poor health; 36 per cent state that this limits their day-to-day activity. However, we are very fortunate here in Wales to have an older people’s commissioner who is so obviously passionate about standing up for the rights, needs and welfare of our older generations.

It was recently highlighted, the importance of isolation and loneliness being seen as a public health risk, with over half of those aged 75 now living alone, and 63 per cent of people aged 80 and over saying that they feel lonely all the time. The commissioner’s also warned of very serious allegations relating to the experiences of older people accessing healthcare and treatment. Just this month, I’ve had involvement in two public interest reports by the ombudsman that have highlighted inadequate care, serious inadequate care, and systematic failure by the Betsi Cadwaladr University Local Health Board, and also in the treatment of older patients, including a 132-week wait for cancer treatment.

Policies such as the care in the community agenda: when this agenda came out, I think we all welcomed it, but I’m afraid beds have just been stripped out, in anticipation of this agenda, of our hospital wards. And that has actually happened without the community staffing and infrastructure put in place. We have now a blatant shortage of physios, district nurses, support workers, and OTs. So, basically, they’ve actually put the cart before the horse in terms of the support. Now we have this real, huge void of deficit of care.

Care homes are closing now across Wales, and we’ve lost a few recently in Conwy—elderly mentally ill beds that we simply cannot find replacements for—patients and families given just a month to find a new placement often now being placed miles away from the communities that they’ve lived, worked, grown up in and that they love; often moved miles away.

Bedblocking by those waiting for EMI beds in care homes is rife. One of my own constituents had to wait 18 months in a hospital bed—[Interruption.] Absolutely—waiting just for EMI provision. Indeed, the latest statistics show that 79 per cent of patients aged 65-plus experienced a massive delayed transfer of care: 54 per cent of these delays due to community care, selection of care homes, or waiting for the availability of a care home. There remains a distinct lack of integration between health and social care—so often talked about here as going forward, but it’s just not happening on the ground.

The King’s Fund have warned that longer stays in hospital lead to increased risk of infection, low mood and feelings of poor self-esteem and institutionalism, with many of our elderly patients who are in hospitals actually losing their whole sense of time—what day it is, what month it is, and even what year it is—and it’s wrong. Intermediate care have found that a delay in hospital of just two days negates the additional benefit of intermediate care. Whilst in hospital or care, the elderly can be at particular risk of dehydration, which often results in confusion, pressure ulcers, falls, and urine infections. Today, we had an excellent cross-party group on sepsis and its prevention, the lack of awareness and the number of patients and people who are now quite unaware of the risks of sepsis. And that affects people of all ages and all generations, but it’s particularly dangerous in the elderly.

A pilot campaign on hydration messages increased the number of visitors bringing drinks for relatives from 18 per cent to 63 per cent, but it’s not enough. The Welsh Government must work closely to promote the Welsh NHS’s Water Keeps You Well campaign across all hospitals in Wales, and A Glass Full scheme, piloted in Gwent.

The Assembly’s Public Accounts Committee, on hospital catering and patient nutrition, found that having nutritional and appealing food is an essential part of getting better. I’ve had first-hand experience where I can tell you that nutrition and hydration are equally as important as medication.

The Public Services Ombudsman for Wales’s report earlier this year has highlighted the problems faced in terms of ensuring adequate hydration and nutrition in hospitals outside of normal working hours. Proper monitoring and encouragement by staff and families is required. I’m going to just raise a point on that: quite often we’re told, ‘If we ask them if they want a drink or they want to eat and they say “no”, we’re not allowed to force them’. I have often said that you can encourage someone; you can coax someone. There are different ways if someone puts their mind to it and not enough is actually focused on this.

Our motion calls for Wales to become a dementia-friendly nation. More than 45,000 people in Wales are currently living with dementia—expected to exceed 55,000 by 2021 and over 100,000 by 2055. This is now the biggest cause of death in Britain, accounting for 11.6 per cent of all recorded deaths, yet Wales has the lowest diagnosis rate in the whole of the UK—only 43 per cent of those with dementia have been given a formal diagnosis, compared to 64 per cent in Northern Ireland and Scotland. The UK Government has already invested £50 million in creating dementia-friendly environments, training over 500,000 NHS staff. That is recognition of it and that is taking action, and we want to see that action here in Wales.

The Scottish Government has trained over 500 dementia champions in the NHS—can we have those in the Welsh NHS—and 800 dementia ambassadors in local communities: some of those, please, here. Yet, in Wales, we have just 32 Welsh Government-funded dementia support workers across the whole country, and a shocking one in 10 of those diagnosed were not given any support at all in the first year after their diagnosis. Imagine the grief for them; imagine the strain on their families. We must use innovation from other UK nations to proactively offer a single point of contact immediately following diagnosis and ensure that all health and social care staff have sufficient knowledge of this life-changing condition. Those who work looking after our older people in the healthcare sector very often do an outstanding job, one that takes exceptional amounts of empathy, compassion, patience and understanding. However, they need our support. A recent Health Foundation report has maintained that the money going into the health service in Wales will need to be doubled in the next 10 years in order to provide capacity to look after people of all ages in Wales.

Today’s debate focuses on how we can help to support our older and most valued people within our community who have come through the war, faced famine, faced rations and stood proudly to protect the country to allow for the freedoms—you know, for me to be able to stand here and express myself. There are other aspects to this debate, and I look forward to contributions from my colleagues and other Members across this Chamber. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you. I have selected the seven amendments to the motion. If amendment 3 is agreed, amendments 4, 5, 6 and 7 will be deselected. I call on the Minister for Social Services and Public Health to formally move amendments 1, 2 and 3 tabled in the name of Jane Hutt.

Formally.

Formally—thank you. I call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to move amendments 4, 5, 6 and 7 tabled in his name—Rhun.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, for the opportunity to participate in this debate. It is an important debate, and I formally move the amendments in my name. We certainly welcome this debate. We support much of the wording of the motion, but certainly all of the sentiment that underpins the motion.

Far too often, I think, when it comes to debates on how to provide care and social care and so on for the older population in future, one can feel that the contribution of older people themselves isn’t recognised. The debate is often one about how we fund care for older people, and I think that can unintentionally create the impression that older people are somehow a tax on public finances, and a tax on society. So, it’s worth my while, I think, making this very clear and unambiguous: older people are not a problem, they’re not an economic drain or any sort of other drain on our society. They make a hugely important contribution to our society, and I hope to be one of them myself one day.

Providing appropriate, decent care and maintaining the health and dignity of our older population is part of the social contract that should never be seen as optional by a Government or anyone else. It is often something that is ignored that people over 65 years of age make a significant economic contribution, as well as a significant social contribution here in Wales. They provide some £260 million-worth of free childcare for grandsons and granddaughters, and £0.5 billion in voluntary works, and we could enhance that list much further in terms of the contributions that older people make. And, if a point comes when there is a cost to caring for older people, let’s never forget the contribution that they have made earlier during their lives.

I will turn to the amendments—there are a number of them. We won’t be supporting the Government amendments. We don’t feel that setting that cap of £50,000 reflects fairness in the system. We would prefer to see more progress towards putting an absolute end to this dementia tax that we currently have. Amendment 2, in our view, is irrelevant. The Welsh Government could reform the arrangements for care payments themselves, however much delay happens from the UK Government. Amendment 3 would delete our own amendment, although we have no opposition to the principles contained within amendment 3.

Turning to our own amendments, we have yet to be convinced of the need for a specific piece of legislation on the rights of older people. We need to secure the rights of everyone, of course. Also, of course, the human rights landscape is changing significantly at the moment, because of the UK Government’s intention to scrap people’s rights following the vote on Europe. Any legislation passed here could be replaced. So, that’s the reason for amendment 4.

Amendment 5 changes the wording of the original motion a little, but reflects our confidence in the older people’s commissioner in providing a voice for older people in Wales.

Amendment 6 recognises that there is a gap in semi-residential and supported housing at the moment, and that we need to fill that gap. And amendment 7 is one that we were keen to add, and it calls on the Welsh Government to work with the police and crime commissioners to prevent older people from suffering scams and fraud. We are aware, of course, that this is a huge problem—that aggressive selling and fraudulent selling actually damages older people’s financial well-being, as well as their health and mental well-being, and we have to tackle that.

So, there’s a great deal to be welcomed in this motion, and we certainly hope that we can make progress in terms of making Wales a nation where older people can feel that they can grow old in safety, which will mean that we are a dementia-friendly nation, that we protect older people from scams and fraud, as I’ve already mentioned, and ensure that our public services assist people to live independently for as long as possible and for as long as they choose to do that, and to do so with dignity and respect.

Thank you, madam Presiding Officer. Wales has an ageing population. This brings a number of benefits and opportunities. Older people are often at the heart of their communities. Whether it is by volunteering for charity and community work, or by providing childcare for their families, older people make an immense contribution. It benefits society therefore to allow older people to live full and inclusive lives.

However, an ageing population also brings a number of challenges. Many are unable to live full lives due to ill health. Forty per cent of people over the age of 65 in Wales say their health is fair or poor. Older people are the main users of primary care services in the NHS, and yet, as Age UK Wales have pointed out, primary care services are not always able to meet older people’s needs. A third of older people who wanted to see their GP in the last 12 months found it difficult to make a convenient appointment for themselves.

Modernising the way surgeries work, such as making greater use of online services, is important. But changes must take into account the needs of older people and ensure that they are not left behind. Healthcare must be tailored to meet the needs of our older population. Dementia has overtaken heart disease as Britain’s biggest killer. One in three people aged over 65 will develop dementia and the main form of dementia is Alzheimer’s disease. There are at present more than 45,000 people, as Janet mentioned, in Wales living with dementia. What a striking figure. This figure is projected to increase by nearly a third by 2021.

This terrible condition means families watching their loved ones slipping away until they no longer even recognise them. What a dreadful feeling among the family members. Evidence suggests that where people receive an early diagnosis and are helped to access information, support and care, they are often able to adapt well to living with dementia.

We need our GPs to check more closely for signs of dementia, because the earlier it is diagnosed, the easier life can be for those living with the condition. Once dementia has been diagnosed, it is important sufferers receive support to enable them to remain in their own homes as far as possible. The Alzheimer’s Society says that more than one in 10 people living with dementia will be forced to go into care homes early due to lack of support. There has been a lack of progress made in improving dementia care in people’s homes. We need to support the further development of dementia support schemes in the community—an extension of dementia training schemes. It is essential that care workers receive appropriate training in order for quality care to be provided. Quality care delivered to a high standard has a significant impact on quality of life, and these people deserve to be treated with dignity.

I believe that there’s a need for an older people’s rights Bill. Presiding Officer, one area that hasn’t been covered so far is: say two people, a husband and wife, and the husband has dementia, the wife is virtually lost, as the husband is totally responsible for the financial affairs of the family and other affairs—external, outside the home. Especially in certain communities in the country, women virtually don’t deal with those affairs. So, when husbands get this sort of problem—I mean dementia—the women are virtually lost. Nobody is there to help them on financial training, social training and cultural training at all in our health service. That area we need to cover, because that gives a long-term impact, not only on the family but on the children also.

This is important. I’m talking about dementia because there are three Ds that I heard about very recently: one is death, one is divorce and one is dementia. We need to work very strongly—very, very compassionately—to make sure our people do not suffer in this country. There should be, I hope, a cure very shortly in this world so that people can have a healthy life. This is supported by the older people’s commissioner, who called for legislation, and I quote, and this is on dementia:

‘To protect and promote the rights of older people…to enjoy lives that are free of abuse, neglect, ageism and discrimination…to be able to participate fully in their communities’

and thrive in old age. It is completely unacceptable that older people, particularly vulnerable people, should see their rights diminish as they get older. Finally, they deserve dignity and respect, as well as independence and freedom to make decisions about their own lives in Wales. Thank you very much. I support this motion.

Lynne Neagle.

Thank you, Presiding Officer, for the opportunity to speak in this debate today. The rights and support for people with dementia is a subject very close to my heart, and I welcome the opportunity to focus on it again today. In January this year, I led a debate on the need for a national dementia strategy and made the case that dementia is the health challenge of our time.

It is always worth reminding ourselves of the sheer scale of the problem we’re facing in relation to dementia. There’s currently an estimated 45,000 people in Wales living with dementia, and these numbers will rise. By 2055, it is likely there will be over 100,000 people living with dementia in Wales. Behind every one of those 45,000 people is a whole family living with the aftermath of a dementia diagnosis, and I really welcome the older people’s commissioner’s report, ‘Dementia: More than Just Memory Loss’, and the voice that it gives to many dementia sufferers and their carers about the massive and wide-ranging impact the illness has on the whole family.

I also welcome the action the commissioner is taking to follow up the report with health boards and local authorities in Wales, and I am sure she will pursue the improvements that are needed with the rigour with which she has always approached her job as commissioner.

But the scale of the dementia challenge we face I believe means that it is imperative that we approach that challenge with the same energy, vigour and resources with which we approach diseases like cancer in Wales. It is notable that there was widespread coverage this week of the fact that dementia overtook heart disease as the major cause of death in the UK.

There’s been fantastic progress here in Wales to turn us into a dementia-friendly nation, and there are over 20 established dementia-friendly communities in Wales. I am incredibly proud that my constituency of Torfaen was the second in Wales to achieve this dementia-friendly status. From Artie Craftie, a craft shop and post office in Blaenavon, to Big Pit mining museum, Pontypool indoor market and even a community farm—they’ve all become dementia-friendly accredited. The library service in Torfaen was the first to become a dementia-friendly service, and all the staff there are dementia friends. From a dementia-friendly community room there, there’s a carers’ collection focusing on how carers can best assist the person they’re caring for, as well as books on health and well-being. All these initiatives have arisen from the dementia-friendly initiative led by Torfaen council. But, as always, there is more to be done. It is crucial that the dementia strategy the Welsh Government brings forward in the months ahead is ambitious and well resourced, and that it is a comprehensive road map of the patient’s journey from diagnosis, enabling independent living for as long as possible, through to palliative care and a dignified death.

There are two particular areas that I am particularly concerned about. The first is diagnosis rates. As we know, the target is a 50 per cent diagnosis rate for people with dementia by this year. I do not believe that is ambitious enough. It would not be good enough for people with cancer to only have 50 per cent of them diagnosed, and it should not be good enough for people with dementia.

The other major area of concern is the number of dementia support workers that are planned under the strategy. Currently, it would be a minimum of one dementia support worker per two GP clusters in Wales, which would be 32 support workers across the whole of Wales. This is simply not enough. On current diagnosis rates, we would need around 370 support workers to meet the needs that we have heard about today. While I welcome what the Cabinet Secretary has said about keeping this under review, I look forward to hearing more from the Minister and the Cabinet Secretary in the months ahead as to how this target can be improved.

Just finally, to conclude, a dementia strategy is as good as any strategy on paper. I would also like to know from the Welsh Government what the plans are to actually drive that strategy forward. We know that we are very good at producing good policies in Welsh Government, but policies are only as good as their implementation.

Thank you for giving way, Lynne. I totally agree with you on that: a strategy is on paper. The whole point of dementia-friendly communities is that they rely very closely on the local community coming together and providing those opportunities for people in that area suffering from dementia, so this has to be led from the ground up.

It does have to be led from the ground up, but I also think that if you’ve got systems in place like the need for support workers and targets for diagnosis rates, those have to be driven by Government, and I look forward to hearing form Welsh Government how that strategy will go from being a document on paper to something that actually transforms the lives of people with dementia and their families in Wales.

May I start by commending the work that Lynne Neagle has done in the area of dementia? I think that was a very passionate speech and she challenges her own side, as well, appropriately, which I think is really being an effective champion, then, for those with dementia.

I want to talk a little bit about those older people who end up being carers. There are more carers amongst older people in the population on average. As people age, obviously, the susceptibility of diseases like dementia increases. This is a double challenge. There’s the caring responsibilities themselves, and they are often performed by people who are a little frail and susceptible to illness themselves, and they are not supported enough in many ways. The lack of appropriate respite care continues to be a real challenge in the support of carers and means—you know, particularly for older people, if they’re in the situation where they are usually caring for a spouse, that takes so much of their time that their wider social circle starts to shrink and they become very, very isolated. And often, when they then see their partner die, they are left without any bearing in terms of a way forward, because they’re dealing with bereavement, they’ve lost that daily task that, although exhausting, often, kept them focused, and they don’t have the social circle they once enjoyed. So, I think it’s a real problem and it leads into, for them, a very intense period of loneliness.

A couple of people have mentioned loneliness and that is something we really need to focus on, because as soon as your retire, the daily contact you have in your workplace, obviously that ceases, and for a lot of people, an awful lot of interaction can stop if they don’t have access to other meaningful activities and social recreation and whatever.

I also think that, when we look at older people as making a very valuable contribution to society, we should recall they can do a lot for the younger generation and they want to. There’s a lot of evidence out there that older people acting as mentors to people, say, who have low skills or poor literacy, or even those who have been on the edge of ending up in the criminal justice system, there’s a lot of evidence that contact with older people and being in programmes where they’re involved together can really lead to very good results. And older people are often very keen to volunteer the time they have, but also the vocation they feel for the younger generation is a very intense one, and I think that’s something we shouldn’t forget.

Can I just, finally, make the point about the need for better—? We need to shape our urban places, I think, with much more ambition. I do see many changes in the years ahead, as we see the transport system change and the demands on the environment and to improve air quality and other things. And this, I think, will be of great benefit to older people. Diesel cars have probably kept an awful lot of older people indoors, especially at times like the rush hour or intense traffic through special events, or whatever. The respiratory health of older people is dramatically affected by the pollutants that are pumped out by diesel vehicles in particular, but also in general by the scale of traffic we have at the moment. So, better traffic management, seeing our urban places as principally for people and pedestrians, rather than for the motor car or other forms of motor transport, that’s very important.

If I’m talking about transport as well, we need to pay more attention to the very needy, who have very poor mobility or are frail, as they can’t get to the local bus stop, often, and even if the bus is accessible, because the design of the bus stops now has improved, unless they have transport-to-home services, community buses, car schemes or whatever, which are run by volunteers that will transport older people, they are really a long way from being able to access services, even if they live in an urban area. Obviously, it’s much, much worse if they’re living in rural areas.

And finally, other amenities like—what’s happened to our public benches? I can remember a time when you used to see them not just in parks, but everywhere. And that’s really, really important. Something I find now, as I get older, and I might be spending a morning in Cardiff, or whatever: where are the public lavatories? We had a shopping revolution in the late nineteenth century because public lavatories were provided. Without them, women just could not, really, be very far from their homes, because they did not have facilities available. Well, it’s the same for older people and, of course, they often need disabled facilities as well, or at least toilets that are of a reasonable size so that they can move about within them. So these things, really: how we construct the urban environment. We need to be thinking about how older people are going to thrive in the future and the services and the help they will need. Thank you very much.

I would like to thank the Conservatives for bringing forward the motion today. I’m pleased to say that UKIP supports the motion as it has been put forward by the Conservatives. The problems that older people face in our society can be complex, but one of the most commonly occurring issues, as several speakers have already made reference to, is that of loneliness. We know this from the calls received by the charity Silver Line, which many Members will know as a kind of older person’s equivalent of Childline. Since it was launched in November 2013, more than half of the callers say that they contact the charity simply because they have no-one else to speak to. So, we do have to try to find ways to get lonely older people into greater social contact. How that is to be achieved is a rather difficult subject.

Dementia is becoming a major problem, as today’s motion recognises. Many speakers have seen the figure of 45,000 sufferers in Wales and Lynne pointed out that, in the next 40 years, that is projected to more than double. So, this will become an increasing problem for us. Action is therefore needed to protect the interests of older people. An older people’s commissioner has been a good start, as the reports from her department can help to highlight the problems that older people face, but we also need some statutory action to address some of the problems. I take on board points that have been made, notably by Nick Ramsay, that statutory action in itself will not be enough, but I think that, on the whole, statutory action is necessary and that is why we support the Conservative motion today. Thanks.

Older people in Wales are everyday heroes, making huge contributions through work, activism, volunteering and community work, and caring for families and providing childcare, that are often overlooked by society. They deserve dignity and respect, independence and the freedom to make decisions about their own lives.

In last week’s report from the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales, ‘Talking Future Generations’, quotes from her stakeholder events in north Wales include,

‘The people making the decisions need to walk the same path as the people on the ground.’

Cartrefi Conwy was formed when Conwy tenants voted to transfer their council housing stock. As Cartrefi Conwy stated from the outset, their challenge was not only to bring all properties up to the Welsh housing quality standard by 2012, but also

‘to create communities to be proud of.’

This summer I visited their focus on photography group with their independent living manager and their older persons engagement co-ordinator to learn first-hand from the older person group members about both the project and how it had contributed to their own independence and well-being. I was also a guest, alongside Janet Finch-Saunders, at Cartrefi Conwy’s Older Persons Day on 30 September this year, celebrating their older tenants and the contributions they make to the communities in which they live, and publicising the services available to their older people in order to promote independent living—empowering and enabling them to take control of their lives, not letting their age or anything else affect their independence or quality of life.

If they have not already done so, I urge those local authorities that retained their housing stock to embrace a similar approach. Our 2016 manifesto stated that a Welsh Conservative Government would implement a £400 weekly cap on residential care, and protect £100,000 of assets for those in residential care. The Welsh Government’s failure to do the same is regrettable. As a constituent asked me, ‘Is it fair that some people have to effectively sell their homes to pay for their residential care costs?’

The Older People’s Commissioner for Wales’s ‘Dementia: more than just memory loss’ report found that there is still a lack of knowledge and understanding of dementia, that dementia services often lack the flexibility to effectively meet the needs of people living with dementia and their carers, that a lack of co-operation between services creates unnecessary difficulties and barriers for people living with dementia and their carers, and that there are still significant variations across Wales in the quality of services available.

The Alzheimer’s Society are calling for the proposed Welsh Government dementia strategy to set out clear targets for increased dementia diagnosis rates, currently the lowest in any UK nation, to ensure support from a dementia support worker, to ensure dementia awareness training in all clinical and care settings, and much more. I encourage people to attend the north Wales consultation events at Bangor University on 18 November and 12 December. Age Cymru are calling for an urgent improvement in services and support around dementia, including community settings, the extension of dementia training schemes, and integrated, person-centred NHS and social care services at point of delivery.

The Older People’s Commissioner for Wales has warned that there is an increasing problem of older people being specifically targeted by criminals due to their supposed vulnerabilities. Despite this, there remains a gap in the law that does not recognise these crimes committed against older people, because of their age, as hate crimes.

I welcome the Institute of Fundraising ruling that fundraisers must not knock on doors with ‘no cold calling’ stickers. I commend Flintshire and Wrexham Online Watch Link Association’s no-cold-calling zones watch schemes, which are about supporting the people who live in them to keep safe and improve their quality of life, rather than simply putting up a street sign and providing window stickers.

As Age Cymru states, negative attitudes towards older people and ageing are pervasive in our society, based on inaccurate stereotypes and assumptions about a person’s ability and competence due to their age. They add that the Welsh Government should further explore what role the introduction of a bill of rights for older people could play in lobbying at UK and international levels and more broadly for greater legal protection for older people.

I therefore commend the call in our motion for the introduction of an older people's rights Bill to extend and promote the rights of older people, and for a duty on public sector bodies to consult older people when making decisions that affect their lives and to design and deliver services with them, rather than simply give them to them. Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak in this very important debate. Let nobody in this Chamber or watching outside be in any doubt that this Welsh Labour Government is committed to providing older people in Wales with good-quality responsive public services and is enabling older people across Wales to lead more independent lives.

Following our important Welsh Labour manifesto commitment to enable people to keep more of their hard-earned money when in residential care, the Minister for Social Services and Public Health recently announced that the new £50,000 limit will be implemented in phases, starting with an increase to £30,000 from April next year. The current capital limit in England is just £23,250. Further, the UK Tory Government has now delayed its reform of the paying for care arrangements until at least 2020. Indeed, the Conservative group here could better spend their time lobbying their Conservative parliamentary colleagues to get their own house in order. And as Conservative UK parliamentarians are finding the time to have their photographs taken with the Prime Minister in readiness for their campaign material, maybe whilst they’re having these snaps they could ask the UK Government to follow the Welsh Labour Government’s lead.

Since 2011 in Wales, there’s also a limit on the amount older people in care have to pay for the care they require and, in turn, sure, there is a consistent approach to charging across Wales—initiatives that are indeed not in place elsewhere in the UK. So, why, might you ask, are the Welsh Government phasing in this capital limit? The answer is that this is a Welsh Labour Government that listens before enacting legislation. Local authorities and care home providers have fed back into these proposals and the phasing in allows them sufficient time to adapt to the changes. It also takes into account independent research commissioned by the Welsh Labour Government to obtain up-to-date costings for implementing the changes. From April also a full disregard of the war disablement pension will also be introduced in all local authority financial assessments for charging for social care. This change will ensure our armed forces veterans in receipt of these important pensions will not be required to use them to pay for the cost of their care.

The record of the Welsh Labour Government in valuing the contribution that older people make to our communities, public services and economy is one that we in Wales can be rightly proud of. Thanks to Welsh Labour’s leadership, Wales also becomes the first country in the world to adopt a declaration of the rights of older people, which sets out clearly the rights of older people in Wales. This declaration is another world-leading step for Wales in the drive for equality and human rights.

Indeed, my constituents regularly have expressed their satisfaction to me, in constituency, with the Welsh Labour Government’s policy on concessionary affairs. [Interruption.] I’m sorry, I don’t have time. There are more than 72,000 concessionary pass holders in Wales, including armed forces personnel and veterans. The Welsh Labour Government is rightly continuing its support for this popular concessionary travel scheme for older people as part of its continuing support for universal benefits.

We know, as has been said, that an ageing population will rightly challenge all of us—Government policy makers and the wider populace. We’ve heard that currently—heard from other Members in the debate—that one in five over 80 have dementia, but in the next five years, the number of people in Wales with dementia is set to increase by almost a third. The Welsh Labour Government is well placed to deal with the challenges that lie ahead and we shall leave nobody behind. It is the mark of how progressive a nation or country is in how we do treat those who have given so much to their country throughout their lifetimes.

When it comes to legislating, the Welsh Labour Government supports the principle of an older people’s Bill, as outlined by the Older People’s Commissioner for Wales. Indeed, discussions about potential further legislation and future legislation have taken place with the older people’s commissioner in order to examine how rights for older people can be strengthened. That is why, today, I shall be voting against the Tory motion and supporting the older people of Wales. Diolch, Lywydd.

I call on the Minister for Social Services and Public Health, Rebecca Evans.

Thank you. The Welsh Government recognises and values the contribution that older people across Wales have made and continue to make within our communities. I’m proud that we’ve led the way with our groundbreaking strategy for older people. First launched in 2003, it’s been recognised by the Institute for Public Policy Research as the most coherent long-term commitment to improving the position of older people in the UK. We broke new ground again in 2008, when we became the first country to appoint a commissioner for older people. The commissioner acts as an independent champion and voice for older people right across the nation.

Across Government, we’re continuing our long-standing commitment to improving the lives of older people in Wales and I outlined a number of these actions in my written statement to mark the International Day of Older Persons in October. In July 2014, we issued the declaration of rights for older people in Wales. The declaration outlines what’s expected of public services to ensure that older people receive the support they need whilst ensuring their dignity and rights are protected.

The Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 came into force in April this year, with the rights of older people embedded within it. The Act gives people a stronger voice and control over the support that they need. It also focuses on early intervention and prevention to support people to maintain their independence and achieve the well-being outcomes that are important to them. We’re committed to ensuring that older people have good quality care and are treated with dignity and respect. We’re taking action to respond to the review undertaken by Dr Margaret Flynn and have appointed a senior quality improvement expert to take forward work, particularly in relation to pressure sores. For these reasons and more, we welcome and support parts 1 and 2 of today’s motion.

Turning to point 3 of the motion, however, the UK Government’s decision to delay its reform of the paying-for-care arrangements until at least 2020 has had serious consequences for Wales. It’s resulted in us not receiving consequential funding to support substantive reform of our paying-for-care arrangements. Nevertheless, this has not deterred us from pressing ahead with the reform that is within our existing powers and our available resources. A key commitment in our ‘Taking Wales Forward’ programme is to more than double the capital limit that people in residential care can retain from £24,000 to £50,000, and people will benefit from the first stage of the increase to £30,000 from April of next year. At the same time, we’ll keep our promise of the full disregard of the war disablement pension when paying for care.

The Welsh Government has, of course, already considered the findings of the older persons’ commissioner’s report on dementia, and we support this part of the motion. ‘Taking Wales Forward’ sets out our commitment to take further action to make Wales a dementia-friendly nation by developing and implementing a new national dementia strategic plan. The Welsh Government has also provided more than £8 million of additional funding over the last two years to develop dementia services across Wales.

Our third sector partners have a key role in the development of a new dementia strategy for Wales and the Alzheimer’s Society has been closely involved in the stakeholder engagement work, and this will inform the final version of the strategic plan. The plan will build on the existing good work and will include awareness raising, working with the Alzheimer’s Society and others to maintain the momentum of the dementia friends and dementia-supportive communities campaigns. It will also focus on improving diagnosis rates, providing practical and emotional help, and embedding a culture that puts the dignity and safety of patients first.

Turning to the final point of the motion, we want Wales to be a fair society and will continue our work with all protected groups to counter discrimination. I referred earlier to the declaration of rights for older people that we issued. And, as well as the rights embedded within the social services and well-being Act, in terms of potential future legislation, I can confirm that the First Minister has already had initial discussions with the older people’s commissioner in relation to strengthening the rights of older people, and supports the principle of a Bill. I’ve also had initial discussions and I look forward to meeting with the commissioner again later this month to discuss her legislative proposals in more detail.

I’m pleased to outline our support for all of Plaid Cymru’s amendments to the motion. The Welsh Government established the post of the older people’s commissioner to ensure that the voices of older people are heard. We welcome the commissioner’s continued engagement with public services boards and the fact that she’s already published guidance, which should provide public services boards with useful and practical recommendations to help ensure that older people’s needs are not overlooked when preparing the local well-being plans.

We have an ambitious programme for government target of an additional 20,000 affordable homes, and this lies at the heart of our comprehensive housing agenda, supporting key themes across other portfolios, including improving well-being in our communities—

Minister, will you take an intervention?

Thank you for taking the intervention. Monmouthshire County Council has set up a number of dementia-friendly communities, which have worked because the views of older people have been taken into account at the very outset so that, when they’re being supported, that support is tailored to what they need and what they say they need. So, I welcome your talk of placing their rights on a statutory level. Would you endeavour to make sure that, in that statutory framework, the views of older people are paramount and that they are not overridden or able to be overridden by people who think they know best, but actually don’t know better than the people receiving the care and support?

Well, I think it’s always important to speak directly to people affected by conditions or with certain protected characteristics themselves—so, talking directly to them, as well as to the groups and organisations who represent them. So, I would hope that older people would be involved in, certainly, the production of the local plans through the work of regional partnership boards, driving forward the implementation of the social services and well-being Act in Wales as well.

But, returning to housing, the 20,000 homes will cover a range of tenures, including social rented and homes for older people. During the last term of Government, good progress was made in joint working on housing and health and social care matters, including the work taken forward through our intermediate care fund. We’ve provided over £180 million in social housing grant funding to provide extra-care schemes across Wales. Together, these initiatives are transforming the way that older people are supported to live fulfilling, independent and safe lives, and I want us to build on this success.

The Welsh Government provides funding to support the work of the older people’s commissioner, and one of the issues the commissioner works on relates to older people being targeted through financial scams. Whilst good practice exists across Wales to tackle scams in all their forms, Welsh Government, the commissioner, and others recognised that there was a need to better co-ordinate efforts and ensure that there’s a collaborative approach across the public, private and third sectors. As a result, the commissioner and Age Cymru formally launched the Wales Against Scams Partnership in March of this year, which works to make Wales a hostile place for criminals who often deliberately target older and vulnerable people. The partnership has also developed the UK’s first anti-scammers charter. Phase 2 of our Ageing Well in Wales programme is also addressing the concerns related to scams.

So, in Wales, we’ve already done a great deal to recognise and address the issues that matter to older people. We’ll be reviewing our older people strategy over the coming months and we’ll focus on some key priority areas for delivery, and I think today’s debate has been really helpful in highlighting and exploring some of those key concerns. I’m committed to ensuring the well-being of older people and I’ll work with the older people’s commissioner and other stakeholders to ensure that Wales is a great place to grow old and age well.

I call on Suzy Davies to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Lywydd. Thank you to everyone who’s taken part in the debate today. Perhaps I can offer my thanks also to the older people’s commissioner to be recorded as well. Personally, I’m still a little bit baffled by the thought that policy makers consider me to be an older person, and I face the temptation that perhaps we should ask for that threshold to be moved a little further north, but, on the other hand, it is a reminder that even though we live longer—as we are living longer, I should say—we should start thinking about how we plan for those days when perhaps we will be frailer, when perhaps we might be ill and perhaps when we might develop dementia—effectively, to start planning now to live well later, as Mohammad Asghar suggested. All family cultures are different, and our own plans will be different. However, whatever the plans we do adopt that work in our own families, they do need to be supported by a delivered strategy, and I thought Lynne Neagle’s contribution on this particular point was very powerful.

I think the threshold of 50, being 50, also reminds us that, if we demand dignity, respect, independence and freedom to make decisions about our lives in our 50s, then why should it be any different when we’re much older? I hope that everyone will have heard Mark Isherwood’s points, particularly on independent living. I’m pleased, therefore, that nobody has sought to amend or delete the first two points of the motion.

Turning, for a moment, to the deletions proposed in the amendments, we will not support amendment 1, which deletes the third point of our motion. I’m sorry, Rhianon Passmore, but we have no reason to support a threshold that is less generous than our own Welsh Conservatives’s devolved offer. Amendment 3, deleting our point 5, is less benign than it might seem. It differs from our original motion in just one particular, namely the Welsh Government’s deletion of our commitment to place a duty on public sector bodies to consult older people when making decisions that affect their lives. I don’t see what’s wrong with having that obligation. It matters so much in planning and housing, as David Melding mentioned. I’ve asked for a similar duty of due regard to be considered for the UNCRC for some time now, and, yet again, silence from Welsh Government. Well, we disagree with you. We won’t support your silence.

Amendments 4 and 5—we have no difficulty with the content; I just don’t think they required the deletions of our points 5(a) and 5(b). If Plaid is serious in saying that it supports the work of the older people’s commissioner, then why aren’t you supporting her suggestions for a Bill? She’s the one who came up with this idea.

Amendment 2 is irrelevant to this debate, which is about Wales, but we will support the last two amendments should we have the opportunity to do so.

Janet Finch-Saunders set the scene very well for us, I think, and explained that there are steps, actually quite simple steps sometimes, that can be taken that don’t cost anything at all, Rhun ap Iorwerth, to avoid the loss of dignity and control experienced by people in hospital, for example. She’s right that older people spend too long in hospital sometimes, and I wish the Welsh Government well with its parliamentary review of health and social services. The Cabinet Secretary knows my concerns about maintaining the status of social care and prevention in whichever models emerge from that, but any model will fail if it ignores the points made by David Melding regarding older carers, and if it ignores the points raised by Gareth Bennett about failing to recognise loneliness, because obviously the health impacts of loneliness at a population level can be really very, very significant.

Rhun ap Iorwerth mentioned the economic contribution, briefly, of older people, but also the social contribution. If Wales is moving closer to a co-productive society then older people will be at the heart of meeting the challenges, not only in their own lives, but in those of others as well—another point raised by David Melding, particularly pertinent in families—Lynne Neagle mentioned this—where a family member may have dementia. All members of this Chamber, and, I hope, members of the Government, too, will consider having dementia-friend training themselves, too. Because let it not just be Torfaen. Let us have Wales as a dementia-friendly Government, with the lead taken from this place.

A right to an early diagnosis and other issues raised by Mark Isherwood could of course be encapsulated in a Bill. Minister, I’ve absolutely no doubt that the Welsh Government values and wishes to support older people, and we acknowledge the steps that you’ve taken, but sometimes good intentions, including declarations, do need underpinning by legislation. Thank you.

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

The next item is the UKIP debate on the Severn bridge tolls, and I call on Mark Reckless to move the motion.

Diolch, Lywydd. It’s a pleasure to move the motion to propose that the National Assembly for Wales supports the abolition of tolls on the Severn bridges following their return to the public sector.

The Severn tolls hold back the Welsh economy, discourage tourism and unnecessarily divide Wales from England. There is £90 million at least of direct cost that the tolls take in every year, and the Welsh Government has further estimated the cost of tolls to Wales as at least £107 million annually. We believe the costs of paying the highest UK toll are likely to be far higher when all lost opportunities and indirect effects are taken into account.

On 1 September 2015 I launched UKIP’s campaign for the Welsh Assembly with Nigel Farage at the M4 toll plaza, calling for the abolition of the tolls. Since then, other parties have moved our way. I hope today that the Assembly will for the first time agree to abolish the tolls. I believe this would helpful timing-wise to inform the public inquiry on the M4 relief road, as it may affect future traffic volumes on the M4, but also to inform UK Ministers that’s the position that this legislature takes. I’m concerned that, in recent evidence in Westminster, Andrew Jones, the responsible transport Minister, proposed introducing free-flow tolling technology. I don’t know—and perhaps the Minister will enlighten us later—what if any discussions, let alone agreement, there may have been with the Welsh Government in respect of this, but the UK Minister said that he expected it to be between three and four years from a decision until that tolling was operational. I would question whether UK Ministers should be taking decisions at that timescale, given the legislative basis, and the limited basis, through that, of their powers in this area.

I’d just like to address the issue of a maintenance toll, which is often brought up in this discussion. For 2015, the UK Minister confirmed that overall revenue from the toll was over £90 million. In various contexts, it’s been cited that maintenance might be £13 million or £15 million per year. But that figure is for the whole operational costs of the bridge, and, yes, that consists of maintenance as well as the costs of actually collecting the toll. The inspection and maintenance element of that, I think the £13.3 million for 2015, is only £6 million. So, as a proportion of the over £90 million brought in, it is a small proportion. If applied as a ratio to the current charge of £6.60 for a car, it would equate to 44p.

Given the size of that, I don’t think we should allow our debate to be skewed by what pays for maintenance in the future, because of the small proportion of the overall size. Actually, I think abolishing that toll would have such a positive impact in the message it sends about Wales being open for business, Wales being welcoming of people who come here without having that basic tax on people simply for crossing the Severn bridges.

I’d like to say a little about the legislative basis for the current tolling. I also think it’s very, very important to realise that the Severn Bridges Act 1992—. I’ve heard some people say that the tolls can go on until 2027, and there is a backstop of 35 years from the 1992 commencement date, but it’s either that or when a certain amount of money has been raised. I think there’s broad familiarity with the revenue requirement for the private concession—once that reaches £1.029 billion at 1989 prices that therefore comes back to the public sector, perhaps as early as October next year.

But the Secretary of State and the UK Government don’t have further authority to just toll it as much as they want right the way up to that 2027 date. It provides at section 7 for the early end of tolling by the Secretary of State, and it says there that when the funding requirement is met, no tolls should be levied after that day. Now, that funding requirement includes the revenue requirement we’ve discussed and a number of other costs listed in a Schedule to the 1992 Act, the largest of which is £63 million, which is stated to have been a debt in respect of the first Severn bridge.

The Minister has given further estimates of that £63 million, and the Minister has given further estimates at a UK level taking the overall cost up to £88 million above the revenue requirement at which they come back into the public sector. We would dispute whether those costs should be paid or whether tolling should continue to fund them, not least because the Exchequer got a £150 million-plus windfall gain from applying value added tax, having first promised not to. Second, we look at, say, the Humber bridge, where the UK Government simply wrote off £150 million on an equivalent basis in 2011. Why would they not also do that for the Severn tolls and, therefore, allow for their abolition as soon as they come back to the public sector, potentially as early as autumn next year?

If they don’t do that, though, it is very important to recognise that the Severn Bridges Act only gives them limited authority for further tolling. Even with a half toll, I would question whether that £88 million would justify a toll going on for more than, say, another 18 months or so after they return to the public sector, which, at most, would take us up to mid-2019. I simply question the legal basis for the UK Government continuing to impose a toll after that period, because they would have no power, at least on my understanding and reading of it, under the Severn Bridges Act 1992.

There is the Transport Act 2000, which refers, at section 167, that

‘A trunk road charging scheme may only be made—

‘(a) by the Secretary of State in respect of roads for which he is the traffic authority, or

‘(b) by the National Assembly for Wales in respect of roads for which it is the traffic authority.’

It goes on, at section 168, to consider the prospect of both charging authorities acting jointly, one surmises with reference to the Severn bridges. That, of course, was also the basis of the Silk commission, which concluded that powers for the Severn bridges should remain for resolution by the UK and Welsh Governments together in agreement. And then, again, we have, in the St David’s Day agreement, that the UK Government will work with the Welsh Government to determine the long-term future of the crossings. That position is supported by the Government of Wales Act 2006, which says, in terms of conferred powers, in field 10, highways and transport, matter 10.1:

‘the making, operation and enforcement of schemes for imposing charges…on Welsh trunk roads’

and also the application, then, of those charges. When we then look at exceptions, there is an exception for traffic regulation on special roads, and that includes motorways, but there’s then an exception to the exception, which reads:

‘apart from regulation relating to matter 10.1.’

So, that means that the motorway is not excluded from the conferred powers. I give way.

Thank you for giving way, Mark Reckless. Would you agree with me that part of the problem we’re dealing with with the Severn bridge is that, of course, it’s not one crossing, it’s two crossings. The maintenance costs for the old crossing are the bulk of the maintenance costs, and they’re likely to increase in the future as that structure ages. So, we need to guard against a solution that secures the future of one bridge but actually puts the future of the original bridge in jeopardy in the future, because that bridge, I’m sure you’ll agree with me, is very important to the economy of Monmouthshire and very important to the economy of south-east Wales.

It is, and, indeed, I agree with that observation. The bridge, of course, is entirely within England, unlike the southern, newer bridge, which is split between England and Wales at its midpoint. The Severn Bridges Act in 1992 carved out some of the residual defects that there may have been in that bridge and issues regarding them from the concession, which meant that the concessionaire wasn’t taking the risk of that, but my understanding is that the bridge has been well maintained. There is concern about ingress of water into certain steel cabling, with three inspections and remedial work on that, which I understand has worked well. Certainly, compared to similar bridges in the United States, it is in a good state.

I welcome the change in other parties towards our position on this. It was that same month, September 2015, when I referred to UKIP launching our campaign to scrap the tolls with our then party leader. A few weeks later, when questioned about the Severn tolls—and we had, I think, a freedom of information request from Plaid Cymru that there were three years from 2011 to 2013 when there was no interchange at all between the Welsh Labour Government and Westminster Government on this subject—but Edwina Hart said, when asked:

‘Well, I live in the world that we actually live in, which is what powers I’ve got, what money I’ve got, and what I can deliver on I try to deliver on, in terms of what we’ve got. It would be very nice to have a different set of circumstances on some of these issues, but we are where we are, and we need to make progress where we are on this. I’m actually not responsible for…anything to do with the tolls on the Severn bridge.’

But, as I’ve set out in the legislative basis, the current tolling arrangements are for the Secretary of State at the UK level, but only up to a certain point, which is hard to project going beyond 2019, on the basis of those powers. If we are looking for a further tolling scheme on the basis of the Transport Act 2000, at least with the southern bridge and, arguably, with the northern bridge, there is a case that that would require the approval of the Welsh Government and of this Assembly.

The First Minister’s position, of course, had previously been that the high tolls should continue and could potentially fund his black route for the M4 relief road. I’m really pleased that that position has changed, and I think it’s very important to credit the Labour Party in Wales and the Welsh Government with having changed that position. And I’m particularly pleased that, in the amendments today from the Labour group, they accept our motion and add two very, very sensible paragraphs to it, which my group agrees and will support.

Turning now to the other amendments, the Conservative motion I found a little waffly and a bit sort of hedged around with qualifications. I thought it was perhaps best categorised as a holding position pending instruction from Westminster, but potentially an improvement on where they were before. And the Plaid motion—I see it calls for the responsibility for the Severn bridges to be devolved. I thought previously the Plaid position was that ownership of the Severn bridges should be devolved, and that seemed to be something of a land grab against England, but they now talk of responsibility, and I think that’s probably sensible, because the devolution of the northern bridge would potentially be a very significant liability, and what is important is responsibility for levying tolls on those bridges. The political agreements—St David’s Day and Silk—have been that that should be by agreement, and given the legal position and potential uncertainty, that would also militate in favour of that. And I think if this place today takes a clear position and the Welsh Government takes a strong position, I look forward to the abolition of these tolls, if not next autumn, at least within the scope of this Assembly. Diolch.

Diolch. I have selected the three amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected, and I call on Russell George to move amendment 1 tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Russell.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I’d like to move the amendment in the name of my colleague Paul Davies, and to thank UKIP for bringing forward this debate today. I recognise there is widespread ambition across this Chamber to remove the tolls on the Severn bridge and to reduce, of course, the burden on motorists travelling into Wales. The intention of the Welsh Conservative amendment to this motion is to recognise that there are issues that need to be addressed and considered with regard to the removal of the tolls. There are ramifications from such a decision on the public purse: traffic volumes and the impact on maintenance of the bridges, and, of course, a knock-on effect, potentially, on other transport projects across Wales as well. And we should remember that the previous assessments have indicated that traffic volumes would increase by at least 25 per cent if tolls were removed immediately. It’s certainly my view that a comprehensive—

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, absolutely.

I’d be grateful if you could just elaborate on where you get these assessments from, because I’d be particularly interested in that.

Well, it is a previous assessment that has been undertaken, and I’m happy to speak to you outside the Chamber about that. But that assessment is done, where 25 per cent of tolls were removed immediately—sorry, the 25 per cent—. The traffic would increase by 25 per cent if tolls were removed immediately. It’s certainly my view that a traffic assessment—a wider traffic assessment—would need to be undertaken to assess the ability of the surrounding transport system to deal with a significant increase in traffic volumes. The M4, of course, is regularly faced with congestion and tailbacks, as we are all aware, particularly at times of sporting events. This, of course, is not only frustrating to motorists, but of course there is an issue here of trunk roads being less safe as well at those particular times. The M4 around Newport is some way off, and congestion is still likely to increase in the coming years, so I think there are wider issues that we need to keep in mind here as well.

In assessing the merits of the removal of the Severn bridge tolls, it is also essential that the bridges are not allowed to fall into disrepair. Provision, I think, needs to be made for ongoing operation and maintenance costs. We also need to address the approximately £63 million from the public purse for the latest defects as well on the crossing, which will need to be addressed. I heard Mark Reckless’s comments and calculations, and I take those on board as well. I’m happy to study those myself.

I have heard the word often being used that the tolls are a ‘cash cow’, but I would say that what we do have to remember is that these tolls—the funding from the tolls—have been used for repair works, rather than from the wider public purse as well, but the removal of the tolls has the real potential, I think, to support motorists, provide significant investment in Wales, improve our infrastructure, and encourage economic growth as well, and I support the aim to remove the burden of tolls, but we do need, I think, to find the right balance between bridge maintenance, infrastructure investment and support for motorists. It’s crucial that all those factors are taken into account.

Thank you. I call on Dai Lloyd to move amendment 2 tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Dai.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I move the amendment, which calls for devolving responsibility for the Severn bridges when they return to public ownership, and supports the abolition of tolls payable on the crossings. So, that’s our position. We’ve been against these tolls for many years, because we are talking about the main gateway to Wales in terms of the bridges. ‘Welcome to Wales’—that’s the sign—and, by the way, you have to pay for the pleasure of coming here.

Naturally, we welcome the fact that UKIP—. Naturally, they travel back and forth quite often on the M4 and have to go past the toll plaza now. So, of course, that’s of personal benefit. Naturally, I was bound to talk about that, and that’s the nature of the importance of this debate.

But, of course, you have to think about it: I have a new office in Baglan and we have a new bridge there, the Briton Ferry bridge, on stilts, which has cost millions. Of course, we don’t have to pay to go over that bridge—it’s just part of general taxation. Now, I’m not suggesting that we want to pay tolls to go over the Briton Ferry bridge, but there is inconsistency and, I would say, injustice in the fact that these tolls still exist on the Severn bridges. Of course, the first bridge was built over 50 years ago, so, we are still, as the people of Wales, paying for the pleasure of going over the bridges.

The background to this, of course, is the impact this is having on our economy, as has been mentioned previously. There are studies that have been done that foresee that there would be an increase of £107 million per year, at least, in the economy here in south Wales if the tolls were abolished. We’re talking about a time when our economy does need every boost available. There are examples of other bridges in the British isles that used to be subject to tolls and which now do not have any tolls, because there have been agreements between the different Governments. I’m talking about the bridge to the Isle of Skye in Scotland and the Humber bridge in England. So, we can reach these agreements that abolish tolls on bridges that are of key importance.

I would suggest that the Government does now proceed to say, ‘Yes, we do need the power, and we need the responsibility for this, but, ultimately, we want to abolish the tolls.’ Because with the recent background of the Brexit vote, we do genuinely need to be seen to be doing radical things. People always ask me on the street, ‘Well, what are you doing there in the Senedd? Are you just having some minor debates and making minor changes?’ People are calling increasingly for a major shift that will change their lives, and some people have been campaigning for many years to abolish these tolls on the Severn bridges. So, I think it is relevant for us to ask for the responsibility for the bridges, and also, ultimately, that we abolish all of this—abolish the tolls. Because there is an injustice: you pay to come into Wales, but you don’t pay to leave Wales. I don’t agree with the idea that was mentioned last week that we should pay both ways. No, we shouldn’t pay either way. Lee.

Diolch, Dai. I heard you call for radical action. I heard your party call for radical action very recently on climate change. So, I find it curious that you are now arguing for a position that will increase traffic volumes by between 12.5 and 25 per cent, which will make climate change harder to tackle.

We’re talking about an economic boost here and the additional money. If you want to fund the metro or whatever, then you could fund it, Lee, from the additional money that will come into the Assembly’s coffers if we have the responsibility devolved here, and the additional money that will come from abolishing the tolls. [Interruption.] From abolishing the tolls.

So, please support the intention to have the responsibility for this here, and also, ultimately, support the intention to abolish the tolls entirely on the Severn bridges. Thank you very much.

Thank you. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure to formally move amendment 3 tabled in the name of Jane Hutt.

Formally.

Thank you. Gareth Bennett.

Thanks, Deputy Presiding Officer. The Severn bridge tolls are not only a tax on established Welsh businesses, but are also a direct disincentive for companies considering setting up in or relocating to Wales. Take, for instance, a company wishing to establish a distribution outlet here. Most companies would have a very high proportion of their clients based in the south-east of England. Tolls would mean a huge additional transport cost if this firm were to base its operation here in Wales rather than just across the channel in Bristol. A company running 100 vehicles a day into England would, at current toll costs, be faced with an extra £2,600 per day in operating costs merely due to the additional cost of the Severn bridge tolls.

UKIP have long advocated the complete abolition of the tolls as soon as is practically possible. We currently have on the table a kind of halfway house proposal whereby a number-plate identification system could be utilised to charge vehicles going both ways. This would be introduced with a much smaller cost—a figure of £1.80 or £1.90 per crossing has been quoted. However, one must ask for how long this charge would remain at this relatively low level. Would there be any guarantee that any increase in this charge in future years would be linked to inflation? Also, we have no detail as yet on whether or not this charge would be the case for all vehicles. There is still the possibility that larger vehicles would pay a larger charge than the quoted figure, which would merely prolong the disincentive for businesses wanting to set up shop in Wales. Given these doubts, we have to call for tolls to be abandoned altogether on the Severn bridge crossings. Our general road tax is surely more than adequate to cover future maintenance costs of the Severn bridges.

There is, in general, a need to promote public transport of course, rather than private car use, and we have to take into account possible increased volumes of traffic on the bridges. However, although as a general principle this is fine, we have to bear in mind the point that Dai Lloyd made very well, that unless the UK Government is advocating increasing the usage of toll roads throughout the UK, including even in Briton Ferry, then surely it is discriminatory against Wales and the Welsh economy to treat the Severn bridge crossings in this way—once, that is, the construction and finance cost of the bridges have been paid off.

In UKIP, we made the abolition of the Severn bridge tolls a major feature of our Welsh Assembly campaign. We are heartened to note that all of the parties here today—and I bear in mind that Dai pointed out that Plaid have earlier also adopted this position—nevertheless, with the other parties, we’re heartened that they now seem to be moving towards a position of broadly advocating the abolition of the tolls. We are of course delighted, as ever, to welcome the other parties into our camp, albeit temporarily.

The campaign to abolish the second Severn crossing toll and the first Severn crossing toll, of course, are very long standing and long running and far pre-date the UKIP campaign that Gareth Bennet has just referred to. In fact, Labour politicians and politicians of other parties have been involved in this campaign for many years, so I think we should get that straight as a starting point in this debate.

What I’d like to say, Dirprwy Lywydd, is that there’s a great deal of effort at the moment to connect up regional economies, city regions, economic powerhouses and transport systems, and a great deal of effort has gone into doing just that for the Great Western Cities and the Great Western powerhouse. A report has been produced for Bristol, Newport and Cardiff, which looks at a population of some 1.5 million across the area and it’s all about connecting it up and removing barriers. A lot of that will be about public transport; it will be about the Bristol MetroWest system, the Cardiff capital region metro system, so there will be a big public transport element, which I very much welcome. But it’s also about removing the Severn tolls, in my view, which are symbolic, as I think we all know, as others have said. It’s an awful message that we give to people coming into Wales, the gateway to Wales, that this payment has to be made. It’s long been recognised that it’s a problem economically, socially and culturally. So, if we are to join up this wide area across the Severn more effectively, I think an important part of that is to abolish these tolls, and the sooner it happens the better.

But it is part of that bigger picture of connectivity in public transport terms, of the energy strategy, the general infrastructure strategy that’s been set out in that report and other work. You know, it’s about the universities, it’s about businesses, it’s about civic society—it’s quite a wide-ranging agenda. But within that, as I said, I do believe that symbolically and practically it’s important that we abolish those tolls and do so as quickly as possible. And it’s great to see, I think, a strong consensus in this Chamber today to that effect.

When we look at the issues and the long-running nature of the issues, Dirprwy Lywydd, those of us representing Newport and the areas around, know the strength of feeling locally that has existed for a number of years and is still very strong today. Local people, local businesses and organisations really do look forward to the day when those tolls are finally abolished. It’s been a long-running campaign; it has generated a massive amount of support locally and, as a representative in Newport East, I know that lots of others, such as Jayne Bryant representing Newport West, are very supportive of the abolition. So, I think we should recognise that. We shouldn’t look at this in terms of some new campaign that’s been generated in this Assembly—it far pre-dates that. And I think that’s a real strength, because it shows, over a period of time, the issues that have galvanised people to call for the abolition. As I said earlier, the sooner it happens, the better.

It’s worth stressing that there are no plans to devolve the power to set tolls on the Severn bridge to the Assembly. This is therefore a fairly theoretical debate, designed primarily to put pressure on the UK Government. Were powers to be devolved, I think we’d be having a slightly different discussion this afternoon.

But as this is a largely philosophical debate, I’d like to use the opportunity to suggest an alternative approach to the Assembly: one that I think is especially important in the light of Brexit. If the tolls were to be removed, the best forecasts are that the floodgates would open. Traffic would increase by somewhere between 12.5 per cent—the Government’s figures—and 25 per cent—Russell George’s mysterious figures. But, hearing what John Griffiths said about the impression given to people coming into Wales of having to pay tolls, we would instead be giving people coming into Wales the impression of heavily congested roads. Because either the tunnels at Brynglas and the surrounding area would be even more congested by this incredibly large flow of traffic that would result, or if we do end up spending £1 billion on a new stretch of M4, that would very quickly fill up with traffic and create demands for even more road capacity further down the M4.

I would remind the Assembly that we do have commitments; we’ve all made commitments enshrined in law to cut carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, with interim targets to cut them by 40 per cent by 2020. We are not on track to meet these targets and increasing car use on the M4 will only make matters worse. I appreciate that this is an inconvenient consideration, but it’s a very real one that we can’t simply brush aside every time we’re faced with a decision that conflicts with the commitments that we’ve made. Clearly, creating an alternative to car use is a key part of that puzzle. An attractive public transport system is essential, but Brexit has put a significant question mark against the future scope and shape of the south Wales metro.

The second phase of the metro is estimated to cost £734 million over six years. A significant chunk of that—some £125 million—had been expected to come from the EU. Pulling out of the EU will leave a shortfall of some £21 million a year—a sixth of the total funding package. The UK Government should meet—[Interruption.] If I can just make some progress. The UK Government should meet that shortfall, but I fear they won’t and it’s hard to see how our capital budgets can fill that gap, given that we’re setting aside £1 billion for the M4. I fear that we will struggle to deliver the full potential of the metro project, and if the Assembly got its way today, we’d commit ourselves to a strategy to significantly increase car traffic on the M4, whilst simultaneously cutting back the only plan we have to reduce pressure on the road network, all the while needing to cut carbon emissions by 40 per cent within four years, when all the indicators show we’re going the other way. I think we should pause and reflect before we proceed. We need to find a way of fully funding and expanding the metro project, and I think earmarking money from the tolls to pay for a public transport project to take pressure off the M4 is the best option available to us. Tolls on the two Severn bridges have become an accepted part of the south Wales economy. Now, we can discuss how the levels of the tolls could be more creatively applied, and there’s no reason why, for example—[Interruption.] Sorry, Dai, I don’t have much time; if I do, I’ll come back to you.

We can see how those tolls can be more creatively applied. We don’t have to apply them to vans or lorries, for example. We could apply them to lone car users instead. But if we retain the tolls, we retain the power to choose. The bridges currently bring in somewhere between £90 million and £109 million a year, and only around £20 million of that is thought to be for maintenance. So, potentially, there could be somewhere between £70 million and £90 million available to invest in the metro, to plug that EU funding gap or even to leverage borrowing to expand the metro project to its full vision that we’d like to see and, indeed, to expand metros across Wales. But we can only do that if we keep our options open, and the intention behind today’s motion is to close down options.

If we want to avoid the catastrophic impact of climate change on business, on health, on infrastructure—it’s worth noting that these road bridges are predicted to be all under water within 50 years unless we tackle climate change—then we need to do something different. Simply carrying on with the same solutions is the wrong approach. Thank you.

Just following on from that, I think that the precautionary approach that has been taken by both Lee and Russell George is the one that we need to adopt. Of course, it is absolutely right, as Dai Lloyd says, that it’s unfair that we are having these tolls on these bridges into Wales when the Humber bridge— which, incidentally, was built as a result of a by-election in 1966 when the Labour Government had a majority of one—was not the subject of the tolls that we still face here in Wales. So, obviously, there is a great case for saying that this is completely unfair, but we have to bear in mind that we are where we are and that there are very serious environmental implications that we need to explore before we rush into any abolition of tolls.

Two weeks ago today, the UK Government lost a very significant case in the High Court in London. Some of you may have missed it, because it was the day before the Supreme Court ruling that gave pre-eminence to Parliament in the decision over triggering the Brexit result. But this result has very long-term implications for both the UK Government and, indeed, in my view, the Welsh Government too, because Mr Justice Garnham ruled that the UK Government’s 2015 air quality plan failed to comply with the Supreme Court ruling or, indeed, relevant EU directives, and said that the Government had erred in law by fixing compliance dates for tackling these illegal levels of pollution based on overoptimistic modelling of pollution levels. So, the debate about the amount of traffic that might be generated by removing the tolls on the bridges across the Severn are particularly pertinent to this point.

The Government’s failure to tackle illegal levels of air pollution across the UK is causing 50,000 early deaths and over £27 billion in costs every year, and that’s just according to the UK Government’s own estimates. This is a public health emergency, and anything that we do or our Welsh Government does that fails to address this could lead to them or us ending up in the courts.

One of the reasons that the legal NGO ClientEarth won their case was because the UK Government’s plans ignored many measures that could achieve cuts in levels of nitrogen dioxide. These include charging diesel cars, a major source of air pollution, for entering cities blighted by air pollution as part of the proposed clean-air zones. The Treasury argued that it would be politically very difficult, especially given the impacts on motorists—the holy grail of the motorist. The High Court said that the rule of law outweighs such political considerations, and I agree with that. The Welsh Government needs to take heed of the High Court ruling when considering removing tolls on the Severn bridge because of the impact it could have on the proposed clean air zones, which include Cardiff. The Cardiff plan was one of the ones that was thrown out as being over-optimistic and unrealistic about their plans to eliminate these illegal levels.

So, I agree that this is an unfair tax on the people of Wales if it cannot and is not being spent on improving our public transport infrastructure and therefore tackling the levels of air pollution. But to date, I agree, the UK Government’s plans have been found wanting by the courts, and they do not appear to be wishing to pass this toll over to us. But we need to know with some clarity from the Welsh Government on what would be done, if we were to abolish these tolls, for the consequences of increasing air pollution. I note that Bristol has already implemented a strictly enforced priority lane for cars commuting into Bristol that contain more than one passenger. Could we be confident in expecting that such a regime would be put in force around Cardiff as well?

Thank you very much. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure, Ken Skates.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I’d like to begin by thanking Members for their contributions today and for the opportunity to speak in this debate. As has been made clear in the course of this debate, the Severn crossings are a key link in our transport and economic infrastructure, and, as part of the strategic M4 corridor, the crossings are the primary gateway to Wales, and they provide businesses with access not just to markets in England, but beyond, to mainland Europe.

Many individuals who run and own businesses in Wales are concerned at the high cost of the Severn crossings toll. They feel it represents a barrier to business activity across the bridge, hampering Welsh growth and acting as a deterrent to inward investment. In particular, they argue that the toll adversely affects small businesses, especially those engaged in the tourism, transport and logistics sectors, which rely heavily on the Severn crossings link for their businesses. Responsibility for the crossings and the levying of tolls currently lies with the UK Government. The arrangements are set out in the Severn Bridges Act 1992, which allows the concessionaire, Severn River Crossings plc, to collect the fixed sum of money from tolls. In accordance with the Act, the current concession is scheduled to finish by the end of 2017, when the crossings will come back into public ownership.

The First Minister wrote to the Chancellor in February of this year and made clear that the tolls should be removed once the concession ends. The UK Government intends to go out to consultation by the end of this year on arrangements for the future of the crossings, including on a proposed reduction in the level of tolling. Given their strategic significance to Wales, we have been in regular discussion with the UK Government to try and ensure that the proposed arrangements represent the best deal for Wales and not an unfair tax on our people and businesses. The UK Government has made very clear that it will not hand over ownership of the crossings to us. Last week, I met with the Rt Hon Chris Grayling MP, Secretary of State for Transport, to discuss the tolls and to set out the Welsh Government’s position, and, at that meeting, I made the Welsh Government’s position very clear—that the tolls should be removed at the earliest opportunity, alleviating the burden on the economy and removing the significant threat they represent to trade in a post-Brexit world. I re-emphasised that the report we commissioned on the effect of the tolls concludes,

‘tolls effectively increase the cost of doing business in south Wales, thereby making south Wales a less attractive location for investment.’

Removing the tolls would boost productivity in Wales by £100 million.

Of course, I do recognise that there are those who have concerns about removal of the tolls; that their abolition could lead to an increase of traffic on the roads. I do take very seriously these concerns. I am conscious that, in positioning ourselves as a Welsh Government as being in favour of removing tolls, we have to think carefully about how this impacts on our responsibilities to the environment and to future generations. It is why I believe that it is important for us to undertake transport planning in a way that ensures we are balancing the need for economic sustainability with the very real and important duties we have under the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. Through our work to progress the metro and in taking forward the Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013, I believe that we are doing that. I am clear: enshrining the sustainable development principles of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 has to be an ongoing piece of work for this Government.

Similarly, we have to consider that cross-border links are not just an issue for south Wales. Improving transport connectivity at gateway points in north and mid Wales is also crucial for Wales’s economy. In my meeting with the Secretary of State, I also stressed how important it is to improve transport connectivity for north Wales, and in particular I discussed the rail infrastructure improvements proposed by the north Wales and Mersey Dee rail taskforce. The Secretary of State is considering these improvements, and I have asked him to support the package of measures as part of control period 6.

It is essential that we continue to press the UK Government to deliver on improvements for transport infrastructure across all parts of Wales, which brings me back to the future of the tolls. Whilst we acknowledge the proposed reduction in tolls by the UK Government, we do not believe there is a case for continuing to charge tolls on the Severn bridges to fund ongoing maintenance once the concession ends. Tolls represent an unfair tax, and we believe that the UK Government should pay for their maintenance, not the people and businesses of Wales.

We will continue to argue for the tolls be scrapped immediately on coming back into public ownership. However, if the UK Government decides to continue tolling, the toll levels must not exceed the costs of operation. The UK Government must not make a profit from the bridges, nor should it seek to recover costs that they have sunk over the past 50 years in the establishment, management and maintenance of the bridges—that money has been spent and already paid for through general taxation. It is not appropriate for the UK Government to try to recover a further £60 million on the basis that prior expenditure was associated with the crossings. Tolls should not be used for general revenue generation for the UK Treasury.

The Welsh Affairs Select Committee recently calculated that the annual operating costs of the Severn bridges amount to around £30 million. On current traffic volumes, this suggests that the tolls could be around one sixth of their current levels rather than one half, as the UK Government is proposing.

We have also made clear to the UK Government that if it decides to continue tolling, free-flow technology should be introduced and that it need not be as costly as they currently seem to think. There should be no physical barriers preventing the free movement of traffic between England and Wales. We do not think that comparisons with the Dartford tunnel are appropriate, as the technology there needs to be far more sophisticated as it is not just used for toll collection.

So, in conclusion, this Government’s position is that the tolls should be scrapped immediately when the bridges come back into public ownership. If they are not, the UK Government must recognise that any attempt to retain tolls that generate a surplus for the UK Government, and without the removal of all physical barriers, penalises and diminishes the economic interests of Wales.

Thank you. I call Mark Reckless to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am grateful to my party colleague, Gareth Bennett, for his contribution. I am grateful to Lee Waters and Jenny Rathbone for coming to the Chamber to focus on the environmental perspective. I am grateful to Russell George for his balanced contribution, and I think colleagues look forward to seeing the source of this 25 per cent, and, certainly, we would support further study of the issues he raises.

I’d like to credit John Griffiths for his campaigning on this issue, which I accept will have been long running. I would, however, observe that even in quarter 3 of 2015, which is when we launched our campaign as UKIP to abolish these tolls, his party colleague, Jessica Morden, was at that point having a debate in Westminster, arguing to reduce the tolls. I read out the quote from Edwina Hart not supporting abolishing tolls, and the position of the First Minister, at least floated, was to continue the tolls in order to fund the black route. I think it’s absolutely fantastic that this has changed, but I believe my party has led the push on that, at least as far as abolition is concerned.

In response to Dai Lloyd and Ken Skates, I just, again, want to be very, very clear on this issue of powers. People keep on talking about, ‘Oh, this isn’t devolved’, and Lee Waters said, ‘Oh, this is theoretical’. The Severn bridge tolls allow the concessionaire to reclaim the £1.029 billion at 1989 prices. Once it has done that, the Secretary of State has the power to levy further tolls up until he has raised, according to his own figures, a further £88 million. On a half-toll basis, that is likely to occur by summer 2019. So, at that point, the powers in the Severn Bridges Act 1992 are no longer there.

The Transport Act 2000 provides, in section 167 and section 168, powers for new road-charging schemes, but, for an effective tolling system for the Severn bridges, I would submit that the agreement of the Welsh Government and this Assembly is needed. I do not see on what basis the UK Government can use the southern toll plaza, or apply a toll to a bridge that is half in Wales, without the agreement of the Welsh Assembly and the Welsh Government. So, when Ken Skates says that, if the UK Government decides to continue tolling, we would ask them to introduce free-flow, why? The UK Minister has said that would take three or four years. So, by the time it comes in, they wouldn’t have the power under the Severn Bridges Act, and to do that tolling would need our agreement. And, if your position is that we should abolish the tolls as soon as possible, please make that case to the UK Government that we don’t want to invest in free-flow that will take three or four years to come in, because we want to abolish the tolls. It looks now like this Chamber is united on that issue. I’m proud to have put this motion today and, even with amendment, I think, if it passes, it will send out a very, very strong signal as to where this Assembly and where Wales stand.

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

We have reached voting time. It has been agreed that voting time would take place before the short debate. Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will proceed directly to voting time. Nobody wants the bell to be rung. Okay, thank you. We’ll move to voting time, then.

On the Plaid Cymru debate, overseas workers in the Welsh NHS, I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. If the proposal is not agreed, then we will vote on the amendments tabled to the motion. Open the vote. Close the vote. There voted for the motion eight, 10 abstentions and 28 against. Therefore, the motion falls and we’ll vote on the amendments.

We move to amendment 1. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call for a vote on amendment 1 tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote. Close the vote.

I’m having difficulty with the computer.

Right, okay. Just a moment. [Interruption.]

Are you enfranchised again?

I am.

Good. Right, okay then. We’ll close the vote. For amendment 1, 35, four abstentions, seven against. Therefore, amendment 1 is agreed and amendment 2 is deselected.

I call for a vote on amendment 3 tabled in the name of Neil Hamilton. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment, four, 10 abstentions, 32 against. Therefore, that amendment falls.

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

Open the vote. Close the vote. There were 45 votes cast for the motion as amended, no votes against, and no abstentions. Therefore, that motion as amended is passed.

We move on to the Welsh Conservatives’ debate on older people, and I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Paul Davies. If the proposal is not agreed, then we will vote on amendments tabled to the motion. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 16, no abstentions, 30 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed and we will move to vote on the amendments.

I call for a vote on amendment 1 tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote. Close the vote. For amendment 1, 25, no abstentions, 21 against. Therefore amendment 1 is carried.

I now call for a vote on amendment 2 tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion, 25, four abstentions, 17 against. Therefore, amendment 2 is carried.

We move to a vote on amendment 3. If amendment 3 is agreed, amendments 4, 5, 6 and 7 will be deselected. I call for a vote on amendment 3 tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment, 25, no abstentions, 21 against. Therefore amendment 3 is carried and amendments 4, 5, 6 and 7 are deselected.

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

Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion as amended 32, four abstentions, 10 against. Therefore that motion as amended is carried.

We now move to the UKIP debate on the Severn bridge tolls, and I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Neil Hamilton and Mark Reckless. If the proposal is not agreed, we will vote on the amendments tabled to the motion. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion, 4, no abstentions, 42 against. Therefore, the motion is not carried and we will vote on the amendments.

On amendment 1, if amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected, and I call for a vote on amendment 1 tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion, 10, no abstentions, 36 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

We move on to amendment 2, and I call for a vote on amendment 2 tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. For amendment 2, 17, no abstentions, against 29. Therefore, amendment 2 is not agreed.

I call for a vote on amendment 3 tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote. Close the vote. For amendment 3, 29, 10 abstentions, seven against. Therefore, amendment 3 is passed.

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

Open the vote. Close the vote. Forty-five for, one abstention, none against. Therefore the motion as amended is agreed. Thank you,

If you are leaving the Chamber, please do so quickly and quietly. If you’re going to chat, can you go outside, please?

We now move to the short debate, item 9, the short debate in the name of Hefin David, on the value of small and medium-sized enterprises to the Welsh economy. I now call on Hefin to speak on that topic that he has chosen. Hefin.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Thank you for the opportunity to lead my first short debate.

It was said in the late 1970s that, if every small firm took on one more employee, the unemployment problem would be solved. Indeed, with 4.2 million small firms in the UK our minds would soon turn to the problem of a shortage of labour. It appeared that, in the 1980s, the Thatcher Government took this absurd proposition vaguely seriously and for a time we heard of the enterprise economy coming to our salvation as traditional industry was strategically abandoned. I believe that small and medium-sized firms in Wales have the potential to contribute to the growth and development of our economy nonetheless. However, I’m under no illusion that they will solve all our problems, and they alone will not insulate us from the global uncertainties that are currently being created by politicians offering solutions to difficult problems in 140-character tweets.

I want to use this debate today to pose a number of questions about the role and value of SMEs to the Welsh economy, and I want this debate to be the opening, from these benches, of a wider debate that will contribute to the future development of this Assembly’s economic strategy, and I want all parties and none to play a part. It’s for this reason that I’ve established and chair the cross-party group on small and medium-sized enterprises. With a secretariat provided by the Federation of Small Businesses, it will hold its first full meeting in the new year. I hope this group will hear from a range of academics who, by their own proclamation, have been excluded from the policy-making process here in Wales, and therefore I hope they take up the challenge. I also want businesses themselves to play a part, to tell their stories, and for those stories to be heard by policy makers.

Today I will set out as much as I can my own views about areas that we may focus on in future debates. I am perfectly happy to be told that I am wrong, or at the very least that my understanding needs further refinement. My only intention is to provide a foundation on which further ideas can be built. In this context, I would like to briefly focus on two areas. Firstly, what is the role of SMEs in our economy, and, secondly, where are these businesses, and are they in the right place? I believe that it’s a mistake to see our small firms simply as engines of employment. The SME sector, though large, is also heterogeneous and fragmented. The role of SMEs in job creation is anyway disputed by academics. Some like Birch have claimed that they play a huge role in job creation, and others more recently have argued that their lack of durability means that small-firm employment is too insecure to be considered a long-term option for many seeking work.

Notwithstanding that dispute, there’s a distinction between policy makers’ desire for small-firm job creation and the indifference of owner-managers to such aspirations. SME owner-managers are undoubtedly reluctant employers, and indeed I entitled my PhD thesis ‘The Reluctant Employer’. Indeed, why would any sensible owner-manager choose to employ—[Interruption.] Thank you to the member for Llanelli. Why would any sensible owner-manager choose to employ when there are cheaper, more accessible, trusted alternatives? A great many owner-managers have reliable sources of support available to them at least in the medium term. They may be in the form of strong ties to family and friends who will help in the running of the business, but over time the manager will form relationships with other business associates who provide mutually dependable support that goes well beyond a transactional relationship. Access to this social capital is vital for the early development and growth of the firm. So perhaps instead of seeking economic salvation from our small firms sector we should look instead at what small firms actually do—things that are fundamental to our daily lives. I would add that the public and private sector are inextricably linked, and we should be suspicious of any policy maker who suggests that it would be in any way easy for private firms to take up the slack from reductions in public activity.

With such studies as ‘Towards a New Settlement’ by Dave Adamson and Mark Lang, and ‘What Wales Could Be’ by Karel Williams, academics have examined how we should re-orientate our economy here in Wales. They talk of moving towards a locally based and sustainable structure, with SMEs benefitting from strong procurement policy in which the Welsh Government takes a proactive lead. Indeed, Professor Adamson and Dr Lang are currently undertaking a micro deep place study in Lansbury Park in my constituency and I look forward to examining the outcomes. The work of Professor Williams forms a key part of what is called the foundational economy—those businesses that provide us with our basic everyday needs. And I’m keen to explore these ideas, however, they will come to nothing if their value cannot be coherently and concisely explained to both those making policy and those benefitting from it.

We should all, therefore, support the efforts of Lee Waters, the Member for Llanelli, who has made it his mission to explore these issues with business owners and residents in Llanelli. You may have seen it on Twitter. He has recently held focus meetings to discuss the needs of businesses and business users in his constituency, and I know that there are other Members of this Parliament that are taking similar approaches in their own areas, and I look, also, to the Plaid benches. I have to say, though, when Lee first told me he wanted to develop an economic strategy for Llanelli, I thought he might have bitten off more than he could chew, but anyone who knows Lee will know his tenacity and his desire to make innovative ideas work for the people he represents. You don’t get elected to Llanelli any other way. I’ve given him, and for the same reason, Steffan Lewis, a minute of this debate today and if there’s time, I’d also like to offer Russell George some time to respond too—[Interruption]. Well, he asked me late.

While not creating anything as grand as an economic strategy, I and my team have conducted our own research in the Caerphilly constituency. We talked to a range of business owners and customers and time and again, the conversations turned to the high street. Our town centres have come under a lot of pressure in the last decade or so due to a number of factors: the rise of internet shopping, out-of-town retail parks, costs of commercial rent and non-domestic rates. We have to ask ourselves now, ‘What do we want our twenty-first century town centres to look like, and do SMEs have a meaningful role as a thriving, accessible and visible part of our communities?’

Much of the evidence I’ve gathered suggests that we need localised conversations. Different town centres should be allowed to have their own unique personalities and this can be seen in all our constituencies. Yesterday evening, I discussed with an AM from another party these issues. She suggested we need to make intelligent and innovative use of vacant space in town centres. She said we shouldn’t be afraid to make the central business district smaller and use vacant shops for housing and flats. The remaining space should be given over to businesses that are going to thrive in that environment, but the space should no longer be seen as premium value. Such an approach would work in her constituency, she argued, and if it proves to be unpopular, I’ll note that it was an AM from another party. It might not work everywhere, which is why localised approaches are required, but in this thinking, we can see, cross-party, the germination of a new way of thinking about small firms.

In my constituency, there exists an innovation centre for start-up businesses called Welsh ICE. I’ve mentioned them before in this Chamber and they were identified as an example of good practice in the Welsh Labour manifesto in May. Yet again, they were mentioned in the ‘Western Mail’ this morning:

‘Five start-ups are reaping the rewards of being put on ICE’

—being part of Welsh ICE. And £1 million funding coming to Welsh ICE.

Many of these firms that exist there are direct customer enterprises and I wonder, why are they located on a business park on the edge of town? Is there a way to incentivise their development closer to the action? Given the importance of social connections, of connections to social capital, is there a benefit in doing so? Perhaps this is something we should investigate. Government at all levels has the power to make these things happen. Indeed, we can use future reform of public service organisations and future collaboration in local government as an opportunity to look at how to better engage SMEs and deliver on our objectives.

Jeremy Miles has written this week about a social enterprise economy whereby the public sector buys goods and services from social businesses, helping maintain resilient supply chains and, yes, social capital. These approaches have the potential to change our economy here in Wales. Perhaps it can be a way in which we make the best of uncertainties about Brexit, although there are no UKIP Members left here to listen to that. This does not mean turning away from the global economy of which Wales has long been a part. It means reducing the emphasis of Government policy on foreign direct investment—something that has characterised our economic development since the days of the WDA and, subsequently, the economic renewal programme. GE, Norgine and Nuaire are big players in and around Caerphilly and I would feel quite hostile to anyone who questioned their value. However, we should be arguing for a broader based economy that focuses on sustainable growth and employment without too much emphasis on inward investment. We need an economy that focuses on particular sectors; SMEs that are rooted in our communities and that have an interest in sustainable growth, without too much of a preoccupation on firms that are fast-growth and high-tech.

Let’s look to the future. Our small firms are not our economic salvation and the sector should not be seen as an engine for employment. They have very specific needs. Instead, we should see our SMEs as part of a bigger puzzle. It’s time to take a step back and consider how we can maximise their potential.

It’s Small Business Saturday on 3 December, so I wanted to time this debate to lead up to this day, where we show support for the role of small businesses in our society and in our economy, and more generally. However, Small Business Saturday is just one day. We can use this debate and that day to kick-start a bigger conversation about the roles that SMEs play in engaging with the wider economy and how this can help us grow successful SMEs that have huge value to the Welsh context.

I thank Hefin David for his kind words and for holding this short debate and for giving me some very short time in that short debate. I do appreciate it.

One minute.

Indeed. Noted. There are chill winds blowing through our economy, Dirprwy Lywydd, and the situation could well get very challenging in coming years, depending on the terms of trade of Brexit. Hefin’s speech nicely summarises many of the discussions we’ve already been having as backbenchers recently in trying to stimulate new ideas and a consensus for a resilient economic policy that can protect our vulnerable communities.

As he mentioned, I held a public workshop in Llanelli on Saturday morning as part of wider discussions that I’m having to try and generate some local interest and ideas for what we can do. What was striking is that people find it very difficult to think beyond the town centre and beyond retail for how local economies can be regenerated, reflecting, I think, a generation of economic trends that have reshaped the industry of our areas, but focused instead on consumer economics as a way of driving forward our economy, and also on roads as a way of reaching shops and of commuting out.

I think we do need to recast that debate, and he’s absolutely right that this can and must be done on a cross-party basis. The ideas that he mentioned on the foundational economy, I think, are key and I look forward to further discussing those with all parties.

I’d like to congratulate the Member for Caerphilly for securing the debate and being elected the chair of the cross-party group. It seem to me that we’ve been talking a long time in Wales about creating a ‘Mittelstand’ without actually moving that and progressing that agenda forward. I think that’s going to be crucial when we look to new projects on the horizon, such as the Cardiff capital city region and the Swansea bay city region and the metro for the south-east because, if the vision for the metro is simply to make it easier to move people from outlying towns to the centre, then we will have missed a great opportunity to develop the SME sector in the country and lay firm foundations for the economy.

What about the parts of the country that are not covered by city regions? The geography of Wales demands that we have a national approach to regional policy, if you like, and of course, within that, to create growth poles within our region so that it’s not Cardiff that will dominate, surely, the entire focus of the capital region in the south-east; there are growth poles in fantastic towns like Caerphilly, like Pontypool, Merthyr Tydfil and elsewhere. So, if we want to move the country forward with a strong ‘Mittelstand’ and a strong SME sector, there has to be a nationwide focus to regional policy and local development as well.

I’m very grateful to the Member for allowing a minute of his time. I should say for the record that I did ask at the very last minute in the day and the Member accepted if time allowed.

Can I say that I agree with virtually everything that Hefin has said? I congratulate him on being elected the chair of the cross-party group on small businesses, of which I am a member also. All I would say is that I’m very keen that the Government continues to promote young people—having a positive life option for them to enter small business themselves. When I was in school, it was very much a case of, ‘What do you want to be: doctor, nurse, teacher…?’ And when I said, ‘I want my own small business, please’, that wasn’t really accepted by the careers officer; it wasn’t on their tick box. I’m pleased that times have changed now. But I would very much like to see the Government continuing to support programmes where business leaders go into schools and promote starting your own business as a positive life opportunity for them—outlining the risks, of course, but making sure that they are aware that it is a reasonable option for them to undertake. I look forward to working with Hefin on the cross-party group on small businesses.

Thank you very much. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure to reply to the debate—Ken.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I thank Members for their contributions, especially the Member for Caerphilly for bringing this important debate forward today?

We know that microbusinesses and SMEs are the lifeblood of the economy here in Wales. They support more than 62 per cent of people in employment across the country, and they account for more than 90 per cent of enterprises across Wales. They provide a vital role in creating jobs, in increasing productivity and, of course, in driving growth across Wales, in rural and urban areas.

This debate, I think, is timely, given that this is Global Entrepreneurship Week, with thousands of events and activities taking place across the UK to celebrate entrepreneurship and to inspire our new and future entrepreneurs. And last year, of all of the events that took place across the UK, 18 per cent were here in Wales. That was a great success story, and I'm hopeful that, this year, as many events have been hosted on Welsh soil. As part of the celebrations, I attended the Institute of Directors’ south Wales business leaders’ breakfast just this morning to say a few words about the Welsh Government’s commitment to encouraging and supporting entrepreneurs. This morning, I also attended a round-table discussion with a group of young business leaders and entrepreneurs, arranged by the Federation of Small Businesses, to hear their views on the role of business and entrepreneurship. To me, the role of Welsh Government is in supporting businesses and entrepreneurs. It is very clear that we need to make Wales the very best environment it can be in which to start, to run, and to grow a business. That means that we need to be there to give the right support at the right times to business.

One of our key initiatives for supporting business is through our Business Wales service. The latest phase of the service was launched in January of this year, with the aim of creating 10,000 new businesses and more than 28,000 new jobs by the end of this decade. The latest figures show that, between January and September, Business Wales had helped to create over 2,100 jobs, it's safeguarded 350 jobs, supported over 2,200 people seeking advice, and provided information and direction to more than 5,000 customers. Business Wales also supports smaller employers to explore new markets, which could be international trade or public sector supply chains for the many infrastructure projects that are being put in place across Wales. Examples include rail electrification, the Newtown bypass, which I was pleased to cut the sod of with the Member, Russell George, just on Monday, and, of course, the £12 billion Wylfa Newydd project, which will be the largest energy infrastructure project in Wales over the next 10 years, and bigger than the 2012 London Olympic Games. We also continue to support indigenous business and have seen a record number of active enterprises headquartered in Wales. In fact, the latest figures show that Wales has the highest number of new businesses in over a decade.

Another key issue for Welsh Government is in supporting businesses to access finance. Work continues on the establishment of the development bank for Wales, which will improve the ability of SMEs to access finance, building on the experience and expertise of Finance Wales. Its objective will be to provide greater levels of funding to SMEs, whilst also improving the integration of the provision of advice and support to businesses by working more closely with Business Wales.

As a Government, we don't pretend to have all the answers, which is why I have also been engaging with business to seek views on the economic priorities that will inform the development of four cross-cutting strategies that will underpin ‘Taking Wales Forward’, our programme for government. I've done this because I want our Government to be a pro-business Government that makes it a priority to talk to businesses large and small about their views on developing the right approach to grow prosperity and deliver greater financial security for businesses and individuals across our country. More than ever, we need to ensure that the resources we have at our disposal are used to secure maximum impact and the best outcomes for Wales. And our focus remains on delivering programmes and ensuring stability and confidence for businesses large and small.

Thank you very much.

We move on to the next item, which is the short debate postponed from 9 November from Julie Morgan. I now call on Julie to speak on the topic she has chosen. Julie Morgan.

Thank you very much. Diolch. I’ve agreed that Jenny Rathbone should have a minute to speak.

I’m very pleased to have the opportunity of this short debate to voice some of the concerns and anxieties that have been brought to my attention about the consequences of the MEDIC Forward programme introduced by Cardiff University at the medical school, based at the University Hospital of Wales site in the Heath, in my constituency of Cardiff North. I’ve had many people come to me expressing a great deal of disquiet and concern.

I’m going to concentrate my remarks on the disinvestment in heart research, heart research that has been lost to Cardiff, in particular that carried out at the Sir Geraint Evans Wales Heart Research Institute, which was set up largely thanks to the goodwill and generosity of the people of Wales, who felt passionately that Cardiff medical school, then the only one in Wales, should be at the heart of research into this killer disease that still steals so many lives.

Wales is particularly prone to cardiovascular disease, with both congenital and lifestyle factors among the prime causes. Cardiovascular disease, heart and circulatory, causes more than one in four of all deaths in Wales, or around 8,800 deaths each year. That’s an average of 24 people every day. This week, it emerged that dementia is now the No. 1 killer across England and Wales, but heart disease is still the leading cause of death for men. Wales still has a particular problem with heart disease, and this is despite the great strides that have been made in encouraging healthier lifestyles, as well as vast improvements in the treatment and the advances made via heart research.

The situation is improving. The total number of people living with coronary heart disease is dropping. The number of people dying each other is falling. People have more chance now of surviving a heart attack than ever before. In the 1960s, more than seven out of 10 heart attacks were fatal. Today, at least seven out of 10 people survive, and a lot of that is to do with heart research. So, things are getting better, but heart disease is still a major challenge and not an area one would have thought that Cardiff medical school would have chosen to disinvest in when reassessing its strategic future.

The disinvestment in areas of research that have clear benefit to the people of Wales indicates that the school of medicine has got its priorities seriously out of alignment with what is needed locally in Wales. And I would really like to know how much meaningful consultation there was with the Cardiff and Vale University Local Health Board about the impact on NHS clinical services.

So, in 2014 the university launched the MEDIC Forward strategic review programme to transform itself for the future. That involved looking at all its research, including heart research, resulting in the decision to prioritise four new areas: population medicine, infection and immunity, psychological medicine and clinical neurosciences, and cancer and genetics. Heart research was not included in the four priorities.

The result was that 69 members of staff received letters saying their jobs were at risk, and I understand that that included all the staff at the heart institute. And it became clear that cardiovascular research was not one of the new priority areas, and it has since emerged that Professor Alan Williams, one of the leading lights of the British Heart Foundation’s research, and his team, would be relocated to Swansea. The university says:

‘The programme is the driving force behind our ambition to be a permanent fixture in the top 10 of the UK's medical schools; it will ensure that we achieve the highest standards of teaching and world-leading research.’

I do not challenge that. I’m not going to claim that there is going to be no heart research carried out at the medical school, but ‘heart research’ is a broad term. As part of the MEDIC Forward reorganisation, the medical school decided to concentrate all its heart research efforts on the prevention of coronary heart disease, which is a very big killer as we all know. And this included the establishment of the division of population medicine that will look into ways to prevent and reduce the occurrence of heart disease in our communities, and nobody could disagree with that priority. However, I understand there will be no laboratory-based research in the new population medicine division. This research will be rightly in the community. The problem is that the Sir Geraint Evans Wales Heart Research Institute was set up in response to the need to do more heart research in Wales to respond to people with existing heart conditions, because of their large numbers in Wales, and bequests are still coming into the charity in his name for this purpose. This type of scientific heart research should surely be running in parallel with preventative work.

Fundraising took place in the 1990s by dedicated campaigners throughout Wales. As I was told by one of the researchers, it was the fabulous generosity of the public in Wales and the tireless fundraising of the trustees during the 1990s that resulted in the opening of the Sir Geraint Evans Wales Heart Research Institute in 1999. And his family have told me of the mass of small events all over Wales, as people responded to this challenge. The campaign began in 1991 and it was championed by Wales’s most famous ever opera star, Sir Geraint Evans. The chairman of the appeal was D.H. Davies, who was a former leader of Dyfed council and had been a patient at UHW. Prince Charles was chancellor of Cardiff University and leant his support, and when Sir Geraint Evans died in 1992, the work was carried on by his widow, Lady Brenda Evans. The cardiologist Professor Andrew Henderson was also a driving force.

The British Heart Foundation donated £500,000 and the appeal raised the rest through charity events across Wales, gala concerts, individual efforts and bequests. The appeal started with a target of £2 million, but the final cost of the project was eventually £3.5 million. Readers of the ‘South Wales Echo’ raised £100,000 with it’s Have a Heart campaign, and I’ve got the ‘Echo’ appeal edition of summer 1997, and gold Welsh hearts were the symbol of the pledges people made. Many of my constituents made huge individual efforts to raise money for the appeal to fund the building: Whitchurch male voice choir raised £1,000, and to celebrate his seventieth birthday, Albert Gilbert of Rhiwbina asked for donations to the appeal, raising £425. This was typical of the generosity and small sacrifices made right across Wales to help make the Sir Geraint Evans building a world-leading heart research centre.

In fact, it was the first purpose-built dedicated cardiovascular research institute in the UK when it was officially opened in February in 1999. With purpose-built clinical examination rooms and physiological investigation suites, the institute provided an ideal place to carry out patient-based research. Scientists went on to study the causes and improved treatments for heart attack, heart failure, cardiac arrhythmias and coronary artery inflammation. And in 2014 there was a breakthrough, when scientists discovered the cause of sudden cardiac death in young people.

So, it does seem absolutely extraordinary that, in planning these changes at the university, no account appeared to be taken of the specific public spirited way this Wales Heart Research Institute had been funded. There appears to be no attempt to communicate with the funders, with the family of Sir Geraint Evans about the planned changes. So many people involved have said to me how this building and money for the research was the gift of the people of Wales, and they are so concerned about its future, with some heart research already moved out and other researchers still to go.

Today, I was contacted by the Welsh Cardiovascular Society, which asked me to put on record that the loss of cardiac research in Cardiff has been met with dismay and anger by its members. They expressed deep concern with how the whole exercise has been carried out. Huw Evans, who is the son of Sir Geraint Evans, said:

‘If it is true what we have heard that cardiovascular research at the Sir Geraint Evans Wales Heart Research Institute is being diluted, then it’s a disgrace that this is being allowed to happen. My father helped lead the appeal for the building of this centre of excellence in heart research, which was given by the people of Wales in perpetuity to the university by the generosity of the people of Wales. It would be very wrong indeed if the wishes of people who are still donating money specifically to the Sir Geraint Evans heart research institute were not being adhered to. We are extremely cross that there is now a possible question mark over exactly what and where the donated money is being spent. The family have not heard from the university regarding this, but if donations are given in good faith to the institute, it should stay there.’

As part of my preparation for this debate, as well as speaking to or being approached by people who are very distressed and concerned about these changes, I met with the pro vice-chancellor and acting head of the medical school to discuss these concerns. Their view was that they can’t invest in everything, and to be competitive, and to help Cardiff move up the medical school rankings, they had to choose the four specialisms I mentioned above, which does not include heart research.

I totally agree that preventative work is very, very important, and is absolutely essential, but heart disease is very varied, and there is a strong link between research and prevention and new treatments. I have been reassured that the building will not become an administrative centre, although privately I’ve been told that administrative staff have already moved in. I have been told it will continue to be a research centre, but sadly not a specific heart research centre, and, in fact, ‘heart’ was not mentioned at all. I think it is fair to say that the Sir Geraint Evans Wales Heart Research Institute, which includes a portrait of Sir Geraint in the building, will no longer be operating in the way it was conceived, and for which the funds were raised.

My own view is that the building should remain dedicated to research directly related to the heart, but, of course, the building is already emptying. I am calling for the reinstatement of the aims of the original fund raisers. No-one doubts the need for a reassessment of priorities from time to time, and I think it’s absolutely right, obviously, that the medical school do this, and I do appreciate, of course, that all change causes upset. But I maintain that these changes were carried out in a cavalier, insensitive, inward-looking way, and, in the case of heart research, were misguided.

I am a great supporter of Cardiff University, and of its medical school, which I know generates a huge amount of money for the economy to begin with, and brings in £6 for every £1 spent. I did a postgraduate course myself at Cardiff University, and I’ve visited it on numerous occasions, and I believe the university brings so much to the city, and I will continue to champion it. However, I do believe these changes have been detrimental to the reputation of the university. I would like to see it put right, and I would like a reassurance that the Sir Geraint Evans Wales Heart Research Institute building will remain dedicated to heart research—the purpose for which it was set up—and that heart research will be restored to the medical school.

I do believe that these changes have not taken into account the huge fundraising efforts that were put into that building, and that it is a betrayal of all those people who donated that money. So, I hope that there will be some way of remedying this situation.

Whilst I recognise that Cardiff University must be free to choose which areas of research they should concentrate on, I fear that this decision to dismantle the Wales Heart Research Institute is a public relations disaster. Those who responded to the Have a Heart campaign had every right to assume that their modest contribution would be permanently strengthening and understanding an effective treatment of heart disease, which remains, as Julie Morgan has outlined, one of the primary causes of premature death in this country, if not the cause. I have many eminent cardiologists amongst my constituents, and I pay tribute to their work helping to save the lives of people struck down by heart disease.

I fear that the death of the WHRI may be a casualty of the research excellence framework, the process by which all universities’ research output is judged at the moment. This has led to the industrial production of research papers, many of them read by no-one, and of no value whatsoever in terms of the impact on human knowledge or measurable outcomes. This is something that we probably ought to come to in a much larger debate. Cardiff is not alone in this rating chasing, but I fear that this medic-forward exercise may have had the opposite effect.

I note that the British Heart Foundation briefing that was prepared for this debate talks about the drop in university ratings, as the attraction of students and clinical academics to Cardiff is reduced, and potential BHF-funded posts cannot be accepted because the university has decided not to support cardiology. I do not know whether it is possible to rectify this mistake, but it is certainly something that the Cardiff University leadership needs to consider.

Thank you. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Well-being and Sport to reply to the debate—Vaughan Gething.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I thank my colleague for raising this matter in the Chamber, but also the contribution of Jenny Rathbone. You both made your own perspectives and points very clear about the decision taken by Cardiff University.

I think it’s important to start off by recognising the impact of heart disease. We’ve heard recently, and again reminded ourselves in the Chamber today, that dementia is now recognised as a bigger killer, but there’s still much more to do to improve outcomes for people with heart disease as well as preventing people from suffering heart disease in the first place. I’m grateful to Julie Morgan for highlighting the important impact that research has had on improving outcomes for patients with cardiovascular disease.

In this particular instance, Members will of course know that the Welsh Government can’t direct the university to unpick the decision that they have taken, but of course the opportunity to have these debates is about much more than giving a message to the Government. But I do want to recognise the significant work already undertaken and that continues to be undertaken by the British Heart Foundation, and I am pleased to see that they’re continuing to invest in research in Wales with the imminent opening of a new research unit in Swansea University’s medical school. I know that the unit at Swansea will be operational early next year, and I look forward to hearing more from the university and the dean about the detail of the research that will continue there. I do want to congratulate Swansea University on developing their own capability in cardiovascular research, and I look forward to following their future success in this area.

The British Heart Foundation, of course, has been and continues to be a strong partner in a range of cross-funder initiatives such as the national prevention research initiative and the UKCRC Public Health Research Centres of Excellence. These initiatives have quite a significant investment in Welsh-led research. Now, through maintaining those partnerships, and through our investment and research delivery in health service settings, this Government will continue to support the efforts of the British Heart Foundation and their research partners to improve the diagnosis, treatment and health outcomes for people in Wales. Again, I want to recognise that a significant section of Julie Morgan’s contribution recognised the need to continue within this area.

From the Welsh Government’s point of view, we will continue to support heart research in a number of ways, and perhaps I can explain some of what we’re doing for the Chamber. We’ve recently appointed a Welsh speciality lead for cardiovascular disease, Dr Zaheer Yousef of Cardiff and Vale University Local Health Board. Dr Yousef will work with Health and Care Research Wales to champion cardiovascular research in the NHS and to increase the number of heart disease trials open to patients across Wales. That’s a regular feature of demand from the public and a range of third-sector partners and champions. As the cardiovascular disease speciality lead, Dr Yousef will also receive funding to support the research development group activity and to identify further important research questions and seek the funding needed to answer them. So, again, there’s recognition that the research won’t stop in the Cardiff area with the decision that the Member raises.

Through the National Centre for Population Health and Wellbeing Research, again recognised by Julie Morgan, we will also be funding a prescribing and dispensing data research development group that has a focus on cardiovascular and renal research questions. Through Health and Care Research Wales we will continue to provide opportunities for cardiovascular researchers through our open national peer-review funding schemes. We’re currently funding a number of projects with relevance to heart disease focused on lifestyle factors and better health outcomes.

Here of course, as a country, we have a rich history of using research evidence to improve people’s lives. For example, the work and influence of Archie Cochrane, and the creation of the Caerphilly heart disease cohort. The Caerphilly cohort is in fact the longest running study of its kind, inspiring more than 400 research papers and further study worldwide. The lessons we’ve learned from that group of people, that remarkable group of men who have given up lots of their data and interest about how they live their lives and the impact this has had on their health outcomes, has told us an awful lot more than just the cardiovascular element of health outcomes—the influencing factors that each of us can have on our own likely health outcomes in the future.

I do recognise the history that this particular unit in Cardiff has had, the significance in terms of public memory, and the attachment of a wide range of people to the centre. I do want to particularly, before I finish, recognise the contribution of a wide range of people in contributing to the research output that Julie Morgan highlights today. But we, as a Government, are keen to build on that history and to re-engage the population in research, which is why we established HealthWise Wales, which hopes to involve everyone in Wales in improving the health and well-being of the population. I’d encourage Members of this Chamber as well—you too can be involved as part of the public to sign up to that research initiative. There are lots of things we really can do and can improve upon in Wales as well. Heart disease will continue to be a significant area of interest and investment from this Government’s point of view, and we look forward to working with partners in our university sector, within the NHS, and the third sector too, and continue to improve outcomes and research output for people right across Wales. Again, I thank Julie Morgan for raising this topic and bringing it to the Chamber.

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