National Assembly for Wales

I call the National Assembly to order.

The first item on our agenda this afternoon is questions to the First Minister, and the first question is from Paul Davies.

Business support is available for entrepreneurs and micro, small and medium-sized businesses across Wales through our Business Wales service. Our focus remains on supporting innovation-driven entrepreneurs, jobs and the economy.

First Minister, I continue to receive comments from constituents and businesses in west Wales complaining about business rates. Although your Government announced additional funding for high-street businesses, there is a great deal of confusion and many businesses don’t know who’s qualified to receive that assistance. So, can you confirm that the Government will be far clearer as to who qualifies? Also, can you tell us why the Government wanted to target high-street businesses without including other businesses?

What we’ve been trying to do is helping those who’ve lost out temporarily because of the renewal of the business rates. Many people have benefited from that, and of course those businesses who are keeping quiet, perhaps, have seen a drop in the business rates. But we hope that we’ll be able to help small businesses, particularly those who have seen an increase in their rates.

Figures from Lloyds Bank have shown that 40 per cent fewer businesses were established in the last five years in Pembrokeshire, Gwynedd, Ceredigion and Anglesey, as compared with a fall of 26 per cent across Wales and 20 per cent in England. Is the First Minister willing to look into why the figures are so very different in the westerly counties as compared with places such as Blaenau Gwent, where there’s been a decline of only 8 per cent? The award goes to Merthyr, where a decline of less than 0.5 per cent was seen. Will the First Minister ask his Ministers to look at this issue on what’s happening in west Wales on this particular topic?

I believe you’re talking about the Lloyds Bank figures. We don’t know what methodology they used and we don’t know exactly what the nature of the data set is. Having said that, the number of business births has increased from 8,225 in 2011 to 11,525 in 2015. But of course, we will consider the figures that have been issued by Lloyds Bank to see whether there’s any kind of problem here that we need to address in one part of Wales.

Last week, the Welsh Government announced two new business investment funds of £7 million each. The application deadline is in just five weeks’ time. The same thing happened with the growth and prosperity fund last year. It was announced on 17 September last year and the deadline for the large applications was just four weeks later. The Scottish Government has created a £500 million fund with an open window for applications over three years. We seem to run the show with: every time the Welsh Government finds a bit of money down the back of the Welsh European Funding Office’s sofa, they announce a new fund, and it’s closed before most businesses have had the opportunity to hear about it. It’s the opposite of strategic, and I would say to the First Minister, gently, that it makes Wales look amateurish.

Well, our unemployment rate is better than Scotland, actually. Our economic growth is better than Scotland. We have done far better than the Scottish Government in that regard. Can I also say that the schemes that he has referred to were oversubscribed? It may be that the window is short, but nevertheless, the schemes are popular, they deliver and their economic statistics show that.

Rough sleeping, we know, is a problem in many parts of Wales, which is why we have the legislation that we’ve passed in order to ensure that rough sleeping was dealt with. There is a question mark at the moment in terms of us being able to understand the numbers of people who are sleeping rough. It can be a difficult people to assess, but we are not complacent, and we are continuing to invest through our Supporting People programme and homelessness prevention grants.

I thank the First Minister for that response. Last week, press reports highlighted the experience of people sleeping rough in Neath. The people who were interviewed had been through job loss, difficulty in claiming benefits, prison and addiction, and they spoke movingly about the impact on their health and their sense of loneliness. The legislation that the First Minister has referred to is acknowledged as having made great progress, in particular around prevention, and I welcome the preservation of Supporting People, as he mentioned in his response. But Shelter believes that the way the Welsh Government monitors rough sleeping means, in their words:

‘We simply don’t know enough about…rough sleeping to be able to fix it.’

They also highlight the comparative lack of Housing First accommodation in Wales. In addition to the measures already in place, will the First Minister therefore look at how the Welsh Government monitors rough sleeping, so that we can understand how best to tackle it, and will he also look at the availability of Housing First stock in Wales?

Yes. An independent evaluation of the implementation of the Housing (Wales) Act 2014 has been commissioned, and an interim report is expected in draft format by June of this year. That work will help us to understand how rough sleepers are being treated under the legislation, and I can say that alternative monitoring systems are being explored in order to assist with the annual monitoring that takes place. There’ll be further information on that later in the year. And, of course, we’re looking to work with local authorities, who are responsible for meeting needs in their local areas, to ensure that people don’t become homeless in the first place, which, of course, is the intention of the legislation.

First Minister, as has already been mentioned, Shelter are gravely concerned about the lack of data available to monitor what is happening in Wales. I believe with many of your other programmes such as Communities First and Communities for Work, the data and the lack of data is an emerging theme for your Government. With such an important issue in the fact that we do have such strong legislation, why does a situation arise where there is a lack of data on such an important issue? What work in addition to that that you’ve just outlined in your response to Jeremy Miles will be ongoing in order to ensure that there is no growth next year in the number of homeless people in Wales?

One thing from the data that is important to say is that the statistics from 2015-16 show that the legislation was successful in helping 65 per cent of families who were under pressure and perhaps lost their house because of that. And so we know that that has worked extremely well. But as I said earlier, it is extremely important to ensure that the data that we have is adequate in order to ensure that the legislation works in the most effective way possible.

As a member of the multiagency and cross-party working group that successfully campaigned under the leadership of community campaigners Together Creating Communities to establish the Tŷ Nos night shelter in Wrexham, it’s particularly frustrating that the Welsh Government’s latest national rough sleeper count not only shows a 72 per cent increase in rough sleepers across Wales, but the numbers in Wrexham on the night of the count were up from 17 to 27 on the previous years, and at 61, Wrexham had the highest proportion of people sleeping rough over a two-week period in Wales—significantly higher, even, than Cardiff. How, therefore, do you propose that the Welsh Government should engage with Wrexham town centre forum steering group, whose chair, Andrew Atkinson, has said that it’s time for everyone to put politics aside, stop blaming each other and work together mutually to get to grips with the town’s issues?

The Member quotes a Conservative candidate, who, as we know, may not be perhaps the most objective person to quote at this stage. But I have to say that his party has to take responsibility for this. Many people become homeless because of the changes in welfare benefits. The hammering that people have through the bedroom tax—[Interruption.] Yes, it’s true to say that we look to use legislation and other means in order to look to prevent homelessness, but of course, the UK Government is responsible for taking money away from people and putting them in danger of being homeless. And so, his party has to accept responsibility for much of the threat of homelessness that people have to face.

First Minister, unfortunately, the narrative around rough sleeping has been completely toxic. Rather than seeing rough sleepers as poor, unfortunate souls forced to find shelter in shop doorways facing hypothermia and starvation, many have seen them and branded them as delinquents and a scourge to be removed from our high streets. First Minister, do you agree with me that, rather than serving anti-social behaviour orders on these people or locking them up for vagrancy, councils across Wales should be providing shelter and working with the various agencies and partnerships to find them permanent accommodation and support?

Well, I’m not sure you can lock people up for vagrancy anymore, but I take the point about stigma. I have been to the Salvation Army’s purple bus that appears in Cathays Park in Cardiff. I’ve seen and met many of the people who are homeless. They have very different stories to tell. Some of them have to wrestle with addiction, some of them find it very difficult to remain in accommodation when they get their accommodation, and there are many problems that individuals have to face. But through the work of groups like the Salvation Army with the accommodation that they provide, working with local authorities and Government, we aim to provide a holistic solution to the problems that so many people face that make them homeless in the first place.

Questions now from the party leaders. Leader of the Welsh Conservatives, Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I first of all wish you many happy returns, First Minister? As someone who’s got many years to go before I hit the milestone of 50, I look forward to maybe you telling me what it’s like. [Laughter.] But I wish you all the best on your birthday today, and I’d also like to send best wishes to the Cabinet Secretary for rural affairs who, obviously, is convalescing at the moment, and hopefully she’ll be back with us as soon as possible.

Yesterday, First Minister, the Swansea city deal was signed by both Governments and, obviously, the partners who worked to build up that deal—the local authorities and, importantly, businesses who were involved in creating the combination of projects that, hopefully, will lift GVA and employability skills levels and the prospects for the Swansea city region. I specifically mention ‘region’, because it’s not just Swansea we’re looking at here. It has, though, not unreasonably, been put to people that this doesn’t bear much of a resemblance to what Sir Terry Matthews was talking about when he initially, as the chair of the city region board, brought this forward some 12 months ago, and that the concept has moved away from people and more to buildings. Do you share that view, and the view that, actually, the deal before us could potentially be a ‘build it for people to come’, rather than investing in the people of the region?

No, I don’t think that’s fair. The deal itself is a deal that had to be agreed via the local authorities and by the UK Government and with ourselves. It’s absolutely right to say that almost half of the investment that will come will come from the private sector—it’s a very good example of what happens when Governments co-operate; it’s a very good example of what happens when public and private sector co-operate as well. The 11 projects that will be funded are intended to create more than 10,000 jobs, so it’s not about buildings; it is about creating jobs and opportunities for people, and that is something that both Governments and the local authorities are confident will happen.

And you are confident, First Minister, with this deal, that GVA, which is about 74 per cent of the UK level in the Swansea city region, will increase over the 15 years of the deal. So, can you give us some firm indicators that you will be benchmarking, and you Government will be benchmarking, as success? What can we expect in the three, five, eight and 10 years when this deal will be coming forward, so that we can actually mark you and the UK Government and the partners about the increase in GVA levels in this area? Because it is vital that people actually can see wealth and opportunity increasing, rather than some of the soundbites that we’ve had on other regeneration initiatives that maybe have happened in the past.

There is an issue in Wales, as indeed there is in the UK, about productivity. There is no easy silver bullet that deals with productivity, but one area where productivity can be improved is through skills and providing people via those skills with higher paid jobs. The leader of the Welsh Conservatives asked how we judge whether the scheme is successful. There are two ways of measuring: first of all an increase in GVA per head and secondly an increase in GVA per head when compared to the rest of Wales and the rest of the UK. Both those things I expect to see delivered.

I welcome that. I would have liked, maybe, a more definitive mark as to where you would like to see GVA over the period growing to from where it is at the moment, at 74 per cent. But it is important that Cardiff has got a city deal and that Swansea city region has got a city deal. Obviously, north Wales desperately needs the growth deal to be delivered. Yesterday in ‘The Guardian’, you accused the Prime Minister of having a tin ear when it came to listening to concerns that you raised around devolution and maybe the constitutional fabric of the UK. One thing that has come out from north Wales, from the ambition board in particular, is the ability for the Welsh Government to devolve responsibility to north Wales so that those powers around business rates, for example, around skills and around transport—I appreciate there are issues around business rates—but on skills and transport, there would be a greater synergy between the Northern Powerhouse and north Wales to create a better driver for economic prosperity in north Wales. Will your Government actively consider devolving responsibilities out of Cathays Park, or will you be showing a tin ear to the requests that are coming out of north Wales from businesses and council leaders when they’re asking you for these responsibilities?

Well, there’s no difficulty with what the leader of the Welsh Conservatives is saying. This Cardiff city deal and the Swansea bay deal are driven by local authorities. It’s not something that we seek to impose; the same will apply to the north Wales growth deal. I made the point yesterday: this is not about the south of Wales, or indeed about large urban areas. These are the two deals that were ready first because of the working between local authorities. The north-east, particularly, would come next, and we will look to devolve as many powers as we can, in the future. In terms of business rates, it’s more difficult because, with business rates, we know that there are many local authorities that would lose out if business rates were devolved. But we want to make sure that as many decisions are taken locally as possible, and that means local authorities being very much in the driving seat, working together to deliver for their regions and working cross-border, of course, creating prosperity both sides of the border.

Leader of the UKIP group, Neil Hamilton.

Diolch yn fawr, Lywydd. I’d like to wish the First Minister happy birthday, as well, and to assure him that, as you get older, there’s nothing to fear as long as you remain in rude health like me. The First Minister will agree—[Interruption.] The This Minister will agree, I’m sure, whatever our differing views on Brexit, uncertainty is to be deprecated, and the Prime Minister, at least, is about to resolve one uncertainty by triggering article 50. It’s regrettable, though, that Nicola Sturgeon has now sought to create another uncertainty over a referendum in Scotland, no doubt confident that the Prime Minister would refuse her request. I wonder if the First Minister would agree with me the best way to reduce this particular uncertainty is to call Nicola Sturgeon’s bluff and hold a referendum.

Well, first things first, I should thank the leader of UKIP and, indeed, the leader of the Welsh Conservatives for their good wishes, from different perspectives, indeed, in that regard. But my view is, and I’ve said this publicly, that if the Scottish Parliament votes to hold a referendum, the UK Government should not stand in the way of the Scottish Parliament, any more than the European Commission or Parliament should have stood in the way of the UK holding a referendum on Brexit. I think it’s right that if the Scottish Parliament supports a referendum and looks for a particular date, that the views of the Scottish Parliament should be respected.

I’m glad to hear the First Minister say that, because I agree with him that it’s rarely wrong to consult the people on a major issue of this kind. If there were to be a referendum campaign, it would also have some relevance for Wales, because Scotland has a budget deficit of £15 billion a year, although it’s a larger economy than Wales, and it’s much the same figure as we have here—£15 billion deficit. That is, effectively, a transfer of funds from one part of the UK to another, which would disappear if either Scotland or Wales became politically independent.

Well, it is not my view that independence is in Wales’s interests. I’m aware of the substantial financial transfers that take place and that come into Wales, which is why I’m a strong devolutionist, but not somebody who supports independence.

It’s very important, I think—all of us who believe in the integrity of the United Kingdom should remain united on this point that, actually, Wales would be vastly poorer if it left the United Kingdom, because there is no way that any cut in any budget by a UK department that would be subsequently devolved to Wales could possibly be compensated for in any other way. Therefore, because public expenditure is now nearly 60 per cent of the Welsh GDP, there would be a massive hit for all poor and vulnerable people, and all those who rely upon the national health service and other social services for their health and well-being.

The case for independence by those who make it in Wales is built not on the economy, to my mind, but on emotion. What we must guard against, from my perspective, is that the emotional case doesn’t overwhelm the economic one, which is why it’s hugely important that, when the UK leaves the EU, we have in place a structure that reflects a proper partnership of the four nations within the UK, but it’s not a case of the UK Government imposing its will in devolved areas on the devolved Governments, and we also have an independent adjudication process for policing the rules of the internal single market of the UK. I believe that’s the way forward—respect for the four national identities within the UK, as well as other identities within the UK. That, for me, would represent, for Wales, a very good outcome. But my worry is the UK Government—I did say that there’s a tin ear, although the meeting yesterday was better, I have to say, than any we’ve had in the past. It is hugely important the UK Government itself doesn’t create the conditions where people feel annoyed enough to take the view that, actually, they don’t believe the UK is worth preserving. That is not something I’d want to see.

The leader of Plaid Cymru, Leanne Wood.

Well, it’s clear that Wales is so wealthy and so prosperous that the status quo is the only option for us, isn’t it? First Minister, in recent years there have been a number of scandals concerning the quality of treatment of some patients in some wards in the Welsh NHS. How confident are you that the systems for identifying and correcting problems are now robust enough to prevent another Tawel Fan or Princess of Wales-style scandal?

We’re confident the structures that are in place now would avoid those scenarios, and are robust.

First Minister, one area of hospital treatment where problems have regularly been identified is that of hospital nutrition and hydration. Hospital nutrition is a basic healthcare need, I’m sure you’ll agree with me on that. Now, yesterday, the Public Accounts Committee released another report on nutrition, and this is five years after the last report on nutrition. The report found, and I quote,

‘a story of a distinct lack of leadership, stagnant activity, and frustratingly slow progress in a number of important areas.’

You claim to have introduced new initiatives to fix this. Why have they not yet succeeded, and what reasons can you give for the slow progress on hospital nutrition?

Well, of course, there is a formal process for responding to reports, but it’s right to say that nutrition and hydration is hugely important. The report did highlight good progress that had been made in a number of areas, but, of course, it’s hugely important to have reports such as this in order to make sure that there is as much improvement as we’d all want to see.

How many reports do we need, First Minister? The report highlighted that 9 per cent of patients were not being given enough water to drink. There are other areas where progress is non-existent—no progress on a computerised catering information system, and that problem was identified back in 2011. Not a single health board has a named director with responsibility for nutrition, and not a single health board has achieved 100 per cent compliance with nutritional care pathway training, despite it being mandatory since its introduction in 2011.

What you hear from management is very different to what we, as Assembly Members, hear from patients and our constituents. When can we expect to see some leadership from you on hospital nutrition? When will we get beyond apologies and claims of lessons learned to see that these simple, basic problems in the NHS have to be prevented before they cause serious harm to some of our patients?

We’ve already introduced a range of initiatives aimed at patients, staff and visitors in relation to healthy eating. We’re considering ways to improve healthy food provision in hospitals even further, including an upcoming review of the mandatory standards. And as I said earlier on, the statement by the PAC does acknowledge the huge improvements already achieved by the NHS. The auditor general, in his report, said that he recognised that NHS bodies have made good progress implementing the recommendations made by both himself and by the committee, and that two thirds of the recommendations were fully actioned, with ongoing work to address those recommendations not yet complete. So, most have been done. Some have not yet been done, but what is clear from what has been said by the auditor general is that what is left to do is in the process of being done.

A cross-Government team is taking forward the Better Jobs, Closer to Home programme to better align a range of commercial projects with other interventions to support creation of meaningful employment in communities with high levels of joblessness.

It’s worth remembering that it was in October 2015 that the Wales Trades Union Congress launched its excellent campaign for better jobs, closer to home, to benefit Valleys communities such as the one I represent in Caerphilly, and, indeed, I received a very friendly note from them last week emphasising that, and I was pleased to see the same principles contained in the programme for government.

I’d like to welcome the speech the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure made yesterday at Coleg y Cymoedd, where he recognised the importance of addressing regional differences and taking a regional focus to creating resilient communities and indeed better jobs, closer to home. With this in mind, will the First Minister provide more specifics about the Welsh Government’s approach that will tackle those economic challenges faced by the northern Valleys of south Wales, helping develop our own specialised sectors, building on existing strength, and the social capital that exists there?

Well, firstly, the commercial pilots are starting to test the interventions to see how they can be as effective as they can be. We’re looking to implement a specific strategy, both regionally in the northern Valleys, and across the whole of Wales. There is a ministerial taskforce that’s been set up cross-Government in order to address some of these issues. The challenge for us is that there are differences within the Valleys themselves in terms of performance. We know that Merthyr is doing particularly well in terms of attracting investment. That is not reflected in every Valleys community. So, what we’re looking to do is ensure that we can even out economic development and improvement over the course of the next few years, rather than seeing some parts of the Valleys do well and others less well—commercial interventions and pilot projects apart. Of that, the taskforce is another limb of that.

Better jobs, closer to home—for my constituents, what this means is creating quality jobs in north-west Wales, and the Welsh Government is duty-bound to show the way in this regard and to have deliberate policies to ensure that Government jobs are distributed across Wales. When, then, does your Government intend to reform its job location strategy? We need to include specific new criteria that would lead to the distribution of Welsh Government jobs in an equal way across Wales. I suggest that you do amend and reform this strategy as a matter of urgency, before the people of north Wales lose all confidence in your Government.

I think that’s totally unfair, bearing in mind that it was us, as a Government, that opened the Llandudno Junction office, and it was us, as a Government, that had an office in Caernarfon, and it was us, as a Government, that has moved more jobs out of Cardiff than ever under the Welsh Office, with jobs across the whole of Wales. It’s not possible to have an office in every location, obviously, but our record is an extremely good one in relation to moving jobs, particularly in north Wales. There are more people working for Welsh Government in north Wales than was ever true under the old Welsh Office.

First Minister, if we want to have more people working closer to home, then what about homeworkers? One of the problems that homeworkers face in my constituency and in other parts, particularly of north Wales, is poor broadband connectivity. We saw a report last week that said that some of the slowest speeds can be found in north Wales, and there are still many people who don’t have access to superfast broadband. What are you doing to hold BT and Openreach to account to make sure that they deliver on their promises and their obligations under the scheme? And what action are you taking to address those 4 or 5 per cent of properties that are currently outside the scope of the scheme, so that those people too in those areas can also have the opportunity to work from home?

As the Member knows, we are looking for 96 per cent of premises to have access to superfast broadband by the summer. Many of those premises would never have had access without Government intervention because the market was never there. It’s right to point out, of course, the roughly 4 per cent of people who wouldn’t be part of superfast Cymru—they are in particularly remote areas. There will be other alternatives that will have to be explored for them, such as, for example, the use of satellites rather than using the cables. These are issues we are aware of. Even though Superfast Cymru focuses on the 96 per cent, the 4 per cent are not forgotten about.

First Minister, I’m given to understand that there are at present 175 businesses on waiting lists for council-owned units in Caerphilly, some for up to five years. Can you therefore indicate whether there are any Government plans to help councils like Caerphilly construct new units to accommodate such surpluses, given the fact that, obviously, these companies have the potential have to create thousands of jobs close to home?

Well, I’m not aware of the situation in Caerphilly as he describes it. I will write to him on that, because it’s specific to Caerphilly council rather than to Welsh Government. We need to avoid a situation where we build speculatively lots and lots of different factory units because we know that a lot of them remain empty, or they did remain empty in the 1990s. What we look to do is to identify existing buildings that are appropriate for businesses who want them, and to look at where units can be built where we know there will be a demand. And that is something certainly that forms part of our economic strategy.

The Member will know I’ve been calling for a number of years for a constitutional convention to consider the future governance of the United Kingdom, and the challenges posed by EU withdrawal make the case for such a convention even stronger.

I thank the First Minister for that response and congratulate him for raising this very important issues for so many years. Would he agree that the unwritten constitution of the UK is unstainable, in view of leaving the EU and with the threat of a second Scottish independence referendum?

Well, at the heart of the problem, as we leave the EU, is parliamentary sovereignty and the idea that all power comes from one place in Westminster, which has the ability to do whatever it wants. I don’t think that’s the right approach. I think there are several centres of democratic accountability, of which this Assembly is one. For me, the UK has to move more towards a system of shared sovereignty. It works in Canada. It doesn’t create instability. Canada is one of the most prosperous and secure countries in the world, but we have to get away from this idea that, somehow, everything is subordinate to Westminster and the UK Parliament in Westminster. That is not the model I believe—. It may have worked in the nineteenth century, but it’s not the model that’s going to work in this century.

I was disappointed that the First Minister’s response to the developments last week was what sounded like calls for an internal constitutional convention for the Labour Party. But in moving forward, we know that the Welsh Government-Plaid Cymru White Paper on Europe has been rejected out of hand by the UK Government. We know that the UK Government has broken its promise to have a UK-wide approach to EU negotiations before triggering article 50. This doesn’t bode well for the much-awaited repeal Bill and related legislation, but there is a clause in the Welsh Government-Plaid Cymru White Paper—I suppose we could call it article 132—that the First Minister could trigger, which would mean bringing to this Assembly a continuity Bill now, in anticipation of the repeal Bill, to defend the current Welsh constitution from a power grab from Westminster.

Well, first of all, there’s been no formal response to the White Paper that we have produced. Secondly, the great reform Bill, as it’s termed, is designed to be a Bill that will preserve—we are told—EU law in the jurisdictions of the UK and the laws of the different parts and different nations of the UK. If that’s all it does, then it’s sensible. However, what we would not accept—in fact, we would oppose this tooth and nail—is any suggestion that there will be a clawback of existing powers, or that powers that return from Brussels should sit, even for a period of time, in Westminster. That is something that we will guard against very strongly, and we will examine the great repeal Bill very closely to make sure that that does not happen. And we will not support that if that is proposed as part of that Bill.

First Minister, I think the problem with a constitutional convention is that you can’t really have one until after a second referendum in Scotland, which, at some point in the future, does look a possibility. I just wonder if your more immediate aims should be with the Prime Minister to see how the Joint Ministerial Committee system could be strengthened. I commend Mr Drakeford’s remarks on how that might happen, although not the style in which he made them. I think it was too caustic in Parliament when he compared the current process to St Fagans Community Council. [Laughter.] But, he did make some interesting points about how the JMCs could be made more robust, with agendas, a secretariat and a clear purpose and future work plan. That’s what you should be concentrating on.

Over the next two years, following the triggering of article 50, there is a golden opportunity to restructure the way in which decisions are taken across the UK. It’s no good waiting until that period of time has elapsed because then we will find ourselves in a situation where there’s no way of putting in place an alternative system. What does that mean? It means that the JMC should evolve into a proper council of Ministers where joint decisions are taken, where that is appropriate, in areas that are devolved. It may well be that there is merit in having a general framework with regard to agriculture, or indeed fisheries, as long as it’s agreed. We know that, when the UK leaves the EU, there is the distinct possibility that state aid rules will no longer apply, in which case we’ll have a free-for-all inside the internal single market of the UK. I’ve mentioned the term ‘trade law’. I think that’s perfectly possible. There was a trade law between Ireland and the UK in the 1930s. It’s in no-one’s interest for that to happen. The alternative to that is to put together a set of rules in the UK, agreed by the four UK Governments and, importantly, an independent adjudication body that polices those rules—a court. The European Court of Justice performs that function in the European single market; the US Supreme Court performs that function in terms of inter-state commerce in the US. An internal single market without agreed rules and a method of policing those rules is not a proper internal single market. I want to see that internal single market work properly.

Personally, I very much welcome the leadership that the First Minister is showing on this drive towards a constitutional convention. But, further to David Melding’s important question, in the immediate here and now, and following that fascinating session we had yesterday, where we had in the gallery law students from the University of South Wales looking on, if we do not achieve that greater parity of esteem that you could see in a council of Ministers and independent adjudication as well, what is your prognosis then, going forward, as we transition to exiting the European Union and to a very different framework within the UK? What’s your prognosis if we do not get those mechanisms in place?

There is a danger that the UK will start to unravel. In particular, one thing that is not often mentioned, but I think is worth noting, is what might cause the rise of English nationalism, and people in England feeling aggrieved with the system. And I think this can all be avoided fairly easily. The distinct national identities of our four nations can be recognised while at the same time recognising the common purpose that the UK provides, but that does mean putting in place a structure that reflects the fact that this is a partnership of nations, rather than believing that this is something like the unitary state that the UK was in 1972, before it entered what was then the Common Market. So, these issues are resolvable—there’s no doubt about that in my mind. They need to be resolved so that, when the UK leaves the EU, that structure is in place already in terms of the internal single market of the UK, in terms of the council of Ministers, rather than doing it a few years after that and then leaving a vacuum. That’s in no-one’s interest.

Well, yes. I mentioned earlier on the legislation and what we’re doing to monitor the legislation. We of course continue to work with all local authorities to ensure greater consistency and support to those who are homeless or are at risk of homelessness.

Thank you, First Minister. My concerns are similar to the ones that were raised by Jeremy Miles earlier on, but I want to focus on one specific point. I had the opportunity during January through to just this week of volunteering at the winter night shelter in Merthyr Tydfil that was provided by the council, and I’d probably like to place on record now my thanks to Merthyr Tydfil council for providing that night shelter and for the selfless volunteers who have worked throughout the whole of that period to support the residents there. But what I was probably moved by more than anything else was the total hopelessness of people who find themselves homeless now. There were lots of people there using the shelter who’d found themselves homeless for a number of reasons that you alluded to earlier on—health problems, and drug dependency, and so on. But I was also struck by the number that were there because of family breakdown in relationships. So, they didn’t have other issues, just literally nowhere else to live. And it was the kind of downward spiral—

You do need to come to a question.

[Continues.]—that those people face. The question, First Minister, came about from a discussion I had with two relatively young men who decided that they could best lift themselves out of homelessness by joining together to get a place to rent. They’d found a suitable place—

You really do need to get to your question.

I need to explain—

No, you’ve already explained your explanation, now get to your question, please.

Okay. They couldn’t find a guarantor, because they had no access to anybody who could guarantee the rental with the private landlord. So, could you, First Minister, give some indication of what the Welsh Government can do, possibly working in conjunction with local authorities and housing providers, to break down the barriers that make it difficult for the homeless to secure rented accommodation and possibly look at—

Can you please answer the question, First Minister? The question has been asked.

There are a number of issues that my friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney has identified, and that is, quite often, people cannot get themselves out of the rut they find themselves in: they can’t get a job, because they haven’t got an address; they can’t look the part for a job, because they haven’t got any money; they find it difficult to access help for mental health problems or for addiction problems. There are pathways that people can follow that are provided by a number of third sector organisations, but getting people onto that pathway is often the difficult part. I suspect that, for many individuals, it’s a tailor-made approach to that individual that will work most effectively, but, of course, we also face a situation where people are homeless because they literally have nowhere to live and they can’t claim housing benefit because of their age. Because of that, they find themselves living on the streets as a result of that, and that is something that could have been prevented by the UK Government.

In October last year, the Conservative Government announced a £14 million programme to provide an innovative approach to tackling homelessness. This includes a number of initiatives to help individuals in danger of becoming homeless, to help rough sleepers to access employment and education opportunities, and to address the underlying issues of long-term rough sleepers, such as poor mental health or substance abuse. Will the First Minister agree to consider the UK Government’s programme to see what measures can be introduced to tackle homelessness in Merthyr Tydfil and other parts of south-east Wales?

First, there are lots of young people who are homeless because of the UK Government and the decisions it took with regard to supporting those who needed somewhere to live. They have nowhere else to live; they can’t get housing benefit; they find it difficult to get a job; so, they end up living on the streets as a result of that. That money could have been better targeted, I suggest to the Member, if it was used in that way.

The UK Government is playing catch up to us. Our Supporting People programme plays a very important part in preventing homelessness. We’ve protected that budget. We spent £124.4 million on that programme in 2017-18. We’ve also developed a number of distinct approaches to support those members of our community most at risk—for example, ex-service personnel, those who are ex-offenders—and a pathway to try to help young people avoid homelessness because of the actions of the UK Government. So, I would argue to him that, actually, the UK Government is trying to catch up with what we’re doing already.

Yes. We continue to provide all forms of employment support to all areas of Wales. This includes our highly successful Jobs Growth Wales and Business Wales programmes, additional investment in apprenticeships and, of course, not forgetting, a range of other EU-funded programmes.

Thank you very much for the reply, First Minister. The announcement by Newsquest that they propose to close their subediting hub in Newport and relocate to Weymouth has been raised in this Chamber before. However, it has been revealed that Newsquest received £95,000 from the Welsh Government in 2012-13 under the Skills Growth Wales programme, and a further £245,000 to expand its subediting hub last year.

Will the First Minister advise us what conditions applied to these grants and what action will the Welsh Government take to safeguard its investment in supporting employment in Newport?

In 2015, we provided £245,808 to the company towards the creation of 50 jobs and the safeguarding of 15 jobs at the facility in Maesglas. That was exceeded, but the award was conditional on the jobs being in place until May 2020. If that condition is not met, then we will look to recoup the money.

A code of practice on ethical employment in supply chains was launched on 9 March. We expect the Welsh public sector to sign up to the code and to help improve the well-being of workers in our supply chains.

I thank the First Minister for that answer. It was heartening to hear of the new code of practice for ethical employment for supply chains to the Welsh public sector because it shows real leadership. But, in launching the code of practice, the Cabinet Secretary said:

‘It is only by working together that we can help deliver a better, and crucially, a fairer deal for workers in our supply chains in Wales and throughout the world.’

So, can I seek assurance from the First Minister that we will try to make this bite deeply in Wales through the long reach of the public sector and other agencies, third sector and others, but also use that reach deep into other nations, including developing nations, so that our supply chains, including those parts that rely on sourcing overseas, do not exploit any worker anywhere?

The code demonstrates the Welsh Government’s commitment to the eradication of illegal and unethical practices that affect workers in Wales and beyond. We need to have the longest reach possible and of course to ensure that this rolls through not just the public sector but private sector as well. So, we will encourage businesses operating in Wales to sign up to the code as well. That will raise and level the playing field for ethically responsible businesses so that those who employ staff legally and ethically cannot be undercut by those who don’t.

Our ‘Framework for Action on Independent Living’ sets out our plans to support disabled people in Wales to live independently in their communities. We will be looking to review the framework this year, embracing, of course, the principles of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015.

Thank you, First Minister, for that answer. I have been dealing with a constituent whose wheelchair had to go in for repair. He was left without a suitable alternative, as this was a bespoke chair, for over two months and has been unable to successfully contact anyone for updates. It was only after I contacted the chief executive of the local health board that any action was taken. Frankly, this is unacceptable. I am told that waiting time for wheelchairs is excessive. How can we possibly hope to support disabled people to remain active members of their community if we can't provide for such basic needs? First Minister, what is your Government doing to eliminate waiting time for wheelchairs and ensure timely repairs to this essential element of a disabled person’s support?

Well, it's clear that the constituent who contacted you has gone through a difficult experience. It needs to be investigated. Could I ask the Member to write to me and I will, of course, write back to her to provide her constituent with an explanation?

Thank you, First Minister.

The next item on our agenda is the business statement and announcement, and I call on the leader of the house, Jane Hutt.

Diolch, Lywydd. I have a few changes to report to this week’s business. The statement on the future of youth work delivery has been postponed to 4 April. In its place, the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children will make an oral statement on park homes commission rates—next steps. Finally, the time allocated to the Counsel General’s oral Assembly questions tomorrow has been reduced and business for the next three weeks is as shown on the business statement and announcement found among the meeting papers available to Members electronically.

Leader of the house, can we have a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for health, please, on paediatric rheumatology services in Wales? Sadly, in Wales, we do not have any paediatric rheumatology services—dedicated services—and in particular we do not have any teams to help young people who are diagnosed with arthritis at very young ages, very often at school age, and this causes a huge amount of problems, not only just from the pain side of managing the pain of arthritis, but also the ability to engage fully in the education system and be able to support children going through the education system so that they can reach their full potential. I'm led to believe, through a meeting that I had yesterday, that many people are diverted into the centres that are located in England, of which there are 12. In Scotland, there are two, and, in Northern Ireland, with a much smaller population than Wales, there is one dedicated centre, whereas at the moment there is just merely a consultant service here in south Wales, which doesn't provide the full service that a team approach would develop, where—. If you look at the standards that should be in place, there should be a consultant, there should be two nurse specialists, one physiotherapist, and an occupational therapist, to help develop the services here in Wales. I'd be grateful if we could have a statement so we can see whether the Government has any intention to bring forward what I would say is this missing link in the provision of healthcare for young people who suffer the pain—the chronic pain—of arthritis and the help that they must require.

Andrew R.T. Davies raises an important point. Of course, the fact that we have now got a children's hospital here in Wales, which, of course, is taking forward innovative treatments and care pathways—and I think that what we need to look at very carefully now is, in terms of paediatric rheumatology, what care pathway is available, and, of course, the Cabinet Secretary has heard the point that has been made today.

I wonder if we can find time for a statement on the impact of the changes to work and pensions conditions for the employment support allowance that are kicking in on 1 April, and the impact in Wales in particular. The Work and Pensions Select Committee, a cross-party committee, has questioned the very principle behind these cuts to employment and support allowance from 1 April. They've been justified on the grounds that they will actually remove person-centred incentives discouraging people from returning to work. But the committee states the evidence is at best ambiguous and in fact carries the risk that, in their words, it will affect disabled people's quality of life and the likelihood of moving into work. So, I wonder if we can find time for some assessment or some statement on the impact of that in Wales, because it's of material impact on the lives of my constituents.

Well, that's very helpful, Huw Irranca-Davies, to hear from a cross-party select committee, the Work and Pensions Select Committee in Westminster, for responsibilities of the UK Government, and that scrutiny and monitoring. Of the impacts of those changes that come into being on 1 April, we remain deeply concerned about the changes for employment support allowance claimants assigned to the work-related activity group, commencing from April this year. This will see new claimants receive approximately £28 per week less than existing claimants.

Leader of the house, two weeks ago I asked the First Minister a non-partisan question on behalf of my constituents. I welcomed the growth in passenger numbers on the T9 bus service to Cardiff Airport, and I asked whether the Welsh Government had looked at diverting subsidies to other bus services across rural Wales. Now, at no point did the First Minister answer my substantive question—rather he just sought to make a series of party political points completely irrelevant to my question. Now, constituents have raised this with me, and asked me to express concern at the way in which the First Minister answers important questions brought in this Chamber. Perhaps you could review the record, and will you encourage your colleague the First Minister to answer questions in a more informative way?

I’m intrigued—we suddenly leap from Cardiff Airport, indeed in my constituency, up to your constituency, in terms of what seems to be a very genuine question, Russell George, about provision of rural bus services, which, of course, the Cabinet Secretary for economy and transport is also extremely concerned about, which is why he spearheaded and led a bus summit, which I’m sure you would have engaged in, because this is about accessibility of public transport across the whole and in every part of Wales, all parts of Wales, and particularly in terms of access in rural areas.

Last week I spoke at an event organised by the British Deaf Association to give deaf school pupils a taste of future careers and to help them to fulfil their absolute potential. This event coincided with British Sign Language Week. I wondered if it would be possible to have a statement from the Welsh Government about what their views are on making British Sign Language an official language. Also last week, the children’s commissioner raised the issue of mothers having to pay £350 in order to learn British Sign Language in order to communicate with their deaf children, which is obviously quite a financial burden, and whether there’s any statement that could be made about how this issue could be addressed—.

I thank Julie Morgan for that question. This issue has been discussed and brought forward, in fact, to cross-party groups over the years. We did establish, as a result, indeed, of a petition from the public and disability groups in particular, a framework for action on independent living—it was mentioned earlier on in response to a question to the First Minister—and it is about ensuring that we can, across Government, act on and take forward those important issues that have such an impact on people’s lives, rooted, of course, in the social model of disability. As the First Minister said earlier on, we’re actually taking the opportunity to develop a refreshed framework for action by the summer, and we have a disability equality forum, and I think these questions, particularly looking at the opportunities that we have to move forward with British Sign Language, will be—both the consultation and the forum will provide an opportunity for this to be considered again.

Leader of the house, can I call for a further update statement from the Minister for Skills and Science on the roll-out of superfast broadband, particularly in north Wales? I had a public meeting yesterday in Llanarmon-yn-Iâl, and there were representatives there from Eryrys, Graianrhyd and Tafarn-y-Gelyn in my constituency, all of which are facing significant problems with their telecoms infrastructure, which I think is an impediment to the roll-out of superfast broadband in their areas. I’m very concerned that BT Openreach are simply not improving their own infrastructure sufficiently well for superfast to be delivered across their network, and are using this as an excuse for not delivering to some households. These are sizeable communities, albeit rather small compared to many of the urban communities that Superfast Cymru is serving, but, nevertheless, the lack of access to broadband is a significant problem to those communities, and even over the copper network they’re currently only getting 0.5 Mbps when the speeds on the internet are telling them that they ought to be getting 7 Mbps or 8 Mbps, even over the copper network. So, I’m very concerned about this and I feel that the Welsh Government needs to hold BT Openreach to account for improving and investing in its own infrastructure outside of the Superfast Cymru project in order for these individual householders and businesses in those areas to take advantage of the programme. I would appreciate a statement on that matter.

I think the Member knows that many parts of Wales wouldn’t have had access to superfast broadband without the intervention of Superfast Cymru. As a result of that programme, 194,199 premises across north Wales, and I’m focusing on your region, now have access to fast fibre broadband and, of course, households are gaining access every day as the roll-out continues. Of course, our aim is to provide fast, reliable broadband to every property in Wales. Superfast Cymru is building that infrastructure. Whole counties, such as Conwy, Gwynedd, Blaenau Gwent, Pembrokeshire, Ceredigion, and others, would have been left without any access at all to superfast broadband without the intervention of Superfast Cymru. But, going back to the situation in terms of where we are now, to date, over 621,000 premises across Wales are now able to receive Superfast Cymru. But it is looking at how we reach those final few premises once Superfast Cymru comes to an end this year with an investment of £80 million, and that is establishing, premises by premises, where superfast broadband is available and that, of course, is going to inform the next scheme as it moves forward.

The leader of the house will know that Public Health Wales this morning has confirmed that multiple sources of evidence show that pre-exposure prophylaxis is highly effective at preventing HIV infection. PrEP is already prescribed in the US, Canada, France, Norway and Israel. So, can I ask the Cabinet Secretary for health to bring forward a statement, confirming the earliest point at which he expects to be in a position to make a decision on access to PrEP in Wales, and confirming that, in light of the clinical evidence, he will now look to approve access to the drug to the highest-risk groups to support HIV prevention in Wales?

I thank Jeremy Miles for that question. The Welsh Government commissioned Public Heath Wales to examine the latest evidence. Of course, that will help to inform the appraisal to be undertaken by the All-Wales Strategy Medicines Group, our independent expert body that provides advice to Ministers in Wales on new medications not yet considered by NICE, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, next month. It will consider the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the medication. So, it’s inappropriate to comment further at this stage, but, of course, the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Well-being and Sport will update Members once he’s received and considered advice from the All-Wales Medicines Strategy Group.

This morning dentists in England have been expressing extreme concern about the rise in dental decay in five-year-olds in England. I wondered if—. Obviously, we have Designed to Smile here, which has led to a noticeable reduction in the number of five-year-olds suffering tooth decay in Wales. But, nevertheless, one child with tooth decay aged five is far too many. What discussions have you had with the UK Government about their intention to introduce legislation to tax sugary drinks, as well as the conversations that have been had with the producers of sugary cereals that children are encouraged to eat in the morning, which are obviously the link between the numbers of children with tooth decay and something that we could easily do something about preventing?

Well, I’m glad that the Member for Cardiff Central has drawn attention to Designed to Smile. It has been mentioned on the media over the last 24 hours, recognising that England falls behind Wales in terms of our initiative. I think it’s worth just looking at that reduction as a result of Designed to Smile, which is what we have taken forward: the 2014-15 dental survey of five-year-olds shows a further 6 per cent reduction in the proportion of children with experience of dental decay in Wales when compared with the previous survey undertaken in 2011-12. That’s the first and significant sustained improvement in dental caries prevalence experienced by children in Wales since records began, and it is attributed to the focus and effort of the Designed to Smile programme. And, of course, it needs to go beyond that particular initiative, which has seen that welcome reduction, and has actually dealt with issues in terms of health inequalities. But we have to go beyond that, to look at prevention in the wider public health perspective, in terms of reducing that access to sugary drinks and cereal. I always remember when we introduced the pioneering free school breakfast programme in Wales—which wasn’t supported by all parties in this Chamber—but when we established that breakfast it was based on nutrition standards, which meant that they looked at the cereal with no sugar in terms of a nutritious start to the day. It wasn’t just a free school breakfast, it was a free nutritious school breakfast. And I’m sure that has also contributed to the success in terms of reducing dental decay in children in Wales.

Leader of the house, I am currently being inundated by complaints about the problem of littering on trunk roads and the verges of trunk roads and lay-bys in my constituency. I know that other Assembly Members are experiencing similar complaints. I know that, often, the responsibility for maintaining the cleanliness of trunk roads is delegated to, in my area, the South East Wales Transport Alliance, or to local authorities, but that the Welsh Government does have an overall responsibility for our roads, and you do have a responsibility for tourism. I’m very concerned about the image that is being portrayed of Wales to tourists who are coming to visit, and I would like it if the Welsh Government could look at what could be done about this as a matter of urgency, particularly in the run-up to the summer season. I wonder if we could have a statement or response from the Welsh Government on how you’re ensuring that local authorities and local consortia do maintain their responsibility to keep our trunk roads and motorways clean so that we get the very best possible image of Wales portrayed to those people visiting our country.

Well, of course, we would all wish for that to happen. Part of this is about awareness raising with the public and those who use our roads. I think we will all experience the situation where you drive along a road and you see people chucking rubbish out of their window, so there has to be a public awareness programme, as well as who then deals with the impact of that littering, as you say, which destroys our environment. And this is something that is not just an issue for Wales, of course—it’s an issue across the UK and, I’m sure, further afield. So, it is certainly something that we would look at in terms of how we could develop that kind of public awareness and enforcement approach.

Thank you, leader of the house.

The next item on the agenda is a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Well-being and Sport on the individual patient funding request review. I call on the Cabinet Secretary to make his statement. Vaughan Gething.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Last July, I announced the establishment of an independent review of the IPFR process—the individual patient funding request process. The purpose of the review was to look afresh at the clinical criteria—usually referred to as ‘clinical exceptionality’—used to make IPFR decisions and the potential to reduce the number of IPFR panels in Wales. My approach to this review has been to try to be open, inclusive and transparent from the outset. That involved all political parties, the public and the NHS in Wales. For example, health opposition spokespeople have been fully involved in the whole process, including briefing sessions with the chair of the review group at the outset and conclusion of the review. The patient perspective featured strongly. Two patients were members of the review group and discussion sessions were held across Wales for patients, their families and carers and patient organisations. The pharmaceutical industry, health boards and clinicians participated fully, giving their views on how the process could be improved.

I published the report of the review in January this year, as soon as it was available, to provide everyone with the earliest opportunity to consider the findings and the recommendations. In parallel, my officials have been discussing the report with health boards, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry Cymru Wales and our medicines experts at the All-Wales Therapeutics and Toxicology Centre, which I hope you’ll forgive me for referring to, from now on, as the AWTTC. The consensus is that this is a helpful report that makes thoughtful and pragmatic recommendations that will help health boards to deal with what are sensitive and very often complex decisions. I am particularly pleased that the patient voice has centre stage in the report.

I will now deal with the review group’s recommendations on the issues that they were asked to consider. Clinical exceptionality has been the underpinning principle upon which IPFR decisions have been made across the UK. It is not a well understood concept, and is open to varying interpretation. This is discussed fully in the report with practical recommendations to reform the IPFR decision criteria, which have been broadly welcomed. The proposed changes cover situations where there is a recommendation from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence or the All-Wales Medicines Strategy Group, which I’ll now refer to as NICE and the AWMSG respectively. They also refer to cases where a recommendation from NICE or the AWMSG has not been made. The review group recommends a new two-part test covering, as a first point, a significant clinical benefit to the patient and, secondly, value for money. This means assessing the degree of clinical benefit expected by the treatment, and whether the cost of the treatment is in balance with the expected benefits.

In relation to whether the number of IPFR panels should be reduced, the review group concluded that the risks inherent in moving to a single national panel or reducing the number of panels negated any compelling argument for change. The review group has, however, made other helpful recommendations to support health boards in making further improvements to the process. This includes clarifying commissioning policies and embedding IPFR policy within those frameworks, and strengthening the central expert support, quality assurance and governance function of the AWTTC.

Health boards, supported by the AWTTC, have already begun the initial work to reform the clinical decision criteria with the aim of making this change to the guidance by May. Today, I’ve written to health board chairs to confirm the arrangements for implementing all of the recommendations by September of this year. Health boards will always have to make difficult choices about the relative clinical benefits versus the cost and the value for money at an individual patient level, balanced against the health needs for their local population. IPFR decisions will therefore always be sensitive. However, taken together, all of the recommendations, when implemented, will have a positive impact on the IPFR process, making it more easily understandable and less prone to being misused.

The IPFR process has a place within the policy framework for access to treatment for a relatively small number of individuals. For the majority of the population, we will continue to place the appraisal process at the centre of our evidence-based approach, ensuring people have access to clinically and cost-effective treatment. The new £80 million treatment fund I announced in January supports this approach by providing earlier access to new medicines recommended by NICE or the AWMSG. The review group endorses our policy position of placing appraisal at the heart of decisions on the routine availability of treatment. They also highlight the importance of appraisal as the best way to evaluate clinical effectiveness and value for money. In particular, I welcome their recommendation that the pharmaceutical industry should submit their medicines for appraisal as soon as possible after licensing to ensure a timely and transparent appraisal of the clinical benefits.

We have a good relationship with the industry and the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry Cymru Wales. The ABPI and individual companies engage with us and the AWMSG on the appraisal agenda and the wider new medicines work. The ABPI contributed to the review group’s work and are supportive of implementing the report’s recommendations. I will, of course, continue to support and encourage industry to work with us and NHS Wales to ensure the earliest possible access to innovative treatments.

I would like to finish by thanking the review group in their entirety for their effort and commitment in tackling what is a highly complex area, and in doing so compassionately and intelligently, and delivering their recommendations within a challenging timeframe.

I would also like to add to those words of the Cabinet Secretary. I certainly congratulate the panel on a very thorough review, yes, completed within a tight schedule, and a review I think that makes a number of very important recommendations that will, I have no doubt, improve the lives of many patients. The review, of course, was secured by Plaid Cymru in that post-election agreement, showing the real value of co-operation where that is appropriate, and the outcome I think clearly demonstrates to me that we were right to pursue it. The solutions actually put forward by the review panel aren’t all as we envisaged as a party, or put forward as proposals by us as a party, but the outcome is, and that is what is important. I am certainly very pleased that the Cabinet Secretary has agreed now to implement the recommendations of the review. I think it would’ve been difficult for him not to implement those recommendations. We look forward, now, of course, to seeing them being implemented in practice.

A couple of quick questions, because it now is down to what happens on the ground. First, perhaps you could explain just a little bit more about the implementation process, for example, how clinicians themselves are going to be made aware of the changes and how they can help their patients through the process. Also, I think the value of the patient voice in the process has been demonstrated clearly, and the engagement of the review panel has shown that. Will the Government now consider what ways that patient perspective can be maintained permanently within the system, for example in the quality assurance processes designed to ensure consistency, which, after all is one of the main elements that we were looking for from this review?

I thank the Member for the questions. Of course, there was agreement between Plaid Cymru and Welsh Labour in coming to an agreement on the compact to take forward a review in this area. And we’ve then expanded it to make sure that other parties have been engaged in the conversation in advance of that, and it has been, I think, a sensible and constructive process.

In terms of the two particular areas of questioning about the clinicians’ awareness of change and how they can help patients through it, that was one of the challenges that we recognise exists already—that some clinicians are better at explaining what the process is and how to help their patients through that. Equally, there were some comments about making sure that the process isn’t used simply instead of explaining to an individual patient in front of you, as a clinician, that there isn’t a reasonable treatment option that exists. And so there’s something here about that honesty in the conversation, which is not easy, but as we recognise, any individual patient funding request in itself isn’t easy. So, there are real human sensitivities around this.

Part of the point about the awareness is that there’s the national debate that we’re having, and lots of clinicians are very definitely interested in the discussion and in the review itself and in today’s statement. But I’ve made clear that the criteria to support decision making should be in place in guidance by May. That should certainly be part of ensuring that, in the run up to that and then subsequently, clinicians are properly aware of the change in the guidance about the decision-making criteria, and then all of the associated recommendations should be in place by September. But you can’t get away from the fact that clinicians will still have to go through what is a difficult process. It isn’t about the technical expertise in deciding what is an appropriate treatment option, but it’s the human interaction with their patient and how they guide that person and explain what they can do and make clear that the process will still require the clinician to support the case to be made for an IPFR. So, I’m sure that you, myself and other Members will still have contact from individuals in our constituencies about these particular choices and decisions.

Angela—sorry.

Sorry, just quickly on patient voice. On the continuing work we’re talking about from the quality function, the AWTTC actually do have engagement with patient groups and individuals as well, so we do need to see that continue as part of the review of the effectiveness of what’s happening as well. So, I recognise the point that’s made.

Angela Burns.

Diolch, Lywydd. Good afternoon, Cabinet Secretary. Thank you very much for bringing forward this statement today. I would also like to put on record my thanks to the review panel for conducting this and my thanks to you for involving all the opposition parties so comprehensively in this entire process. I’d also like to thank the great many members of the public. Particularly, I know that a lot of my constituents put forward their cases and they were very brave to do so. I’m grateful to all of them, because I think this is a very well-balanced report and I’m delighted that you’ve accepted all the recommendations and intend to move forward on it.

I do want to ask you just a couple of questions that come from it, though. A lot of this is predicated on the word ‘significant’. I’m sure all of us around this Chamber will be delighted that we no longer have to use the exceptionality clauses, but it says here quite clearly,

‘By “significant”, we mean that the nature of the benefit to be expected, and the consideration of cost-effectiveness of the intervention, should be comparable to the criteria normally applied to patients whose conditions have the benefit of HTA guidelines’.

So, ‘significance’ is obviously an accepted word for the main cohort when you are passing a medicine and saying that it is all right to be used on a general level, and now, of course, you’re looking to use that word, or the review recommends using the word ‘significant’ for rare and ultra-orphan diseases, for those who do not have an HTA, and for new interventions. So, I’d be very grateful if you could just give a little bit of clarity on how we define ‘significance’—how that’s defined and how we can remove any lack of clarity around that so people are very clear that it’s a very, sort of, logical assessment, because, of course, we’re trying to take the heat out of what is a very emotional subject.

I’d be very grateful as well if you could just give us a quick update on where you see the new national IPFR quality function sitting. Would it be part of one of the existing areas such as—I don’t know—Healthcare Inspectorate Wales, or will you be looking to set up something within your own portfolio, or an independent arm’s-length body?

Just two more questions: there was one area I didn’t think the review dealt with, particularly, and that was the question of putting timings onto decision-making processes. I haven’t been able to spot it when going through the review, and I just wondered if you might comment on that. By timings, that’s timings for a decision to be made, because, of course, most of the people who are applying for these through the IPFR treatment are people who are grievously sick—time is not their friend—and I know that there have been examples put forward to the review panel about how long it’s taken for a decision to be made, and how, in the end, that person has passed a point where what they were applying for would help them. So, if you could make some comment on that.

And finally—again, it’s timing, but this time the timing of the reports. I understand now that the health boards have between now and September to implement the recommendations, with a first report back to us in June 2018, and then ongoing reports every June after that. One of the criticisms of a previous method for the IPFR was that it wasn’t transparent enough, and that public and clinicians have lost confidence in it. I’m concerned that if we don’t get a full report back until June 2019, with a full 12 months of data, this may be too long to tweak it, pick up any issues, and correct any problems. So, I wonder if you might consider bringing forward, perhaps, for the short term, maybe three-monthly reports. I think it would help to increase public confidence, and it would allow problems to be identified and course corrections to be made much earlier, although I do accept that in the long term you’d want to lengthen that reporting process back out again. Thank you.

Thank you for the series of questions. Again, I recognise the significant public involvement and interest from a discrete group of the public, but an important group of the public, and a number of Assembly Members across different parties also gave their own perspective on behalf of their constituents, but also about how that affects individual Members in trying to represent and support constituents through what I recognised before as a difficult and sensitive process.

If I just deal with the time and the number of panels first, because that’s part of the consideration that the review took into account—you know, the fact that if you move to a national panel, you’d either have to have a standing panel, or you’d have to tolerate and accept the fact that there’d be a greater period of time, and that in itself wouldn’t be acceptable. We’ll always want to see how we have panels available to meet at a prompt and appropriate time, and that’s part of the reason we’re having a network of panels. Typically, the time of the decision isn’t a problem. I do appreciate there are some people where time is such a short window that this can be a factor. That’s part of learning and understanding what we can do to improve. There’s no pretence that actually the review provides all the answers for improvement in this area.

Again, we’ve put evaluation and reporting. We have an annual report on IPFRs and decisions that are undertaken, and, actually, we’re impressed by the fact that that exists. And those people involved in the English system I think were very positive about the information that we’re starting to now make available, and we want to see that continue, and it will. As we get through the evaluation reporting on the changes that we are making, as they become fully implemented, I expect, as I said today and in my letter to health boards, from September this year, I’ll need to give some thought as to what is a useful time period to start reporting on that. So, I won’t say ‘definitely no’ to having a different timescale, but I will go away and think about it, because I’m not completely persuaded that a quarterly report will be potentially helpful. But I’m happy to look at the issue.

On the quality function, I see that is developing the work the AWTCC should be doing, rather than creating something wholly new, to develop what we have to try and make sure it undertakes the areas of activity that the report recommends that we undertake with some more purpose, and visibility as well.

On your first question, really, about significant clinical benefit, we’re trying to make sure that we have a formulation that is more easily and better understood to make sure that where there isn’t a technology appraisal, we still have some evidence that there is a real benefit to be gained that would reach the same sort of criteria, and you’d expect there to have been a health technology appraisal. Now, the difficulty here always is that, without that full and formal appraisal, your evidence base is more difficult. There are a range of areas, for example, on off-patent medication—we had a meeting yesterday with the Torfaen Member, who isn’t here, but, as you know, has been a champion in the cause for the review—Lynne Neagle—about looking at how we look at that area, where, again, there isn’t a technology appraisal for the use of those drugs in a different field, but, often, there is enough evidence to make a reasonable assessment of their clinical benefit. I don’t want to go into too much detail, though, because, of course, I could spend a long time in this one area, but in the report and in the associated appendices, they go through, in much greater detail, how they look at both the question of significant clinical benefit and also the question of value for money as well. Because we haven’t really been as upfront in the past about the fact that it’s both limbs—you look at the benefit to the individual and you look to see whether the NHS can afford the treatment itself, because, as we all know, there is a finite resource to every part of the health service, and we have to take account of that in an upfront way. We’re upfront also about the value we want to determine for the individual and the whole service.

Thank you for your statement, Cabinet Secretary, and I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Andrew Blakeman and his team for the open and transparent way in which they approached the review and for their excellent recommendations. We all accept that the NHS doesn’t have access to unlimited funds; however, we also all accept that there are times when a novel treatment that isn’t generally cost-effective is the best available treatment for an individual patient. These decisions should be taken on clinical evidence, rather than on an accountant’s spreadsheet. This is what the IPFR process was designed to do, but, unfortunately, the design was flawed.

As the review panel found during the course of their review, the exceptionality principle was confusing and unfair. I therefore wholeheartedly endorse the panel’s recommendation that exceptionality be replaced with a decision-making process based upon whether the patient will gain significant clinical benefit at reasonable value for money. I am pleased that the Cabinet Secretary has accepted this recommendation.

The other big design flaw of the existing IPFR process was the lack of a consistent approach. Individual IPFR panels would apply the decision-making criteria differently, which led to a postcode lottery. I accept the review panel’s conclusion that is not practical to have a single national IPFR panel and, therefore, welcome their recommendation that there will be a new body to monitor the individual IPFR panels for consistency. We have to end the perverse situation whereby you can get treatment, or not, based on where you live. Can you confirm, Cabinet Secretary, whether the new national IPFR quality function will be in place by September and whether it will be looking at historical applications or will only be considering new applications going forward?

Regarding the implementation, I am grateful that the Cabinet Secretary has indicated that he hopes to have all the recommendations implemented by September. This is great news, but can the Cabinet Secretary confirm that patients currently pursuing IPFRs will be judged against the new criteria, rather than the old exceptionality criteria?

Finally, Cabinet Secretary, I welcome your assurances that you have a good relationship with the pharmaceutical industry and ABPI Cymru. Wales has traditionally been less effective at working with the industry on horizon scanning. In order to support new medicines in the future, we have to plan for them. Cabinet Secretary, will you outline how you are working with the ABPI and the pharmaceutical sector so that the NHS can prepare for future treatments and drugs? And thank you, once again, for your statement, Cabinet Secretary, and for the truly inclusive and transparent way you have approached this review. I look forward to seeing the panel’s recommendations being implemented to benefit patients in Wales. Diolch yn fawr.

I recognise that there are number of questions and I’ll try to be brief and to the point with each of them, but I do want to recognise the contribution of Andrew Blakeman, which was recognised by Members in different parties here but also by other members of the review panel, and stakeholders as well. We are fortunate to have secured his services, with his background in the private sector but also an understanding of how the health service works as well.

On the point about funding: everyone objectively signs up to and recognises that the NHS has a limited resource and there has to be a system of understanding how we allocate and prioritise treatment, and how we understand clinical value and wider financial value in the service. The challenge always gets to where individuals recognise they’re on the wrong side of the line in that, either because, unfortunately, some people have conditions where we can’t actually help them, and other times where, actually, there is a treatment that is potentially effective but is hugely expensive. We see examples of that on a regular basis. Every few months there will always be something in the wider press about a potentially effective treatment that is actually really expensive, and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence turn it down. These recommendations aren’t going to stop that being the case. Hopefully, though, there will be a more rational conversation about how those choices are made, where there is a technology appraisal, as well as how we deal with the individual patient funding request. But exceptionality remains a criterion for the rest of the UK, so we are very much different to the rest of the UK as a result of accepting these recommendations.

I don’t think it’s fair to characterise the continuing process we’ll have for the next few months at least as being clinical evidence versus an accountant and their spreadsheet. The people who make decisions on IPFR panels are experts. They are people who treat people; they’re not faceless, nameless bureaucrats. These are people who run, lead and manage our service and provide front-line patient care. And we should take care in the way that they make those choices and the way we then describe the choices they make, in what I’ve said are really difficult, complex and sensitive choices to have to make. And the point about the postcode lottery—the suggestion that there was a postcode lottery was part of the reason that we went through the review, and, actually, the panel found that there wasn’t significant evidence of a postcode lottery. There were instances where people could point to an example and you couldn’t properly explain it. That goes into us needing to properly deal with an all-Wales cohort set of decisions, and, actually, we’re doing more of that. And what we should see spurred on as a result of this report is actually how we see that all-Wales cohort of decisions made and taken. Because, on examination, it would appear that what on the face of it looked like an inconsistent decision is actually about a variation in the individual characteristics of the patient, and the likely benefit that they would receive, and that goes back into the difficulty intercommunicating this area honestly and concisely. I’m happy to confirm the quality function should be in place by September, but that the criterion for the clinical guidance should be in place by May. So, actually, we should see exceptionality removed at the time that that guidance is in place.

And finally, on the point about horizon scanning, I had a recent helpful and constructive meeting with the ABPI about how we want to make improvements in this part of the process. So, there is work that is ongoing between industry representatives and the Government. And just to be really clear, this isn’t about somehow either selling out the health service, to give in to the ability for companies, who of course, after all, have to make a profit to continue their business, but it is about understanding that it’s in their interests to have a more upfront process, where you have information at an earlier point in time, so we don’t have an expensive contest between them and the service on whether their new products are available to provide the clinical benefit that we all expect that they will achieve. So, I think we’re in a good place and I’ll have more to say in the future on this particular aspect.

Like earlier speakers, I agree that they make very clear recommendations in this review. A lot of it is around the quality of the communication between patients and doctors. So, for example, recommendation 25 indicates that some doctors seem to have been have hiding behind IPFR rather than telling patients that they’re unable to accept a request for a particular treatment where there is no evidence that it will be effective, but, equally, we don’t want doctors to simply be saying, ‘The computer says no.’ We need doctors who are going to be looking at the whole needs of the patients, and making it clear to them that patients are able to make informed decisions about the options and alternatives, risks and benefits, as outlined in recommendation 24. So, I think it’s absolutely essential that we have transparency and clarity in decision making, and also that we ensure that there is consistency across Wales.

The guidebook that’s been recommended in recommendation 4—to make it clear and easy to understand how the IPFR operates—seems to me absolutely essential, so that we’re not raising people’s hopes unnecessarily and being clear about the decision-making process. So, I would like to know a little bit more about how quickly we’re going to see an update in the quality of IPFR decision making because, clearly, nobody should be making decisions unless they have to hand the specialist recommendation that may be required for a particular treatment, if it’s something that’s out of the ordinary. Can you assure us that the IPFR won’t be used as a way of delaying referral for a specialist service that is deemed effective and approved, but by nature of its specialism may only be available in England?

I thank you for the questions. It’s actually really helpful on the final points that we haven’t talked about today. Your first point about communication between the clinician and the patient, and having a more informed patient, are really important points in this and in every area of treatment and decision making. We want our citizens to be more informed and more engaged in the healthcare choices made for them. This particular area of decision making, affecting a very small number of people, often has this profile because of the impact of any decision that is made, either to offer treatment or not. Lots of these people have life-limiting, life-changing and potentially terminal conditions. So, actually, the decisions that are made in this area—that’s why they have such a huge profile. That’s also why they’re incredibly difficult in terms of developing a judgment, particularly if the answer is going to be ‘no’ to a particular treatment. So, I have some sympathy with clinicians who have to go through and have that difficult conversation, but it is part of the skill and the expectation on the clinician to be able to have that conversation, and not to tell someone that they may get a different answer if they moved down the road to talk to a different clinician or a different group of them, or indeed an elected representative. So, that’s part of the—[Inaudible.]—how we support clinicians to do that, how we enable and empower them, but also that we are clear about our expectations that it’s part of what we expect from them within our healthcare system. The points you raised were made by other Members in their individual submissions and, obviously, the conversations that the review group themselves had.

On your final point about where there is effective and approved treatment, whether it’s medicines or otherwise, this was part of the issue that was raised in the review of people inappropriately using an IPFR when, actually, it’s a commissioning decision. It’s a choice that should be made by the health service as to whether it will or won’t commission a certain service. The IPFR is sometimes used as an excuse or a reason not to have that happen. Sometimes it’s actually about the people running and leading the service needing to be more clear. That’s why there are recommendations on this in the report, but it’s also about making sure that clinicians are directed in the right way to do that. The guidance is about clinicians and their understanding of how to access the process appropriately, and the distinction between this part and the commissioning, but equally from the patient’s point of view as well. So, I think it’s really helpful to highlight that that is definitely part of the work that will follow on, and that’s why on the broader recommendation we expect to see implementation by September this year as well.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.

The next item on our agenda is a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children on the park homes commission rates. I call on the Cabinet Secretary to make a statement. Carl Sargeant.

Diolch, Lywydd. I wish to update Members on my plans for addressing ongoing concerns about the park homes industry in Wales, following publication last autumn of the research into the economics of the sector. You will recall that we commissioned public and corporate economic consultants to undertake this review. I’m grateful to them for completing the largest and most comprehensive review of the sector in Wales. Their report made four recommendations to the Welsh Government.

It clearly identified a need to raise current residents’ awareness of contractual obligations and to ensure that future residents are clear on the matters before entering into contracts. It also recommended that we consider how poor practice could be identified and addressed. I accept both of these recommendations in principle, and will be inviting colleagues and key stakeholders to work with us on implementing them, including developing materials setting out the very best practice and promoting greater transparency for residents and site owners. In addition, the report highlighted concerns around energy costs and suggested further consideration be given to initiatives to reduce them. Work has already taken place to prevent site owners from charging more than their cost price for energy, and I’m happy to look at how we might encourage site owners to seek out the most cost effective energy deals on the market. Llywydd, it is however the report’s recommendation in relation to commission currently payable to the site owner at the time of sale that causes me most concern and on which I will be focusing today.

Before I do so, it’s worth reflecting on what more has been done to protect park home residents here in Wales than in other parts of the UK. All park home sites in Wales have had to apply for a new licence, and site managers have had to pass a fit-and-proper-person test. Neither England nor Scotland has gone this far. We have consistently sought to help park home residents—for example, site owners can no longer veto sales, and residents must be consulted on changes to site rules. In addition, qualifying residents associations must be recognised in a balanced way, and this will continue to be the case.

Turning back to the commission rate, the consultants’ report rightly highlights the fact that this is a complex issue with the potential for significant consequences. The consultants faced a number of challenges in compiling their report. In spite of the fact that over half the total number of park operators engaged in the research, only a quarter of the operators provided detailed financial information. This is disappointing and means it is difficult to understand fully the economics of the industry at present and the precise implications of making any change to the commission rate. By the same token, Llywydd, neither am I convinced, in the absence of a complete and reliable picture of the industry’s economics, that a case has been made to maintain the status quo. Indeed, I’ve received very strong representations suggesting that there may be good reason to reduce or even abolish the commission rate. Clearly, I must base my final decision on the best possible evidence. I would like, therefore, to invite the park home owners to let me have the evidence that they believe would justify leaving things as they are. Given the paucity of the information submitted to the consultants, it would be particularly useful to have financial evidence drawn from site owners’ business accounts and other relevant sources that they may have.

The options I will consider will include reducing or even abolishing the commission rate, which, at the current time, I am minded to do, but I will not commit further at this stage as I do not want to pre-empt the outcome of the forthcoming public consultation exercise. The report suggests that many park home sites are operating either at a loss or at only a small surplus. This reinforces the need for meaningful financial information because, as well as being fair to residents, in particular, in being able to access homes for themselves, we need to ensure that we do not inadvertently impact on the long-term viability of the park home sector in Wales either, which generally comprises sites smaller than their English counterparts. My portfolio priorities are well-being and economic prosperity. It goes without question therefore that I am anxious to ensure that we strike a balance between the sustainability of the sector and the interests of residents. This will require detailed assessment of the business case for change, but I’m confident we can conduct this exercise with the full engagement of site owners and park home residents.

Llywydd, I will now seek to engage with all those concerned, through representative bodies for both residents and site owners and through further public engagement and consultation. I want to give everyone, on all sides of the debate, a fair and equal chance to have their say, put forward their evidence, and contribute to the debate. I do not believe that the evidence I’ve seen to date points to the desirability of leaving things as they are. I sincerely hope all interested parties will take advantage of the opportunity we will now provide to submit further information and scrutinise the evidence available in greater detail. I intend to commence engagement immediately and will be engaging with the bodies representing both sides, both residents and site owners. The consultation responses will be published as soon as is practicable.

Llywydd, I hope this engagement will provide greater clarity about the issues and enable me to take a balanced view on the next steps regarding the commission rate. In the meantime, my officials will press ahead with developing best practice guidance and addressing the other recommendations of the report. Thank you.

Thank you for your statement. We in Plaid Cymru are happy to say that we are on the side of the park home owners and not the landlords in this instance. The 10 per cent commission is unfair. I don’t think there can be any other conclusion. An arbitrary 10 per cent commission fee to the landlord on top of any other fee a seller may have to pay during a process is something that we don’t see as acceptable.

We know the legislation didn’t specify abolishing the fees because of concerns that pitch fees and maintenance charges would go up. We’ve looked at this and we’re not convinced that this is the case. Actually, we think there is room for also using some of the mechanisms we have to prevent this from happening anyway.

The statement notes that the economics of the industry may be perilous and, obviously, the work being undertaken will shine a light on the wider economics of the business. But, it’s clearly unfair to retain a 10 per cent commission on sales to keep the industry viable as it penalises the home owners, many of whom will be elderly and retired. So, will he be prepared to look at other ways sites could be supported or even taken over by the residents themselves if the owner goes bust? I think a co-operative ownership model, for example, may be worth us looking into.

You also say that you will be consulting on the proposal to reduce or abolish the fees. I want to understand if this will be the usual Government consultation: not accessible to many people and skewed in favour of the industry interests. How are you actually going to ensure you reach a larger number of people, including, for example, people who used to own a park home and no longer do so because of the practices of some of these said site owners? I’m sure these people would be able to provide important insights and input into the decision-making process and we would like to hear from them also.

Your statement also notes the frustration that many people have over energy bills. We’re aware of some excellent practice and schemes where residents are bulk buying fuel to obtain discounts. So, I’m wondering whether you, Cabinet Secretary, think that such schemes should be mandated, or at least spread wide so that more people are aware of them across Wales.

Finally, there is obviously new legislation requiring private landlords to undergo training so that they’re aware of their obligations. I’m wondering whether, as part of the licensing process and the fit-and-proper-person test, you could look at whether compulsory training would be of value for park home landlords. Diolch yn fawr.

I thank the Member for her observations and questions. First of all, what we have to understand fully, and I think I’ve articulated that through the statement today, is the economics of the park. The financial viability of the report was questionable in terms of the detail we received back and that’s why I’ve been unable to make a decision. But, I do understand that some parks will build a 10 per cent commission rate into their business plans. We’ve got to understand that better and, when they come back with evidence, we’ll fully understand that.

I do take issue with the Member suggesting that our consultation exercises are skewed to one side, skewed to businesses, et cetera—that isn’t the case. This will be a full, open and transparent opportunity for all sides or interested parties to be involved. My team are already starting to plot out how we engage stakeholders, both site owners and residents, which is an important process.

The Member broadens out the scope in terms of the opportunity of this statement with regard to energy bills and best practice. I will be looking at issuing guidance around that. The Member raises some issues, or opportunities perhaps, of training et cetera, and mandatory training. I will give that further consideration. Indeed, co-operative models of site ownership are ones that I’m very interested in. I’ve already spoken to my colleague Jeremy Miles, who raised that in the margins of discussions earlier today. Of course, I think what we have to do is make sure we have a sustainable industry, because people are living there, but make sure it’s fair for everybody.

Can I say I agree with the core of the consultants’ report, particularly in respect of raising residents’ awareness about the nature and extent of contractual arrangements, identifying and addressing poor practice and initiatives to regulate and, if possible, reduce energy costs? So, on that bit that doesn’t seem terribly controversial and would benefit the whole sector, I wonder when you will be bringing forward proposals to ensure that that part of the consultants’ report is activated as soon as possible.

We then come to the other part of the matter, and that’s the commission fees. I think he’s right to start with that statement, but the sustainability of this sector is the first thing, because if we have considerable exit, and suddenly, then that's going to cause huge problems. So, we do need to be more fully aware of the economics of this particular sector. It is, indeed, disappointing that this was not sufficiently forthcoming in the consultant’s work and I think we would all encourage site owners, if they've been reluctant so far to submit the financial information, that they now engage, because we probably will need to take action in this area, and we need to fully understand the evidence base to make the most coherent public policy possible.

And I think you're right: the aim is to strike a balance between the sustainability of the sector and residents’ interests, and there, you know, there is a concept of a reasonable return, which we have to face. In general, I don't like commission rates. I think it should be the rent or the cost of the site pitch. That's really where you can most logically focus the costs of providing that service and also that, potentially, is more stable, because, at the minute, if it is embedded in the business model, then there’s an element of chance of when you're going to get the commission—obviously, that’s reliant on people selling. So, I hope there's a more rational structure waiting to be discovered fairly soon. I'd like to know what time frame you're going to set for the consultation, because I think people do want action fairly soon, but, obviously, building up the evidence base, that's probably going to take some time. I think, perhaps, some preparation that certain site owners will exit—I hope it's not a large number, but I think that needs to be now part of the public policy development in this area. Finally, you said, ‘abolish or reduce’. Of course, this commission has already been reduced a long time ago now—1983, I think—when it came down from 15 per cent to 10 per cent. So, if you were to reduce it to something like 8 per cent, I think you could have everyone thinking that’s a poor policy. It does seem to me that your choice is abolish or leave it as it is. I just wonder if you are going to rule out tampering with the rate and rather just confirm that you want to take this question fully on, because it's high time, really, that we give clarity in this sector. Thank you.

I thank the Member for his contribution. I think the Member, in broad principle, is supportive of the statement today. Of course, the other recommendations other than the commission, my team have already started work on that and we’ll be hoping to issue some guidance towards the autumn. In terms of the commission rate specifically, I expect the full process of engagement and consultation to start around Easter time for a full 12-week consultation process for interested parties to take part in that. My team have already started the list of people that they need to personally engage with already, irrespective of the proposals of consultation.

I would probably disagree with the Member at this moment in terms of the statement I made in regards to either reduce or abolish. I think it's important that we fully understand the economics of the park, and this is the reason why I'm doing this. Based upon the report—and the difficulty we had with accounts being submitted was the lack of evidence there. So, I could, upon the basis of just the report, move into consultation on the basis that we’re going to abolish these rates. I think it's fair that we recognise that we have to be supportive of business too. I recognise that they provide a service of housing for many people across Wales. I will make that judgment on the decision following the evidence provided by park owners, but it will be a robust piece of work. I am confident that we can do that. A failure to submit the accounts or evidence to suggest that their businesses are economically unsustainable will not wear with me unless I've got evidence to support that, and I will be looking, as I said, to reduce or remove, subject to the process moving forward.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. I attended, with other Members, the lobby lunchtime of park home residents and recognise their anxiety, as many residents are on low incomes, have retired, that they would like action on these charges, and I strongly welcome your suggestion that you are minded to either reduce or remove the charge. Clearly, a balanced judgment needs to be made, and I strongly support the suggestion that, where the charge is reduced and that does make the business unviable, that the Government takes an active approach in allowing a co-operative solution to come forward—not simply being willing to be open to it, but providing the finance and the support to make that a viable option for smaller sites. Of course, not all sites are smaller sites—I recognise the problem you have with the evidence base—many are part of larger corporate concerns, who would be able to absorb the charge. My question, Cabinet Secretary, is: will you be making sure in your consideration that any other opportunities to increase other charges were the commission to be reduced would be looked at and headed off at the pass?

The Member raises a very important point, and thanks for his contribution. I think what’s important is that we do fully understand the nature of the businesses and how they operate here in Wales. You’re right to say that there are a lot more smaller operators than larger ones in Wales, and what does the consequence of that mean—I wouldn’t want to remove the commission rate if we knew, in general terms, that this had a negative effect on the ability for sustainable parks, because you sort of defeat the object, and, actually, you close the park and then make 30 people homeless, or 60 people homeless, and that’s not our intention. This is about fairness, about the ability to afford fair accommodation on parks, and, in fact, David Melding’s point earlier on about the commission process, it is very—you cannot plan, because you don’t know when people are going to exit the parks. So, I was surprised how people build that into their business plan in the first place, because you may not have any exits for 10 years, and therefore no commission rates. So, it doesn’t quite sound so clear in terms of determining their accounts.

The key here is to have some open conversations with park owners to ensure that they can demonstrate that a change in the commission rate is going to adversely affect their business. If I don’t get the evidence to support that, then we will move in a direction to reduce or abolish those rates.

Thank you very much. And, finally, Gareth Bennett.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and thanks to the Minister for today’s statement. We do welcome the statement, because we are very sympathetic in UKIP to the concerns of the park home residents. Some of the UKIP Members did meet today with the residents, and it became clear that one of their ongoing concerns is that the Welsh Government consultation is viewed by many of them as simply a means of kicking the issue of the sales commission into touch. There is a petition that has been circulating at the Assembly since 2013 on this issue. A debate took place in 2014, in which the then Minister promised that the Welsh Government would undertake research into the economic impact of the commission rate—so, we have taken rather a long time to get to this point. I do appreciate the need to gather evidence before the Government takes a decision, but I would ask, as my first question, why it has taken so long to get here.

Secondly, many of the residents have complained of the difficulty of meeting with Ministers as a residents’ group, so do you now have plans to meet with the residents as part of your consultations? We feel in UKIP that the service that the park home owners previously supplied in facilitating the sale of these homes is no longer provided, so the 10 per cent commission has become simply a sales tax. Unfortunately, many of the residents, as other speakers have mentioned, are elderly people, with a need in some cases to move into sheltered housing. The 10 per cent tax levied on them does severely limit their capital, and hence restricts their ability to move into suitable alternative accommodation. So, we would support you if you were minded to moving towards abolishing the commission. Do you regard the commission in the same light, as an unnecessary and unwarranted financial burden, and would you agree that what we actually need is a more flexible housing market, which would be more achievable if you did go ahead and abolish the commission? Now, I do appreciate the need for balance in your investigation, and I welcome your remarks that you would be robust in your approach towards further consultations, in particular with the park owners, because, if they want to make a case that their business may be unviable without any commission, then it really is up to them to provide that evidence. Thank you.

The Member raises some interesting points. I think the Member should engage in the consultation exercise on behalf of his party if that’s what he wishes to do. I have met with the park home residents and park home site owners in the past and it is unfortunate that I—as Cabinet Secretaries and Ministers we get lots of requests by individuals to meet them; we just physically can’t do that because of diary commitments. But what I am committed to doing during the 12-week consultation—and prior to that, my team are already planning to meet with stakeholders, so, the residents’ association groups, with the park home site owners’ representative bodies, and we will do that through an open and transparent process. I have many letters from many Members: Lesley Griffiths, Jane Hutt, and many others who have written to me; Kirsty Williams writes to me every other week on park home issues. I have made a commitment to look at this in detail and make a decision this year about what we will do and whether we need to legislate or not or whether we remove or maintain those commission rates. But it is, as the Member quite rightly said, within the gift now of the park home site owners to show to me that their businesses would become unviable if we removed or made alterations to the commission rates.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary.

Item 6 on the agenda is a statement by the Minister for Skills and Science on the small business research initiative and I call on the Minister for Skills and Science, Julie James.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I welcome this opportunity to update Members on Wales’s progress in developing our small business research initiative, more commonly known as SBRI. In 2013, our ‘Innovation Wales’ strategy, amongst other things, urged a more imaginative approach to innovation in public service delivery and Government procurement. In the same year, in partnership with InnovateUK, Welsh Government implemented a £3 million catalyst programme to inspire the Welsh public sector and businesses to engage in SBRI competitions. The UK model was based on a long-standing United States programme, the small business innovation research, or SBIR. Working with small and medium-sized enterprises, this spends around $2.5 billion each year, developing solutions for federal government needs, and uses procurement spend, not government grants. In the UK, SBRI contracts with companies have increased from under £15 million in 2010 to over £50 million this year. A wide range of innovative products and solutions have been developed, and the merits of the SBRI mechanism are now being widely recognised across government and industry. In Wales, SBRI is helping to make a transformative impact on practical public sector problems, as well as helping to solve some of society’s grand challenges, highlighted in ‘Innovation Wales’.

Each SBRI competition focuses on an area of public sector service where solutions either do not yet exist or where partial solutions might be improved. Our first round of competitions generated real interest across the Welsh public sector and challenges included Cardiff council’s problem of how to retrofit energy efficient solutions into its traditional and historic buildings, Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board’s drive to improve the health and well-being of our people through the better use of collective health data, Natural Resources Wales’s issues in controlling livestock movement to reduce the impact of agriculture on the water environment, and Betsi Cadwaladr University Local Health Board’s ambition to improve patient care by helping nurses and carers reduce administration duties, so spending more time with patients. The target for this last challenge was for nurses to spend 10 per cent more time with patients, and just think how valuable 10 per cent more patient time would mean to those patients, their relatives and hospital efficiency. After two years of practical collaboration between the hospital’s nurses and a small Bangor start-up company, a prototype software solution has been developed that promises to increase nurses’ time with patients not by the promised 10 per cent but, potentially, up to 23 per cent. The success of these first challenges showed us that the public sector can be an effective, intelligent, lead customer, helping to grow innovative Welsh companies and create jobs, growth and welfare for Wales.

I now want more SMEs to become involved in the public sector procurement process, to use research and development funding to develop new solutions to tough problems. And I want the challenges to be socially relevant, having real benefits for Welsh people. We learnt from the pilots that there was a growing willingness to innovate across the Welsh public sector and so, along with InnovateUK, we have run two further calls. These have a declining public intervention rate as the programme gains momentum and the benefits to all parties are recognised and appreciated. Although not limited to small businesses, the competitions have seen strong representation from our SMEs. Funding levels will vary, but projects typically span two or more years, with initial funding of up to £100,000 for each successful company. The best will then be able to compete for further contracts of up to £1 million and more to commercialise their ideas.

Under the programme, we have supported Natural Resources Wales to improve the regeneration of native species and soil health, which will fight the impacts of invasive non-native species like Japanese knotweed. We have supported the north Wales brain injury service to encourage patients’ independence in cooking tasks, to ease the pressure on social care and enhance people’s quality of life. We are helping South Wales Police develop innovative predictive analytic tools, which will make better use of their resources and deliver an improved service to the communities of south Wales.

The Welsh Government is also successfully using the programme. Our transport department held an SBRI competition to develop solutions to help reduce the number of motorcyclists killed or seriously injured on our roads. Two projects were chosen and the first one is now completed. Armourgel Ltd has developed a motorcycle helmet liner that will significantly reduce the impact to a rider’s head during a collision. This can make the difference between a serious brain injury and a minor one. The second project has developed a junction alert system, which will soon to be trialled on Welsh roads. This project will be able to test the system in the peak motorcycling season, and by September, the company will have fully tested the system in all weather conditions and will report on its market potential. Both of these projects have the potential to save the lives of motorcyclists, not just on Welsh roads but across the world.

This programme is not only promoting a culture change in the public sector; it has been showcased by Innovate UK as an example of best practice. Other devolved regions are learning from Wales’s example, and it’s also attracting attention from Ireland, Sweden and Australia. To date, 29 public sector contracts for research and development have been awarded to Welsh business, valued at over £1.8 million. And in total, 66 contracts valued at £4.9 million have been awarded by the Welsh public sector. Over 300 enterprises have been assisted, and over £2 million in match funding has been leveraged into Wales from Innovate UK and UK Government departments. Collaborations have been forged with local authorities, health boards, Natural Resources Wales, police forces and Welsh and UK Government departments. So far, three central Government departments have contributed financially to Wales-led challenges.

We will continue to work closely with Innovate UK as they seek to maximise the impact of SBRI. My aim now is for our SBRI programme to become a mainstream tool in the Welsh public sector, promoting innovation and driving forward our technological potential. SBRI can open up huge opportunities for Welsh businesses and help solve some of the grand challenges we will all face in the future. We plan to use it. I hope that you will support this aim. Diolch.

I have the pleasure to follow the Minister and to commend her on this statement, and indeed the approach that the Welsh Government has adopted in putting innovation right at the heart not only of public procurement but of public policy. We’ve heard, I think, so many times, the public sector, probably rightly, berated for adopting an approach that is often low cost over wider considerations of value and opportunity, and certainly one that is risk-averse. This programme is the opposite of that, and as she rightly said, it’s originally modelled on the American small business innovation research project, which I understand is about to be culled by President Trump. So, probably another reason to believe that we’re on the right lines in championing the approach that she has outlined.

It would be interesting to know, in that spirit of broad support, a little bit more about what the intentions are for the expansion of this project, both in terms of hard cash and in terms of the scale of the programme, but also, to what extent it could be more mainstreamed. We heard the Minister refer to a series of calls. Could we actually institutionalise it, in a more fundamental sense, so that it’s part and parcel, not as a fringe element within our public procurement practice, but right at the heart of procurement? We understand from the Royal Academy of Engineering’s review of the English initiative that there is some issue about how you measure impact. And, actually, I really commend her as well for bringing some life to some of those innovation stories. We often talk in public policy in broad generalities. It is great to drill down into the detail and hear that these are tangible impacts that are going to make a real difference in terms of the quality of life of the people of Wales.

But with every programme, it is important that we have some metrics. And while some of them will be qualitative, and by their very nature, some of them will have to be long term, I think it’s always good to have some numbers as well. And, so, I’d be interested to see—. I know that currently we don’t have, possibly, a detailed evaluation framework. In expanding the programme, I would urge her to look at the kind of innovation impact metrics in terms of return on innovation investment et cetera that could be put in place.

And finally, in the spirit of institutionalising this approach, which I think is very exciting, the opportunity is there for Wales to become a test bed nation where, actually, the world does come to our door, because we’re very good at identifying innovative solutions to the same public service and public policy challenges that the world is facing. Could we have, in that spirit, the creation of a national innovation body that will build on the excellent foundations that have been laid in this programme, but actually can drive forward on that basis and create a reputation for Wales as an innovation nation?

Thank you for that, Adam Price. I agree with you that it’s a really exciting initiative, and we have had quite a lot of interest, as I said, from elsewhere to see how we’re doing it here in Wales. And I also agree that we do need to develop some metrics as we go forward. A lot of this, however, has been specific responses to specific grand challenges or problems, and developing the metrics to allow the risk, if you like, whilst also measuring the output will be a task in itself, but we will be taking that forward. If the Member has any particular views on how that might be structured, I’d be very grateful to consider them.

What we’re looking to do is mainstream it a little bit in the way that we respond to challenges and drive some of the technological improvements using some of the Government data systems that we have. The Member may know that—separately to this at the moment, but we can integrate the two—we’ve also been running some data challenges and some hackathons, as they’re called, and unconferences—these are all terms relatively new to me, but that are understood by the small communities of people who support them—to identify challenges that can be solved through our data sets as well, as some of the social, environmental and mainstream core challenges.

In terms of the budgets, they are currently funded out of the core Welsh budget. The budget so far has been just over some £6 million. We’re just looking to see what else we can fund. We’re looking to see what our public sector partners might do, and what we can do with procurement spend, and so on. So, the idea is to drive it into mainstream procurement thinking with a view to solving problems, not just buying stuff.

So, I largely agree with most of the points you made, and we will be taking it forward in that spirit.

Thank you, Minister, for your statement. Like Plaid Cymru, we’re also pleased to see that there’s been some progress with helping to develop some solutions to some of the pressing problems that we have, particularly in our public services. But, of course, this initiative did originally stem from the ‘Innovation Wales’ document, and that identified four key areas—smart specialisation areas I think they were termed. They were: life sciences and health; low-carbon energy and environment; advanced engineering and materials; and ICT and the digital economy. I wonder what the balance of bids were in the first round. Did they actually meet the targets to find particular problems that could be resolved within each of those key specialist areas? If there weren’t sufficient numbers of bids coming forward in some of those particular areas that were previously identified, is there going to be any energy put into trying to find potential people to bid for addressing some of the solutions to those particular problems?

I’m also very pleased, obviously, that this is supposed to be a public and private partnership, but clearly, many of the projects that you identify—and you hinted at this in your statement—have really over-egged the benefit, I suppose, to the public sector of some of the things that have been worked on. And I heard what you said about trying to emphasise the wider benefits, if you like, particularly to the private sector as well in order to encourage some more investment in. I wonder what sort of areas you were thinking of when you made that particular statement. To me, it seems very much that things like ICT and the digital economy—we were talking about some of your other responsibilities earlier on in First Minister’s questions, such as the access to broadband, for example—there may be other solutions that could be developed with these sorts of research funds, and I wonder whether you could make a comment in respect of the desirability of that. Obviously, you do, I hope, advertise widely the opportunities to bid. Could you tell us what sort of platforms you do advertise on so that we can encourage people who may be watching today—small businesses et cetera, and other research hubs and facilities—to make themselves aware of these funds and to find out whether they might be able to draw any down?

Can you also tell me—? I know that our universities are obviously centres of excellence for research, but our further education colleges are getting more and more involved in this particular sphere. You mentioned some of the construction related issues, for example, with Cardiff council, and I wonder what level of engagement there is with this particular research and innovation fund from the further education college sector, if any, at the moment, and if there isn’t any, what action you might take as a Government in order to better engage them.

Just finally—this is on the wider procurement issue, and I appreciate that this is not completely your responsibility; it’s more with the Cabinet Secretary for finance—but obviously, on procurement, it’s really important that smaller businesses and local businesses are able to engage in some of the local solutions that they might have to offer, but as we’ve increasingly gone towards a more national procurement strategy, for understandable reasons, particularly with the economies of scale, many of those smaller businesses and smaller firms feel a bit squeezed out. So, I wonder what action has been taken with this fund and perhaps more widely, to ensure that those smaller businesses that might be regional, or even smaller, are actually being encouraged actively to participate in these sorts of exciting and innovative schemes.

Thank you. That’s quite a range of questions and I’ll do my best to answer them. In terms of ICT and broadband, for example, one of the things that the Member will know is that we’re looking at what we’re going to do for the end of the current project and for the remaining few per cent of the Welsh population and premises not covered. And this is certainly one of the things that we might well consider to do that and to drive innovative solutions in particular areas. Once we have a map of all the premises that are not included in the current contract, which we will have very shortly, then, we’ll be able to consider how we might structure such a competition. But it’s an excellent example of something that might be worth picking up with this. As I said to Adam Price, there are other data-driven ICT solutions that might happily sit inside this initiative as well.

In terms of what we’ve done so far, we’ve awarded 44 contracts at phase 1 stage. There were a further five small contracts awarded under a slight predecessor to it, which are not included, but are really part of it. And there are 22 at phase 2 so far. Thirty-eight per cent of that was won by Welsh organisations and 44 per cent of all contract awards were made to Welsh organisations. We had five Welsh businesses that were successful in non-Welsh SBRI competitions, so we’ve supported our businesses to apply outside of Wales. We had four public bodies running more than one challenge at the same time and we’ve now got two Welsh businesses that won our challenges, potentially inward investing. Because what we do is, when we get somebody interested in taking up one of the challenges, we also support them with our business support programmes to persuade them to come to Wales, effectively, and we use that concept to get there. So, it’s been very successful on a number of fronts.

We’re very keen on running it into standard procurement practice and we encourage SMEs to apply for it. It’s not confined to SMEs—anybody can apply—but actually, we’ve had quite a lot of interest from SMEs and I’m very happy to look at any way of encouraging even more SMEs to apply for it in future. The idea is obviously to reward the good idea and then help the company commercialise it, so there’s no scale necessary to start that process off.

Thank you very much. Finally, Hefin David.

Diolch. I think Darren Millar asked so many questions he was bound to hit one of mine, and his last question did. It wasn’t exactly the question I was going to ask, but it kind of nicely follows on.

One of the things that the Minister said was that funding levels will vary, but projects typically span two or more years, with initial funding of up to £100,000 leading on to further competition for contracts of £1 million. It’s my view that, arguably, small firms don’t necessarily, particularly in the microfirm and slightly larger sector, compete with each other but tend to build networks of mutual support and trust. I wonder whether it may be possible for firms to apply in clusters to develop clustered projects—organised projects that are connected with each other—in order to achieve that, and how would the Government make that happen, and is there a further opportunity then to develop communities of practice and, kind of, social learning networks that might grow from some of these competitions?

I think that’s a really interesting idea. So, there’s nothing to stop collections of small businesses, community interest groups—it’s not closed in any way, so anyone can apply for it. I’m more than happy to explore the idea of assisting collections of businesses to apply as well; although we haven’t done that yet, it’s a good idea well worth taking forward. There’s nothing to prevent it, but nor have we encouraged it so far, but I’d be happy to look at that. There are probably some legal bits to get over, like you’d have to have a lead contract entity and so on, but I’m sure we could smooth out some of the difficulties around that, and I’m very interested in the communities of practice idea, the clustering arrangement, and generating more solutions to the challenge out of that clustering and, sort of, communities of practice-type arrangement.

What we could do is we could look to see if we can involve public or communal assets, which would be particularly suited to that kind of thing. So, just off the top of my head, if we were looking at more community-based projects—footpath preservations, and opening up the countryside, access, that sort of stuff—we might encourage solutions to some of the challenges we have in Wales to get our communities more connected to their landscape, and get groups of small SMEs, community-interest companies, involved and engaged in that. So, it’s certainly something well worth looking at. And as I said to Darren Millar, this scheme is particularly beneficial for early stage small or medium-sized enterprises because we’re happy to help them commercialise their idea and to help them develop it. So, it’s specifically good for small companies in that way. We’re also happy for them to retain all of the intellectual property rights and so on, because it’s their solution to our problem, so you could get some good communities of practice and some social capital developing out of some of the IP and so on. So, I think it’s an excellent idea worth exploring, and we’ll certainly take it up in the next round.

Thank you very much, Minister.

Item 7, which is the Size and Composition of Local Planning Authority Committees (Wales) Regulations 2017—I call on the leader of the house, Janet Hutt, to move the motion. Jane.

The regulations that I’m introducing today will provide a consistent basis for planning committees in Wales to maximise efficiency and reinforce effective decision making. The regulations take forward recommendations from the independent Royal Town Planning Institute Cymru report into the operation of planning committees in Wales. Specifically, the regulations require planning committees to consist of between 11 and 21 members, but no more than 50 per cent of the total members of the local authority. The regulations also limit membership of the planning committee to one elected member per ward, to ensure a member is available to act as local representative and become involved in local planning issues.

The legislative requirements have been subject to public consultation, and received significant support across all sectors involved in the planning process. The consultation proposals have already resulted in several local planning authorities taking it upon themselves to change their planning committees so they meet the requirements of the regulations I’m putting forward today. Nevertheless, it remains important that legislation is taken forward. The size of planning committees in Wales has fluctuated significantly over the years with both increases and decreases observed, often to the detriment of performance. There remains a risk with the forthcoming local government elections that planning committee sizes may once again increase to a level that is detrimental to efficiently and effectiveness. These regulations are necessary to ensure current planning committee structures are maintained, and to assist the development of highly skilled, effective planning committees throughout Wales. I move.

Thank you very much. I have no speakers for the debate, therefore the proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, in accordance with Standing Order 12.36, the motion is agreed.

We move on to item 8 on our agenda, which is a debate on the general principles of the Landfill Disposals Tax (Wales) Bill. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government to move the motion—Mark Drakeford.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I’d like to start by thanking the Chairs and members of the Finance Committee and the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee for their detailed scrutiny of this Bill throughout Stage 1. I’d also like to thank everyone who has been discussing this issue with us and has contributed to our ideas as we’ve developed this legislation on the landfill disposals tax. I believe that we are all agreed that we need to secure a new tax once the current arrangements lapse, in order to ensure that public services in Wales continue to benefit from the revenue raised by landfill tax post 2018.

Both committees have made a number of recommendations: 24 were made by the Finance Committee and 12 by the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, and I can accept the vast majority of these. Deputy Presiding Officer, as both committees have presented very detailed reports and have made a number of recommendations, it won’t be possible for me to respond to each and every one of them individually in the time available to me this afternoon. I have therefore written to the Chairs of both committees prior to this afternoon’s debate to reply to each and every one of those recommendations.

Ddirprwy Lywydd, cyn troi at rai o'r materion manwl a godwyd yn yr adroddiadau hynny, rwy’n credu y byddai'n ddefnyddiol dechrau'r prynhawn trwy fynd i'r afael â dau fater cyffredinol a godwyd mewn gwahanol ffyrdd gan y ddau bwyllgor. Mae'r cyntaf yn cyfeirio at y dull cyffredinol a gymerwyd gan Lywodraeth Cymru wrth lunio’r ddeddfwriaeth hon. Rwyf wedi dweud yn gyson, yn ystod y craffu ar y ddau Fil treth sydd gerbron y Cynulliad ar hyn o bryd, fy mod yn credu bod budd amlwg i'r cyhoedd mewn sicrhau bod y systemau yr ydym yn eu creu ar gyfer Ebrill 2018 yn gyfarwydd i'r rhai a fydd yn gorfod eu gweithredu yn ddyddiol ac yn diogelu’r refeniw y mae’r trethi hynny yn eu codi. Pan gyfeirir yn ein deddfwriaeth at berthynas gydag arfer sefydledig yn Lloegr neu'r Alban, nid yw hynny oherwydd unrhyw oedi wrth gyflwyno mesurau deddfwriaethol sydd wedi'u cynllunio'n benodol ar gyfer Cymru. Mae oherwydd ein bod yn cymryd y cyngor diamwys gan y gymuned broffesiynol o ddifrif yn y maes hwn, sef bod sefydlogrwydd a sicrwydd yn hanfodol ar ddechrau'r dreth newydd hon ar gyfer parhad busnes, cynllunio busnes a hyder wrth wneud buddsoddiadau.

Nawr, lle gellir gwneud newidiadau i wella eglurder a darparu mwy o sicrwydd, neu warchod yn erbyn cam-drin, yna rydym wedi gwneud hynny. Dyna pam, Ddirprwy Lywydd, rwyf yn hapus i dderbyn y rhan honno o drydydd argymhelliad y Pwyllgor Cyllid i gyhoeddi cyfraddau treth ar gyfer treth gwarediadau tirlenwi erbyn 1 Hydref eleni er mwyn rhoi sicrwydd i drethdalwyr.

Mae’r ail bwynt cyffredinol yr oeddwn yn meddwl y byddwn yn ei wneud yn cyfeirio at y cydbwysedd gafodd ei daro yn y Bil hwn rhwng yr hyn sydd wedi ei osod mewn deddfwriaeth sylfaenol a'r hyn sydd ar ôl i fesurau eilaidd. Fy nod oedd rhoi cymaint â phosibl o fanylion a gweithrediad y dreth hon ar wyneb y Bil fel bod y manylion yn ymddangos mewn deddfwriaeth sylfaenol. Er ein bod wedi gweithio'n galed i sicrhau dilyniant, rydym hefyd wedi mynd ar drywydd nod hygyrchedd mewn modd systematig.  Mae'r Bil yn tynnu ynghyd werth 20 mlynedd o ddeddfwriaeth y DU sydd wedi'u gwasgaru ar draws statudau sylfaenol ac eilaidd, yn ogystal â chanllawiau a hysbysiadau statudol. Yn anochel, mae dull sy'n anelu at roi cymaint â phosibl ar wyneb Bil yn golygu bod pwerau eilaidd yn ofynnol os bydd y gyfraith yn cael ei chadw'n gyfoes ac yn gallu diwallu anghenion y dyfodol. Er mai fy nod i oedd darparu sefydlogrwydd a pharhad ar y cychwyn, rwyf hefyd wedi bod yn awyddus i adeiladu’r Bil mewn ffordd sy'n caniatáu i’r Cynulliad Cenedlaethol hwn ddatblygu mwy o wahaniaethu polisi yn y dyfodol, pe digwydd bod dymuniad i wneud hynny.

Nawr, gwn na fydd pob Aelod yn cytuno â'r cydbwysedd yr ydym wedi dod iddo yn y Bil, yn enwedig o ran y defnydd o bwerau Harri'r VIII. Ond rwyf am fod yn glir y prynhawn yma ynglŷn â’r rhesymeg sy'n sail i'n dull ni o weithredu. Mae'n adlewyrchu'r hyn, yn ein tŷb ni, yw’r cydbwysedd gorau sydd ar gael rhwng lefel uwch o ddarpariaeth fanwl ar wyneb y ddeddfwriaeth sylfaenol, a’r hyblygrwydd angenrheidiol a gaiff ei arfer o fewn gweithdrefnau craffu’r ddeddfwrfa, y mae pwerau eilaidd yn eu darparu.

Lywydd, mae angen i mi ymdrin yn gyflym â chyfres o argymhellion ar gyfer newidiadau i'r Bil yn adroddiad y Pwyllgor Cyllid yn benodol. Ar yr amod bod cytundeb yn cael ei roi heddiw i symud y Bil hwn i'r cam nesaf, ac ar yr amod y gellir cwblhau’r gwaith cyfreithiol a drafftio angenrheidiol, rwy'n bwriadu cyflwyno, yng Nghyfnod 2, welliannau i gymryd cyngor y pwyllgor mewn cysylltiad â mynwentydd anifeiliaid anwes, gostyngiadau dŵr, defnyddio pontydd pwyso a gostyngiad yn y dreth mewn cysylltiad ag atal llifogydd. Byddaf yn gwneud hynny o fewn telerau fy ymateb ysgrifenedig i argymhellion 7, 9, 13 a 16 yn adroddiad y Pwyllgor Cyllid.

Lywydd, cafwyd llawer o ddiddordeb yn ymrwymiad Llywodraeth Cymru i sefydlu cynllun cymunedol i gefnogi’r ardaloedd hynny yr effeithir arnynt gan safleoedd tirlenwi, ac ysgrifennais at y Pwyllgor Cyllid ddoe i roi’r wybodaeth ddiweddaraf i'r Aelodau ar ymatebion rhanddeiliaid i'r papur a gyhoeddais cyn y Nadolig. Mae'r pwyllgor wedi galw am ddarpariaeth mewn cysylltiad â'r cynllun cymunedol i gael ei chynnwys yn uniongyrchol yn y Bil. Rwyf wedi ystyried barn y pwyllgor a'r rhanddeiliaid yn ofalus, a byddaf yn awr yn gweithio i gyflwyno gwelliant y Llywodraeth i'r perwyl hwnnw, yn nes ymlaen ym mhroses y Bil.

Mewn cysylltiad ag argymhelliad 11 y Pwyllgor Cyllid, manyleb deunydd cymhwyso, mae angen cynnal trafodaethau pellach i brofi'r ymateb yr wyf yn bwriadu ei roi i farn y pwyllgor. Ar yr amod y gellir datrys rhai materion gwirioneddol gymhleth a thechnegol, unwaith eto rwy’n gobeithio gosod cynigion y Llywodraeth i ymateb i'r argymhelliad hwn yn ystod camau diwygio’r Bil.

Mewn cysylltiad ag argymhelliad 5 adroddiad y Pwyllgor Cyllid, y diffiniad o waredu deunydd fel gwastraff, darperais nodyn manwl i’r pwyllgor sy'n nodi’r broses ar gyfer adeiladu diffiniad o warediad trethadwy, a'r rhesymau pam y credwn fod y darpariaethau a gynigir yn angenrheidiol ac yn briodol.

Mae hyn i gyd yn golygu, Lywydd, o ran argymhellion y Pwyllgor Cyllid, mai dim ond un argymhelliad na ellir ei symud ymlaen yn bositif gan y Llywodraeth. Rwyf wedi edrych eto yn ofalus ar farn y Pwyllgor ar gredyd ar gyfer dyledion drwg, fel y nodir yn argymhelliad 18 yr adroddiad. Mae hwn yn faes lle bydd y ddarpariaeth yn dechnegol, yn gymhleth ac yn hir, ac felly rwy’n parhau i ddod i'r casgliad y byddai'n fwy addas iddo gael ei nodi mewn is-ddeddfwriaeth. Er mwyn cynorthwyo'r broses graffu, fodd bynnag, ac i gydnabod y pwyntiau y mae’r ddau bwyllgor wedi'u gwneud am graffu ar y mater hwn, byddaf yn ceisio cyhoeddi rheoliadau drafft, fel y gall y pwyllgor fod yn ymwybodol ohonynt, a’u hystyried cyn cyflwyno fersiynau terfynol gerbron y Cynulliad Cenedlaethol yn yr hydref. Yn y modd hwn, bydd y Llywodraeth yn gallu ystyried unrhyw sylwadau gan y pwyllgor, ar ôl cael cyfle i ystyried y rheoliadau drafft hynny. Byddaf hefyd yn rhoi mwy o fanylion o'r bwriad polisi y tu ôl i’r rheoliadau hyn i'r pwyllgor yn ystod trafodion Cyfnod 2, unwaith eto er mwyn cynorthwyo'r broses graffu.

Lywydd, mae llawer iawn rhagor yn nau adroddiad y ddau bwyllgor yr wyf wedi ymateb iddynt yn fy llythyrau at Gadeiryddion pwyllgorau. Diolch iddynt eto am yr ysbryd manwl ac adeiladol wrth gynnal ystyriaeth Cyfnod 1, ac rwy’n gobeithio y bydd yr Aelodau yn gweld bod yr un ysbryd yn fy ymateb i y prynhawn yma. Rwy’n credu ei fod yn uchelgais a rennir ar draws y Siambr bod y Cynulliad Cenedlaethol yn derbyn cyfrifoldebau cyllidol newydd yn y ffordd orau bosibl, ac rwyf wedi ystyried cyngor y ddau bwyllgor fel cyfraniadau adeiladol i gyflawni hynny. Gobeithio y bydd yr Aelodau yn cytuno i symud y Bil hwn ymlaen y prynhawn yma, fel yr argymhellwyd gan y Pwyllgor Cyllid, fel y gall y gwaith hwn barhau.

I call on the Chair of the Finance Committee, Simon Thomas.

Thank you, Llywydd. I’m pleased, as Chair of the Finance Committee, to table our report on this Bill. I welcome the way that the Cabinet Secretary has responded to this report, and has responded this afternoon as well to the recommendations made by the committee. This is the third piece of legislation relating to the devolution of tax powers in the Wales Act 2014, and the second tax Bill to be considered by the Finance Committee during the fifth Assembly. The committee met to consider the Bill over the spring term, and we’re extremely grateful to everyone who gave evidence and assisted us in the scrutiny process.

It’s a pleasure to say at the beginning of my contribution that we, as the Finance Committee, recommend supporting the general principles of the Bill. It’s clear that the Bill is needed to ensure that landfill does not become the cheapest waste management option available in Wales, thus undermining other environmental policies and encouraging the transportation of waste into Wales. Whilst the tax revenue associated with landfill will continue to decline as the Bill achieves its aims of reducing the waste sent to landfill, the committee also recognises that it is vital to maintain this revenue stream for Wales, given the consequential adjustment to the block grant, following the devolution of this tax. The Office for Budget Responsibility—the OBR—forecasts this to be £25 million in 2018-19, namely the year that the landfill disposals tax will be introduced in Wales.

However, we have made a number of recommendations, and the Cabinet Secretary has spoken about a number of them. I’m pleased that, of the 24 recommendations—and 24 recommendations were plenty—23 have been accepted by the Cabinet Secretary, either in full or in principle. So, I’m going to focus my comments today on just a few of the committee’s recommendations dealing with the fundamental principles with regard to the way that we prepare Bills dealing with tax.

First of all, I want to look at the regulation-making powers within the Bill. The Bill contains 29 provisions that allow Welsh Ministers to make regulations, including 19 that would permit them to amend primary legislation. We believe that a stable tax system is vital for Welsh businesses, and that the level of flexibility provided by regulation-making powers does not meet the Welsh Government’s own principles of providing stability and reassurance to businesses. I accept, of course, that some of the Cabinet Secretary’s comments in the previous contribution go some way towards mitigating our concerns in this area.

We wanted to see more detail being included on the face of the Bill, in four main areas: namely, the proposed rates of taxation; a list of qualifying materials for the tax; the definition of ‘a small amount’; and provisions for bad debt relief. The Cabinet Secretary has just dealt in some detail with the last one of those. Although the majority of regulation-making provisions will be subject to the affirmative procedure, this does not provide the Assembly with the opportunity to amend. The only option would be to vote against those provisions or to accept them.

In our report, we urged the Welsh Government to reconsider the balance of detail on the face of the Bill and, in particular, to reconsider the inclusion of the proposed tax rates. In relation to the setting of tax rates, the Cabinet Secretary indicated, in giving evidence, that he will bring forward the rates as part of the budget-setting process in the autumn. However, should the tax rates not be included on the face of the Bill, as a minimum, we seek assurances that the proposed rates will be published before 1 October 2017, in line with the Welsh Government’s stated principles of providing stability and reassurance to businesses. I’m pleased that the Cabinet Secretary has committed to publishing the tax rates by that date.

I have noted the Cabinet Secretary’s comments that it would be disproportionate to consider the introduction of an annual finance Bill at this time. However, we believe that the Welsh Government should look to introduce a financial framework Bill as soon as possible. We, as a committee, will be undertaking some work on this in the coming months, and the Cabinet Secretary has indicated that he is open to working with the committee to further this work. This is work that we hope that the whole Assembly will have an interest in.

The Bill includes a power for making regulations in relation to tax credits, which the Welsh Government intends to use in relation to bad debt credit in the case of insolvency. The Cabinet Secretary considers the construction of bad debt relief to be complex and technical, as we’ve just heard. However, the committee does not believe that this should prevent some details being included on the face of the Bill. We recommended that the provision for bad debt, and the circumstances in which it may be applied, should be included in the Bill.

Part 4 of the Bill enables the Welsh Revenue Authority to charge tax on the unauthorised disposal of waste at places other than authorised landfill sites. It’s important to note that this is designed primarily to deter tax evasion and not to deter what is commonly regarded as fly-tipping—the tipping of small amounts that happens illegally. We can agree with stakeholders that these new provisions should be supported by a meaningful enforcement and inspection regime, which, of course, needs to be sufficiently resourced. So, we recommended that the Welsh Government should monitor the number of unauthorised disposals and the number of prosecutions arising from this, and publish the figures, to measure the success of the provisions. The Cabinet Secretary has accepted this recommendation.

We heard a range of views with regard to the landfill disposals tax communities scheme, which was proposed by the Government to supersede the current landfill communities fund. This is used to support environmental projects and community projects near landfill sites. Some stakeholders supported this scheme being administered by a single distributive body, and put forward a number of suggestions regarding the scheme’s proposed eligibility criteria, and we’ve asked the Welsh Government to consider those. One thing is clear: stakeholders are concerned that the Welsh Government’s proposal to operate the scheme outside of the Bill will not protect the funding. We acknowledge that expectations will need to be managed as the amount of tax collected inevitably declines. Nevertheless, we recommend that a statutory duty to establish a communities scheme should be included in the Bill to secure this important funding stream, with the details relating to the application of the scheme provided. I’m pleased that the Cabinet Secretary recognises this and that he has announced a Government amendment to the Bill to this end. The Cabinet Secretary has also agreed to give consideration to the evidence we received on the development of the scheme before launching a procurement exercise to appoint a distributive body this spring.

Finally, the committee was disappointed to hear that HMRC intends to make changes to the UK landfill tax legislation in the 2017 Finance Bill. This is something that we need to monitor and the Cabinet Secretary has committed to working with the landfill site operators, HMRC and HM Treasury to ensure that that is as little effect as possible on the operators of landfill sites in Wales during this period.

A number of recommendations with regard to the committee’s report and the Cabinet Secretary’s response are now available on the committee’s Bill page, and I encourage any Member with an interest to have a look at that.

I call on the Chair of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, Huw Irranca-Davies.

Diolch, Lywydd, and before commencing, can I give my apologies to you and fellow Members, and to the Minister as well, for being slightly late and missing his very opening remarks? I was taken aback by the progress we’ve made this afternoon. So, my apologies.

You won’t be the only person apologising to me this afternoon. [Laughter.]

Diolch, Lywydd. Well, can I first of all commend the very constructive and engaging way that both the Minister and his team have worked with us on the scrutiny of this Bill? We reported on the Bill on 10 March, we made 12 recommendations, and it is pleasing that, in his speech today and in a letter to the committee, the Cabinet Secretary has accepted 10 recommendations. So, we note the Cabinet Secretary’s comments that he’s sought to put more information on the face of the Bill than exists in current UK legislation, and we welcome that approach, but we do remain concerned in principle about the volume of Henry VIII powers that the Welsh Government is seeking to take in this Bill.

Our first recommendation asks for greater clarity about why it was necessary to take such extensive powers, and we do note the Cabinet Secretary’s comments and reasoning today, and in his letter. But, in our view, increasing the amount of detail on the face of the Bill shouldn’t be seen as a licence for the use of extensive Henry VIII powers to change primary legislation using subordinate legislation, because it carries the risk of parliamentary scrutiny being limited. And we do note that whatever assurances the current Cabinet Secretary, who has engaged so well with this committee, is able to provide to the National Assembly about his intentions in using Henry VIII powers, they are of course not binding on his successors.

We do recognise that this tension between the rights of the legislature and the wishes of the Executive is not new and not limited to this parliamentary institution, but it is our duty to continue to raise these concerns as part of the scrutiny process, and we will do so throughout the fifth Assembly. We do therefore welcome however today the Cabinet Secretary’s acceptance of recommendation 2 and for setting out the justification for the use of each Henry VIII power in the Bill. It will assist our scrutiny of the regulations that arise from these powers.

The Wales Act 2017 now provides powers that will permit the Welsh Government to bring forward an annual finance Bill in future. We agree with the Finance Committee that an annual finance Bill would make for a more transparent and more accessible way to change laws involving tax. Whilst we note the Minister’s argument for not doing so now, in his letter, we do hope the Cabinet Secretary will give further thought to the use of an annual finance Bill in future.

We welcome the Cabinet Secretary’s decision to accept a recommendation in principle to place a list of qualifying material on the face of the Bill at section 15, subject to discussion with stakeholders. Now, as an important matter of principle, we continue to believe that regulations that amend primary legislation should always be subject to the affirmative procedure. Our consistent views are on record. We made three sets of recommendations to apply the affirmative procedure to regulations to be made under sections 40, 59 and 90 of the Bill that amend primary legislation. Whilst we welcome his decision to accept the recommendation in respect of section 59, we regret he was not persuaded to accept the recommendations in relation to sections 40 and 90.

In closing, I turn to section 90, which concerns regulations that may make such incidental, consequential, supplemental, transitional, transitory or saving provision in relation to the Bill. Because of how broadly these powers could be used, we made recommendations seeking clarification about why the Cabinet Secretary needs these powers and how he intends to use them. I’m grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for the information he provided in his letter, which will be helpful to the committee.

But, as I’ve already said, we also recommended tabling an amendment to the Bill such that regulations under section 90 that amend primary legislation are subject to the affirmative procedure. In his response, the Cabinet Secretary noted that the approach follows that taken in the Land Transaction Tax and Anti-avoidance of Devolved Taxes (Wales) Bill. Of course, our report on that Bill also advocated the use of the affirmative procedure, but that recommendation was also rejected. However, of particular note and interest is that equivalent provisions contained in other Welsh Government Bills, such as, for example, the public health Bill and the additional learning needs Bill, are in line with this committee’s views and those recommendations. So, I would be grateful if, in the answers, the Cabinet Secretary could explain this seeming inconsistency of approach within the Welsh Government on this important point of principle.

But in closing, can I thank him and his team again for very constructive engagement with our committee’s scrutiny? I look forward to his response.

Can I say at the outset that the Welsh Conservative Party will be supporting the general principles contained in this Bill? It does, in effect, replace an existing tax and puts into effect our devolved responsibilities in this area. Indeed, I think it’s a great advance in Welsh governance that we now have these powers and responsibilities. It will build the accountability of our system of governance considerably. That, I think, is a very sound principle of the Westminster model. So, it is something that we welcome.

I think the manner in which this Bill has been developed and presented is therefore especially important. It’s one of the earliest Bills—the second, according to the Chair of the Finance Committee. I was pleased, at least, to hear the Cabinet Secretary say that his intentions were for this Bill to be clear, simple and accessible. I think that sets the sort of standard that we would expect and, obviously, the standard that can then be scrutinised as the Bill gets examined in detail both by the respective committees like CLAC and finance but also at Stage 2.

I think compliance and enforcement are at the heart of sound legislation in this tax area. Certainly, compliance should be improved by legislation that is clearer and simpler, so that it is something that people can readily understand. Again, that is definitely a principle that we welcome. I think enforcement will require effective co-operation between Natural Resources Wales and the local authorities. Obviously, that takes us into a broader area, but it is always important to remember that, in setting a framework that is comparatively easy to enforce, then we are doing a service to the public. I think the deterrents in this area in charging those who are unauthorised users and to make that a more expensive option, clearly, that’s beneficial, but it does require a fair chance that those people are caught and that does, I think, in turn, require effective co-operation between the key agencies. Much of the Bill is about, really, the technicalities of imposing a tax and how that is designed and applied efficiently and that really is important and I'm indebted to the Finance Committee for the work they've done in this area.

I am a member of CLAC, so I just wanted to turn, finally, to this issue of Henry VIII powers. They are really a device that puts a lot of power into the hands of the Executive and overrides the legislative function of full and proper scrutiny. Now, I do hear—. The Minister, in his very beguiling manner, and this is not the first time, he sort of soothed us in saying that he uses this because he wants so much on the face of the Bill. I think we've got to be firm here, because whilst I welcome as much detail on the face of the Bill—. And, of course, in areas of tax you realise that things change and adaptations have to be made, but as the Chair of CLAC so ably demonstrated, the way around this would be with an annual finance Bill. So, I continue to oppose resorting to Henry VIII powers in anything but emergency situations, really, but perhaps he could give us some reassurance that it is the Government's intention fairly soon to move to the practice of an annual finance Bill, which then would make these particular stratagems unnecessary. But, in general, we do agree with the general principles and now look forward to Stage 2.

I very much support the Finance Committee's report and I think that the Finance Committee works very well together. We don't all hold the same political views—in fact, some of them are diametrically opposite—but I think that everybody's commitment there was to try and get the best report we possibly could to try and get the best legislation we can for the people of Wales. I think that's got to be our duty. We may hold different political views, but, actually, getting the best we can for the people of Wales is what we're here for. An annual finance Bill is inevitable, whether the Cabinet Secretary wants to do it now or in a couple of years’ time. As more taxes get devolved, it becomes an inevitability. Can I also say how pleased I am by the positive response from the Cabinet Secretary and his willingness to work with the Finance Committee, not just on this, but on a whole range of items that are important for us to get right for the people of Wales?

I very, very much welcome the unanimous decision of the committee to support the Bill going on to Stage 2 via recommendation 1, although I'm probably not as pleased as the Cabinet Secretary is with this unanimous recommendation.

I'm also pleased to see that action is being taken to tax illegal sites. This should end the practice in some areas of waste sites being opened up and not charging landfill and continuing until a court stops them, when an awful lot of material can be dumped on that site. There will now be no financial incentive to allow this type of tipping on some land. We also know that landfill disposal tax income is reducing. We expect it to continue to reduce. All projections show a downward movement in terms of tonnage and tax raised. Swansea council has already reduced landfill by 80 per cent from its peak, and if more people follow the principles of ‘reduce, reuse and recycle’ then we’re going to have less going into landfill and I’m—and I'm sure most people, if not everybody in this Chamber today, are—very pleased that we’re going to have less going into landfill.

There are a number of behaviour taxes described by some as ‘sin taxes’—tobacco and alcohol duty are two. Whilst many people also see them not just as taxes to change behaviour but also a major source of revenue to the Treasury, landfill disposal tax is wholly behavioural; it raises very little income. Still, well over half of this tax is paid by the public sector, mainly local authorities. It’s having a major effect on behaviour. What happens when, or if, the tax raises less than it takes to collect? Because that’s what happened with dog licences. I would argue that it is a tax for public good and it should continue, even if it does cost to collect it. Abolish the tax at that stage and landfill becomes a financially beneficial option, and then some will choose it and the amount going into landfill will increase, and that would not be good for our environment. The committee made a number of what I consider key recommendations. First:

‘The Committee recommends that the Welsh Government considers the definition of disposal of material as waste in section 6…to ensure clarity and simplicity.’

And can I say that’s very important right the way through the Bill, to get clarity and simplicity? It’s easy to complicate things. The simpler you keep it, the easier it is to ensure that is followed and obeyed. Second:

‘The Committee recommends that the Welsh Government considers the wording of section 11 (Pet cemeteries) regarding the disposal of dead pets, with particular consideration to simplifying the law and ensuring bilingual consistency.’

Bilingual consistency is incredibly important. One of the first events that happened here was the Aled Roberts event, which was because there was bilingual inconsistency—that what people thought was going to happen didn’t happen. I think it really is important that the Bill says exactly the same thing in English and Welsh, and if it doesn’t say the same—if the Welsh is open to a different interpretation—then an explanation of what those words actually are meant to mean in Welsh is put in there, so that there’s no ambiguity. There’s a problem—in some legislatures that are bilingual, they write the legislation in two languages. Here we tend to translate from English to Welsh, and I think there are serious dangers in that, and not just for this piece of legislation, but legislation in general. I think it’s important that we ensure that we don’t get things wrong, especially in tax legislation, because the Welsh says something slightly different or is capable of different interpretation.

‘The Committee recommends that the Welsh Government review section 26 (Material removed from bed of river, sea or other water) to ensure that material removed in the course of flood prevention is subject to the same reliefs as materials removed in the interest of navigation.’

Otherwise people are going to pretend that you can navigate up a river that you can’t do, except by canoe, in order to get that. And who’s going to be paying it? Natural Resources Wales in the main, or local authorities, or people who are stopping flooding. Do we want to tax flood relief and flood defence? I think that we certainly don’t want to do that. And, finally, all I would like to say is that I’d love to see the community scheme on the face of the Bill. The community scheme is incredibly important—it has helped a large number of people. Can we please have that on the face of the Bill?

In calling Adam Price, I need to apologise to you for not having called you earlier in the debate, and you were, apparently, one of the very few who was in in time, so—. Adam Price.

I’m more than happy to wait patiently. I’m not sure that my notes had arrived by that point, so I’m grateful to you. Now, every time we discuss taxation, there is some reference to a royal figure—I think it was Llywelyn ein Llyw Olaf the last time, on the land transaction tax. We were reminded that this was the first time that we were to levy a tax as a nation since those days. And today, of course, we are talking of Henry VIII, who has cast a sort of shadow over our deliberations this afternoon. I did want to focus on the general principles, because there will be opportunities for us to digest all of the recommendations put forward by both committees. But is it not an example, perhaps—the details of the recommendations put forward by both committees, and the fact that the Government has given way and accepted many of them—of the crucial role of the legislature in playing a central part in improving legislation, which actually strengthens the argument that I intend to make in the rest of my speech on the need to get that balance right between the ability of the legislature to scrutinise and the Executive’s ability to govern? That’s what’s at the heart of the comments that we have heard to date.

Now, when we refer to Henry VIII powers, they do date back to the proclamation statement of 1537. The Act of Union was the year before that, so the UK is almost as old as the Henry VIII powers. But it does give some false legitimacy to these powers to talk about Henry VIII powers, because they were abolished around 10 years later, and, to be honest, they disappeared entirely from the constitutional process in Britain until the end of the century before last. It’s only since the 1970s and 1980s that they have become part of the mainstream legislative process in the UK. Therefore, let us not accept that this is the usual way of operating. It has become common for political reasons. Of course, it is favourable to the Executive to operate under these kind of procedures. So, let us in this legislature not fall into that trap, and that’s how I interpret the contributions on the core principles contained within the reports, and the speeches that we’ve heard from both Chairs.

There are two main points, of course: we need more detail on the face of the Bill so that the Assembly can scrutinise its content—including the list of qualifying material is an example of that, on the face of the Bill. And the Finance Committee has suggested that the provision in relation to bad debt relief should be on the face of the Bill. The other general point that needs to be made, of course, is that, where there are regulations, there is a need to ensure that that is done through the affirmative procedure. So, there was a reference to sections 40 and 59 in terms of moving from the negative procedure to the affirmative. Unless we get that balance right, then we cannot do our proper work as a Parliament. That is the core principle here: it is very important with these first Bills that have been brought before us in terms of taxation that we do get that balance right.

Mae Biliau Arian yn aml wedi bod wrth wraidd y brwydrau mawr rhwng Seneddau ac Adrannau Gweithredol yn y Deyrnas Unedig, ac, wrth gwrs, ar draws y byd, ac am reswm da. Mae’r gofyniad am sicrwydd y cyfeiriodd Mike Hedges ato, a dyna pam mae cael y cydbwysedd hwnnw'n iawn a sicrhau ein bod yn gallu cyflawni swyddogaeth gyfansoddiadol briodol yn hanfodol bwysig.

Felly, yn olaf, ar y cwestiwn ehangach, y gwnaeth y ddau bwyllgor—argymhelliad 4 gan y Pwyllgor Cyllid, ac argymhelliad 3 gan y Pwyllgor Materion Cyfansoddiadol a Chyfreithiol—. A allem glywed gan Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet beth yw ei safbwynt o ran Bil cyllid blynyddol? Mae'r ddau bwyllgor o blaid hynny. Cafwyd cynnig caredig i weithio gydag ef gan y Pwyllgor Cyllid. Byddem yn dymuno'n dda iddo yn y cydweithio hwnnw, ond a allai ddweud wrth y Senedd beth yw ei safbwynt fel Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet? A yw'n derbyn yr egwyddor sylfaenol honno y dylai fod gan unrhyw Senedd sy’n gweithio'n iawn, i bob pwrpas, Fil cyllid blynyddol y gallwn ei drafod a’i ddiwygio?

Mark Reckless.

Diolch, Lywydd, and I think I owe you the deepest of apologies of the Members that you have, certainly in my case, very indulgently allowed to contribute to this debate; I apologise to the Cabinet Secretary also for not having caught at least the earlier part of his remarks. The thing I’ve most noted is that the Cabinet Secretary has listened and he has thought and he has considered constructive criticism and suggestions and he’s come to the Siambr today with a revised position. Like the Chair and other Members, I’m grateful that so many recommendations of the Finance Committee have been accepted in full or in part.

My party intends to support the general principles of this Bill today. We took a decision prior to the election that the tax devolution that was in the St David’s Day agreement we would support with a view to having a stable devolution settlement. I’m not sure we are going to have that, but, nonetheless, we will be supporting the devolution of this particular tax. I note the discussion we’ve had around, at least in the medium-term, the necessity for a finance Bill. I would think it equally important that that finance Bill, given we’ll be moving to new budgetary structures, should allow not just the Siambr to express its views on the level of or the applicability of tax, but there should be a similar possibility to influence the level or priorities within the spending side of the ledger.

I think the most disappointing thing we have in this at the moment is not having the initial rates on the face of the Bill. Given that this is an early tax that has been devolved to us in this Assembly or Parliament, it would be appropriate to mark that by this legislature determining what the tax rate is. This idea that it should be left to Ministers and that we should, at most, have a positive resolution that, as has been ably said by others, cannot be amended is simply not satisfactory. There is the issue that we’ve discussed of certainty for taxpayers, but I think much more fundamentally there is the issue of principle: should it be the elected legislature that is taxing the people of Wales, or should it be Ministers through some secondary process? I’m quite clear where I and my party stand on that, and I’m surprised that we haven’t at least had the full-throated support of some others in the Siambr for that proposition. It may be they’re making other agreements and having discussions, with which I wish them well, but nonetheless, I think as a principle it would be much better to have the rates initially applicable on the face of the Bill.

Can I just highlight one area where I think the Cabinet Secretary has indicated he’s prepared to change the legislation, which I thought was particularly important? We as a Finance Committee went to the Lamby Way recycling and disposal plant—although the disposal is shortly coming to an end—and as well as seeing the diversion of the Rhymney river, I was very impressed by the way that the weighing happened, and noted that the process was that the lorry with the waste on it came in, was weighed by the weighbridge as it entered, it disposed of the waste then was weighed on the way out, and the difference between those measurements was the amount of waste that was disposed, and it’s that that drives the applicability of the tax. So, we were concerned to see in the Bill, as initially drafted, that there was a requirement to ascertain the weight of the waste being disposed prior to disposal, which would have flown in the face of what was actually done operationally, at least at that site, but potentially at others. So, I’m grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for having taken account of the committee’s views on that particular legislative difficulty, and I think, certainly from what I’ve seen so far, that the way that the Cabinet Secretary has engaged with the committee and the way that this legislative process is working as we take tax legislation into this place is a credit to the institution and to those involved. Thank you.

Can I also thank the Cabinet Secretary for bringing forward this debate today? I also want to thank my friend and colleague here, Dafydd Elis-Thomas, for telling me all about King Henry VIII rules, which I didn’t know much about until before this debate. I probably know marginally more about that now than I do about landfill. But it’s good to take part in this debate today, and I’m delighted, Cabinet Secretary, that you’ve taken on board our concerns about domestic pet cemeteries, or simply pet cemeteries as it was in the Welsh—there was an issue with the drafting of the translated version of the draft Bill—and that was an interesting sideline of our whole discussion on how you form legislation, particularly in the area of taxation, which is a new activity for this Assembly, and which is one that we really do we need to make sure that we get right.

As with the new land transaction tax, we know that the UK landfill tax will be switched off in April 2018 and the block grant reduced accordingly, so the Welsh Government has no real option other than to develop its own. As Mark Reckless has just alluded to, the infamous Lamby Way landfill site visit—I was also fortunate enough as a member of the Finance Committee to take part in the visit to Lamby Way. I had originally planned to visit the CERN institute in Geneva that day. That was planned a few months before, but I clearly got the better end of the deal. [Laughter.] How jealous I was of those people who visited Geneva, as we, at the top of Lamby Way—. I think my hat blew off at one point, didn’t it, Mike Hedges, and you kindly caught it. But it was a fascinating visit. We learnt a lot about rubbish disposal and also had a discussion, as Mike Hedges mentioned, about how existing landfill sites can be seen not just as landfill sites but future resources, as some of that landfill, particularly in the older sites from a number of years ago, is now itself recyclable and will be recyclable, probably, in the future. So, there are possible retrieval opportunities for the future. I think on the Lamby Way site they refer to them as mining opportunities, which raised a whole new set of issues and considerations for us.

Many of the areas I was going to talk about have been covered, but if I can turn just briefly to the recommendations in this report. I would say this, but I think this is an excellent report from the Finance Committee—well done to the Chair for chairing over the sessions that led to this. It’s a straightforward report and, indeed, the Bill is a lot shorter than the stamp duty replacement tax Bill was. It’s good to see that, in the case of this tax, I think the evidence sessions were well advised, witnesses were listened to and the Cabinet Secretary has taken on board many of our recommendations.

Recommendation 3 in particular calls for the rates of taxation to either be evidenced on the face of the Bill, or as a minimum—a compromise—for them to be published before 1 October 2017. I will agree with the calls that other Members have made for those rates of tax to be more evident. I do think we need to be balanced about this. I’m not saying that the Welsh Government’s hands should be tied and that everything should be specified on the face of any finance Bill, and that you shouldn’t leave anything to regulation—I think that would be daft. But in the case of taxation and in the case of this tax, as with land transaction tax, we are all trying to achieve a smooth transition to the new taxation regime as soon as possible. That means the industry having confidence in the new regime and confidence that it will be as similar, at least in the early phases, to the existing UK model as possible. So, I think that having the rate specified on the Bill or having the rates announced at least at some specified point in the future, Cabinet Secretary, will help us all to agree with the tenets of this Bill.

If I can just mention that lovely term ‘waste tourism’, this was a key concern of the committee—well, it became a key concern—and we all had associated mental images of lorries of waste crisscrossing the border, and this clearly has to be avoided. We did learn, and it’s important to remember, that the cost of transporting waste is a proportionally small part of the overall cost of landfill disposal. So, a relatively small differential in landfill rates could potentially have a large effect on behaviour. So, that did need to be dealt with.

Key to the creation of this new tax is the need to maintain the revenue stream, so this legislation must prevent landfill once again becoming the cheapest waste management option. As Mark Reckless said, I do believe that the Cabinet Secretary has got the best intentions when it comes to this Bill ensuring a smooth transition and making sure that we do have the most efficient land disposal tax system here in Wales in the future. I and the Welsh Conservatives are happy to support the general principles of this tax Bill.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government to reply to the debate.

Diolch yn fawr, Lywydd. Thank you to all who’ve taken part in the debate and for the indications from all parties here that they intend to support the progress of the Bill to Stage 2, for which I’m very grateful.

I’ll begin by thanking Simon Thomas for making a point that I really probably ought to have made myself, but didn’t have the time, which is that the Bill is about environmental policy as well as about taxation, and the use of taxation in this field has been very, very effective, as Mike Hedges pointed out. And the tax has a unique status as being an intentionally self-liquidating tax—it hopes to put itself out of business, and has been very successful in moving in that direction. We don’t want to do anything that would stop that from happening, but in the meantime, we need to raise the revenue, because the Treasury will assume that we are and will make a block grant adjustment on that assumption. So, the fact that we will raise the revenue is very important.

We’ve heard a lot in the debate on all sides about King Henry VIII powers, and let me say I begin from the position of sharing the belief that a Government should always be very careful in bringing forward such proposals, and we don’t do it lightly. But the fact that there is such a number of them in this Bill is largely because, as you will see in my letters to the committee Chairs, we have broken down a broad Henry VIII power that is available to Ministers in England to do a great deal of things more or less as they would like, and to make those powers much more specific and narrow and, I think, capable of being scrutinised. There is a balance to be struck. We think we’ve got it the right way. It is interesting—you’d expect me to say it, I guess—that even in the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee’s report, which takes a sceptical line in relation to Henry VIII powers, the committee itself makes a recommendation, in recommendation 6, to place qualifying material on the face of the Bill, which I intend to accept, and in recommendation 7 to take a Henry VIII power to be able to amend that in the future. So, you can see the balance and the debate being taken forward, even in the reports of the committees themselves.

On an annual finance Bill, again, many Members have referred to it. I look forward to working with the committee. I see the time coming when an annual finance Bill will be a part of the landscape of the way we do things here, but at the moment we don’t have any tax-raising powers, and in April 2018, we’ll have only two taxes available to us. As Mike Hedges said, as the system matures, and more such powers come to Wales, I think this has a certain inevitability about it, but I’m very keen to work with the committee to look at the way that such Bills are used elsewhere, and to plan ahead so that we put the best processes in place for when we would be in that position.

As far as unauthorised sites are concerned—Simon Thomas raised this—he will have seen that in England yesterday a consultation was launched on taxation of unauthorised disposals, following what has happened in Scotland and what we intend to do in Wales. At the same time, regulations were published to deal with the changes to the system of landfill disposals tax in England that the Treasury has announced. I think when we look at them—and we need more time to look at them properly—we will see that the changes are less significant than were originally signalled, and I’ve shared with the committee the letter that I have had from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, which gives us some comfort on that matter.

As to other points that have been made this afternoon, I will listen carefully, of course, to what the Chair of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee has said about sections 40 and 90 and think about the points that have been made in relation to those powers. David Melding, in an anything but caustic contribution, I thought made some very important points about compliance and enforcement. Because, although this is a shorter Bill, as Nick Ramsay said, compared to LTTA, actually, enforcement and compliance issues are more complex in relation to landfill disposals tax than they are in relation to stamp duty land tax, and that’s part of why we’ve got so much detail on the face of the Bill.

Let me just end by agreeing with a point that Adam Price began with. I’ve been lucky enough to be responsible for a series of Bills that have come before this National Assembly, in the last Assembly term and in this one. I’ve never been involved in a Bill where I did not believe that the process of scrutiny improved that Bill, and I think that’s very much the case in this Bill. My approach has been exactly as Mike Hedges said: that we have a shared interest in getting it right, making it the best possible Bill, and that is the spirit in which the Government will approach Stage 2 and the amendments that I’ve already agreed to this afternoon.

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

The next item is the motion to approve the financial resolution in respect of the Landfill Disposals Tax (Wales) Bill. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for finance to move the motion. Mark Drakeford.

Formally.

There are no speakers on this item. I take it that the Cabinet Secretary doesn’t want to respond to the debate. Therefore I ask the question whether the motion should be agreed. Does any Member object? The motion is therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

The next item of business is the motion to vary the order of consideration of Stage 3 amendments to the Land Transaction Tax and Anti-avoidance of Devolved Taxes (Wales) Bill. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for finance to move the motion.

I formally move.

Thank you. Once again, we have no speakers. So, the question is whether the motion should be agreed. Does any Member object? Therefore, the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

That brings our proceedings for today to an end.