National Assembly for Wales

I call Members to order.

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

The Auditor General for Wales published his report in July of 2015 and the Public Accounts Committee published its report in January of 2016.

I thank you for that reply, First Minister. First Minister, you’ve set up an inquiry into what was described by a committee of this Assembly as a cavalier approach to disposal of public assets, which was scandalous. And this deal has also been described as one of the greatest blunders of recent times in Wales. Therefore, does the First Minister not agree that this inquiry is a test of the competence of the entire framework of scrutiny and administration that makes up devolved administration in Wales? Further to this, is it not true that the magnitude of this blunder demands that the necessary checks and balances are put into place as soon as possible to make sure this sort of debacle does not occur again? At the moment, there appears to be a perception that this matter has been kicked into the long grass.

Well, no. The auditor general recognised that we acted quickly and appropriately once concerns were raised. We commissioned a review of the governance of the regeneration investment fund for Wales, and a peer review of the professional advice, which was conducted by Deloitte, and we made the results of both of these reviews available to the auditor general.

The Public Accounts Committee concluded that RIFW and Welsh Government lost the taxpayer tens of millions of pounds. Yet, the Welsh Government has claimed it’s not possible to demonstrate that land was sold under value. In responding to the PAC, Welsh Government confirmed that a legal process had been initiated, and said further legal steps were under review. Will the First Minister confirm whether that process and those further steps are civil, regulatory or criminal? And, if he is to seek damages, can he confirm that he first needs to accept that he made a loss?

There are legal proceedings that are ongoing, and, as a result, I cannot comment further.

The facts of this matter are that, just to take Lisvane, land was sold for £2 million, which weeks later was said to be worth £41 million. The issue is a stain on devolution, and I believe it’s a stain on your First Ministership. Do you support South Wales Police reopening the investigation into the Lisvane land deal?

First of all, we must be careful because there was involvement with Ministers from his own party as well. But, regardless of that fact, this was not an episode that reflected well on those who were part of it. That much I accept. Nevertheless, there are legal proceedings that are still outstanding and, as I say, I cannot comment on those proceedings while they remain current.

I am very pleased to see that Coleg Cymunedol y Dderwen has made sufficient progress against its recommendations from the core inspection in October 2015 to be removed from special measures. And I hope, of course, the school maintains and continues to improve.

I’m delighted that the First Minister has seen that report, and he will note that the comments of Nick Brain, the executive head of the school, have been that they’ve flown out of special measures. I think it may even be unprecedented—the turnaround has been incredible. I remember shortly after the not-far-short-of-a-crisis that the school went into, the headteacher standing up in a prize-giving ceremony in that school, when their heads were down, and saying, ‘I tell you, we will turn this school around rapidly’ and, by that summer, they had achieved record GCSE results. Will he join me in commending not only the headteacher, but all the school staff, the support staff, the teachers, everybody involved in the school there, but also the governors as well, and also the pupils? This has been a difficult time for the school, but to fly out of special measures in this way, with the support of Bridgend County Borough Council local authority, with the support of Welsh Government and the Schools Challenge Cymru funding, has been an incredible turnaround, and it shows what can be done with leadership at all levels for the good of our pupils and our students.

I think that analysis is absolutely right. Nick Brain has an established track record elsewhere in the county borough. But it shows the difference that leadership can make to an institution that is going through a difficult phase. The staff are pretty much the same, the pupils are pretty much the same, but the leadership, clearly, was not there, in the way that people would have expected. It is there now, and it’s fantastic to see the progress that’s been made.

Can I just add my voice to those sentiments as well? I think this is amazing news for Coleg Cymunedol y Dderwen. Even so, the report does note that the curriculum currently limits continuity in the development of pupils’ Welsh and modern foreign language skills, and that it plans to address those in 2017-18. Well, bilingual and even trilingual skills, as I hope you accept, could be agents of social mobility, and, of course, we have the 1 million speakers target. So, is there any support that Welsh Government might be able to give the school, or the consortium that’s involved in this, or additional advice or support, in order to make sure that they actually crack this in this next 12-month period?

We do stand ready, of course, to provide advice, as will the local education authority. But I’m confident that, with the leadership that is in place in the school now, they will be able to meet the challenges that they have been set and, of course, to continue with the good progress that’s been made.

First Minister, it is good news that Coleg Cymunedol y Dderwen is out of special measures, and the staff and pupils should be congratulated on making strong progress against the majority of Estyn’s recommendations. First Minister, what help is your Government giving to the school to ensure they make better progress in improving the numeracy and literacy of pupils, and how will your Government ensure this work is not affected by budget cuts imposed by the LEA? Diolch.

Well, primarily, of course, it’s a matter for the LEA to provide support for schools. But, ultimately, a school needs a strong leadership team, and that’s been established at Coleg Cymunedol y Dderwen. The results are there for all to see. And we expect, of course, schools, and the LEA, to adhere to Welsh Government policies and to provide advice on that basis.

Questions now from the party leaders. The leader of the UKIP group, Neil Hamilton.

Diolch, Llywydd. The First Minister will know that the Welsh economy is worth about £60 billion a year, and, of that, £38 billion is accounted for by public expenditure, between the UK Government and the Welsh Government—about two thirds of the total. Does he agree with me that there is an urgent need for greater diversification? We do need to get more private capital into Wales, to generate more wealth to raise the tax base, and, therefore, to have the opportunity to spend more on schools, hospitals, et cetera. And that’s why the decision on the Circuit of Wales was particularly disappointing, because that was a project that offered £315 million-worth of private capital to come into Wales, and now that isn’t going to happen, instead of which we’re going to spend another £100 million worth of taxpayers’ money on an empty industrial park. Is this not an indictment of the Welsh Government that, after 20 years, we’ve gone backwards rather than gone forwards?

Well, the point I make about the circuit is that the circuit needed a Government guarantee at the very least. Now, if the circuit was in a stronger financial position, it wouldn’t need that guarantee. What we have done is to move forward with the technology park. It’s based on discussions we’ve had with potential investors. It’s based on the fact that, for some time, it’s been difficult to attract investment into some parts of Wales because of a lack of buildings where people can actually base themselves. And, thirdly, of course, it’ll have a heavy emphasis on skills. The last thing we want is for jobs to be created but for local people not to be able to access those jobs. And the technology park will deliver in all of those areas.

Well, the technology park will just deliver a set of empty buildings. There is no interest in those buildings that the First Minister can point to that gives any guarantee that they’ll be occupied for any automotive firm, or any other firm, actually, whereas, at least with a world-class race track, in the light of decisions that might be made in Silverstone, where formula 1 could move away, then this is an obvious hub to form a cluster of related industries. Without that, there is little prospect that this will be any more successful than the Ebbw Vale enterprise zone in attracting jobs to a part of the world that desperately needs them.

Well, as I’ve said, the reality is this: we have spoken to potential investors and there is interest. We’re not looking to put a building up there that won’t be filled. The reason why we’re moving ahead as we are is because we have taken soundings, and we have listened to companies—companies such as TVR, who are coming to Ebbw Vale, and others—who are interested in creating that automotive cluster. They all said to us that a circuit was not essential to their business plans and they still want to work with us to deliver those jobs. Bear in mind, of course, that the circuit itself would have created very few jobs indeed. It was the phase 2—the technology park, which we’re looking to build— that would have created most of the jobs.

Well, of course, it has been said by the developers all along that the great advantage of this facility was to be the centre of a much larger collection of firms that would generate jobs in the real economy of manufacturing for many, many years to come. Those jobs are now more speculative than before, but instead of a Government guarantee, which might never be called upon, we now have an actual promise by the Welsh Government to spend real money—taxpayers’ money; up to £100 million over 10 years—with no guarantee of a single job coming out of that beyond the construction phase. So, shouldn’t we really be doing a lot more than we are to make Wales an attractive venue for private sector investment, as I said in my first question, in order to raise the tax base so that the Welsh Government has more resources available to it to spend on all the highly desirable social objectives that we all share?

Well, I don’t disagree with the point he’s making. I remind him, of course, about the announcement by Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles last week of 300 jobs being created in Newport. We have just seen our best foreign direct investment figures for nigh on 30 years. It’s a sign that Wales is a place that businesses want to invest in, that we are getting better jobs. In the early 1990s, investment was attracted into Wales on the basis that we had the lowest wage rates in western Europe. Those days are long gone and nor they should never return. We are increasingly able to attract jobs into Wales on the basis that our people have the skills required, that, to quote Aston Martin, we have a Government with pride and passion in terms of selling Wales to the world, and the results that we see for FDI speak for themselves.

The leader of Plaid Cymru, Leanne Wood.

Diolch, Llywydd. Do you believe Wales is moving towards free higher education or further away from it?

I believe we’ve put in place a fair package of funding for both undergraduates and postgraduates, and that is of course something that we are proud, as a Government, to do. The package available to students in Wales will be more generous than those in England.

I know it’s the end of term, First Minister, but that wasn’t a very convincing answer. I’ve heard a range of attempted justifications in this Chamber and outside from you and Cabinet members to the announcement that was made last week, but what I’m hearing from students is very different. The National Union of Students believes that tuition fees should be frozen and they say that the announcement your Government has made is a huge step backwards. They say that this will hinder access to education rather than help it, and they say that there should be pragmatic steps towards free higher education. Those students were quoting what was, up until last week, Labour Party policy. Why have you turned your back on them?

Well, the NUS signed up to the Diamond review, so it’s surprising that they now say that they’re not supportive of what is proposed. Of course, they will want to represent students—we understand that. What the Diamond review does is also provide funding—[Interruption.] What the Diamond review also does is to provide, for the first time, support for postgraduate students, which is hugely important. We stand by, of course, the manifesto promises that we made in 2016.

The Diamond review didn’t recommend a hike in fees, First Minister. And also, a number of parties signed up to participating in that review, but they didn’t sign up to implementing whatever outcome was recommended. That is down to your Government. First Minister, you’ve turned your back on students, and you must be hearing the same messages that we have been hearing. Plaid Cymru believes that higher education is a public good and should be funded across the education budget by the whole of society. Students want their universities to be better funded through the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales and through your Government, not from their own pockets. Students should not bear the brunt of that demand for better funding because there is a historic funding gap that exists due to your lack of investment as a Government. You want students to pay for the funding gap. We believe that that is unjust.

Now, I note—[Interruption.]—that the announcement was made during the summer holidays—

Can we allow the leader of Plaid Cymru to continue please? We don’t need accusations being hurled around the Chamber. Leanne Wood.

Diolch, Llywydd. That announcement was made during the summer holidays, when students had already left campus. At the end of this Assembly term, will you now give those students some well-deserved good news and abandon that tuition fee hike or does the Labour Party no longer believe in free higher education?

Well, first of all, I’m surprised to hear that she’s distancing herself from the Diamond review, which is news to me, I have to say, at this stage. Secondly, it is not sufficient for her to say that she wants tuition fees to be abolished without saying where the money’s going to come from. It is not serious politics to say that—[Interruption.] It is not serious politics to say, in Wales, that you want to abolish tuition fees and then not say where the money is coming from. We have to deal with the real world. [Interruption.] Secondly—

Let’s hear the First Minister respond. Let’s allow the First Minister to respond.

Secondly, is she saying fees for undergraduates, or for postgraduates as well? That is something that she needs to clarify. What we have done is recognise that postgraduate funding has not been there in sufficient levels in the past, and so the package we offer for undergraduates and postgraduates is both fair and in advance of that available in England.

Leader of the Welsh Conservatives, Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. First Minister, yesterday the auditor general issued this report into the Cardiff and Vale university health board’s contractual relationships with RKC Associates, which, for the uninitiated, is a human resources company. In the 10 years that I’ve being in this Assembly—and I’ve seen quite a few reports, in fairness, in those 10 years—this clearly is one of the most damning reports that I have seen. I’d be grateful to understand what your take is on it, given that the Welsh Government is cited in several references about giving permission for the contracts to be engaged with with this individual and, above all, being on the selection panel that finally allowed the individual to go forward and take this place with the Cardiff and Vale health board.

Well, these are matters, ultimately, for the health board to explain, but I know the Minister will be talking to the health board in order to get an explanation from them and will, of course, inform the Assembly in due course.

First Minister, I had hoped you’d be far better briefed than that. It isn’t exclusively a matter for Cardiff and Vale health board by any stretch of the imagination. This is a health board that is in some measure of special measures from the Welsh Government—financial scrutiny, in particular, because it faces a huge financial deficit of £30 million to £35 million, at the last estimate, in this financial year. The contract that was agreed and the terms of employment in certain respects were paying £1,000 a day plus expenses, plus VAT, according to the auditor general. There is little or no transparency; there is little or no accountability. There is an inability for the auditor general to actually understand how the appointments were made, because there does seem, amongst the former senior executives of the health board, to be pointing to someone else as making the decision and just going round and round in circles. The one clear person who is involved here, because she was on the selection panel when the final appointment was made, is the health board chairman, who was sitting on that selection. Do you have confidence in the health board chairman given the accusations that are put—not the accusations, sorry—the proposals that have been put in this report from the auditor general himself? Because we have seen it time and time again: when these things run out of control, they can have disastrous consequences for the running and management of the health board in delivering services here in Cardiff and Vale.

Well, first of all, the health board is not in special measures. He said it was a kind of special measures, but it’s not actually in special measures in terms of the definition of the term. Secondly, the health Secretary will be taking the matter up with the health board, will be demanding answers, and those answers will be shared with the Assembly.

I notice you didn’t give a vote of confidence to the chair of the health board, and I offered you that opportunity. Can you not understand how frustrated and how angry members of the health board feel when they see a report like this that identifies consultants being brought in on £1,000 a day plus expenses? Over the 18 months of the employment, £26,000 plus VAT in expenses alone—that’s more than a nurse starts on, that is. And then, when a final contract was offered, they came to the Welsh Government to seek permission to raise the ceiling from £136,000 a year to £150,000 a year. Now, this is a health board that has been in the news because of the court case last Friday—that staff are facing prosecution and also demands for payment of incurred fines. But, more importantly, there will be huge anger among key members of the health board and patients who use that health board when they understand the cavalier nature in which this situation has arisen. It cannot be allowed to continue. As I said, the Welsh Government’s permission was sought to allow these arrangements to progress, and the Welsh Government gave its permission. So, you do have a key role to understand this and actually make sure it doesn’t happen again. I also note that the director general of the health service has written to all health boards in Wales to understand whether there are any arrangements like this in other health boards. Are you in a position to clarify the position on your understanding of arrangements, in particular when it comes to consultancies like this in other parts of Wales that could bring the health service into disrepute?

Well, first of all, I do have confidence in the chair. Secondly, this matter is something that needs fuller investigation, and Assembly Members will be told what the outcome of that investigation actually is.

He mentioned the issue of staff car parking. This has been something that’s been in the news recently. It is important, I think, that the reasoning behind the court case is understood. The reason why enforcement was put in place was because there had been a death on the site, partially due to illegal parking and partially due to the traffic flow going through the site. Some 16,000 traffic movements go through the University Hospital of Wales at the moment, and it is right that there is proper enforcement of illegal and unsafe parking. That has to happen on a site that is this busy. Why these individuals went to court and what advice they received is difficult to know. I do know that one of them in particular had 59 parking tickets. Again, no explanation is given as to why that is. It’s unfortunate for those individuals—I understand that—but it is hugely important that there is proper enforcement on the UHW site in terms of safety, and to stop people parking there all day, in order to make sure that patients who arrive on site do have places to park. So, enforcement has to happen. Otherwise, are we saying that people can park there without any fear of any kind of penalty? Things have gone very far with regard to three individuals; it’s difficult to know why that is. I can say that the idea that they face costs of £150,000 is nonsense. We don’t know where that figure has come from and that has absolutely no basis in fact. But UHW is a site where there is a great deal of traffic movement and there does need to be enforcement regarding that movement.

The national transport finance plan, published in July 2015, sets out investment for public transport for 2015-20 across all parts of Wales.

First Minister, your Government has recently decided, once again, not to prioritise any train stations in Pembrokeshire, despite the fact that certain stations, such as Milford Haven station, do need significant improvements. Now, I appreciate that when you as a Government invest money in rail projects, you will do this with stakeholders such as Network Rail, Arriva Trains and so on, but given that you are spending significant amounts of money, can you tell us what you’re doing to ensure that any Welsh Government funding that funds improvements is distributed fairly, so that all parts of Wales are taken into account?

There are criteria that are open and that can be seen, and that are used to decide which stations should be supported over the years. It’s a completely open process. It doesn’t favour any part of Wales. It just considers the investment required. Of course, through the investment of Welsh Government, the Fishguard town station was opened, after being closed for many years. There are also more services on that line. We always consider how we can improve the rail services and the bus services in Pembrokeshire.

First Minister, you confirmed on Friday in the Committee for the Scrutiny of the First Minister that the franchise won’t be one where all profits are returned to Government, but one where you have to contract with a private company. So, what steps are you taking, therefore, to ensure that any profits that come from growth and investment made by the Welsh Government in that franchise are returned to people in Pembrokeshire and beyond, and that we don’t see the current situation where one company is making a profit on the back of public funding?

That is something that I would accept. I can say that and nothing else, I think. We don’t have the opportunity to run the railway ourselves or through a management company. But it’s crucially important that we have a model that is as close as possible to one that reinvests any profit back in the service itself, and also to ensure that the people of Wales see an increase in the quality of the service—not just having more trains, but also trains that are good ones to travel upon. That’s extremely important as part of the franchise.

Yes. We remain committed to supporting the existing eight enterprise zones located across Wales and a written statement will shortly be published to detail how that’s being achieved.

I just want to thank the First Minister for that response. The 1980s enterprise zones were not successful in Wales, with the largest in Swansea becoming a large out-of-town shopping area. In fact, the term ‘enterprise zone’ in Swansea is used to define an out-of-town shopping area. When are the current zones going to be reviewed, and what will constitute success?

Well, success, of course, involves creating more jobs. It does not involve creating another shopping park, which, as the Member rightly says, happened in the lower Swansea valley in the early 1980s. I can say, in terms of governance, that the Cabinet Secretary met with the enterprise zone board chairs on 12 June to have an initial discussion around enterprise zone governance and the future direction of the enterprise zone programme in Wales. I know that the Cabinet Secretary plans to meet the chairs again at the end of the summer to continue those discussions, focusing on ensuring that future arrangements meet the requirements of the Government and emerging Government policy.

First Minister, there are eight enterprise zones across Wales. None of them cover my own constituency. I would say, in mid Wales, there is a great feel for entrepreneurship and there is a higher level of business start-ups than perhaps in other parts of Wales. So, what I would ask you, First Minister, is: do you think there is a case for an enterprise zone, or a growth deal, for mid Wales, particularly focused on growing businesses and creating higher paid jobs?

We’ll always examine that case. I mean, two things are important for his constituency. First of all, of course, is infrastructure, with broadband being one element of that. Secondly, there is an issue with the electricity grid, which is controversial, I understand, in his constituency, but the current grid is not particularly strong when it comes to developing manufacturing in the future. He knows, as I know, how controversial pylons are in his constituency, so I’ll leave it at that. But, it is an issue that will need to be resolved in the future. But, I’m more than happy to consider what such a growth deal might look like, how it would work geographically, as well, in some parts of Wales, and, of course, I share with him his desire to see more and better jobs closer to home.

Many people feel that the Circuit of Wales was a massive missed opportunity for the Ebbw Vale enterprise zone. Last week, referring to a pre-arranged meeting with the company, you said that

‘the company accepted the issue with regard to the issue of being on balance sheet and the risks that that posed to us—they did not argue with it.’

The chief executive of the company, Martin Whitaker, said that,

‘Clearly that statement is incorrect.’

‘We made it clear that we did not agree with this assessment.’

First Minister, which of you is lying?

What I said is correct. I stand by my words.

The last of those eight enterprise zones is actually in Port Talbot, in my constituency, and the only one in South Wales West. But it is important that we see that now used to actually grow the local economy and grow local businesses. How are you monitoring the progress in that enterprise zone to ensure that that actually does take place and that the purpose of the zone is actually being achieved?

We’re confident that the enterprise zone is working well in Port Talbot. We know, of course, that there’s an opportunity for world-class manufacturing; the development, for example, of full ICT infrastructure that will develop for us a relationship with Tata Port Talbot; developing the energy and environment capability of the enterprise zone; construction of appropriate business and office units; and assisting the building of a Baglan bay innovation centre. I can say that, since the inception of the zone, a number of inquiries have been received, seeking information about support for growth or new locations. These are at the early stages of development, but there are, potentially, some significant inward investments.

Last week, the Minister for Skills and Science set out the Government’s agenda for employability. Working Wales recognises this Government’s commitment to ensure work-based learning remains inclusive for all, irrespective of need.

Last week, I met with Dr Stephen Beyer of Cardiff University, who is working on the Engage to Change project, which was set up using money from dormant bank accounts and based on a partnership between the Big Lottery and Welsh Government. The aim is to get 16 to 25-year-olds who are not in education, employment or training and who have learning disabilities and/or autism into long-term employment. One of the organisations working with it is Trinity Fields School and Resource Centre in my constituency, where I’m a governor, and I declare an interest. I think it’s got an important role, this project, in supporting job coaching and work experience for those young people. I think it could also have implications for transition under the new arrangements being brought forward by the additional learning needs Bill. Would the First Minister therefore support a model of this kind if the pilot through Cardiff University is proven to be successful?

Yes, we’ll look to see, of course, how the model works, and we’ll evaluate the model, but we’re very keen to make sure that we have as much available to get people into work, particularly those who have learning disabilities and those who are on the autistic spectrum, and of course we look forward to seeing what the results of the project are.

I am sure the First Minister will agree that higher education should engage with work-based learning to address the economic imperative for the supply of workers with appropriate skills and knowledge to equip them for the changing nature of work in the present job climate. What is the Welsh Government doing at the moment to encourage increased co-operation between employers, employers’ organisations and further and higher education to deliver and expand the relevant workplace learning in Wales?

We work very closely, of course, with employers because we know that work-based learning is hugely important to develop people’s skills in the future. We are looking at how to develop people’s employability and how we work with businesses in order to make sure that people have the skills they need for the future.

Many employers feel young people leave the education system today lacking the practical skills they need for the labour market. Many people have degrees, for instance, but are not regarded by employers as being work-ready. Do you think that the university system in Wales could do with a shake up?

I think universities have actually improved over the years in terms of the way they work with business. It’s true to say that some 10 years ago the link was very tenuous. Universities didn’t see themselves as needing to work with businesses in the way that they do now. I’ve certainly worked with universities and gone to universities where they are working very closely with business, and where they see themselves as an economic driver to create start-up businesses. That’s something that I very much welcome.

It is key that the voice of citizens is continually heard when developing and providing high-quality health and social care services.

Well, yes, it is, and your Government is currently consulting on scrapping statutory community health councils. I see this as a retrograde step and a dangerous step, particularly for us in north Wales, because we need a strong, independent voice that is locally based, and that can challenge the health boards and challenge the Government when needs be. The health council in north Wales has made over 500 ward visits in the last year, which is some 500 more than Healthcare Inspectorate Wales have done in north Wales. We need to broaden the role of the health council, not centralise it into an ambiguous national body. Now, the new model that has been mentioned in your consultation is based on the Scottish health council, which has been recently described as a ‘toothless hamster’. Do you agree that going down that route in Wales would be a major mistake?

Well, we know that a number of people have argued that we need a new model in order to ensure effective representation of citizens in health and social care. This isn’t anything that will weaken the voice of the citizen. Of course, we wish to hear people’s views on the schemes and plans that we have for a new, independent body and, of course, we would be very happy to hear what Members and members of the public have to say in order to ensure that this is something that will strengthen patients’ voice.

First Minister, will you join with me in welcoming the construction of a new state-of-the-art £350 million hospital in Cwmbran, named the Grange University Hospital? It will help to modernise health services across Gwent for my constituents also in Islwyn. Judith Paget, chief executive of Aneurin Bevan university health board said, and I quote,

‘We have received fantastic support from local people living in the Health Board area as they understand the benefits this hospital…will bring.’

First Minister, isn’t this the Welsh Labour Government and the Welsh national health service in synergy, working together, listening to patients in the provision and development of health services? How can we continue this good practice in the interests of our people, who know that the NHS is safest in Welsh Labour hands?

The Conservative benches didn’t welcome that statement. They were complaining about it. I sense the Member’s enthusiasm, which is great, but not as great as that of the Member for Torfaen, whose enthusiasm is there for all to see within the Chamber itself. But this shows, of course, that we are investing in modern health facilities for our people, and this is a great example of that happening under a Welsh Labour Government.

Getting back to the original question, the Vale of Clwyd Trades Union Council, in responding to the 29 June Welsh Government White Paper, quality and governance of health care in Wales, proposing the abolition of community health councils, said that because of its make-up, the North Wales Community Health Council is the ideal body to be our patients’ voice and watchdog. How do you respond to that statement and to the response by the North Wales Community Health Council that the proposals would see the end of long-standing arrangements set up to place power in the hands of local people to monitor how their NHS services are working, and, for example, the proposed new citizen voice body would not have legal rights to hold health organisations to account for the way in which they deliver their services?

Well, we’ll examine that response, along with many others, and that will inform the final decision that we take. The fact that something has been in place for many years doesn’t necessarily mean it should continue in the future, but we look forward to the results of the responses that we get through the consultation.

Well, our focus on prevention is having a positive impact in both north and south, with almost 8,800 households prevented from becoming homeless.

Thank you for that answer, First Minister. You’re probably aware that every year, about 15,000 people become homeless in Wales, including 2,800 children. Of those, a few hundred will be living on the streets. Last week, my office was able to help find accommodation for a former armed forces veteran who, because of mental health issues, found himself homeless. According to homeless charities, there’s an estimated 7,000 ex-servicemen and women living on the streets in the United Kingdom. What is your Government going to do with local authorities and other associated agencies to ensure that your armed forces covenant in Wales is fulfilled?

Well, we have developed a number of distinct approaches to support some of those members of our community most at risk of homelessness. That includes the new housing pathway to help ex-service personnel; the national pathway for ex-offenders; the pathway to help young people avoid homelessness and an accommodation framework for care leavers to ensure they get the help they need to find suitable accommodation. That pathway is in place because we recognise, of course, that there are many members of the armed services, together, of course, with others who are particularly vulnerable, who need that specific help.

Local authorities across Wales, according to your Government, are expected to provide some form of cold weather provision for homeless individuals and rough sleepers, irrespective of whether there is a statutory duty owed to them. Guidance on this policy, First Minister, though, is very ambiguous. Certainly, in my own authority, there are no set temperatures or indications of what kind of weather conditions are included within the policy. Therefore, how this is applied can vary on an almost daily basis during very extreme weather conditions. What discussions will you hold with regard to introducing a more uniform guidance across Wales, so our most vulnerable homeless and rough sleepers are not, quite simply, left out in the extreme cold?

That process has started. But, of course, there’s nothing to stop the local authority doing this themselves and actually saying what their guidance will be, what temperatures they will recognise. There’s nothing to stop them doing that, but, nevertheless, we are moving forward with the process of starting to look at strengthening the guidance to introduce greater consistency across Wales.

May I draw your attention to a recent case of a constituent who was homeless? Citizens Advice and I tried to assist him in securing a crisis home until a more permanent home could be provided for him. I understand the pressures on local authorities, naturally, but in this case the council didn’t believe that they could place this individual in the priority category. But in this case, what we had was an individual who had a mental health diagnosis and who had a support worker that had been designated to him. Now, in that sort of case, do you, as First Minister, agree that we must consider those who have a mental health diagnosis as priorities?

It’s very difficult, of course, to—. As regards people with mental health issues, nobody would argue against ensuring that they have the support they need. If the Member would write to me with the details of his elector, then I would be happy enough to consider the situation to see what we can do to help.

The Minister for Skills and Science met with Damian Hinds MP, the Minister for employment, last Thursday. Our Minister stressed our profound concerns and urged that the DWP work with the Welsh Government to explore alternate solutions, including co-location where feasible, to ensure that good jobs can be kept locally.

Thank you, First Minister. I too met with Damian Hinds last Wednesday, along with the MP for Llanelli, Nia Griffith, and once again found him to be urbane but indifferent to the plight of the workers in Llanelli, where the 150 jobs will be relocated. An estimated 50 of them will not be able to take up that offer of relocation because it simply isn’t practical on part-time work to be able to travel to Cardiff. The impact will be significant in areas like Llanelli. Despite the pledge of the Prime Minister as part of her industrial strategy to spread the wealth, and, as you say, despite the offer of the Welsh Government to help to relocate the offices to assist the Department for Work and Pensions, there was no intention to engage seriously with the Welsh Government on this. When the Welsh Government brings forward its economic strategy later in the year, will you make sure there are specific provisions to rebalance the economy to compensate for this centralisation programme that the Tories are pushing through?

Well, our mantra is ‘better jobs, closer to home’. That guides what we do. We know that it’s hugely important that Government jobs are available across Wales. We’ve done that; we’ve opened our offices across Wales. Those offices that existed in Carmarthen, in Caernarfon and Llandrindod, we’ve always resisted the pressure to do away with them. They are still there, because we know how important they are to the local economy. Unfortunately, the same principles and values are not shared by the DWP.

It’s very disappointing in terms of what’s happened in Llanelli, specifically the fact that so many people aren’t able to relocate. But in turning to your response to Lee Waters, your own jobs strategy does talk about the closure of offices too. You talk about reducing the number of offices to some 14 or 15. So, in reality, how are you different to the DWP?

Well, some offices have closed over the years—very few people worked there and they were very close to other offices. What we will never do is centralise jobs in the future. That’s why jobs have been moved out of Cardiff over the past 10 years, and that is something that we wish to take further.

The new Grange hospital, of course, represents a significant commitment of £350 million that will provide services for the people of Monmouth and, of course, the former county of Gwent. And that, of course, will represent a significant step forward in terms of healthcare for the people of Monmouthshire and beyond.

Thank you for that answer, First Minister. It was a pleasure to join the health Secretary yesterday at the new Grange University Hospital site—a much better name, I think, than the old ‘SCCC’ that we’ve been calling it for so long. It’s been a long time coming. I think it was 2007 when I first attended a meeting about the construction of the new hospital. Back then I remember a discussion about this not just being about the critical care centre, but the way it would free up space at existing hospitals such as the Royal Gwent and also Nevill Hall, and that that would allow for future reconfiguration. Back in 2007 it was anticipated that there would be a new Nevill Hall by now in 2017-18. Clearly that has slipped back. What is the timescale for the remodelling of the health services surrounding the critical care centre—the second piece of the pyramid, so to speak? Because the critical care centre is very important, but it is one part of the overall health jigsaw in south-east Wales.

Well, bear in mind, of course, that our capital budget was cut by 40 per cent, so it was difficult for us to move forward with the programme as we would have wanted to over the last few years. That said, of course, there have been already a number of local service improvements, including direct access to physiotherapy at Nevill Hall. There’s community dietitian and weight management services available there now, enhanced community diabetes services and enhanced pharmacy management of patient medication. So, already we are seeing the development of new services in Nevill Hall, and that development will continue, of course, in the future, and after the Grange hospital has opened.

Question 11, Neil Hamilton.

Question 12, Mark Reckless.

Question 13, Rhun ap Iorwerth.

War memorials are an important part of our heritage, and a permanent reminder of sacrifices made and losses sustained by communities. I am pleased that the Welsh Government grant scheme, launched in 2014 as part of the commemorations of the first world war, has helped to protect war memorials across Wales.

Mi gofiaf i heddiw fel y diwrnod lle cyrhaeddom ni gwestiwn 13, ac mae fy niolch i Neil Hamilton ac i Mark Reckless am fethu ag ymestyn am eu ffeiliau yn ddigon cyflym. Rwy’n ddiolchgar o gael y cyfle, ac mae hwn yn fater, digwydd bod, rydw i’n teimlo’n reit gryf yn ei gylch o. Mae cofebau’r rhyfel mawr—mi wyddoch chi amdanyn nhw—ar sgwâr y pentref yn bethau sy’n cael eu gwarchod, ac mae Cadw yn gwneud gwaith arbennig yn eu gwarchod nhw.

Ond mae yna gofebau rhyfel eraill o gwmpas Cymru—mewn capeli, er enghraifft, neu hyd yn oed mewn hen ffatrïoedd—sy’n cofio pobl sydd wedi colli eu bywydau mewn rhyfeloedd. Mae angen gwarchod y rheini hefyd, ac a gaf i wneud apêl ar Lywodraeth Cymru i sicrhau bod gwaith yn gallu cael ei wneud—mi allaf i roi’r Llywodraeth mewn cyswllt â’r bobl sy’n gwneud ymchwil yn y maes hwn—er mwyn ein helpu ni i warchod ein treftadaeth ni ar gyfer y dyfodol a chofio’r rheini a gollodd eu bywydau?

A gaf i ddweud fy mod i wedi cyrraedd cwestiwn 15 o’r blaen, ond dim ers amser, achos roeddwn i’n cael fy nghyhuddo o roi atebion rhy fyr. Achos hynny, penderfynais i fod yn rhaid i mi, felly, ehangu’r atebion yn y pen draw. Rwy’n gwybod bod cofeb Llanrhuddlad ar Ynys Môn yn cael ei ystyried ar hyn o bryd, ynglŷn â chael ei restru fel cofeb sydd yn arbennig. Mae honno’n enghraifft anarferol, rwy’n deall, o gofeb a gafodd ei ail-ddylunio ar ôl yr ail ryfel byd ac sydd â ffigwr milwr o’r ail ryfel byd arno.

Un o’r pethau oedd yn rhaid i ni ei wneud pan ddechreuom ni’r cynllun hwn oedd sicrhau ein bod ni’n gwybod faint o gofebau oedd yna, achos nid oedd gan neb rhestr ac nid oedd neb yn gwybod ble yn gwmws yr oedden nhw. Ond beth sydd wedi digwydd lan i nawr yw bod mwy a mwy o bobl wedi ystyried bod gyda nhw gofeb ac wedi, wrth gwrs, ystyried bod yn rhaid cael bach o arian er mwyn sicrhau bod y gofeb honno yn cael ei chadw yn y ffordd briodol. So, felly, os oes yna rai ar Ynys Môn, mae’n hollbwysig ein bod ni’n gwybod ble maen nhw, ac, wrth gwrs, mae’n hollbwysig eu bod nhw’n gwybod ym mha ffordd y gallan nhw gael unrhyw fath o help.

Thank you, First Minister. The next item on our agenda is the business statement and announcement, and I call on Jane Hutt to make the statement.

Llywydd, I want you to consider a point of order.

Ah, right. This is a point of order, not your statement. Okay. Point of order—Jane Hutt.

Diolch, Llywydd. I want you to consider a point of order made regarding Adam Price’s question, which I felt was inappropriate in relation to Standing Order 13.9, to the First Minister in relation to the Circuit of Wales this afternoon.

I listened to the question clearly. There did not seem to be any accusation that needed to be ruled out of order in that question. It was clearly a question put to the First Minister, and the First Minister clearly answered the question. I don’t consider I need to say any more at this point.

I’ll move on to calling the Minister for her statement—Jane Hutt.

I’ve a few changes to make to today’s agenda, Llywydd. The First Minister will shortly move a motion to suspend Standing Orders to allow us to hold a debate on the publication last week of the UK Government’s European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. Later this afternoon, the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure will deliver an oral statement on the development bank of Wales. Business for the first three weeks of the autumn term is shown on the business statement and announcement found among the meeting papers, which are available to Members electronically.

In First Minister’s questions, I raised with the First Minister this damning report that’s come from the auditor general around the way that Cardiff and Vale University Local Health Board has recruited someone to a senior position within its structures at director level, has engaged in carrying over considerable sums of public money—over £300,000 of public money—that there does seem to be little or no accountability over and an inability to provide invoices for. You’ll find real anger amongst the workforce of the Cardiff and Vale LHB area. I do believe that this report requires an immediate response from the Welsh Government so that we can understand exactly how the Welsh Government will work with the health board to meet these responses that are required to build confidence back in the LHB.

As I said in my question of the First Minister, this LHB is facing a financial deficit in this financial year to the tune of £30 million to £35 million, and, when you see it engaging in employing consultants in the first instance on a £1,000 a day plus expenses plus VAT, and then agreeing an employment contract and seeking the Welsh Government’s permission to extend the pay banding up to £150,000 from the Welsh Government’s own ceiling of £136,000, there does need to be a response from the Welsh Government to reinvigorate the confidence that staff may have lost, because of this report, in the ability of the management and the directors to actually have good governance and look after the well-being of the LHB. So, I’d be grateful to the leader of the house if she could elicit either a statement or a letter to Assembly Members from the Cabinet Secretary for health to clearly outline how the department of health in the Welsh Government are dealing with this report.

I will only repeat what the First Minister said in his response, which is important, that it is a matter for the Cardiff and Vale university health board. Indeed, of course, we have received—I’m sure you have, Andrew R.T. Davies—. The chair has written and we have very clear statements made by the new chief executive of the Cardiff and Vale university health board on this matter. But I think it is important to repeat that the chief executive of the NHS in Wales, on the wider point, Andrew Goodall, has written to all of the health boards to seek urgent assurance that good governance arrangements in relation to procurement and recruitment are in place across Wales.

Cabinet Secretary and leader of the house, in May we celebrated the fifth anniversary of the Wales coast path. Many people have walked that and enjoyed the benefits of that walk but, as such, they have no recognition for that walk. Can we have a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs, or perhaps the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure, depending on which one takes the lead on this, as to how we can actually encourage more people to take that walk, to give certification to people who do that walk, as on other great walks across this country, so that people will be recognised for what they’ve been able to achieve? Perhaps it can also be used as a beneficial aspect of tourism to actually have aspects or elements of that walk certificated.

I think it’s very appropriate that we take this opportunity, and thank you, Dai Rees, for raising this. Of course, the coast path’s been a great success. In fact, the report for 2014-15 showed that the economic impact of the coast path generates approximately £16 million of gross added value to the Welsh economy, and around 715 person-years of employment each year. In fact, recent research shows it’s higher than that. We also know, of course, about the health benefits that came through in the 2014 assessment. But I think it’s the links that also are important—to the other trails, like the Taff trail, and the coast path to the Valleys. And the certification of that and the paths, of course, that is a matter for the Cabinet Secretary to consider.

Leader of the Chamber, I’d like a Government statement on parking charges for NHS staff. I think we’re all aware of the court case last week, and nobody wants to see nurses having to shell out thousands of pounds simply for trying to park to do their job. Many of us feel that it’s not right either that a French company takes millions of pounds out of Wales just so that sick people and staff can get to a hospital. We’d like your Government to act as a mediator in this issue, and we’d like to know what is happening to make public transport to the Heath improve, so people don’t have to drive there. Finally, I’d like you to address the matter of the car parks being taken into public ownership by the Welsh Government, or compulsorily purchased by, perhaps, your colleagues across the way on Cardiff Council.

Thank you. Neil McEvoy’s very aware, of course, of the Welsh Government policy—very clear policy—of no car parking charges at hospital sites across Wales. We’ve been very disappointed, as I know he would understand, that the University Hospital of Wales contract has had to be maintained over recent years due to contractual arrangements that had been put in place, and the prohibitive cost if we were to try and withdraw from that. But the contract will cease in 2018, at which point there will be no charges to staff or patients. Assembly Members will all be aware across the Chamber that the chair, Maria Battle, has written to Members on sustainable travel and car parking at UHW, and, of course, recognising the very difficult situation, which the First Minister also responded to earlier on, in terms of the impact on staff.

Can I ask the leader of the house for a statement from the Welsh Government on the financial deficit faced by our secondary schools in the Newport area? When setting up the budget for 2017-18, Newport City Council was warned that there was a funding crisis with all secondary schools in deficit and some without reserves. I have been told that one of the schools in that area is facing a deficit of nearly £0.75 million, which is serious money. If this situation continues, it could lead to job losses and activities such as sports, music, and drama disappearing from our schools forever. Could we ask for a statement on this matter urgently, please? Thank you.

Well, the Member is fully aware that local authorities in Wales have the flexibility to set appropriate budgets for the needs of their communities. Funding for schools in Wales is up, despite the cuts to our block grant by your UK Tory Government. Last year, we delivered an extra £35 million to councils for school services and, indeed, data show that the funding delegated to schools has increased last year from £2.123 billion to £2.142 billion this year. We have committed, of course, to spending an extra £100 million over the Assembly term to raise standards. But I would also ask the Member, Mohammad Asghar, if he would like to ask Justine Greening whether we can have a fair share of the funding that she announced, which we understand is being taken from other budgets within the education allocation in England. Not a pound or a penny for our Welsh Government. Has it gone—? Is that because it’s gone to the bung to the DUP?

As everyone is aware, the fatal fire in Grenfell Tower that killed at least 80 people was caused initially by a fire that started in an electrical item. Can I ask for a Government statement on electrical safety, including proposals for tests for white goods, especially in high-rise flats, but I think that all white goods—? Can I just remind the leader of the house that any item taken into Tŷ Hywel, for example, has to be PAT tested before you’re allowed to install it?

Well, we’ve committed, as Carl Sargeant has said, to learning all relevant lessons from the tragic Grenfell Tower fire, and to take all appropriate action. That’s why Carl Sargeant has convened the fire safety advisory group. We don’t want to pre-empt that group’s work, but we do need to identify a stronger case for mandatory testing than there is now.

There are two issues that I wanted to raise. Lunch time today, families in Wales affected by the contaminated blood scandal met on the steps of the Senedd to make clear the impact that this has had on people in Wales. Obviously, over the summer there’ll be negotiations and discussions about what form the public inquiry will take. Obviously this has been very hard-fought-for by families in Wales. Would the leader of the house commit to ensuring that the Assembly will have regular updates on progress when we return from the summer break?

I did have a second issue. I wanted to raise—the second issue is that of Llanishen reservoir in my constituency of Cardiff North. As the Cabinet Secretary will know, there’s been a long-running fight over this reservoir and everyone locally is delighted that Dŵr Cymru has now taken it over and plans to invest in it. But, initially, the reservoir needs to be drained and this has been approved by Natural Resources Wales. Would it be possible for the Cabinet Secretary to arrange for a report to the Assembly, later on in the year, about the progress on this exciting scheme, and also what role Natural Resources Wales will play in the future?

I thank Julie Morgan for her questions and was also glad to join Julie Morgan and families affected by the contaminated blood scandal on the steps of the Senedd, with other Assembly Members from the cross-party group, this afternoon. We wholeheartedly welcomed last week’s announcement of the inquiry into the infected blood scandal that led to people contracting hepatitis C and/or HIV. The Cabinet Secretary for Health, Well-being and Sport is writing to the Secretary of State, setting out our expectations. And, of course, that has very much been driven through the work that you’ve pioneered, Julie, and the cross-party group. Our expectation is that the UK inquiry will engage and listen to those affected in Wales, in both setting the remit and in the taking of evidence—that came through strongly this afternoon. Consideration will be given to the 10 points identified by the Haemophilia Society, and there will be meaningful engagement between the four Governments in taking the UK inquiry forward. We will update Assembly Members about developments when we return from the summer break.

On your second question, the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs, Lesley Griffiths, will be happy to provide an update to the Assembly on the progress of the Llanishen reservoir scheme in the autumn.

A surgery in my constituency in Pen-y-groes, Dyffyn Nantlle, is to close at the end of the month, leaving the area with one fewer doctor. Now, I’ve been seeking information about this since I heard rumours that the service was to be lost. I wrote to the Cabinet Secretary for health on 24 April, copied to the chief executive of Betsi Cadwaladr—I didn’t get a response. I wrote again on 23 June to Vaughan Gething asking for a response—again, no response. I raised the issue with the chair and chief executive of the health board at a meeting on 19 May, and they made a promise that they would look into the issue. I wrote again to the health board on 29 June and, again, got no response. In the meantime, the health board did respond to a press request on the issue but it appears now that that information is incorrect. It’s clear that there are communication problems within the Government and the health board, and this causes great uncertainty for patients in my constituency. Will you therefore look at this lack of communication and report back to me as soon as possible, please?

I am grateful for that question because it does point to the importance of that communication, not just between yourself and the health board, but also for your constituents in terms of practice closures, such as the one you describe in Pen-y-groes. I think it’s important to recognise that there is funding going in to ensure and support the sustainability of high-quality primary care services, as a result of agreed changes to the GP contract, and also an investment of £95 million into a support package in terms of education, training of healthcare professionals, and £40 million to improve primary care estates. So, obviously, putting this now on the record today as part of the business statement will mean that some progress, I hope, will be made.

Can I request an update from the Welsh Government on its actions in support of the Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign to get justice for the many women who have been unfairly affected by the UK Government’s changes to the pension system? And, leader of the house, I’m sure that WASPI campaigners would also welcome the Welsh Government putting on record that it condemns the crass, insensitive and insulting comments from the UK pensions Minister that they should simply look for apprenticeship opportunities in order to alleviate their financial hardship.

Vikki Howells has consistently raised this important campaign, and although pension matters are non-devolved, and the responsibility of the Department for Work and Pensions in the UK Government, we as a Welsh Government remain very concerned about the disproportionate effect the changes arising from the Pensions Act 2011 are having on a significant number of women. Welsh Ministers have written to the UK Government about these issues. It’s been highlighted in our concerns in Plenary. Indeed, women from the WASPI campaign I know are coming in to meet with Assembly Members this week, and we will continue to offer our support for the efforts of this campaign, to highlight the serious impact of these changes, and decry the insulting comments made, which again, unfortunately, indicate the attitude and the lack of concern or interest in the important needs of these women who have been so adversely affected by these changes in equality and state pension age changes.

Leader of the house, tomorrow I am sponsoring a celebration of Welsh musical performance culture in the Senedd, with the Arts Council for Wales at 12 noon in the Neuadd. I invite the leader of the house, yourself, Llywydd, and all Members to the celebration event. As well as a range of youth performances, the event will be headlined by one of Wales’s greatest sons, Bryn Terfel, and it won’t be the ‘Ring Cycle’. [Laughter.] Leader of the house, will the Welsh Government look to make a statement to the Siambr on the development of a national music performance strategy for Welsh children and young people, a national performance strategy able to deliver and offer instrumental tuition and orchestral access, regardless of wealth, and ensure Wales retains its position as the land of song?

Well, I think all of us, across this Chamber, will want to congratulate Rhianon Passmore on the way she has been able—with, of course, the Arts Council of Wales—attract such distinguished figures. And others, who can spend some time joining that very important event, I know will do so. But I think your more important point is to link this to the importance of the Welsh Government’s commitment to culture, musical education, and to, as you say so clearly, make sure that Wales is at the forefront in terms of being able to educate our children, and enjoy Wales as the land of song.

Leader of the house, I’m rising in irritation that the leader of the Welsh Conservatives had two pops at the Cardiff and Vale University Local Health Board, without any opportunity for any other Members to add to this. Although, clearly, there was a breach of compliance, the chief executive of the Cardiff and Vale health board has said very clearly that there will be no further breaches of compliance by staff on his watch, and this has exposed an error in the way in which procurement has been conducted. But it seems to me that there is a balance to be struck, in terms of understanding that, clearly, there’s been a breach of compliance, but the work overall that Cardiff and Vale does is much to be valued.

I’m grateful for that comment from the Member for Cardiff Central.

I thank the leader of the house.

And this brings us to item 3, and the statement by the First Minister on the EU (Withdrawal) Bill is withdrawn.

There is a motion to suspend Standing Orders to allow the next item of business to be debated. And I call on Jane Hutt to move the motion.

I move.

The proposal is to suspend Standing Orders. Does any Member object? The motion is therefore agreed, in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

And that brings us to the debate on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. And I call on the First Minister to move the motion—Carwyn Jones.

Diolch, Llywydd. Well, the publication last week of the UK Government’s European Union (Withdrawal) Bill represents a hugely significant moment in the development of the debate about the way in which the UK will leave the EU. There’s no doubt that we need legislation, to ensure the continued effect of EU-derived law after we leave the EU, but whether this Bill is what is needed is much open to question.

While the UK Government may have changed the title of the legislation, previously known as the great repeal Bill, this is a rare and, it would appear, isolated example of Government humility in its approach to Brexit. Once you get beyond the front page, there is little if any evidence of the Prime Minister’s supposed willingness, after the general election, to consult widely, and to listen to other views on the vital questions that face the UK. But there are many issues, of course, that I could raise here, for example: whether it is right, when the purpose of the legislation is purportedly to maintain the rights we possess by virtue of our membership of the EU, to scrap the charter of fundamental rights; whether clause 6, which would end any powers of the European Court of Justice on the day we leave, is a piece of political grandstanding, which has no place in what is portrayed as a technical piece of legislation—and there will be other things as well.

But I hope Members will excuse me today if I concentrate on the huge challenge that the Bill represents to the devolved settlement as it’s developed over the course of the last two decades. This is rooted, let’s remind ourselves, in popular consent. The 2011 referendum, for example, saw a large majority vote in favour of giving this National Assembly primary legislative powers. Despite the very clear and repeated warnings from myself, and the whole of the Welsh Government, that we would not accept any attempt to use EU withdrawal as a cover for a recentralisation of power, that is exactly what this Bill, as drafted, aims to achieve. It’s an attempt to take back control over devolved policies such as the environment, agriculture and fisheries—not just from Brussels, but from Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast.

Now, this matters—it matters because devolution is about having the opportunity here in Wales to determine for ourselves policies that are appropriate to Wales, and which clearly have the consent of voters here in Wales. We cannot turn back the clock to the age when a Government with a thin majority in Westminster, and no mandate at all from Wales and Scotland, could impose policies like the poll tax in the teeth of the opposition of the vast majority of elected representatives from Wales and Scotland.

The Bill seeks to put in place, with no limitations, qualifications or so-called sunset clauses, new constraints on this National Assembly’s ability to legislative effectively after Brexit on matters where we currently operate within legislative frameworks developed by the EU. If this Bill is passed in its current form, we will be prevented from legislating in any way that is incompatible with retained EU law. Existing EU law will be frozen, with only the UK Parliament being allowed to unfreeze it. In practice, this will provide a window for the UK Government to seek parliamentary approval to impose new UK-wide frameworks in devolved areas such as agriculture, the environment and fisheries.

Now, Llywydd, this is totally unacceptable and it strikes at the very heart of devolution. It’s the thin end of a very big wedge. If we accept this, how long would it be before the UK Government would start to argue for UK-wide frameworks for health and education on the basis of its unique role in representing the whole UK and the importance of devolution not getting in the way of a global Britain? After all, if the price that the United States demands for a quick trade deal is to give private companies enhanced rights to deliver NHS care, why should the National Assembly and the Welsh Government be allowed to stand in the way? That would be their argument.

Would the First Minister give way?

Yes.

Thank you for giving way. I wonder if he could share his views on why some elements of the Bill in its current form, from the UK Government’s perspective, includes sunset clauses. There will be an expiry on certain functions that are being conferred upon UK Ministers. But when it comes to devolution, despite the public pronouncements that this is just a temporary measure for the sake of good housekeeping, there is no sunset clause relating to the power grab on devolved areas of responsibility.

His observations are quite correct. I can’t explain their reasoning, but certainly it is right to say that there is no—. Despite what they have said in public, there is actually nothing in writing in the Bill that suggests a temporary basis for what they are proposing, and that, of course, is of great concern to us. The UK Government will argue that this does not constrain our freedom to act any more than is the case today—it just replaces the powers of the EU and the European Commission with those to be exercised by the UK Parliament and the UK civil service. But EU frameworks are developed on the basis of proposals from a European Commission that is not the creature of one Government, often after intense negotiation between 28 member states and the European Parliament, and they are independently supervised by the European Commission and the European Court of Justice. What’s more, at the moment, in negotiations within the EU about, for example, the future of the common agricultural policy, we are guaranteed a role, through the memorandum of understanding, in shaping a UK position that reflects the needs of all parts of the UK, not just England.

Now, of course, having resolutely refused to listen to the very consistent messages—no-one can claim this is out of the blue—from myself, Mark Drakeford, and officials, about the complete unacceptability of any proposals such as those they’ve now made in the Bill, the UK Government now appears to be rowing back. Of course, I welcome that, but forgive me if I do so only cautiously. We’re told that the freeze is only an interim measure, though there’s nothing in the Bill that gives us any confidence that this could be relied on. We’re told that the proposals are intended to provide a window to build trust and give space for discussions to reach agreements on what frameworks are necessary after we leave the EU and what they should contain, and we are told that Ministers are keen to start these discussions urgently. Now, I’m not quite sure how holding a gun to someone’s head and saying that you don’t intend to fire it is expected to build trust, and, if the UK Government were serious about starting discussions on frameworks, I don’t understand why they’ve done absolutely nothing about it in the last six months since we made this proposal in our White Paper, ‘Securing Wales’ Future’—a White Paper, of course, jointly produced with Plaid Cymru.

Would the First Minister give way? I’m grateful. Just on that point, of course it doesn’t build trust when you don’t meet with Ministers and don’t have a JMC and so forth. But even if this Bill did have a sunset clause inserted into the devolved parts of it, would that be sufficient, in his view, to build that trust?

No, that would cut across what we’ve always said, which is that the powers should come to Wales and then all Governments should agree that those powers should be frozen, but, by consent, until such time as new frameworks are developed. The key principle here is consent, not imposition. So, ‘no’ is the answer. It wouldn’t be sufficient.

The joint ministerial council, whose job it is to oversee such negotiations, hasn’t even met since February due to the prevarication of Ministers in London. The powers that the UK Government wants to take over future legislative competence, though disproportionate and wrong-headed, were at least hinted at in previous UK Government statements and its White Paper. But, the Bill also contains a shock in respect of the so-called Henry VIII powers, which it’s proposed should be taken by Ministers to correct existing legislation to make it workable in the new context.

Now, those powers that the Bill proposes that should be vested in Welsh Ministers are limited and constrained in extremely unhelpful ways. The powers to amend directly applicable EU law or regulations, and the like, which account for most of the EU legislative framework for agriculture for example, are retained solely by the UK Government. Since UK Ministers want to retain their own powers in parallel to those of Welsh Ministers, to amend any legislation within devolved competence, it even appears that UK Ministers will be able to amend legislation within the competence of the National Assembly without being answerable to the National Assembly to explain what they’re doing and why. Once again, since the publication of this Bill we’ve been told that UK Ministers will only use such powers after consulting—consulting—with the Welsh Government and the National Assembly, but there’s nothing in what is an extremely complex Bill to say that, and even that would be insufficient. And if that’s really the case, I fail to see why it would be more difficult, in the case of EU regulations that need the same fix across the UK, for the UK Government and the devolved administrations to agree the most appropriate way forward and then each consult properly with their own legislatures. Surely, that is the democratic response and approach.

Llywydd, we’ve been very clear that we understand and support the idea of a Bill to provide clarity and certainty for citizens and businesses as Brexit takes effect. We accept, too, that there will be a need to make some amendments so that existing law is workable in the new context of the UK being outside of the EU. We’re willing to play our part in that. Our ‘Brexit and Devolution’ paper put forward a clear and workable approach to the question of how to ensure a level playing field across the UK in respect of policies where there are currently EU regulatory frameworks. That approach has received broad support in this Assembly and from academic commentators as well as from colleagues in Scotland. But, the UK Government’s response has been a mixture of bluster, condescension and disrespect. We need better than that.

We’ve still not been told whether the UK Government considers the approach that we’ve put forward workable, and, if not, why not. Why have they concluded that without even trying to move forward by agreement that that is what they want to do? In terms of process, the JMC(EN), which should have had a crucial role in all of this has not met since February and, as a consequence, has had no oversight of the development of the Bill. Moreover, the Bill has been developed without any proper consultation with the Welsh Government. Can I say, the Welsh Government was not involved in drafting the Bill? That is entirely incorrect. We have not had proper consultation at either political or official level, and it’s only very recently that draft provisions were shared with our officials on the basis that nothing would change. ‘This is what you’re getting and, incidentally, nothing will change as a result’. It’s hugely important that that is understood. The Welsh Government and the Scottish Government, as I said earlier on, have not been involved in drafting the Bill. I don’t believe the Secretary of State was trying to be deliberately misleading, but it shows how shambolic the internal communications within the UK Government are.

In terms of substance, as I’ve made abundantly clear, the Bill is unacceptable in its current form in the way it deals with devolution. When I wrote to the Prime Minister on 12 June—and I have not had a response from the Prime Minister to that letter—I urged her not to embark on a fight with the devolved administrations she did not need at a time when, as a UK, we faced unprecedented challenges. No response. There was a response from the Secretary of State, but the letter, with respect, wasn’t sent to the Secretary of State; it was sent to the Prime Minister and no answer was forthcoming.

Now, let me be clear: we will not hesitate to fight as hard as we can to prevent the unacceptable parts of this Bill from becoming law. We will not recommend to this National Assembly that it provides legislative consent to a Bill that fundamentally undermines our own powers. We will work across the Assembly and with the other devolved administrations to defend our devolution settlement. And, to this end, we are continuing intensive work on a possible continuity Bill, which we will introduce if the UK Government does not amend the withdrawal Bill in such a way as to address our concerns. This is not about trying to prevent, undermine or complicate Brexit. It’s about resisting an attempt to recentralise power to Westminster and Whitehall and turn the clock back to the 1980s. So, I ask the whole of the Assembly to support us in this fight to defend devolution and the right of this institution and all its Members to determine policies appropriate for the people of Wales and, therefore, to support this motion.

I have selected the two amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call on Neil Hamilton to move amendment 1, tabled in his name. Neil Hamilton.

Diolch Llywydd. The First Minister frequently says that he accepts the referendum result, but, of course, he doesn’t really. He’s like those Japanese soldiers who used occasionally to be found in the Borneo jungles years after 1945 still fighting the war as though it had never been ended. This is another opportunity for the First Minister to grandstand on an issue where the Welsh people voted a different way from him in the referendum campaign. There is nothing in this Bill whatsoever that will reduce the powers of this Assembly or undermine the devolution settlement. What we’re doing via this Bill is actually devolving powers from Brussels to Westminster and, ultimately, to Cardiff, and devolving them from people whom we not only don’t elect and can’t dismiss, but can’t even name—the people who are the ultimate decision makers in the EU by opaque processes—[Interruption.]—opaque processes that are far removed from a democratic institution such as this.

The First Minister in his introduction to his speech today mentioned the charter of fundamental rights. This is a very good case in point. When Tony Blair was Prime Minister, this, by the way, was the document that the then Minister for Europe, Mr Keith Vaz, described as being of no greater binding force in law than ‘The Beano’. He said that in 2000, and yet the European Court then decided that it was actually binding in European law upon us, and yet Tony Blair had said quite categorically in 2007, ‘Let us make it absolutely clear that we have secured an opt-out from the charter’—an opt-out that was illusory. So, what the First Minister is doing, of course, is trying to accommodate himself to a decision made just over a year ago of which he did not approve.

The Bill says, in clause 11, that there is nothing that this institution was able to do before exit that it will not be able to do in future. And yes, of course, there is a period of transition. The First Minister is always saying that the process of delivering Brexit is so complicated that we need an extended period of transition in order to bring it about. Well, that is, to an extent, right, and that is what this Bill proposes. The Prime Minister has said on many occasions, and other Ministers, including the Secretary of State for Wales, have said many times that there is no intention on the part of the UK Government to undermine or detract from the devolution settlement. On 29 March this year, the Prime Minister said in the House of Commons,

‘no decisions currently taken by the devolved Administrations will be removed from them.’

Now, that is a categorical statement, and I see no evidence whatsoever for saying that the Prime Minister did not intend that to be carried out and nor does she now. Indeed, it’s fanciful to imagine that a cataclysmic change of the kind that the First Minister fears could possibly take place today. He complains that we can’t trust the Government. Well, we can’t trust the House of Commons and the House of Lords as the houses of Parliament. Well, that is true of the existing devolution settlement. It’s always been possible for the United Kingdom Parliament to repeal all the devolution statutes if it wants to, but nobody seriously expects that consequence ever to arise, certainly not in our lifetime. So, this is a wholly illusory manufactured crisis for temporary political advantage as the First Minister sees it.

The process of withdrawal from the European Union is going to be complicated because of the volume of legislation that has been generated by the EU, usually by wholly undemocratic means, over the last 44 years. European Union regulations—which originated in the Council of Ministers, it’s true, voted on by the Council of Ministers, but over which we have no direct control from the legislative institutions of the United Kingdom—apply to Wales. At least now, by devolving these powers temporarily to Westminster and, ultimately, to Cardiff, it’ll be elected politicians who are answerable for the decisions that are taken, and we will have a means of participating in the process. I do accept that the First Minister has a point in saying that there should have been proper consultation between UK Ministers and Welsh Ministers in recent months. He’s absolutely right to say it, and I do believe it is disrespectful to the Welsh Government and to this Assembly for them not to have done so, but, nevertheless, I don’t think that we should confuse that with the political reality that the British people, and the Welsh people, voted to leave the European Union on 23 June last year, and there has to be a legislative process to bring that about. Because of the volume of legislation and the complexity of legislation that is concerned here, it is impossible to make all the detailed changes in the short time that is available to us before the end of the two-year period—

Will you take an intervention?

I’m afraid I can’t. I’m over the time already and I have to sit down. So, what I would say to the First Minister—

You said it. [Laughter.]

Yes, what I would say to the First Minister—in conclusion, Llywydd. What I would say to the First Minister, in conclusion, is: get with this, rather than trying to fight against it, because you will not be taken seriously if you carry on trying to resist a process that is inexorable and that the Welsh people themselves have voted for.

I’ll just conclude that by saying let’s find solutions together. The European withdrawal Bill ensures that, so far as possible, the same rules and laws will apply on the day after exit as on the day before, providing the maximum possible certainty and continuity to businesses, employees and consumers across the whole UK that they will not be subject to unexpected changes, and ensuring that the statute book is able to function on the day after we leave the EU. The Bill is therefore technical in nature, rather than a vehicle for major policy changes—making inoperable legislation operable and giving both UK and devolved Governments a time-limited power to correct laws by secondary legislation that would otherwise not function properly once we left the EU, with powers going to the Welsh Government to make changes in devolved areas, and UK Ministers only able to make changes on devolved matters with consent.

This Bill will ensure that Welsh businesses, including farmers and steel producers, can continue to trade with the European Union immediately after the UK leaves the EU. The Bill also recognises that the UK as a whole must be able to guarantee EU principles in order to secure a trade deal with the EU. The same rules and laws will apply to businesses and the same rights to workers as we leave the European Union. Although the Bill would ensure retained EU law the day after leaving the EU, this will only be in a holding pattern within a transitional arrangement that will provide certainty after exit and allow for intensive discussions with the Welsh Government, National Assembly and other devolved administrations and legislatures on common frameworks to, for example, ensure that there are no barriers to working and trading within the UK and no risks to agreeing future trade agreements. As a result of—

Will you give way?

Hefin.

Can I just ask him to reflect? The UKIP amendment seems to be more supportive of the Conservative Government than the Conservative amendment. [Laughter.] Could I ask what sort of argy-bargy went on within the Conservative group to agree it?

Well, wait and hear the rest of my speech. I haven’t discussed this with the UKIP group. [Laughter.] The UK Government expects there to be a significant increase in the decision-making power of each devolved administration. Because the Bill affects the powers of the devolved administrations and legislatures, the UK Government will seek the consent of the devolved legislatures for the Bill.

It is regrettable that the First Minister described the Bill as, quote, ‘a naked power grab’ last Thursday, and then said the next day that the Welsh Secretary had assured him that they will work together to make the situation acceptable when this assurance had already been provided before he issued his ‘naked power grab’ statement. As a UK Government source in Wales confirmed last Thursday, his initial response was completely different to what they were seeing in talks behind the scenes.

However, I hope he will support our amendment, which recognises that the Parliament and Assemblies of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are part of the modern democratic settlement of the United Kingdom and should be fully engaged with the future—

Will you take an intervention, please?

[Continues.]—make-up of a vibrant UK post-Brexit. I’m sorry, I’m time limited. I’ve already had one intervention.

The UK Government intends to work closely with devolved administrations to identify areas that do not need common frameworks and which could, therefore, be released from the transitional arrangement. Beyond that, however, we do need agreed UK-wide frameworks that respect the devolved settlement. After all, if frameworks are agreed, there will be no constitutional problem. Although this Bill does not take back existing competences from the Assembly, there is, as we heard, no end date for the restriction on devolved competency created by the retained EU law model it will introduce. The UK Government argues that this would remove incentives for Welsh Ministers to agree a UK framework. In contrast and in reality, however, we know that both the Welsh Government and this Assembly have consistently called for an agreed framework. There is therefore no reason why the Bill could not state that the restriction on devolved competency would end when common agreed frameworks come into force. Further, although international agreements in the devolved areas of agriculture, fisheries and the environment are reserved to the UK Government, the principles applying to these areas must provide a foundation for future agreements on common frameworks between the Governments of the UK as a basis of any free trade agreement.

It is therefore essential that this Bill should address these and other matters, and I therefore welcome confirmation from the UK Government that on the issue of amendments, the Bill’s Second Reading is scheduled for Westminster’s autumn term, specifically to allow devolved administrations the time to go through the Bill in detail during the summer. So, let us responsibly go through that Bill, identify the amendments that we can all agree upon, and engage with the UK Government and Parliament to introduce them at the Second Reading. Thank you.

This debate takes place with a matter of urgency. We should be under no illusions about the UK Government’s EU withdrawal Bill—what was called the repeal Bill. It’s nothing less than an attempt to tighten London’s grip on Wales. Leaving the European Union is a matter of deciding how to implement a referendum vote. We must all remember that there have also been two referendums on devolution, and in both 1997 and in 2011 my party fought tooth and nail as part of those campaigns, both of which were successful. People in Wales have voted twice to empower our own Welsh democracy and our own national institutions. The EU withdrawal Bill overrides and overrules those votes in a way that is unacceptable.

Where frameworks for the operation of a UK market must exist, they should be co-decided by the devolved Governments. We have a clear interest in agriculture, in environmental protection, in structural funds and in other areas of regulation that benefit people in our society. The Welsh voice in deciding how new frameworks and returning powers operate must be heard loud and clear, and those powers should not be intercepted by Westminster and placed in some kind of indefinite holding pattern where our only defence is to trust the goodwill of Whitehall.

We are relying on the Government’s word that this will only be a transitional arrangement. As we’ve heard, there is no sunset clause in the Bill for retained EU law falling under devolved competences. Neither is there provision in the Bill to allow devolved administrations to come to a formal agreement with the UK Government. All of those issues, it would appear, will be subject to bilateral negotiation and will be resolved at the discretion of the UK Government.

So, what can this Assembly do in practical terms? The inclusion of a continuity Bill in this motion is crucial. Plaid Cymru believes that it is essential that we have such a Bill to protect the constitutional status of Wales. It deserves to be repeated for the record that my colleague Steffan Lewis first advocated this Bill back in November 2016. This was before the UK Government repeal Bill White Paper was published. Even before the UK Government’s intentions become obvious, Plaid Cymru believed that steps should be taken to ensure that those EU regulatory frameworks could be retained in Welsh law. We took that view because we anticipated what the UK Government’s intentions would be. Those intentions were clarified in the UK Government’s repeal Bill White Paper, passed this last spring, but it’s fair to say that Plaid Cymru saw this threat coming.

So in backing this motion, Plaid Cymru is strongly of the view that this country would be in a stronger position today if a continuity Bill had already been laid. But we are where we are, and so it is essential that this Bill is developed and published now without further delay. In supporting today’s motion, Plaid Cymru urges the Welsh Government to go ahead and publish that Bill.

The motion also makes it clear that there would be other steps if the UK Government continues to go down this route. Every parliamentary, governmental and legal avenue must be pursued in order to hold them to account. We cannot have a specific type of EU withdrawal whereby this National Assembly, our future Welsh Parliament, is undermined or belittled, and I know that other devolved countries feel the same. It’s worth considering and acknowledging that these technical and constitutional issues may well not be the talk of the pub, the street or the workplace. That’s fair enough. But people in Wales do expect their country to be respected and to be listened to. Taking back control must mean powers coming to Wales, and for us it has to mean that Westminster must treat this country with the respect that we deserve.

The trouble with this Bill is that it isn’t about withdrawal from the EU, it’s about withdrawal from the devolution settlement. Let’s be clear: it would have been perfectly possible for the UK Government to present a Bill that takes us out of the European Union whilst also respecting the constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom. But what the Bill does in truth is that it exposes two things: firstly, unfortunately, the vulnerability of our devolution settlement, and secondly, that we are still tied to what is by now a totally outmoded view of parliamentary supremacy. We have a situation where the UK Parliament is legislating to give powers to Welsh Ministers. Now, we recognise—and the external affairs committee in its deliberations recognised this explicitly—that time constraints and practical limitations might mean that is a necessity. But the UK Government, if it’s acting on behalf of this Chamber in taking those steps, should do so in accordance with the requirements and considerations of this Assembly, and there is nothing in the Bill that provides for that.

Parliamentary supremacy is a concept for another age, and in this democratic age, where the people of Wales have expressed a clear view in a referendum that this body should have primary legislative powers, this should not be set aside by the UK Parliament in any respect, and it certainly should not be set aside by UK Ministers. Yet that is what the Bill does. In doing so, it take us way beyond even that idea of parliamentary sovereignty, giving UK Ministers the ability to amend devolved legislation democratically passed in this Assembly—in fact, contrary to what Mark Isherwood said, without the requirement for consent. It is no surprise to me that the Secretary of State for Wales is such an enthusiast for this Bill. It turns him into a viceroy, in fact.

We are looking at a situation not just where this Assembly has powers taken away or legislation amended by UK Ministers, but where it is at a disadvantage against what is the English Parliament when acting in relation to reserved matters. The Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish Assemblies cannot change the pre-Brexit legislation that they must comply with, and yet the English Parliament, piggy-backing, in effect, on the UK Parliament’s parliamentary sovereignty, is not constrained in that way. So we have a fundamental unfairness built into the provisions of this Act. What possible justification could there be for us accepting that lack of a level constitutional playing field?

Finally, on the question of a continuation Act, I hope that the Government will bring that forward as soon as humanly possible. I think it’s an opportunity for us to assert our view of the powers that we retain in this place, but it’s also an opportunity for us to assert an alternative vision, and one that isn’t principally based on that outdated idea of parliamentary sovereignty but on constitutionality and subsidiarity.

Let’s be clear: Labour and Plaid’s proposals regarding Brexit, including this continuity Bill, are an attempt to remain in the EU in all but name by those who campaigned to stay in the EU and are not willing to accept the result and voice of the majority of Welsh voters. But the ‘remain’ side seem to forget their line of attack at times. In one breath, they’ll say that leaving the single market is unjustified as the lack of a detailed referendum question means that no-one knows what the public’s opinion is, yet in the next breath they claim they know that people didn’t vote for more controls on immigration. Labour and the other remainers are also very fond of the argument that our nursing, social care, veterinary and other sectors are dependent on migrant labour, but that reliance is home grown, caused by successive governments in the UK and Wales failing miserably to fund the training for our own people to do this work.

The First Minister, in his debate with Nigel Farage, made it clear a number of times that a vote to leave the EU would mean leaving—leaving—the single market. Can the First Minister and the other remainers in this place not for one second just accept that perhaps people did hear what he had to say about leaving the single market, but simply disagreed with him? [Interruption.] No. Mr Jones used to think—and still thinks—that many of the decisions about Wales would be better made by a European civil servant than his own Welsh Labour Government. Whilst I agree with him that important decisions should not be left to Labour, I do not think they should be left to the EU either. Labour have messed up everything that has been devolved to this place so far, whether it’s education, the NHS or housing. But this is a matter of democratic accountability, and the ability to sack those who make bad decisions. If the out-of-touch, complacent decision maker, who has no understanding of what life is like for the average person in Wales, consistently makes mistakes, people can stop voting Labour and let someone else have a go, but only on matters devolved to here, or in general elections for issues that are still UK competencies.

The proposal of a continuity Bill is yet another example of Labour deciding that they know best and ignoring the will of the Welsh people: that we will want to stay part of the UK, having some decisions made at a UK-wide level, but to leave the EU. Labour and Plaid want us to remain in the EU and the continuity Bill is their way of dealing with the offence they felt when it was clear that the electorate didn’t agree with them. Labour are ignoring the wishes of the voters simply because the voters ignored the wishes of Labour. Carwyn Jones and the other remainers in this place cannot in one breath say that the general election was not about Brexit, as he did before polling day, and then use the result to say the voters rejected true Brexit afterwards.

However hard the other parties try to bend the election results to fit their own ideology, you cannot deny that the majority of Welsh people agree with UKIP when the discussion is about Brexit. The First Minister mentioned it would mean leaving the single market, and the propaganda booklet sent out by the Tory Government on behalf of the ‘remain’ camp made a reference to leaving the single market on a majority of its pages in its scaremongering. If you say we cannot know exactly what people were voting for because the question lacked details, then we must default to the simplest assumption, that the vote to leave was exactly that: a vote to leave entirely. If a voter had wanted to retain any part of EU membership, be that freedom of movement or membership of the single market or anything else, they would have voted to remain. But they didn’t. The people wanted out, with all the consequences that entailed.

The continuity Bill—a step towards retaining membership of the single market, in my opinion—including all of its rules and submission to the European court—[Interruption.] We will see. We’ll see. The people didn’t vote for the EU to continue making our laws through the back door via a continuity Bill. The Welsh Labour Government say they stand for working people, but the decimation of all that has been devolved to it is a betrayal that shows the only thing Labour and Plaid politicians actually stand for is election. Thank you.

I welcome this much-needed debate in light of the publication of the EU withdrawal Bill, formerly known as the repeal Bill, formerly known as the great repeal Bill. From the outset, of course, Plaid Cymru has no issue with the principle of an Act that transfers into the jurisdictions of the UK all EU laws and regulations, so that on separation day we do not fall over a cliff edge. Plaid Cymru’s preference for that process, though, was for an immediate negotiation to commence after the referendum between the Governments of these islands to agree on a legislative framework so that EU laws could be transferred domestically in a way that upholds and respects the constitutional arrangements of our nations. This could have been concluded before article 50 was triggered, of course.

There are several clauses in the EU withdrawal Bill that cause great concern, but of special concern are, obviously, clause 11, relating to devolution, and clauses 7(1) and 7(2). Clause 11 should come as no surprise to anyone, sadly. It amends our constitution to ensure that our Parliament has no competence over EU regulations that would otherwise automatically fall within our competence upon separation day. Notice was given to us of this intention in the UK Government’s White Paper. In that White Paper, they intentionally misrepresented current arrangements for the agreement of EU frameworks as a means of laying the groundwork for the power grab that they now intend to formulate in law.

Llywydd, I remember much celebration in this Chamber at the time of the last Wales Bill becoming an Act due to the enshrining of the Sewel convention in our constitution. The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill has removed any doubt, if any exited, that it is simply not worth the paper it is written on. Westminster is supreme, and two devolution referenda in Wales can be trumped by just one single clause in one Westminster Bill.

But, as unacceptable as clause 11 is, we should not lose sight of clauses 7(1) and 7(2), and I would urge the First Minister not to be distracted by just clause 11 as the standalone. Even if clause 11 is removed, the powers delegated to UK Ministers in 7(1) and 7(2) are so far reaching and broad that UK Ministers can issue regulations and, indeed, amend or repeal any law, as they deem fit, passed by any Parliament in the United Kingdom in order to mitigate any failure or deficiency, as they see it, in retained European Union law.

That allows for the imposition of new bodies, new policies and new regulations on matters that are the responsibility today of the Welsh Government and the National Assembly. These powers, as well, I expect will be used to amend elements of the 759 international treaties that the UK will no longer be a direct party of from separation day onwards. Of those 759 treaties, 34 relate to food and agriculture, 69 to fisheries, 65 to transport, 202 to regulatory co-operation and 295 to trade—all of these either wholly or partially within the current Welsh constitution.

I welcome the fact that today’s motion commits us to the publication of a continuity Bill for Wales, and I don’t underestimate for one minute the significance of that endeavour. I’m disappointed that a framework Bill for a continuity Bill was not published last year—who knows, it might have raised the political stakes to a level where the UK Government might have thought twice about publishing the nonsense Bill that they published last week.

The Welsh Government has previously, of course, published an alternative Wales Bill with a clear political objective, and a continuity Bill could do something similar, as well as address the practical benefit of providing clarity and continuity for Welsh citizens, key sectors of our economy and communities after separation day. Not to do so—not to proceed with a continuity Bill—in my opinion would be a dereliction of our duty to uphold the expressed wishes of the people of Wales in terms of how they decide they want to be governed. We waited 600 years for home rule. We cannot allow it to be eroded within the next six months by a mob in Westminster with no mandate to do so.

Let me in the first instance reiterate UKIP AMs’ total and unconditional commitment to having any devolved powers that return from Europe passed in total to this Assembly. However, I find it quite incomprehensible that there are two parties in this Assembly that have become so vociferous with regard to this land grab of powers that are to be devolved to the UK from Europe, when they were quite content to let those very powers reside in Brussels ad infinitum. This despite the fact that there are only—

Will the Member give way?

Of course.

I’m grateful to him for giving way. He will know, of course, that at the moment, at the Council of Ministers, Welsh Ministers address the European Council of Ministers and European frameworks are agreed jointly between member states, with devolved Governments having a role. Under this wonderful partnership of equals that we have in these islands, our Government will not have any say in any future UK regulation or framework that they decide to impose upon us.

Well, wait a minute. There’s only one in 27 as far as the Commission is concerned with the UK Government in Europe, and the Commission, as you know, makes all the decisions with regard to powers that will come out of Europe and affect the Welsh people.

This despite the fact—and I’ll go on to make this point—this despite the fact that we had only four representative MEPs in an undemocratic Parliament in the EU, as opposed to 40 representatives in Westminster, a democratic Parliament—most of whom, I’ll point out, are Labour MPs. And all this against the backdrop that over the last term of the European Parliament, all of the 14 amendments to European Acts laid down by UKIP, which would have benefited Wales, were voted down by Labour and Plaid MEPs purely through party political prejudice. I’m afraid the rhetoric of both Labour and Plaid on these matters rings conspicuously hollow.

About a year ago—a year ago next week—I took part in a debate on the Country Land and Business Association stand in the Royal Welsh Show with the leader of UKIP, Neil Hamilton, where I set out very clearly that Plaid Cymru does agree with the need for UK frameworks as we leave the European Union, and wanted to work in building up those frameworks for agriculture, fisheries and for the environment. But, let’s be clear: this Bill does not deliver a framework; it delivers an imposition. Nothing betrays the motives of those who wanted to take us out of the EU better than the manner of us departing from the EU, because they have taken every opportunity not to resolve matters, as the Conservative Party claims, not to resolve uncertainties, but to create confusion, to sow and disguise their lack of a plan, their lack of ambition and their lack of ideas, and, simply put, to grab power back from this Parliament.

This is going to be one of the most important Bills that the Westminster Parliament will consider for some decades. It’s certainly an important Bill for us to consider, but let’s take an overview of the Bill. If we are parliamentarians here, and I hope we all are, then the fundamental principle is that Parliament makes the law and Government administers the law in line with Parliament’s views. Admittedly, from time to time, you delegate powers to Ministers through specific delegated legislation, but what’s striking about this Bill is the potency and scope of the powers given directly to Ministers. These include the famous Henry VIII powers that not only seek to amend or repeal retained EU law, but other Acts of Parliament and Acts of this Parliament as well. That goes way beyond what is demanded of any piece of legislation to leave the European Union in an orderly fashion.

It was the House of Lords Constitution Committee in a recent report that said it feared the Bill, when published, would effect ‘a massive transfer’—their quote—‘a massive transfer’ of power from Parliament to the Government. That is precisely what this Bill does, but not just from the Westminster Parliament to the Westminster Government, but from this Parliament to the Westminster Government.

And when was the last time that a piece of statutory instrument was rejected by the Westminster Parliament? When was the last time that these pieces of delegated secondary legislation were actually scrutinised and rejected by Westminster? Well, I’ll tell you when: 1979. That was the last time that a statutory instrument was rejected. We have rejected statutory instruments here, but that’s the last time Westminster rejected them. So, you’re giving all this power to Westminster Ministers with no control; in effect, no parliamentary control. And, of course, the Bill raises real issues here, and here I think the best thing I can do is quote from a public law analysis of the Bill. And I quote to start:

‘At the moment, devolved legislatures are forbidden from doing things that breach EU law’—

that’s written in to our fundamental Wales Acts of course—

‘even if the thing they wish to do concerns a subject-matter that is devolved. When the UK leaves the EU, by default that restriction will go—in effect causing powers to flow from Brussels to the devolved capitals…. But’—

the analysis continues—

‘the Bill erects a diversion, providing that repatriated powers, even when they relate to devolved subjects, will instead go to London.’

That’s not a Plaid Cymru analysis. That’s not a Labour Party analysis. That’s a public law professor analysis of what this Bill actually does. And that’s why, of course, we need clause—well, I don’t need it—but that’s why the Conservatives want clause 11 in the Bill. If the Bill didn’t do anything, if leaving the EU didn’t repatriate these powers directly to us, why put clause 11 in there? You only put clause 11 in there because you know damn well what’s going to happen when we leave the EU. Those powers won’t stop at number 10 or number 11 Downing Street, or anywhere in Whitehall; they’ll come straight down the Thames, through the Cotswolds and straight down the Severn to us. That’s what will really happen. That’s why clause 11 is there, because the Conservative Government know what would happen.

Let’s just turn very briefly to the environmental impact of this. If we allow this Bill to go through in its present form, it will be Michael Gove that will decide on environment and agriculture here in Wales. GM crops, currently not allowed in Wales through the EU framework, could easily be decided through this framework. Neonicotinoids, the bee pesticides banned since 2011, could easily be allowed. Michael Gove wants to bring them back, he wants to allow bee pesticides to be sprayed; he could do that under this framework. Air pollution—which we fought against here in Wales—the Conservative Government has a very poor attitude towards air pollution and could easily override the European Court of Justice rulings that have saved and helped clean up air pollution here in Wales. And bovine TB, which I raised with the First Minister on Friday, is part of an EU-agreed programme for the eradication of TB. If the Westminster Government thought it would be better for a trade deal to have a cull of badgers throughout Wales, it could easily do so under this Bill. This Bill is a real threat not only to our constitution, it’s a real threat to our daily lives.

I call on the First Minister to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Llywydd. Listening to Simon Thomas there, he gave some very concrete examples of what can happen—what will happen, indeed—if the Bill remains as it is. Much of what the Bill contains, I would agree with. Much of what Mark Isherwood said I agree with, in terms of what he was advocating: namely, no change; certainty—I agree with; making sure that there is not a sudden change when we leave the EU; and making sure, of course, that there can be, where appropriate, UK-wide frameworks in the future. I don’t disagree with any of that. It’s the way it’s being done that’s the problem. At the heart of this Bill is a rejection of the principle of consent and an acceptance of the principle of imposition. To put it crudely, what this Bill has at the moment is a proposal that England can do what it wants, but Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland can’t. Now, it’s either one rule for all or no rules at all. Surely, it has to be that way.

There will be some, I’m sure, on the Conservative benches who share my disquiet. Today, I can understand why they feel now’s not the time to express those views. But, can I say, this is not a scenario where we are trying to oppose something without having put something else forward as an alternative? We’ve done this for weeks on end. We’ve said to the UK Government: we understand the need for continuity, we understand the need for certainly. Let’s make sure—as Simon Thomas says, clause 11 wouldn’t be there if it wasn’t for the fact that these powers come straight to us—let’s all agree we will not change things until we are all agreed. That is the mature partnership approach that should be taken in the UK now. Rather, the UK Government’s taken the approach that the UK Government is supreme and everyone else must simply follow along. But the UK Government has said that it wants the consent of this legislature. Now, that consent cannot be conditional. It cannot say, if we do not give consent, ‘Well, actually, we’re going to ignore you.’ It’s not the doctrine of limited consent—an extension of the Brezhnev doctrine. This surely is an example where there should be proper consent. I want to work with the UK Government to get to a point where there can be consent, but we are not in that position yet.

It is true to say that various UK Ministers have written to us and said, ‘We want to work with you, get your consent and get agreed frameworks.’ Well, two things strike me: first of all, why wasn’t this done before? Secondly, why isn’t it on the face of the Bill? None of this is on the face of the Bill. There’s nothing on the Bill about sunset clauses in terms of clause 11. There’s nothing in the Bill about making sure that this is simply a holding pattern for a temporary period. It’s indefinite, and that’s the problem. What is being said by UK Ministers is not what we see on the face of the Bill, and what is said must appear on the face of the Bill to make it remotely palatable.

I listened carefully to what Neil Hamilton said. He has, in this Chamber, been consistent in his view that those powers that return from Brussels should come here. But now we hear his support for a middle man, in effect—that powers should be kept in London, becoming the new Brussels for a while, and then come here. Why? Why shouldn’t they come here in the first place? They’re our powers to begin with. They’re our powers that’ll be returning to us. Yes, it’s right to say we’re not losing powers in that sense, but these are powers that, by right, should come to Wales. So, why should they go somewhere else first? That is the argument. I regret that he seems to have changed his position on that and has become closer to the Conservative Party view on this.

As I said, if this is temporary, why doesn’t it say so on the face of the Bill? And it doesn’t. We must guard against that. Unless it’s in writing, why should we take it at face value? The other thing that we must remember is that there is no restriction at all on the UK Government here. It can do as it sees fit, not just for England, but for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland as well. That cuts across the fundamental principle of devolution, and is not something, clearly, that we could support. There are grey areas. Simon Thomas has referred to them. What happens if in trade negotiations there is a requirement to do something with regard to animal health? What if, in a trade deal, as I mentioned earlier on, there is a requirement that we should have to privatise parts of our health service in order to make a trade deal palatable to another country? There are grey areas, which is why it’s so important that, in order to avoid this kind of conflict in the UK, we work together from the very start, and the principle is established from the start that we work in partnership for the good of all the four nations, and not just thinking that all the power and all the wisdom rest in Westminster. We know that isn’t the case.

With regard to the continuity Bill—quite right to say that Steffan Lewis was the first one to raise it. I was unpersuaded at the time. I couldn’t see what it would deliver. He persuaded me. I give him that credit. And it is right to say we’re moving forward with the Bill. We’d look to publish a Bill. We aim to publish in the course of the autumn. It’s not without complication, I have to say. It’s not clear how complicated a Bill like that would be, but it is something, as I’ve said, that we would look to do. We would prefer it if the UK Government were to accept amendments that we would draft as a Government in the UK Parliament. That then, of course, would obviate the need for a Bill, but, clearly, we have to keep that as part of our armoury, if I can put it that way, in order to preserve the powers of the people of Wales and the institution that they themselves have elected.

I have to say to Michelle Brown, yes, the election was about Brexit. Her party took 1.8 per cent of the vote—1.8 per cent of the vote. They rejected without question—without question—the version of Brexit put forward by UKIP, and UKIP—your leader, Paul Nuttall, if anyone remembers him—said that the election was about ensuring there was no backsliding on Brexit. And look what happened to you. The public did not agree with the position that you took because of the vote that you had. And I have to say I’m disappointed to hear a member of UKIP go weak-kneed when it comes to defending the powers of this institution. The whole UKIP argument has been, ‘We want to bring powers home’. That, in fairness, has been their argument, but it doesn’t count as far as Cardiff or Wales is concerned, there has to be some kind of stopping off point, and that shows, of course, that their view was always about bringing powers to London and not necessarily to Cardiff. It’s a shame, because that’s not where they were a few weeks ago. Now, we see, I’m afraid, UKIP’s true colours.

Steffan Lewis is right to talk about the other clauses. It’s not just about clause 11. There are other clauses, as he mentioned, that wind their way, that knit their way, through the entire Bill, which we must be aware of. And I have to say, as far as David Rowlands is concerned, the European Parliament is no less democratic than the UK Parliament. It’s elected in the same way, so there’s no difference between the ways that these Parliaments are elected. This is not—I’m not going to persuade them, let’s face it—. This is not about preventing Brexit. This is about making sure that, when Brexit happens, the rights and powers of the people of Wales, as voted for in a referendum—as voted for in a referendum—stay with the people of Wales. This is what this is about. This can be achieved, accepting, of course, the need for UK involvement in some areas, by agreement and by partnership. What could be more mature, more sensible, more democratic, and more rational than that? And that is the view we’ll be putting to the UK Government. Let’s see if they are able to live up to the words that they have put to us so far.

I would like to be in a position where we get to a point in the Bill where the Bill could potentially be recommended to the Assembly. We are a long way from that position—a long way from that position. It can be done, but the principle of consent and the principle of the democratic legitimacy of this Chamber and this nation have to be accepted as part of those negotiations. If that is accepted by the UK Government then, to quote David Davis yesterday, let’s get down to business, let’s make sure that, when Brexit happens, we have a proper decision-making mechanism between the Governments of the UK, we have a proper way to take decisions, we have an independent adjudication process to examine those decisions, and let’s look to the future as a UK that is a true partnership of nations, and not a UK that apparently thinks that its constitutional present is based somewhere in the 1950s.

And so, today, as Welsh Government, and, indeed, others in this Chamber, have echoed, we look forward to taking the word of UK Ministers to make this Bill acceptable not just to the Government but to the Assembly, to make sure that, when Brexit happens, the rights of the people of Wales are preserved.

The proposal is to agree amendment 1. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will defer voting on this item until voting time.

The next item is the statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure on rail services and metro procurement. And I call on the Cabinet Secretary to make the statement—Ken Skates.

Diolch, Llywydd. Today, I would like to provide an update to Members on progress made with the Wales and borders rail service and metro procurement. Our vision is for a modern, efficient rail service, using modern technology and working practices to deliver considerable service improvements for passengers throughout Wales.

This agenda brings with it undoubtable challenges, but also fantastic opportunities to deliver on our wider aspirations for a bigger and better multimodal integrated public transport network, serving the needs of passengers, walkers, and cyclists all over Wales, whether they are from Wales or visitors looking to see as much as possible of our beautiful country. The agenda will be supported by a number of ambitious interventions, including rail electrification and enhancement schemes, the north Wales metro, improvements to the road network and the M4, and lasting improvements to bus services.

We are delivering these interventions in a partially devolved context. However, this is not satisfactory. We have pressed the UK Government to devolve control and funding over rail infrastructure to Wales, as recommended by the Commission on Devolution in Wales. And, in the absence of devolved funding and control, Wales must be given its fair share of infrastructure investment, noting the historic underinvestment here in Wales, and we continue to make this case. We have, however, made good progress.

In 2014, responsibility for the specification and procurement of the next Wales and borders rail service was transferred to the Welsh Government. In 2015, we established a not-for-profit company, Transport for Wales, to help advise and support us with public transport projects, in particular to help procure rail services. Presently, its focus is procuring the Wales and borders rail services to meet passenger needs across Wales. However, this will develop in the years to come.

We intend to create a rail service that benefits the whole of Wales, communities along the border and in England. We have a unique opportunity through the Cardiff capital region city deal, which includes £734 million for the south Wales metro. The capability and approach that we develop in delivering the south Wales metro will put us in a good position to roll out the metro concept in north Wales, and, indeed, other parts of Wales, in a way that best suits local needs. Following consultation and engagement, we identified our priorities, which reflect the rail service that people in Wales want. Based on those priorities, and with the support of Transport for Wales, we are undertaking a procurement exercise for the next rail service contract. We have been successful in attracting four high-quality bidders.

I am pleased that stakeholders have participated and engaged positively and proactively to help us develop our thinking for future rail services. Transport for Wales is today publishing the summary of responses to the recent public consultation. I welcome the recent report by members of the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills committee on the next rail service. The report rightly recognises the challenges that the Government faces in the future. I look forward to publishing my responses to the recommendations of the report in due course. We want all of Wales to benefit from more efficient rail services on better, more modern trains. Through this procurement, we want to ensure a sustainable model that meets the goals of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. This approach will enable us to make the most of every penny that’s invested, to provide a long-term future for our communities.

We expect a number of outcomes from our procurement exercise and for future rail services in Wales. Through the procurement process, we have incentivised bidders to develop high-quality bids that exceed our expectations. We have also included carbon-reduction targets, with incentives to improve over the life of the contract. As a minimum, I expect that current services and frequencies are maintained, as well as growth in services in prioritised and much needed areas. Alongside this, we want to see improvements in the quality of rolling stock, such as the provision of at-seat charging points, more effective luggage and bicycle storage, and controlled emissions toilets for a cleaner network. Work is also under way for the provision of free passenger Wi-Fi at the 50 busiest stations in Wales and on those trains not already fitted with the necessary equipment.

I announced yesterday the addition of five extra four-carriage trains to increase the amount of rolling stock available in the current franchise. The introduction of these trains will allow for persons of reduced mobility compliance works to be made to the existing class 150 and 158 stock and will provide options for increasing capacity on busy routes. The extra trains will also provide opportunities for the new franchisee to deliver improvements early in the new Wales and borders rail services contract.

I expect new improved rolling stock to be delivered early within the new rail services contract so that passengers get the benefit as soon as possible and that trains are fully accessible to those with limited mobility. I expect the introduction of journey time improvements and enhancements to services, including enhanced north-south services in each direction in the morning and evening with better quality rolling stock, and also increased train services on Sundays throughout Wales.

At the end of this month, I will be publishing a summary of the Welsh Government’s requirements for the next Wales and borders rail service and the south-east Wales metro. We continue to work with the UK Government to transfer the relevant powers needed to successfully deliver and run future rail services. Whilst this is happening, we are proceeding with the procurement with the agreement of the Secretary of State for Transport under an agency agreement between the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers. Due to the cross-border nature of rail services, there has been close working between the Welsh Government and the Department for Transport. Discussions are also ongoing between officials, supported by Transport for Wales, and Network Rail regarding the transfer of the core Valleys lines to Welsh Government, opening the opportunity for us to ask our bidders to put forward innovative and cost-effective rail solutions in the region.

A quality and reliable railway service that is part of an integrated public transport system across Wales is central to our vision. This is also reflected in the ‘Moving North Wales Forward—Our Vision for North Wales and the North East Wales Metro’ brochure. The north-east Wales metro will be a part of a wider transport modernisation programme across the whole of north Wales that recognises the opportunities for achieving economic growth and well-being that can be realised from improved connectivity for all transport modes within the region and across borders.

Effective cross-border working is essential if we are to attract investment and achieve the maximum benefits, and we are identifying a range of potential interventions for the short, medium, and long term, to maximise the benefit of cross-border connectivity into England, Ireland, and beyond.

I am committed to working with partners across Wales and across the border to identify and develop these further initiatives and, in particular, to improve transport integration across all modes, including integrated ticketing.

I would like to thank the Cabinet Secretary for his statement today and for his comments in regard to the work of the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee. I look forward to his acceptance, I hope, of all of our recommendations.

First, with regard to the procurement process, your letter of 12 July to me on the merits and risks associated with publishing the full draft specification to Assembly Members, notes that you will not publish the draft specifications in full. However, you’ve not made it clear either in your letter or in your statement today whether or not the final specification will be published, when it is published, when it—. I’ll start that again. You’ve not made it clear either in your letter to me or your statement today whether or not the final specification will be published when it is issued to bidders in the final procurement stage, once the invitation to tender is issued. You have previously confirmed that you will also not publish the evaluation criteria in full. In oral evidence on 6 April, the Welsh Government director of transport also appeared to indicate that the final specification would not be made public when it’s issued to bidders, instead saying that the Welsh Government could consider publishing the final specification once the contract has been awarded next year.

Now, I do understand that it is normal procurement practice for those public authorities procuring rail franchises in Britain to publish the specification, and I’ll give you an example, the Department for Transport’s invitation to tender for the East Anglia franchise was published in full in September 2015. Also, Transport Scotland published the full invitation to tender for the ScotRail franchise in January 2014. So, it does therefore appear that the Welsh Government is taking a different approach to procurement and moving away from, perhaps, established practice. You have not formally clarified whether or not the final specification will be published, so I would be grateful if you could put this on the record today and explicitly say whether the invitation to tender, including the final specification, will be published when it is issued to bidders this summer. And, if not, I would be grateful if you could say why not, given that invitations to tender and specifications for British rail franchises are generally published and commonly face public scrutiny once they have been published.

I will say, Cabinet Secretary, this is a contract that’s estimated at in excess of £4 billion for both the franchise itself and the metro infrastructure. It’s, of course, the largest ever awarded by the Welsh Government and there’s a great deal of interest in its content. I’m sure you’ll agree with that. So, do you, therefore, agree with me that transparency in such a large contract is in the public interest, especially given the evidence from stakeholders that suggests that the procurement process has been opaque from the start?

I would like to briefly ask a few questions on rolling stock. I think it’s good news that Wales is going to get the new class 319 trains for use on the Wales and borders franchise from 2018 to 2021, but can you outline, Cabinet Secretary, whether or not the five units will be delivered at once, how many units will be taken out of service and how long to make them DDA compliant, which part of the network will these trains operate on, and what additional capacity will be created as a result of the new rolling stock?

Finally, acting Presiding Officer, I think it is essential that the Welsh Government maintains public confidence that the new franchise has been specifically designed to deliver value for rail users in Wales. I therefore hope that the Cabinet Secretary will answer my questions in a way that demonstrates how the new Wales and borders franchise will guarantee the realisation of public demand for a rail service that delivers fair and affordable fares, new trains, modern trains, an integrated network and a more environmentally friendly service.

Can I thank the Member for his comments and questions, and thank him, again, for chairing the committee’s inquiry into the new franchise? It was an excellent piece of work, a very thorough and comprehensive report. I’m looking forward to responding to it in full. Meanwhile, I think it’s fair to say that the recommendations are very much in tune with the Welsh Government’s aspirations for a better, more integrated rail service, one that’s integrated well with bus travel and active travel.

I should say at the outset that, in order to ensure that there is fair and open competition, and to protect the integrity of the procurement process, it’s not always going to be possible to release or comment on specific details on the procurement, as to do so would put Welsh Government at risk of legal challenge. Now, the Member raises the important question of the draft specification and final specification—immensely complicated pieces of work, incredibly complex, and we need to secure the best value for taxpayers and the best possible outcomes in a competitive process. For that reason, there is a need to balance transparency of the process with best value and the best outcomes. So, whilst we will not be publishing the specification, and whilst our competitive dialogue approach is distinctly different to many that are being adopted in other areas, as I said in my statement I will be publishing a summary of the Welsh Government’s requirements for the next Wales and borders rail service and for the metro as well.

In terms of the rolling stock, I was pleased to be able to announce additional rolling stock. The details of the exact roll-out of each component will be presented in due course to Members, but it will be utilised in a way that enables other parts of the rolling stock catalogue to be adapted accordingly for people with limited mobility. And in terms of the additional capacity, that will be rolled out wherever current capacity is stretched. It will therefore be used on a demand-led basis.

As a regular rail passenger and commuter, I’ve taken a keen interest in the next franchise and I know there are many other Members in the Chamber that are in the same position. Now, we know that in terms of who will run the Wales and borders franchise, four private sector bidders have come forward. There’s an interest in rail nationalisation and in public ownership from all corners of public opinion. The usual reason that people want the railways to be in public hands is around the question of profits disappearing from the network, and in many cases not even going into private hands but into the state railways of other countries—and the irony of that is not lost on most people.

Even in Wales, where railway profits are low and subsidies are high, there is still profit leaving the Welsh railway network and going to Germany. Now, we know that the legislative situation at the UK level appears not to allow for public sector bidders to compete for these franchises, and the Wales Act 2017, which the Labour Party here supported and my party did not, continues to disallow public sector ownership. So, I want to turn to the question of not-for-dividend or not-for-profit models. You’ve repeatedly committed to these in your various manifestos. Is it the case that a not-for-profit rail, as per your manifesto, is not happening and cannot happen now within this next franchise?

Moving on to the question of overcrowding and quality of rolling stock, I noticed the announcement you made yesterday that five new trains are being provided next year—five. We know that the greatest problem with the current franchise is that it was awarded on a no-growth basis. That mistake was recognised by previous Welsh Governments, but very little could be done about it. Now we have to avoid the mistakes of the past and have a way of dealing with any challenges that arise in the future. A break clause would allow the next franchise to be reviewed at regular intervals during the length of the contract. It would also allow future Welsh Governments, including a future Plaid Cymru Government, the option to take rail into public ownership if the legislation changed and it became legal to do so. So, will the Cabinet Secretary be including a break clause to enable that to happen?

My final question is on electrification, and it’s linked to yesterday’s rolling stock announcement. Electric trains, in whatever form, will provide a cleaner, greener and more comfortable passenger experience. Is electrification still on track in Wales, and will it be rolled out according to timetable?

Can I thank the Member for her questions and the keen interest that she has in rail transport across Wales? Until we have the powers that are equivalent to Scotland, the Member is right, we would not be able to enable public bodies to run our rail services. But I can tell her that in the new franchise—I think I’m on public record as saying that profits that have been earned in the current period have been excessive, but they will be capped in the next franchise, whilst there will also be incentives for the operator partner to ensure that services are improved, both in terms of quality and in terms of the regularity of services.

In terms of Transport for Wales, this was established by the Welsh Government as a not-for-profit company to provide support and expertise to the Welsh Government in connection to transport projects in Wales. Now, although Transport for Wales is currently designing and undertaking the procurement process for the next Wales and borders rail services and metro, on behalf of the Welsh Government, once the franchise has been let, Transport for Wales will oversee the management and the joining up of services, such as marketing and integrated ticketing, which could be, again, delivered on the basis of not-for-profit principles. But over time the aspiration is to secure the necessary powers that would enable Transport for Wales to take on a much wider range of transport functions, indeed similar in nature to the operations of Transport for London, and the way that it manages the public transport network in the UK’s capital.

The Member is absolutely right that the franchise that we adopted was at best flimsy, and today is not fit for purpose. It was based on a zero-growth assumption at a time when many experts were predicting reduced passenger numbers on railway services. That has proven to be anything but the case. Over the next franchise period we expect passenger numbers to increase by 74 per cent, and it’s essential, as part of the franchise process, to be able to demonstrate how bidders are going to be addressing the increase in passenger numbers. But there will be break clauses that would enable the Government to review the effective operation of the franchise and which would provide the Government with regular opportunities to assess the success of the eventual winner of the bidding process.

With regard to electrification, we’ve been very clear that electrification must be delivered in a timely way to Cardiff and must extend across to Swansea, as was agreed. Yes, it comes with a considerable price tag, but the fact of the matter is that, during the current control period, Wales has fared incredibly poorly in terms of the amount that we’ve had spent on Network Rail’s Wales franchise area. Only in the region of about 1 per cent of UK investment has been spent on the network in the Wales and borders franchise area—that is wholly inadequate given that it comprises something in the region of 6 per cent of the UK’s network. So, it’s absolutely essential that the modernisation of the south Wales line continues through to Swansea. Indeed, it’s essential that we receive our fair share of investment in rail infrastructure, and if that is not possible it should be devolved to us with a fair funding settlement. It’s also worth saying, I think, that modernisation of the rail network, and particularly in regard, again, to electrification, is essential in delivering on our objectives to decrease our carbon footprint. In terms of the decarbonisation agenda, if the UK Government is not able to modernise the railway network right through south Wales, then it will have a major impact on our carbon objectives, and that would be something that we would not be content with whatsoever.

It’s also essential that, if the UK Government deemed electrification was not to continue through to Swansea, then the money would still, in our view, have to come to Wales. It should not be spent elsewhere than Wales. As I say, if the UK Government does not believe that it should electrify that line, or modernise the entire network, then give us the powers and the resource and we’ll do it.

Many of my constituents are very interested in the development of the metro and the awarding of the new franchise, and have attended quite a lot of meetings that have involved discussing the specifications and other consultations held by Transport for Wales. They did hope to see publicly the specification document, and I note the Cabinet Secretary did say earlier on that he would not be publishing the specification document, but a summary of the requirements. So, I’ve been asked to put forward their views that they really feel that they should see as much as possible being made publicly available, because, obviously, they don’t expect to see anything that is commercially sensitive, but they do expect to see some very clear bidding specifications and criteria to be in the public domain, because it is of great public interest, and I would be grateful if you could reassure me about how much will be made public. Also, I think one of the recommendations from the business committee was that there should be a passenger-friendly description, because this is a unique way of doing procurement, and I think it’s probably the first time it has been done in the UK. So, I think it’s really clear that the fact that it is unique, that it doesn’t in any way move away from openness and transparency—. So, I want the Cabinet Secretary to respond to that.

Then the other issue is that I really welcome the money for the new rolling stock, the new trains, that was announced yesterday. I note that £1 million has been put in by Arriva, which is very welcome in view of the fact that there is obviously going to be a bidding process for the franchise very soon. I’d like reassurance that those trains will continue to be available whoever wins the new franchise.

Can I take that final point first? I can assure the Member that the rolling stock will be available so that, as soon as possible in the new franchise, passengers will be able to experience improvements in terms of the quality of the trains that they’re carried on. In terms of the specification, I will endeavour to ensure that the requirements, when they are published as a summary document, are as full and as accessible to passengers as possible. The Member has consistently represented her constituents with passion and determination as far as rail transport and the south Wales metro in particular are concerned, and I would look forward to further communication with her based on the engagement that she has with her constituents. I think it’s worth saying again that Transport for Wales is publishing the response to their latest consultation today, and I think that will be helpful in pointing to those areas that have concerned passengers right across Wales most, and how that then, when the summary document of the requirements is published—how they match up very well. There have been two consultations that have taken place during this process. They’ve attracted a significant number of responses from across Wales, and that’s in no small part because of the work of the Member and others in this Chamber in promoting the importance of the next franchise and the development of the south-east Wales metro.

I’m sure all of us in the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee will welcome the announcement by the Cabinet Secretary of the funds for the addition of new rolling stock, particularly as we’ve heard many times in our inquiries the problems of shortages of suitable rolling stock. Cabinet Secretary, as you know, the central Valleys lines are a crucial part of the jigsaw that will make up the south Wales metro. So, does the Cabinet Secretary have any firm commitment to the type of rolling stock for these lines, especially with regard to whether they will include light rail options? Because, as the Cabinet Secretary knows, light rail will not accommodate freight. So, can he give us a commitment that freight will still be part of the railway strategy for the core Valleys lines, and also, of course, for those lines outside that designation?

Can I thank the Member for his questions and say that, in terms of the core Valleys lines, it’s absolutely essential that services are as frequent as possible, and not just that they are frequent, but they are also reliable? We’re mode agnostic during this process, but what we have said to the bidders is that we expect the transport that’s provided within the metro area to be fully integrated, and we would expect whatever solutions that are deployed to be reliable and to meet those growing passenger numbers that are forecasted, and I think, now, are widely recognised as being accurate.

Thanks, Cabinet Secretary, for the statement today. Can I start by welcoming yesterday’s announcement, alongside colleagues, about the extra rolling stock to increase capacity? I’m sure like many colleagues here, my inbox was full of correspondence from constituents regarding restrictions with our current rolling stock, particularly when you find yourself travelling from north to south Wales or vice versa, either on a single carriage or a very crowded two-carriage train. I’m sure, Cabinet Secretary, you will be familiar with that experience. Indeed, in your statement today you talk about the enhanced north to south Wales services in each direction in the morning and evening, and the better quality rolling stock as part of that, and how the procurement exercise will look for future rail services, and looking at improvements that include things like making it actually modern-day travel—so, the provision of charging points. Whilst it’s brilliant to see the Wi-Fi on a lot of Arriva trains, and it has revolutionised my experience on the train, I think it’d be quite nice if you could actually plug in and charge your now Wi-Fi enabled iPad whilst on the journey. I look forward to seeing that brought in across rolling stock in the future.

Whilst north-south improvements are key, I think, as you’ll be aware, east-west links and vice versa are crucial to the economy in north-east Wales. I was pleased to see the work finally commencing on the Halton curve this week. I wondered whether you could elaborate on what you say in your statement about the close working between the Welsh Government and the Department for Transport, but also, actually, what work Transport for Wales has done and will do in terms of working with those operators over the border in the north-west of England, such as Merseytravel, to make sure that we truly have an interconnected service across the border in north Wales.

Just one final thing. You say in the statement that

‘The north-east Wales metro will be a part of a wider transport modernisation programme across north Wales that recognises the opportunities for achieving economic growth and well-being that can be realised from improved connectivity for all transport modes within the region and across borders.’

That’s absolutely key to a constituency like mine, where there’s only currently one mainline station, so, actually, the involvement of buses, and making that interconnected, is crucial. Also, whilst I welcome the announcement of additional stations at the Deeside industrial park, which will be key to getting constituents of mine in the west to work—I know we’ve recently made those announcements, but, perhaps, in the future further consideration could be given to looking at whether additional stations could be on that line, perhaps at Greenfield, which would not only connect people going to work from the west of Flintshire to the east, but would actually serve to connect with the buses to, perhaps, regenerate the town of Holywell, and could also provide good links to Mostyn docks, which I feel embodies the link between the energy of the west of north Wales and the advanced manufacturing of the east.

Can I thank Hannah Blythyn for her questions, specifically for the important point that she raised about cross-border collaboration in terms of rail travel? The Member will be aware of the Growth Track 360 prospectus, which has been put together by the cross-border rail taskforce, which includes representatives from Wales as well as from the Cheshire and Warrington local enterprise partnership area and Merseyside. I think it’s essential, in the development of a north Wales growth deal bid, and, likewise, growth deals on the English side, that the Growth Track 360 prospectus ambitions are factored into the asks that are made of the UK Government in particular to ensure that the improvements to infrastructure on the English side of the border tie in well with improvements on the Welsh side of the border as well.

I think it’s also important, as we develop the vision for a north-east Wales metro, to consider those communities that are currently not connected to the rail network or bus network. The Member raises two particular communities: one is Mostyn, where there is a growing and expanding port, and the other is Greenfield, a historic community that is home to a considerable number of people. Both would be better served by an integrated metro system that has bus services that are reliable and frequent working with rail services that, again, are more frequent across the north Wales main line.

The Member is also right when she says that the quality of the passenger experience must be sufficient so as to encourage more people to travel more regularly by train rather than to act as a deterrent—likewise on bus services as well. We have seen good investment in buses recently. I’m pleased that we’ve been able to support Arriva Trains Wales in the announcement yesterday, but we believe that in the next franchise, the expectations that passengers should have for the Wales and borders franchise should be no less than those that you would have anywhere else in western Europe. That’s why we are asking the bidders to be as ambitious as possible in ensuring that the rolling stock is of the highest quality with all modern technology and comforts available to passengers.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his statement. Following the announcement yesterday about the use of money from the public purse to ensure additional carriages for Wales, how can we have any confidence that the Welsh Government can procure a worthwhile franchise for Wales when these new trains announced yesterday actually equate to the addition of a few second-hand trains from the 1980s, and are therefore merely an addition to the inappropriate and outdated rolling stock of the past, which are a blight on Wales? We have staff who are younger than this.

Can I thank Dai Lloyd for his question? But I think the premise is slightly wrong. The reason that we’ve intervened to support the rail network in the current time is because of the historic underfunding by UK Government in the infrastructure of the rail network, and also because the franchise agreement that was reached more than a decade ago was so poorly drawn up. The new franchise is going to be designed to address those growing passenger numbers, which we expect to rise by more than 70 per cent, and then, consequently, we expect there to be more trains operating and we expect to see better quality trains deployed as soon as possible in the next franchise. We intervened out of a duty to passengers who should be put first by the next operator and by this operator, and we will continue to prioritise passenger interest above profit and ensure that the experience of travelling on Wales’s trains is improved.

I’ve got a number of speakers who want to be called, so if individuals can get to their questions, maybe I can get through the list, and if Ministers can equally be brief. Jenny Rathbone.

Thank you, acting Presiding Officer. Three points. One: I’m very pleased to see you’re going to put carbon reduction targets into your procurement process. That’s in line with increasing support for action on climate change, as captured in the WWF survey that was published today, ‘Message in a Bottle’. That means that people have just got to have it made easier for them to be able to complete their journeys by metro. So, I’d like to make a plea for Cardiff-based stations as part of the metro, so that if you want to relocate your business to Pontypridd, you don’t have to go back into Cardiff Central or Queen Street in order to get to Pontypridd; you can go from wherever you’re living. And, as Julie Morgan has said, there hasn’t been a great deal of engagement opportunities for the public, but I think that is one of the things that’s coming in loud and clear from my constituents—that it’s got to be made to work for people where they live and ensure that there are alternatives to going by the motor car.

The second point is that I’m a bit puzzled by—. I welcome the fact you’ve bought this new rolling stock that was announced yesterday, but I just wondered who owns these trains, because I thought the whole purpose of having franchises was that they made the investment. Now, I appreciate that the UK Government screwed up completely in deciding there’d be no growth in Wales, which is rather symptomatic of the attitude they have towards Wales, and the unfortunate lack of investment we’ve had—so it would be useful if you could just simply clarify on that.

I think the other thing that concerns me is the ongoing lack of progress on devolving the powers that the Welsh Government needs in order to be able to procure both the rail franchise and the metro. I understand from the economy committee’s report that there’s even uncertainty over this £125 million that the UK Government is supposedly promising. Are they still insisting that we go through the agony of full electrification when we’ve seen just how long it’s taken on the London to Cardiff line? There are many other ways in which we could do this that are much more in line with modern technologies, including battery and including hydrogen power. We don’t need full electrification of the Valleys lines in order to achieve what we want to achieve. But I suppose it’s symptomatic of the long-standing lack of investment in the Welsh railway system that today, unfortunately, a building has collapsed onto the line this afternoon, and the Cardiff to Newport line is completely closed. I saw this building as I was going along yesterday and thought it looked a bit dodgy, but I’m glad it didn’t collapse when I was going past. But I suppose it’s symptomatic of the need for real investment in Wales, and the disappointment that we’re not going to get any Barnett consequentials from the HS2 announcement.

Can I thank Jenny Rathbone for her questions? I’ll try to be as brief as possible, but the Member is absolutely right to say that carbon reduction targets must be stretching, and they will be for the entire course of the franchise. It’s essential that the metro enables, as the Member outlines, communities to be better linked so that people can travel as swiftly and seamlessly as possible between their homes, places of work and services. It’s also important that services are attractive and convenient for the same reasons I gave to other Members.

We are making good progress, in terms of the procurement exercise, in our dealings with the Department for Transport, particularly in those three key areas that have been concerning officials: time, most of all, including the transfer of core Valleys lines assets; appropriate funding; and the transfer of functions Order, the agency agreement. All are making good progress, including the question of funding and the £125 million that we have been assured is available for the Valleys lines. In terms of the options, the Member actually raised two innovative solutions for alternatives to conventional rail—one was hydrogen and the other was battery—the bidders are being encouraged to develop options that are innovative and that suit passenger needs above all else. Again, in terms of the carriages, they will be available at the start of the next franchise. It’s absolutely essential that passengers have faith in the new franchise operator and, therefore, it will be important that new rolling stock is deployed as soon as possible after the franchise has been awarded and begins operation.

Cabinet Secretary, I welcome your statement today and in particular the comments you made about Sunday services. This is a really big issue for my constituents, who are currently facing services just once every two hours on the rail link through to Aberdare. I’d welcome any further detail you could provide about the provision of Sunday services. We’re not living in 1870s Wales any more, where people went to chapel on a Sunday morning and then the rest of the day was a day of rest. I’m dealing with casework from constituents who are unable to access job opportunities currently because of the lack of rail services on a Sunday.

In addition to that, I’d like to say that by looking at the metro procurement solely through the lens of the rail franchise, I think sometimes we miss the opportunity to really discuss the importance of the bus provision. So, I’d welcome some more details on that as well. Particularly when we’re looking at raising the living standards of our Valleys communities, those areas that are furthest from the jobs market with the highest levels of poverty are usually those areas most geographically removed from the rail network themselves. So, the importance of the bus provision of the metro really can’t be overstated there.

Again, just to finish, if I can tie into what I said earlier about Sunday services, there are many, many communities in my constituency, and I’m sure across the south Wales Valleys, where there are absolutely no bus services on a Sunday. So, I think it’s absolutely crucial for both rail and bus that we look to really drive that aspect of Sunday services. Thank you.

I’d like to thank Vikki Howells for her questions, not just today, but questions that she’s raised on numerous occasions as we look to develop a franchise agreement that better suits the needs of her constituents and people across Wales. The Member is absolutely right: the nature of work and the way of life have both changed in Wales and around the world in recent decades, to the extent that we should now expect public transport services on weekend days to be far, far better than they were in the 1980s and 1990s and some parts of the world even today. So, I can assure the Member that there will be improved services on Sundays, not just in terms of rail services under the new franchise, but also with the work that’s taking place in parallel on reforming bus services in Wales.

The Member will be aware that there was a recent consultation where a number of recommendations were outlined. The response to the consultation was healthy. We are now working through those responses. It’s my view that bus services, since deregulation, have not served the purpose of ensuring people can get to and from services and work, swiftly and smoothly, above the profit motives of operators. We see something in the region of 100 million passenger journeys taking place on buses every year, and yet we, as a combined public service—Welsh Government, local government—spend more than £200 million on local bus services every year. So, it’s therefore clear that we should expect a better degree of bus provision across Wales and provision that is more attuned to the needs of passengers.

In terms of the ability for people to get to and from work, it’s quite an astonishing fact that in the Growth Track 360 area of Britain, about a quarter of all people who have a job interview refuse to go on the grounds that they simply cannot access transport in order to get to their job interview. That’s a shocking statistic. Bus travel can be one of the biggest enablers in terms of getting people out of unemployment and into the workplace, which, in turn, is one of the principal methods of eliminating poverty.

And finally, Hefin David.

Thank you, Chair. I’m sure the whole Chamber would want to recognise what has happened in Cardiff with the collapse of the building in Splott and the closure of the Cardiff to Newport line, and to wish the emergency services and the injured person all the very best.

The Cabinet Secretary will recognise that the economy committee, in their inquiry, asked—. The Welsh Government asked the UK Government in 2011 for extra diesel rolling stock and they told them in no uncertain terms that they couldn’t have it because of the electrification of the lines, which has led us partly to this problem today. So, the Welsh Government did take timely action.

But, I would like to pursue two questions that Russell George raised and ask for a little bit more detail. The extra carriages are five times four, which is being advertised as 20 extra trains. How can they split, and can they be split in a way that will maximise efficiency? Or do they have to be used in blocks of four? The Rhymney to Cardiff line is desperate for extra trains at peak times, and just two of those trains, for example, would be helpful on those lines, but some further information about how they can split would be very helpful. In his statement he said that the new stock will enable the development of existing carriages for persons of reduced mobility. Can he give us more information on how precisely that will be enabled?

Yes, absolutely. I’ll check on exactly how the rolling stock can be configured. They are presented as five four-carriage trains, but my understanding is that they can be subdivided and lengthened or shortened as appropriate, but I will check on that and write to Members. In terms of how they can be used to then ensure that other rolling stock is compliant, well, essentially, they can replace—. Some rolling stock can be taken off-line and have works carried out to them to ensure that they are mobility compliant. Therefore, the additional rolling stock won’t just be there to serve the purpose of increasing capacity where capacity is currently stretched; they will also be used to supplement the rolling stock that is taken off-line for works to be carried out.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.

We move on now to a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government on local government reform, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government to make the statement. Mark Drakeford.

Thank you very much, temporary Deputy Presiding Officer. At the end of January, the Welsh Government published a White Paper on local government reform. This set out proposals to secure resilience and renewal in local government in Wales, including arrangements for regional working and a strengthened role for councillors and councils. Today, I published a summary report of almost 170 responses to the consultation and set out the way forward for local government reform.

I’d like to thank the Chair and members of the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee who undertook scrutiny of the reform proposal. I’d also like to thank the Chair and members of the Public Accounts Committee who considered a number of issues that touched on aspects of the White Paper and provided their thoughts.

Dirprwy Lywydd dros dro, mae tair prif elfen i'n cynigion yr hoffwn i ddiweddaru’r Aelodau yn eu cylch heddiw. Yn gyntaf, yr elfen o ddiwygio ein cynghorau tref a chymuned. Mae cynghorau tref a chymuned yn rhan annatod o lywodraeth leol. Yn ddaearyddol, nhw sydd agosaf at bobl a chymunedau ac fe allen nhw fod mewn sefyllfa unigryw i weld a darparu ystod o wasanaethau a all gael effaith sylweddol ar les eu cymunedau. Roedd y Papur Gwyn yn disgrifio diwygiadau ymarferol yr ydym ni’n eu gwneud ar hyn o bryd i gryfhau swyddogaeth cynghorau tref a chymuned ac i wella sut maen nhw’n gweithio a sut y cawn nhw eu llywodraethu, gan eu galluogi i ymgymryd â darpariaeth ehangach o grŵp ehangach o wasanaethau ac asedau.

Fodd bynnag, er mwyn cael dealltwriaeth ehangach o botensial cynghorau tref a chymuned, mae angen adolygiad trylwyr o’r holl sector arnom ni. Mae'r adolygiad hwnnw yn awr wedi cychwyn. Yn fras, bydd yn edrych ar swyddogaeth bosibl llywodraeth leol islaw lefel y prif gyngor. Bydd yn diffinio'r model a’r strwythur mwyaf effeithiol i gyflawni’r cyfraniad hwn yn effeithiol, a bydd yn ystyried sut y gellir gweithredu hyn ledled Cymru. Rwy’n disgwyl i'r adolygiad gynnwys yr holl randdeiliaid perthnasol ac iddo gael ei gwblhau mewn blwyddyn. Rwy'n ddiolchgar iawn i Gwenda Thomas, ac i Rhodri Glyn Thomas am gytuno i gyd-gadeirio'r adolygiad. Maen nhw’n brofiadol iawn ynglŷn â phob haen o lywodraeth yng Nghymru ac mae ganddyn nhw grebwyll penodol o'r materion sydd yn y fantol wrth geisio cryfhau ac adfywio’r haen fwyaf leol hon o ddemocratiaeth yng Nghymru.

Cadeirydd, yn gynharach heddiw, cyhoeddais ddatganiad ysgrifenedig ynglŷn â chyfres o gynigion ar gyfer diwygio system etholiadol llywodraeth leol, ac mae hwn bellach wedi ei lansio'n ffurfiol ar gyfer ymgynghoriad. Mae'r cynigion yn cynnwys ymestyn yr hawl i bleidleisio, cofrestru pleidleiswyr, y broses etholiadol, yn ogystal â chynigion ynghylch pwy gaiff sefyll fel ymgeisydd a phwy gaiff weithredu fel swyddog canlyniadau. Diben diwygio'r system etholiadol yw ei gwneud yn haws i bobl bleidleisio ac i ymestyn yr hawl i bleidleisio. Mae'r cynigion yn cynnwys ymestyn yr hawl hwnnw i bobl 16 a 17 mlwydd oed ac i bawb sy'n byw, yn gweithio ac yn astudio yng Nghymru. Rhoddir ystyriaeth hefyd i’r posibiliadau o ran ei gwneud yn haws i bobl bleidleisio, fel cyflwyno pob pleidlais drwy’r post, pleidleisio electronig a phleidleisio mewn mannau ar wahân i orsafoedd pleidleisio, fel archfarchnadoedd, llyfrgelloedd, canolfannau hamdden a gorsafoedd bysiau a rheilffordd.

Mae'r papur ymgynghori hefyd yn cynnig y dylai cynghorau unigol gael dewis pa system bleidleisio sydd orau ganddyn nhw, naill ai y cyntaf i'r felin neu’r bleidlais sengl drosglwyddadwy. Gan ymateb i sylwadau eglur yn ystod ymgynghoriad y Papur Gwyn, rwyf nawr yn cynnig y byddai hyn yn gofyn am ddwy ran o dair o fwyafrif pleidlais aelodaeth y cyngor, yn unol â'r trothwy ar gyfer newid o'r fath i system etholiadol y Cynulliad Cenedlaethol ei hun.

Yn dilyn ymgynghori, Cadeirydd, byddaf yn ceisio gwneud newidiadau deddfwriaethol drwy Fil llywodraeth leol. Mae'n bwysig i mi bwysleisio y byddai unrhyw newidiadau yn berthnasol i etholiadau llywodraeth leol yn unig. Mae'r Cynulliad Cenedlaethol yn ystyried diwygiadau o ran ei etholiadau ei hun ar wahân i'r ymgynghoriad hwn, ac mae’r Llywydd ei hun yn arwain ar hynny.

Cadeirydd, mae’r drydedd elfen yn fy natganiad heddiw yn canolbwyntio ar ddiwygio ein prif gynghorau, gan gynnwys dull newydd o weithio rhanbarthol systematig a gorfodol i sicrhau eu bod yn gadarn, yn nhermau arian ac o ran y gwasanaethau maen nhw’n eu darparu. Rwy’n bwriadu bwrw ymlaen â chynigion a fyddai'n gweld gweithio rhanbarthol yn dod, dros amser, y dull arferol mewn sawl maes gwaith llywodraeth leol. Bydd hyn yn adeiladu ar y bargeinion twf a dinesig a bydd angen llunio cynlluniau datblygu economaidd, trafnidiaeth strategol a chynllunio strategol o ran yr ardaloedd hyn. Caiff y trefniadau hyn eu gweithredu o dan gyfarwyddyd pwyllgor llywodraethu ar y cyd ar gyfer yr ardal, a fydd yn cynnwys aelodau etholedig o'r awdurdodau lleol cyfansoddol. Bydd digon o hyblygrwydd yn caniatáu i ddinas-ranbarth bae Abertawe ac ardaloedd Tyfu Canolbarth Cymru weithredu drwy hunaniaethau gwahanol, ond gyda gofyniad ar iddyn nhw ddod at ei gilydd i ystyried cydlyniad eu cynlluniau ar draws rhanbarth y de-orllewin yn ei gyfanrwydd.

O ran gwasanaethau eraill, lle y pwyllgorau cydlywodraethu rhanbarthol fydd penderfynu ar weithio rhanbarthol gorfodol, megis ynglŷn â gwella addysg, ac i benderfynu hefyd ynglŷn â sut orau i gydweithio, o fewn fframwaith statudol. Bydd cyfle i awdurdodau weithio ar draws rhanbarthau, er enghraifft, wrth ddatblygu'r strategaeth economaidd ieithyddol ar gyfer y gorllewin, yn unol ag argymhellion adroddiad y grŵp gorchwyl a gorffen ar y Gymraeg a llywodraeth leol.

Cadeirydd, fel y nodir yn y Papur Gwyn ar ddiwygio llywodraeth leol, mae angen i’r trefniadau partneriaeth ar gyfer Cyngor Bwrdeistref Sirol Pen-y-bont ar Ogwr yn enwedig fod yn eglur ac yn syml. Ynghyd â chyd-Aelodau gweinidogol, cynhaliwyd trafodaethau gyda'r cyngor a gyda byrddau iechyd lleol. O ganlyniad i hyn, ac er mwyn rhoi pwyslais penodol i drafodaethau dros yr haf, rydym ni’n cynnig y dylid addasu ffin Bwrdd Iechyd Lleol Cwm Taf i gynnwys ardal awdurdod lleol Pen-y-bont ar Ogwr. Gan weithio gyda'n partneriaid mewn llywodraeth leol a byrddau iechyd, bydd y Llywodraeth yn trafod y cynnig ac yn datblygu dogfen ymgynghori ffurfiol, a fydd yn destun datganiad pellach yn yr hydref.

Llywydd, bydd math newydd o berthynas rhwng Llywodraeth Cymru a llywodraeth leol yn asio ein cynigion diwygio at ei gilydd. Mae’n rhaid i’r berthynas hon fod yn seiliedig ar barch y naill at y llall, ac ar berthynas newydd rhwng awdurdodau lleol a'u dinasyddion, sy'n cydnabod bod pobl yn asedau gwerthfawr ac sy'n eu galluogi i ddylunio dyfodol eu gwasanaethau a'u cymunedau ar y cyd.

Fel y cyhoeddodd y Prif Weinidog yn y datganiad rhaglen ddeddfwriaethol ar 27 Mehefin, bydd Bil llywodraeth leol yn cael ei gyflwyno i'r Cynulliad yn ystod 2018 er mwyn gweithredu’r cynigion diwygio hyn a chyflwyno darpariaethau eraill i’w hategu. Er mwyn gwneud y mwyaf o'r cyfle i barhau â'r ddeialog a’r trafodaethau gyda llywodraeth leol a phartneriaid eraill, rwy’n bwriadu cyflwyno’r Bil tuag at ddiwedd ail flwyddyn y rhaglen ddeddfwriaethol.

Llywydd, local government reform is a joint effort, and the measures that I’ve outlined today will provide a range of tools and mechanisms for local government to build resilience and increase effectiveness by working together better and operating with more flexibility as individual authorities. I look forward now to hearing Members’ views.

Thank you to the Cabinet Secretary. I know we have met and we have had conversations on these proposals going forward, and I have to say that I’m certainly very supportive of a lot—. There’s a lot of ambition here, and, of course, with ambition and legislation and making it deliverable comes resource, and I fear that you will have resource implications, but I don’t think anyone could actually knock the vision that you seek to move forward with. Obviously, I’ll start off—. I’ll go through the threads, really.

The reform of town and community councils can’t come quick enough. This is a level of democracy that does cost our taxpayer and should be transparent and accountable, and should actually have deliverable outcomes. And, regrettably, on numerous occasions, I’ve received complaints and concerns from residents regarding the openness and transparency at that level, and I am aware that the members on the board, of course, are former AMs: Gwenda Thomas, Rhodri Glyn Thomas, and, of course, we have William Graham. So, I think those are three people who I have every confidence in, going forward.

Uncontested seats are a problem not just in town council seats but also in principal authorities. There were 92 local authority—principal authority—candidates who actually just went in without contest in the last local government elections, and I know that this was raised numerous times in Aberconwy, as to why people were turning up to vote and weren’t aware that no election was going forward, because somebody had just walked into a council seat. So, your main overall aim is about accessibility, allowing people a better opportunity to vote, but I think also, too, we do need to be mindful that people do need candidates that they are then able to vote for, so that’s something that maybe we can work on, going forward.

The consultation on the potential reform of the local government electoral system is interesting, and, again, it’s all about opening up and engaging, improving accessibility to increase voter turnout at local government elections. Who could argue with that?

I do endorse a number of the proposals outlined. We do need to increase flexibility to enable council employees to stand for election as councillors. I know of a situation—and I’ve raised this with the Cabinet Secretary—of somebody who did a four hour a week contract and was unable to actually go forward standing as a council candidate. Clearly, there would only be a conflict of interest once that person was elected, if elected, so we need to look at that.

We need to simplify postal voting. I’m sure other Members—even with Assembly elections or parliamentary, the postal voting system, probably across the UK, but I know in Wales, is very confusing for the elderly, when they have to put it in different envelopes, and, you know, their signatures and everything. I’ve witnessed so many spoilt ballot papers, when people think that they’ve voted correctly. So, I’d like to ask the Cabinet Secretary—you know, you do intend to put more meat on the bone where that’s concerned.

Proxy voting is another one. It’s a method of people being able to vote when they’re not actually present on that day. I know that your plans for electronic voting and having the single electoral register is a good idea, but nonetheless there is that mechanism currently there called proxy voting, and I know whenever I’ve suggested to people not about postal voting, about proxy voting, they have looked at me in some disbelief, not understanding what proxy voting means. I’m not sure the actual word ‘proxy’ is the best way to describe it. So, if you could look to simplifying that process, it’s another mechanism to get people over that line if they want to vote.

I note your proposal for authorities to choose between the electoral systems—first-past-the-post or single transferable vote. I just wonder whether there would be some confusion across the boundaries. Are you actually looking at doing this on a local authority basis, individual basis? Or is this going to be uniform across Wales?

Moving on to directly-elected mayors, which I’ve already made it clear that I’m quite in favour of, in terms of a local authority—not on the regional working basis—in England, it’s a 10 per cent requirement for the referendum. No, it’s not; it’s the other way around: 5 per cent in England, 10 per cent here in Wales. I think, again, if there’s a way perhaps that we could look at bringing that threshold down so that local authorities—or people, the community within local authority areas, can actually maybe go out and—. It’s a better figure to go for, isn’t it, 5 per cent?

I’ve raised this with you before—remuneration of councils across the border is on average about half that of Wales, with councillors representing more than twice the number of constituents. An example: England, an average of £6,893, and they have to represent 8,959. In Wales, they can be on £13,300 and their average is 3,300. So, we do need to actually look at providing value for our constituents and electorate, and there’s a balance there that needs addressing.

Now, reform of principal councils—certainly, I agree and welcome joint working on back-office functions. There’s much good practice, and I discovered some myself only last week. Five Somerset district councils share a central call centre for enquiries and payments. Now, if it can be done over the border, it can be done here. But, of course, because I’ve held this portfolio for quite some time, I’m aware of all the guidance and everything to do with the collaboration agenda, and that was a failed programme for this Welsh Government. So, I’d really be interested in knowing what methods—the stick, the carrot, or a bit of both—you’re going to use that will actually ensure that there is better working together. I do not see it feasible that we are going to still continue to have 22 chief executives, 22 heads of finance, 22 heads of social services. I welcome the integration of health and social care, and there is a model here that you’ve mentioned in your statement, and that should be rolled out, I think, across Wales.

You mentioned flexibility below the three main regional joint governance committees. The north Wales health board, for instance, has often been described as unwieldy and too large. We have a health board there now in special measures. So, if you’re looking to model local government on that basis, then there’s some more work to be done there. Cabinet Secretary, you know you have my support and that of my group for a lot of this, going forward. We will look for the finer detail, and we will scrutinise and challenge where we feel that it may become over-burdensome, confusing for the electorate, and more costly. Thank you.

Thank you to Janet Finch-Saunders, both for what she said this afternoon but also for her willingness to engage in regular dialogue about some of these proposals and for the constructive ideas that she’s already contributed to it. I hope she will see in some of the things we are proposing in relation to town and community councils a reflection of some of her own direct experience, and I particularly wanted to thank her for her help in securing the services of William Graham as part of the review team. I agree with her very much that uncontested seats are something we would want to see eliminated in our democracy, both at a principal council level, but it is a particular feature of town and community councils. And those who operate in that sphere, and who I think often do very good work, they are themselves very aware of the fact that it’s a vulnerability when we refer to it as a democratic tier, when so often there is so little democracy involved in the way that people end up as town and community councillors.

I thank Janet Finch-Saunders for what she said about the proposals on the electoral system. I think this is a very exciting time for us in Wales. These will be new powers that we will inherit. The consultation paper is a mixture of a small number of propositions where we say the Welsh Government is pretty committed to taking ideas forward, such as extending the franchise to 16- and 17-year-olds, and then a much wider range of ideas where we are interested to hear what people have to say. The speaker drew attention to the question we raise in the consultation about whether we draw the line in the right place between people who work for a council and are able to stand for a council. I don’t think there’s any doubt that, at one end of the spectrum, very senior staff are in politically-restricted posts; they should not be allowed to stand for election. But, at the moment, we prohibit, as Janet Finch-Saunders said, somebody working for a very small number of hours from standing for election. That prohibition falls disproportionately on women and we ask the question as to whether or not we could draw the line in a different place.

An all-Wales electronic register would mean that the need for proxy voting would be reduced, but it wouldn’t eliminate it, because, if people were on holiday in England or called away to work in England, for example, you’d still need proxy voting. We will look at the point that she makes about the potentially confusing terminology.

Our proposals on permissive PR in local government are exactly that; it would be a choice for local government themselves to make. The threshold for a referendum on elected mayors: we don’t intend to change the availability of a referendum in local areas where there is a call for an elected mayor, and, again, as part of the consultation, I’m very aware in that we will look at the threshold issue that the Member has highlighted. I probably don’t share her view entirely on the number of councillors we have in Wales. I think that the number is broadly the right one. The councillors that I see work very hard and have large numbers of voters to represent. The electoral reviews have started in Ceredigion, Conwy, Gwynedd, and Powys. We expect it, over the term, to result in a modest reduction in the number of councillors in Wales. The proposals for Conwy council, for example, propose a reduction of just over 10 per cent in the number of councillors that would be available for that local authority.

Finally, to respond to the points made about the reform of principal councils, I think the difference in the proposals that you see in front of the Assembly this afternoon is that they are both the product of hard work to try and craft a consensus with local authorities, but also a determination that, when we have an agreed way forward on regional working, on frameworks, on footprints and on functions, then we will make that mandatory. Once we’ve agreed, then we need the force of the legislation under that agreement so that everybody is clear that if you’ve got around the table and you’ve agreed to discharge a function, there is no escaping from that agreement.

I think that’s in the interest of local authorities. Too many local authorities have told me of examples where they have worked very hard and have put a lot of investment into a regional arrangement, only for one of the partners to walk away from the table at the last minute, and a lot of work to unravel very quickly. That can’t be the future for local authorities in Wales, Llywydd. Regional working is the way of the future—systematic, mandatory but agreed.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for your willingness to have an ongoing dialogue on these issues and issues within your portfolio. The complexity of all of these levels of government created, as well as where accountability lies and where the scrutiny happens—that is what emerges for me, having listened to your statement today.

Specifically, I do have a great concern that the relationship between the citizen and the people making decisions is becoming meaningless and very distant. That has major implications for democracy, where people already feel disempowered in terms of decisions taken on issues that affect them on a daily basis. I’ve said this before, and I am still of the same view.

It’s also a cause of concern for me that you don’t intend to introduce the proportional STV system to all local authorities in Wales. In Scotland, the use of a proportional system is a usual part of democracy, and it does ensure that there is competition for all council seats and that all votes count. I am of the view that allowing individual councils to decide whether they want to introduce a proportional electoral system is going to cause confusion and will mean that it doesn’t happen consistently across Wales and, indeed, that it doesn’t happen at all. I agree that it’s important to give councils the freedom to decide on many issues, but this isn’t one of them.

Before I ask three specific questions, I will be a little more positive and declare Plaid Cymru’s full support for the reduction in the voting age for local elections so that 16 and 17-year-olds will be able to vote. This has been Plaid Cymru policy over a number of years because we believe that the voice and contribution of young people in the democratic process are crucially important.

I would also welcome that you would support the extension of the franchise so that everyone living, working and studying in Wales can vote. Everyone who calls Wales their home and wants to see Wales succeed—every one of those people should have the opportunity and freedom to participate in elections that impact on their lives.

In turning to my questions, I would like to first of all ask what implications the extension of the franchise in local elections would mean, then, in terms of Assembly elections. What’s the interrelationship between what you’re introducing here and the wider debate on Assembly elections? I was just seeking some clarity there.

On the element of regional working, I’m pleased to see mention of the ability for local authorities to collaborate to develop linguistic and economic strategies for the west of Wales, as we in Plaid Cymru have suggested in this Chamber, as well as the task and finish group on the Welsh language and local government, chaired by Rhodri Glyn Thomas. Following supportive statements from yourself and the First Minister recently on this, I would like to hear what your vision is. What do you think are the benefits of regional collaboration in the west of Wales?

Finally, it appears likely that the Government’s economic strategy will place a major emphasis on regional policy or regional working, although we haven’t seen that strategy as of yet, although it’s a full year since the election. What collaboration has taken place and is taking place between yourself and the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure in terms of this relationship between the economic strategy and local government reform? Thank you.

Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I thank Sian Gwenllian for the comments this afternoon. Thank you also for being so willing to talk to us over time in discussing ideas, and this afternoon saying where we can agree on some important things—extending the right to register and to vote to the people who are 16 and 17 years old, and also the right for people who live in Wales to be part of our democratic process. That’s a very important message for people who come to Wales and who live here and work here and study here. They are part of our communities here in Wales, and we want to extend the right to them to be part of that democratic process at a local level as well.

Could I say I share the concerns that Sian Gwenllian has about the complexity and accountability? We are trying, in what we’ve presented, to plan a way in which we can help people to understand the system we are going to create in the future, and also make sure that people are accountable for the decisions that they make.

Dyma pam yn rhannol, Llywydd, y mae gennym ni ofyniad yn y Papur Gwyn bod gan awdurdodau lleol strategaethau ymgysylltu statudol. Dyma pam yr ydym ni’n dweud y bydd yn rhaid i awdurdodau lleol ddarlledu eu trafodion. Rydym ni eisiau gwneud yn siŵr bod dinasyddion lleol yn gwybod beth sy'n digwydd yn ein hawdurdodau lleol. Dyma pam yr wyf i’n credu bod swyddogaeth cynghorwyr lleol, yn y ffordd y byddwn ni’n sefydlu’r system newydd, yn gwbl ganolog. Dyma pam yn rhannol nad oeddwn i’n cytuno â Janet Finch-Saunders yn ei barn y dylem ni gael gostyngiad sylweddol yn y nifer o gynghorwyr lleol. Os oes mwy o —.[Torri ar draws.] Mae'n ddrwg gen i, rwy’n gobeithio na wnes i gam-gynrychioli’r hyn a ddywedasoch chi. [Torri ar draws.]

No, there is no intervention on a statement now.

Let me put what I said in a different way, Llywydd. I think Janet would envisage a lower number of councillors than we envisage. And I didn’t agree with her on that, because I think the role of the local councillor will be pivotal in assisting citizens in the future to navigate their way through a system in which some decisions are made at a regional level. I don’t think this is significantly different to the way that systems work currently. A local councillor is elected to represent their ward, but when they come to make decisions at a council level, they have to take into account what is right for the whole of that area, not simply what is right for their own ward. They’re always having to balance the tension between representing the very local electorate and knowing what is right for the whole authority that they represent, just as people come to the Assembly here representing a constituency but then speak up from the point of view of their party as a whole. What we will do is to require that way of thinking to be exercised on a regional level. We will make it absolutely clear that decisions are made by elected members drawn from the constituent local authorities, and we’ve set out a menu of choices that local authorities themselves will be able to draw on to make sure that they are able to scrutinise the decisions, and to be held answerable for them at that local authority level.

Let me turn, if I could, to the questions that Sian Gwenllian asked towards the end of her contribution. As far as regional working in the west of Wales is concerned, I want to build on the suggestions set out in the report produced under the chairmanship of Rhodri Glyn Thomas. I’ve already had discussions with local authority leaders in that part of Wales of ways in which they can work across their borders and regionally to take advantage of the connection between the Welsh language and economic development opportunities in that part of Wales. I think that there are opportunities to share resources, to draw on the way in which some local authorities have been able to strengthen services that they provide for those people who would choose to access local authority services through the medium of Welsh, and to deploy those resources in a way that is to the advantage of the future economic development of that part of the country.

As far as working with other Cabinet colleagues is concerned, not only have I discussed these matter with the Cabinet Secretary for the economy in relation to the economy strategy, but I’ve talked to my colleague the education Secretary in relation to education improvement and additional learning needs. I talked to my colleague the Minister for social services in relation to regional working in the health and social services sphere. Indeed, there is almost no Cabinet colleague who does not have an interest in how regional working of the sort set out in these proposals maps onto the responsibilities that they discharge as well.

We will continue those discussions, look forward to bringing a Bill in front of the Assembly, and understand that parties across the Assembly will want to see the detail of our proposals and will want to consider them carefully when they are published.

Thanks, Minister, for your statement today. Local government reform brings with it an opportunity and I think reforms could work well as long as the main aim is to bring local government closer to the people it serves. So, the issue of localism, I think, is key.

Now, you’ve highlighted a bigger role for town and community councils. I think that is a promising path to go down in some cases. In rural and semi-rural areas, these councils can play a strong and relevant role, and you mentioned the way in which they have, in some cases, saved local libraries and other services by taking over their running. That kind of action is certainly to be recommended when local services are threatened. But what would be your recommended course of action when services are under threat in more urban areas that don’t have community councils? What would be the role, for instance, of voluntary groups, which could serve a very relevant role, but would there be issues there of democracy and a democratic mandate to run things? I’d be interested in your thoughts on that.

As you point out, there is a mixed bag of town and community councils across Wales. So, again, what happens when local services are under threat in an area where the local community council isn’t doing much? Given that so many services are threatened nowadays, should there be some kind of handbook of action from you, as a Minister, as to how local services can best be defended in these instances?

As to your proposed changes to the conduct of elections in Wales, I look forward to hearing your thoughts at the end of the consultation period. Clearly, you are committed to trying to bring about certain specific changes such as the voting age, whilst you are more open-minded on others. I think there is a lot to discuss on the changes to election rules and we will probably have a robust debate on these kinds of proposals later in the year. But I hope you do tread carefully as you consider pertinent issues like internet security.

I think most Members would agree that being an election returning officer should be a statutory duty of a council chief executive and should be part of his or her regular workload, without any additional payments involved. So, I tend to agree with you on that point and I hope you press on with that.

On the issue of council employees being able to stand as candidates, I believe people like dinner ladies and lollipop men and other people in similar roles should be allowed to stand in council elections, so a change to the rules here would be commendable, as Janet Finch-Saunders has brought to light, and as you’ve done very well in bringing in as part of your proposals. The question is: at what level of local government officer do you draw the line on eligibility? I wonder if you would give me your thoughts on where exactly you feel that line should be drawn.

On the issue of independent councillors, I think it is a fair point that, if they are party members, the public has a right to know. How do you intend to elicit this information and what will happen to candidates who fail to disclose party membership?

On the subject of AMs doubling up as councillors, I think this is a contentious point. As I’ve never been a councillor, I’m not really qualified to judge whether you can successfully do both. You yourself were once a councillor and are now an AM, but never simultaneously, as far as I know. But I know of at least one Member here who did both jobs for a few years, so I think it is not impossible to double up. The problem may be that the AM salary is certainly a full-time salary. So, perhaps, if an AM wants to remain as a councillor, there should be a prohibition on claiming the councillor salary so that if he or she wants to remain as a councillor, the council duties would be undertaken as unpaid duties. So, I wonder whether you think that might be an acceptable compromise in this instance. Thank you.

I thank the Member for those questions. Can I say that I think he made a series of important points about town and community councils? My assessment of the sector, having asked about it in all parts of Wales, is that, where town and community councils have a good relationship with their principal authority, where they have a level of resource and a level of ambition, they are doing more important public service work today than they probably ever have before in helping to defend local communities against the effects of austerity. The problem is that, too often and in too many parts, the relationship isn’t as good as it should be, the resource base of very small community councils isn’t sufficient to allow them to take on a wider range of duties and, probably most significant of all, the ambition is not always there to do so. So, the challenge that I have set for the review team is to try and identify the ingredients that are making for successful town and community councils and to be very positive about the good work they are doing but to then ask how we can generalise that into other parts of Wales, potentially including parts of Wales where town and community councils don’t currently exist. In the meantime, we are producing, with our town and community councils, with One Voice Wales, a handbook, a workbook to allow town and community councils who are willing to do more than they have in the past to learn the lessons of those who have done it successfully already and to be able to help them through that process.

As far as the conduct of elections is concerned, Gareth Bennett raised the very important issue of internet security. We asked the question in the consultation paper: are we yet at the stage where we could allow voting to take place on your phone or on your tablet or on your computer? We do many other things in many other parts of our lives—internet banking and so on—that require high levels of security, but I think it’s an important question. I want to rehearse it in the consultation exercise. Old-fashioned as our current system may be, one of its great strengths, Llywydd, is that it is trusted by people. You go, you put your cross on the ballot paper, you take the paper yourself, you put it into the ballot box—you can see how the system is working. I think we would want to think carefully about moving in directions where people’s trust in the integrity of the process could be more easily undermined, but we want to know what people in Wales think about it.

Gareth Bennett pointed to our proposals for making chief executives statutorily the returning officers in local elections and abolishing the current system of personal fees. We raised the question of where to draw the line in local authority employees. I don’t have a fixed position on that. I do think it’s an important question to rehearse. I think trade unions and others will have important views to contribute to us there.

I think it is right that candidates who are members of a political party should declare that as part of their candidacy. There is nothing to stop anybody standing as an independent, but I think that, if you do put yourself forward as an independent and you’ve been a member of a political party within the last 12 months, then voters are entitled to know that that is the case. They then take it into account with everything else that they take into account in deciding who to vote for.

We propose in our consultation that there shouldn’t be a dual mandate, that people should not be able to be Assembly Members and members of a local authority at the same time. There is the issue of pay, as Gareth Bennett said. Being an Assembly Member is paid as a full-time job, and we think it should be that, but there are conflicts of interest as well that are not simply to do with pay. We make very important decisions here that affect local authorities, and we think it’s an uncomfortable position to be both the provider and the recipient of those decisions, and our proposal is that we should not allow that to happen in the future.

Sometimes, as people argue over structures and powers, the reason for local government is often forgotten: to provide high-quality, cost-effective local services; to react to local need; to do all of the above with a democratic, local accountability.

On community and town councils, will the same powers be given to all community and town councils, irrespective of size, and what happens in those urban areas, such as Swansea East, that do not currently have community councils?

I again reiterate my support for votes at 16, something my friend Julie Morgan has argued for for as long as I can remember.

I am pleased to see supermajority voting for changes to local government voting systems to stop the voting system changing almost on an annual basis.

On people who can stand for election, why not allow those who are indirectly employed by a council to stand? We’ve had a situation earlier this year where somebody was disqualified— he worked for a body that was partly funded by the council he belonged to, along with eight other councils. Those indirectly employed, I think, should be allowed to stand.

What reasons does the Cabinet Secretary see for not bringing in electronic voting? Young people expect to use their phones for almost everything and to vote electronically, and they find it rather strange, going into a school hall, being given a blunt pencil and a piece of paper.

I welcome working across councils in transport, strategic land use and economic development. These, of course, are not new, are they? I remember—I’m sure the Cabinet Secretary does—the old county development plan. I was also chair of the west Wales transport group called SWWITCH. I was also a member of the west Wales economic forum. There was an awful lot of hard work being done between Pembroke and Swansea well before any talk of either local government reorganisation or any talk of the need for change in cross-party working. So, none of the above is novel. The question I’ve got is: why are the proposals for mid and south-west Wales rather than the Swansea bay city region? How does the Cabinet Secretary believe that people in Welshpool have anything in common with the people in Swansea in terms of either transport, economic development or land use?

Thank you to Mike Hedges for those remarks. Will we give the same powers to all town and community councils? Not as they currently stand, because they are so very variable. We propose a general power of competence for some town and community councils, but there will be thresholds that they would have to pass. We’ll see what the report of the review group produces. If they are able to propose a more uniform pattern, both of powers and of geography, so that town and community councils are available everywhere, then the case for treating them all the same will be strengthened.

I believe, Llywydd, that there will be a majority on the floor of this Assembly for extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, and I’m grateful for Mike Hedges’s support for that.

He adds another category to people who are currently prevented from standing for election to local authorities, and I think probably adds another component to our question as to whether or not we are currently over-restrictive in the way that we interpret that rule.

What is the case against remote voting? Well, I think people who are not yet persuaded of it sometimes say that the act of voting is a very serious act and that reducing it to being able to click a button on your phone may undermine the seriousness of the contribution that taking part in a democracy ought to be. Some people—I suppose I’m old-fashioned enough that I would agree with this—like the collective act of walking to a polling station and like to see other people doing the same thing. I like queueing up in a line with other people doing the same thing. For me, it brings our collective sense of democracy alive, but that’s because I’ve been doing it for such a very long time. Maybe the more significant objection is the security objection. Are we yet sure that the systems are sufficiently certain that people would believe that nobody could interfere with their democratic vote—you couldn’t be hacked into, you couldn’t find it distorted in a way that you’d be able to find out?

He’s absolutely right that regional working is not new. What our proposals do is to make regional working systematic and mandatory.

Why mid and west Wales? We’ve taken the WLGA’s own region; that’s how the WLGA organises itself. But, as I said in my statement, Llywydd, we will have sufficient flexibility within that regional footprint for the Swansea city region four councils to be able to work together, and the Growing Mid Wales councils—Ceredigion and Powys—to continue to work together in a distinctive way, but where they will then have to plan together, so that there are no artificial boundaries and there’s no sense that Ceredigion and Powys aren’t able, for example, to gain access to some of the debates and some of the possibilities that that wider regional footprint would bring.

I’d like to welcome the statement. There were two elements I wanted to touch on. One: in terms of the basket of options you’re putting to consultation about reform, I’m disappointed that compulsory voting is not one of the options that the Welsh Government are asking for opinions on. I think requiring people to take part as part of their wider civic duties—the ability to vote is an important one. I realise that’s a contestable view, but I think it would be useful to start a debate on that.

Secondly, I just wanted to touch on the broader transformation that the Minister proposes in terms of the boundaries. Much of the emphasis is on the physical structures, but I just wonder how much thought is going on in terms of the digital transformation that’s going to be underpinning a lot of this. The spread of big data and artificial intelligence and automation is all around us. I’m conscious that there are no end of private companies who are approaching local authorities with off-the-shelf solutions to automate many of their functions to free up resource to put into front-line services, and I think it would be better if we did this in a thought-through, planned way across Wales, rather than individual local authorities doing it in an ad hoc way. It needn’t be a threat, but it will be a change, and a change that we can’t avoid. So, I just wonder if he could say a little bit more about the role of digital in the broader transformation project he had in mind.

One of my ambitions for the consultation exercise is that we end it with a wider range of possibilities and more ideas for how we could reform the way we conduct elections in Wales than we started with. Those people who advocate compulsory participation in our democracy, I hope, will take this opportunity to make those views known and to generate the sort of debate that Lee Waters has suggested.

As for digital transformation, one of the reasons why I think regional working—and particularly in this context, sharing back-office services—is so important is that it will allow local authorities to build their own capacity to move in this direction without having to rely on buying in services and off-the-shelf solutions, as he said, from elsewhere.

Llywydd, I’ve said several times: I’ve generally been very encouraged by my interaction with local authorities and their willingness to be part of creating their own future. I was mildly disappointed by their response to the consultation exercise in relation to back-office services. I think there’s a greater reluctance than there ought to be to think of ways in which they can share across boundaries some of those services—not a sufficient grasp of digital transformational possibilities for the future. And I’ve said to local authorities and I’ll repeat it here this afternoon: our White Paper and the legislation we will bring forward signal that we are on a journey to greater shared services in Wales, and it’s a journey that all local authorities will need to be part of.

Some observations, really. I think there’s an issue with postal voting, especially for disabled people and elderly people whose signature doesn’t always correspond and they’ve found that their votes have been discounted in recent elections. I think if we’re all honest here, as well, then we all know that there is also an issue with postal voting and the integrity of the process. I have concerns of going down the road of postal voting more, because I actually think that postal voting should be restricted. There should be a reason why you have a postal vote, because the process is abused, and we all know this.

We do need to encourage people to vote, and I think the idea of supermarkets and other places like that is a very, very good idea. Again, back to the integrity of the process, there was an example in 2016 in the Assembly election in the Cardiff West constituency where somebody went to vote at 08:30, and they’d been told they had already voted. The individual gave the person a description of the person who had been there at 07:30 and voted in his name. Now, I think there’s certainly an argument for, maybe, identification when voting, because the process at the minute is far too easy to abuse, I would say, to use the same phrase again.

I’d like to see local referenda given some teeth. Again, we had a local referendum where I live, where 99.9 per cent of people voted in a certain way, and they just were not listened to, and thousands of people voted, as well.

I’ve got to touch on the dual mandate. I assume it applies to the House of Lords as well. Maybe you can clarify that. [Interruption.] I certainly would not, but there are some colleagues here who have a dual mandate there. More than anything else, it’s a matter of democratic principle. I was elected as a councillor, and recently re-elected. Everybody knew I was an Assembly Member. What gives you the right as an individual, as a Minister, to say to people they can’t vote for me or anybody else to be their councillor? In terms of the allowances, yes, I’m happily donating my allowances, 50 per cent to the community and 50 per cent to Plaid Cymru. But the issue is one of democracy. Who are you, Minister, or Cabinet Secretary, to tell people they haven’t got the right to vote for people? It’s not right.

I suppose there was a declaration of interests of sorts there, Llywydd, and of course it isn’t for me to tell anybody anything. It would be for this National Assembly to decide, and if we do decide, that will be because this is the democratic forum where we make those decisions. That will be the basis of any decisions that flow from this consultation exercise.

I don’t have any powers over the House of Lords, but where we do have new powers over local government, I am clear in my own mind that people who have the privilege of sitting as Assembly Members ought to be able to devote the whole of their time and their energy to that job, and they ought not to find themselves in the position of voting on things that happen here that have a direct impact on other responsibilities that they discharge elsewhere.

I recognise the point about the integrity of the system. It’s partly why, when I answered my question from Mike Hedges on electronic voting, that I said that that is one of the things that we will need to think about. There is a tension between integrity on the one hand and simplicity on the other. I would like to make postal voting easier for those who choose to vote in that way. I’m slightly intrigued as to why the Member would like to make postal voting harder for people. Who is he, I might have said, to decide on the way in which people would choose to exercise their vote? So, I think we should make postal voting available to people. I think we should try and make it simpler in the way that Janet Finch-Saunders described, but I think we have to be careful on integrity, too.

I’m quite opposed to ID cards or other forms of identification at polling stations. We know that if we go down that route it will have a disproportionate effect on certain communities and certain parts of the electorate, exaggerating the current way in which some people find themselves disenfranchised. Where there are abuses, I think our system is robust enough to capture them. We need to be alert to that, but in the tension between wanting to make sure that voting is as accessible and as available as possible, and the integrity of the system, I think we ought to be prepared to be more concerned about making sure that nobody loses their chance to vote, while remaining vigilant to ensure that the system’s trustworthiness remains intact.

Llywydd, Neil McEvoy gives half his salary to Plaid Cymru—I knew there was a reason why they kept him in the group. Well done.

With regard to the White Paper, section 2.56, which you’ve already touched upon, Cabinet Secretary, in response to Sian Gwenllian, identifies three arrangements for scrutiny: one is to stick as you are, two is to establish a standing regional committee, or three, to set up task and finish groups. Scrutiny has come a long way in the last 10 years, as I know from my own experience in 10 years in local government. But also, reading Wales Audit Office annual improvement reports and special reports on scrutiny, you can see that things have improved. There’s a lesson to be learned from the landscape of scrutiny that exists now, compared to what it was over the past 25 years of local authorities as they are. What dialogue will the Cabinet Secretary have with the Wales Audit Office, who have played a creditable role in some of this? Will the Wales Audit Office advise on governance arrangements? And, particularly, how can you ensure that scrutiny and the standards that have been reached so far are maintained and will continue to be improved upon, given the freedom the councils will have to establish new arrangements for scrutiny?

I thank the Member for that. I do think it is right to allow local authorities the flexibility to decide on the way in which scrutiny works best in their own circumstances, and to design scrutiny arrangements for regional arrangements that fit in with the way they discharge other parts of their responsibilities. I agree with what Hefin David said about the fact that scrutiny has improved in recent times. There was a report published recently—an independent report—that looked across England, Wales and Scotland, and Wales was the only part of Britain where those involved in scrutiny reported that they believed that the system had improved, and that they were now better at it than they had been in the past. Part of that is a result of the advice and investment from the WAO. We will continue to work with them to take their advice. I said in my opening statement, Llywydd, that I wanted to give the maximum opportunity before introducing the Bill to work with local authorities themselves and partners, such as the WAO, on some of the detail of the Bill, and scrutiny will certainly be part of that ongoing dialogue.

And, finally, David Rees.

Diolch, Llywydd. Can I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his statement this afternoon? Obviously, I support the comments of my colleagues as far as electoral reform is concerned. And, by the way, electronic voting: you might want to look at what goes on in Estonia, which will tell you about that.

But hidden away in your statement, actually, was a very important aspect for me, and that is the possible change of boundaries for all local health boards, particularly in relation to Bridgend County Borough Council. Now, that might affect Bridgend County Borough Council, but it also affects many of my constituents because the river Afan is an artificial boundary used by ambulance services: those to the east go to Princess of Wales; those to the west go to Morriston. And, therefore, many of my constituents use the services at Princess of Wales and within that area. Now, barriers should not be presented by boundaries; I accept that. But many of my residents will want to be reassured that the services they currently have will not be impacted upon, and that they will continue to receive the same type of service. So, in your consultation, which you intend to carry out, can you present the case as to how those services will be maintained, so constituents within Port Talbot and Aberafan will not be affected by any change?

I thank David Rees for that very important point. I said in my statement that we will be working with Bridgend and both the health boards that will be involved in this—that’s ABMU and Cwm Taf—on a proposal that we can then consult on later in the year. We will make sure that the points that David Rees has raised this afternoon are taken into account in developing that proposition. The Princess of Wales hospital is not moving; it will be where it is today, but access to it is very important for people who live beyond Bridgend itself, and we will make sure that their interests are properly represented in the proposal that we will develop for consultation.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.

The next item is a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure on the development bank of Wales. I call on the Cabinet Secretary to make a statement. Ken Skates.

Thank you, Llywydd. I am delighted to announce today that we are delivering one of the key pledges contained in our programme for Government by creating the development bank of Wales. I’m particularly pleased that the development bank will address market failure across business finance by focusing support for micro, start-up and innovative businesses across Wales. This means that businesses will have access to the finance they need to become fitter, bigger and stronger. The development bank will be a strategic national asset that is unique in the UK and one that provides a competitive business advantage for Wales over the rest of the country. It will help to provide the growth finance and business support required to attract, build and retain microbusinesses and SMEs in Wales, both today and into the future. It will build on the success of Finance Wales and learn from the very best development banks around the world.

The development bank has an ambitious, five-year plan to generate more than £1 billion of investment to support the Welsh economy. It will help businesses to support over 5,500 jobs per annum. The development bank will significantly increase the availability of funding to SMEs to £80 million per annum within five years, compared with £56 million in 2016-17. It will increase the impact on the Welsh economy by over £170 million per annum by 2021-22, taking private sector leverage into account. In recent years, the targeted provision of finance made available to microbusinesses has trebled from £6 million to £18 million. This has enabled businesses with fewer than 10 employees to quickly and efficiently borrow from as little as £1,000 to £50,000. The development bank will continue to prioritise this important market segment in Wales, which is also the lifeblood of our rural economy, and I’ll say more on this later.

The new bank is developing a culture of continuous improvement. Working with Business Wales, it will improve its online customer services, helping more companies to benefit more efficiently. Not only will the bank improve access to existing financial products, it will also identify future business needs and create suitable new products. To help do this, the development bank of Wales is already working with the Office for National Statistics, Cardiff University and other academic institutions so that they can better understand the financial issues that SMEs face, and develop appropriate new solutions.

I am clear that the new bank should not lose sight of its primary function of providing money with management. This includes providing gap finance alongside private sector funders, to enable deals to materialise that wouldn’t otherwise do so, and providing a full range of management support in addition to simple finance. Whilst approving these ambitious plans for the development bank today, I am pleased to see that the bank will have a presence across the whole of Wales. This includes the rural areas across Wales where market failure in the banking sector is most pronounced. Recognising its pan-Wales role, the bank has organised a series of launch events across the country during October.

The development bank is a major component of Welsh Government’s strategy to deliver a more prosperous and secure Wales, as set out in ‘Taking Wales Forward’. It will differ from Finance Wales, not only in terms of the increased scale of funding available to Welsh businesses, but also better business support in collaboration with Business Wales. The organisation already manages significant operations on behalf of other Welsh Government departments, most notably Help to Buy, which falls under the remit of my colleague Carl Sargeant, Assembly Member, Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children. I also believe there is potential, though, for the development bank to further extend its provision of financial services in the future, to support other Welsh Government departments to develop innovative and cost- effective solutions.

The transition of Finance Wales into the development bank is already well under way on a number of fronts, including delivering a number of new funds and significantly increasing support to SMEs, now and in the future, for example, a management succession fund, new technology seed finance and a working capital fund to support fast-growing businesses. Also, work is taking place on establishing the new intelligence unit; creating an angel co-investment fund with related support; developing new branding for the development bank; and improving online interaction with customers, making it easier for customers to get advice and funding online.

We are also committed to establishing the headquarters of the development bank of Wales in north Wales by the end of this year. The bank will have a regional presence to support the department’s regional footprint. Work is already ongoing to identify suitable premises in and around the Wrexham area, where the bank aims to grow to 50 staff over the next two years.

Today, I am delighted to confirm that I have approved the establishment of the new £100 million Wales flexible investment fund. The fund will be managed by the development bank, and as its name implies it will be fully flexible. It will provide a combination of debt, mezzanine and equity funding options ranging from £25,000 to £5 million. It will offer loans with terms of up to 10 years, in recognition of scenarios where small businesses require patient capital. As I touched on earlier, microbusinesses will also be able to benefit from this fund. This £100 million package of flexible support comes on top of an announcement I made last year to create the £136 million Wales business fund. Today I am pleased to announce that we are putting a further £35 million into that fund, increasing it to £171 million.

Last year, Carl Sargeant AM, Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children, announced £230 million for the second phase of the Help to Buy scheme. Taken alongside the bank’s direct investment and private sector leverage, this funding underpins the bank’s ambition to generate more than £1 billion of investment support into the Welsh economy over the next five years. The development bank of Wales will increasingly become self-funding. The business model assumes it will no longer need any grant support from the public purse for operational costs from next year onwards. In summary, the development bank of Wales is a cornerstone organisation for investment and business support. Given its increased scale and breadth of expertise, it is well placed to meet the challenges and opportunities we will inevitably face, and make Wales more prosperous and secure.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Russell George.

Diolch, acting Presiding Officer. I have to say, Cabinet Secretary, I am disappointed that we’re yet to see the detail that will allow the National Assembly to scrutinise the development bank’s business plan. Of course, Members must be able to ensure that businesses are fully supported through the proposals and that the failings of Finance Wales are fully addressed. So, I would be grateful, Cabinet Secretary, if you could set out when you intend to publish the long-awaited business plan for the development bank.

In a written question to you in May, you responded that the final business plan would be submitted for approval by the Welsh Government ‘very shortly’. Has that now happened, and, if not, why has this process been subject to such a delay?

You also stated your intention for the development bank to increase direct lending to businesses, compared to what Finance Wales currently lends. Now, last week, in the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee, you said that the development bank

‘will be tasked with increasing investment levels from about £50 million…up to £80 million within five years.’

Can you just provide some clarification on where these additional funds are going to come from?

Also, Finance Wales has been unable to borrow funds as any borrowing would have to appear on the Welsh Government's balance sheet. Now, we know, from the recent experience of Circuit of Wales, that the same is true of guarantees. So, therefore, given the absence of a business plan, which would have no doubt resolved this question, I would appreciate clarification as to whether the development bank will be able to provide guarantees or borrow money itself.

Turning to the commercial function of the bank, can you confirm you expect the bank to support SMEs in Wales with lending rates of between 4 and 12 per cent, and outline why you believe the proposed ratio of public-private financing to support Welsh SMEs is the optimum ratio to promote business growth, manage risk, and ensure taxpayer value? Are you also confident that the proposed hybrid model for the bank will prove adequate in addressing SME market failure and ensuring a significant increase in the provision of new capital to Welsh SMEs and address the funding gap?

Turning to the future of the bank, can you also outline how the Welsh Government’s ongoing work with the industrial strategy has influenced the creation of the bank’s latest plan, and what steps have you taken to date to ensure that the bank will be equipped with the commercial expertise necessary to ensure its proper future development?

Finally, turning to the location of the bank—I’ve heard what you’ve said today—how many members of the bank’s executive team do you expect to be based full time in the north Wales head office? What is your assessment of the number of full-time finance Wales staff who will relocate to north Wales following the launch of the development bank? And are you confident that the bank’s remit consists of a genuine commitment to relocating the administrative functions out of Cardiff and to bring finance close to other regions of Wales?

Can I thank the Member for his questions and begin with that very last point, the importance of ensuring that the development bank of Wales is a bank for the whole of Wales? In terms of the headquarters, the number of staff who will be located at the headquarters will amount to 50 within the next two years. We anticipate starting with 20, which will include senior management figures, but a location strategy is being developed at the moment by Finance Wales. That will be available in August and will provide details of the exact roles that will be offered at the headquarters from the outset and the proposals for increasing staff numbers.

It’s been very clear that Finance Wales expects, during the process of evolving into the development bank, not only to have existing staff in north Wales but also to make sure that, as it develops new funds and new opportunities, any additional staff resources are allocated to the new headquarters. But I’m keen to ensure, and I know that Finance Wales are with their business plan—and I’ll come on to the business case, rather, in a second—I know that they are very keen to ensure that all of Wales is given easy access, physical access, to development bank advice and support, and so a piece of work is taking place at the moment with Business Wales looking at how they can ensure that they exploit mutual interests and, potentially, how they could co-locate services, because it’s our view that, regardless of whether you’re an individual trying to start a business or whether you’re an existing businessperson trying to grow a business, you should only have one port of call for the advice and support that you need. Therefore, it makes sense to be able to bring together Business Wales activities with the development bank and, likewise, to ensure that Welsh Government economic development functions as well are well aligned with Business Wales and the development bank.

In terms of the business case, as promised, I have asked Finance Wales to share their business case in a briefing publication that is going to be available this month, I am assured. So, that will be available to Members very soon.

In terms of the hybrid model that the Member raised, of course, the model was developed following two committee reports, the last in 2015, when the then Enterprise and Business Committee, very well chaired by your colleague Nick Ramsay, found that Finance Wales made a sound basis for developing into the development bank and that expertise should not be lost. Therefore, this model is one that is robust.

In terms of the ratio of levering in private investment, we believe that it is achievable—the 1.15:1 ratio is achievable and will contribute to that £1 billion target over five years. In terms of the additional resource that will be available, I’ve already announced today additional resource in the form of two funds, and also the development bank, over the course of its first five years, will be recycling much of the investment, and that in turn will ensure that, through the management fees, it will become a nil-cost operation to the public purse.

Russell George made a very important point about ensuring that there are adequate skills within the development bank from the outset. Now, I think we should all recognise that Finance Wales has undergone quite considerable change and, in terms of expanding its own skills base—it’s already got a good track record, a very successful track record, in attracting top-quality personnel to join its forces. During the past two years it’s acquired and attracted a number of highly experienced individuals, including to the posts of chairman, chief executive, and non-executive directors. And I do believe that, whilst we may be some distance from the centre of financial expertise, which is London, we will be able to tap into London financial houses, and I do believe that the development bank will be able to establish strong links that could be utilised to support Welsh micro, small, and medium-sized businesses.

I think another key development for Finance Wales has been the funds that it’s operated for customers across the border. It’s enabled Finance Wales to develop a strong reputation and to also acquire additional skills. So, I have the confidence in Finance Wales, in becoming the development bank of Wales, to have the experience and the skills and also the prestige to attract the best people in the sector and also to grow those skills from within.

In terms of guarantees, I think it’s an important point to make that—and this is a very significant point that the Member raises—our options for the future of the development bank of Wales will remain open and the purpose of the intelligence unit is to assess current and emerging trends to look at every and any barrier that exists that’s preventing micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises from growing and to devise ways of overcoming those barriers. And so, over the coming years, the development bank’s future could well evolve accordingly.

I was wondering if the Cabinet Secretary could just help us in explaining the arc of policy development here, because we had a couple of access to finance reviews—they were both over a period of six months—and many of their key recommendations you haven’t followed, and in fact you’ve done the opposite. You, for example, have allowed Finance Wales currently to operate investment funds in England. That was in direct contravention of the recommendation of the review team, and they specifically said that they didn’t feel Finance Wales was the right structure to take the development bank forward as well.

A particular area, venture capital, they touched on a lot. By its nature, it’s very high risk. Some would say it’s almost, in most cases, driven by greed. It doesn’t actually sit alongside a culture such as you would expect in a publicly owned development bank, which is necessarily rule-bound and somewhat more risk averse. Someone who has worked in the City described it to me today as having a motorcycle repair shop in a maternity ward. And the suggestion of the access to finance review was that, actually, that element—we have a significant problem in Wales in accessing venture capital—was effectively outsourced, so working with existing and new venture capital funds. It would be interesting to see, Cabinet Secretary, whether we are going down that route. He touched—I think that Russell George asked about borrowing. In your statement, you referred to learning from international examples—the Business Development Bank of Canada, Finnvera in Finland—those development banks do have the ability to borrow on their own account, so could you say a little bit more about whether the development bank will have that ability?

I was interested in what he said just at the end of his remarks there in terms of being open to future structures, because there are some interesting suggestions. If it’s a self-financing institution that we’re talking about, why not actually create, effectively, an independent public-purpose institution, which either through—I hesitate to suggest a guarantee, Cabinet Secretary, at this stage, or, as Gerry Holtham has suggested, possibly endowing the institution, which is then able to have the freedom to go on and work with possibly a greater sense of agility than would be the case currently?

Finally, just on the headquarters, I’m a little bit worried, Cabinet Secretary—. I loved the front page of ‘The Leader’ today, and it’s great to see new national institutions being created across the length and breadth of Wales, but it has to be real. You know, didn’t RBS pull this trick when they said their headquarters was in Edinburgh but, actually, most of the key decision makers were in London? Can he say more about the number of senior directors who will be based in the headquarters, if it’s not to be just a headquarters in name?

Can I thank the Member for his question? Again, I agree entirely, it can’t just be a brass plaque on a building in Wrexham, it must have a fully-functioning operation there, with senior managers, and this point has been made repeatedly to Finance Wales and it will be reflected in August, when the location strategy is published. I’ve been assured that there will be senior management there and that board meetings will also be held at the headquarters. I think it’s absolutely essential that all parts of Wales are given good, smooth, easy access to the support and facilities of the development bank, and the headquarters will be a key component of that, but, in addition, as I’ve already said, I think it’s important that we look at other ways of enabling customers to access the development bank support, and that could be through co-location with Welsh Government or Business Wales support units.

In terms of venture capital funds, this is a really interesting area of work, but I can say to the Member—and it was an interesting quote from his colleague in the City—when we sought competitive bids from fund management services there were actually instances where there were no other bidders except for Finance Wales. Now, the development bank of Wales business case states that investment management and support services for Welsh Government would be agreed on a case-by-case basis, depending on individual project requirements. So, this piece of work is ongoing. We will be able to review it.

And in terms of the question of borrowing, there are many queries that we have examined, many considerations that we’ve looked into—considered whether loan guarantees that are being offered through the Scottish growth fund and export guarantees could be opened up, crucial for post-Brexit Wales. We’ve looked at whether there’s an ability for the development bank to develop fractional-reserve banking, to become a deposit-taking institution. But, as I’ve said, the options for the bank are open and will be based on regular evaluations, annual remit letters, and, crucially, the work of the intelligence unit, which, as I said earlier, will examine exactly what those barriers are that micro, small and medium-sized enterprises face and how we can address them.

First of all, can I congratulate the Cabinet Secretary and the Welsh Government on their success in attracting both CAF and the world technology cluster to Newport? It is not only good news for Newport, but also for the whole of South Wales East. Unfortunately, of course, there has to be a ‘but’ somewhere along the way, and, in this instance, it is this: as laudable as it is to attract new industry into Wales, it is also equally important that all businesses already established in Wales have access to funding as and when and where necessary. Would the Cabinet Secretary inform the Chamber as to how he believes the development bank of Wales will better provide this service than the outgoing Finance Wales? And, as the Cabinet Secretary knows, I have several times raised concerns with regard to access to funding, particularly with regard to SMEs in the R&D sector. Can he promise us that the application processes for such funding will be simple and transparent, especially given the Welsh Government’s oft-stated emphasis on creating a robust, innovative sector in Wales?

Can I thank the Member for his questions, and also for congratulating us on the work undertaken to secure significant investment from CAF in my friend and colleague John Griffiths’s constituency? It’s going to be an important addition to our manufacturing base in Wales. For the first time, we’ll be building trains. It’s a very exciting project, and it’s also one that has enormous expansion potential. Also, the development of a world first, the compound semiconductor cluster, is something, again, that south-east Wales can be rightly proud of, and it’s based on the economy of the future, an element of the economy that will be at the forefront of the fourth industrial revolution—again, an exciting, proud achievement.

In terms of support for start-up companies, it’s going to be essential that Business Wales and the development bank work closely together in ensuring that the appropriate and accurate advice and support are available at every stage of the journey for a businessperson starting up or for a businessperson who’s already operating a micro, small or medium-sized enterprise. For that reason, there will have to be alignment and I’ve asked senior officials from both Business Wales and Finance Wales to conduct a rapid piece of work looking at how best we can align the work and functions of both.

In addition, as I outlined—and I will follow up today’s oral statement with a letter to Members detailing each of the funds—additional resource has been made available to microbusinesses. It’s tripled in value in recent years. It will continue to provide opportunities that, prior to Finance Wales operating the microbusiness support functions, were difficult to obtain from commercial banks. I do also believe that the development bank, with a digital strategy, will ensure that the gateway services that it operates vis-à-vis Business Wales will be clear, transparent and simple in their function. Business Wales already have a very strong, well-established platform that the development bank of Wales will be able to utilise.

Cabinet Secretary, it’s good to see progress being made on the establishment of the development bank for Wales, and it comes as no surprise to colleagues here that I wholeheartedly welcome the location of the bank in north Wales. As my colleague over there said, it has fanfare on the front page of ‘Wrexham Leader’ today, but it also features prominently in the ‘Flintshire Leader’, I think showing the significance of it cross-county and to the region as a whole. Whilst I obviously recognise the need for this bank to support, as it should, businesses the length and breadth of the country, I just want to focus briefly on what you say in your statement about the bank’s aim to grow 50 jobs. On that, whilst I recognise that people being recruited into those roles need to have the right skills for the bank to be successful, I’d be keen to see how that could actually offer opportunities for people in the region itself, as I’m keen to see that the jobs brought by devolution, particularly the institutions of devolution as we progress, actually offer opportunity across Wales. So, if the skills aren’t there in the region already, is there any opportunity in the future to look at how apprenticeships could be offered as well?

My final point is that, in your evidence to a recent Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee session, I think you touched on the potential opportunities for co-location for Business Wales with Finance Wales in the development bank. I was wondering if you are able to expand on this—how, actually, it could be not just co-location but co-working, which wouldn’t only help people to access the support out there in terms of financial support but actually increase awareness of the opportunity for advice and guidance that’s there. It was really brought home to me, particularly in a recent visit with you to Hafod brewery in my constituency, that people on the ground aren’t really aware of what support is out there for them and I think that perhaps better co-working might help us to reach that aim of making sure that more people are able to benefit effectively from the services.

I think the Member is absolutely right that a lot of small businesses are either unaware of the support that is available and has been available for some years or, alternatively, see so many offerings of support that it’s difficult to see the wood for the trees. The aim with bringing Business Wales and the development bank closer together is to ensure that there is clarity of direction for any businessperson to go in order to access funding and support of any kind and that both would be able to signpost to each other and, indeed, to other services in the public, private or third sectors accordingly. My view is that we should, whenever and wherever possible, decentralise and de-concentrate investment and, for that reason, I wish to see the development bank have a strong presence not just in north Wales but right across Wales. Indeed, rural communities often have a high concentration of microbusinesses that struggle to access finance from high-street banks. So, if anything, the development bank of Wales will be more relevant to some rural communities than some of our urban communities, and for that reason, I think it’s absolutely essential that the development bank is accessible to businesspeople in our more rural areas.

And in terms of the skills base that already exists in north Wales, I’m confident that based on a strong and growing financial and professional services sector in the Wrexham area, and, indeed, in other parts of north Wales—. There is also a very strong digital sector that is flourishing. I was recently in Janet Finch-Saunders’s constituency visiting a small business unit concentrating on fintech, and it was based out of a church. A fascinating place—a number of small businesses growing fast, all needing access to this sort of support. And, so, in places like Aberconwy, I’m in no doubt that the development bank will prove very popular. But the skills base is already there. What I’m keen to ensure is that, as those additional jobs are developed for the headquarters, the right people are available. Many people who live in Wales at the moment travel across the border to access work in the financial services sector, and the presence of the development bank headquarters in Wales may offer them an opportunity to stay in Wales. But, equally, it will be important for further and higher education to work with the regional skills partnership officers in identifying all opportunities within the development bank across the region.

And in terms of the regional approach, I’m particularly pleased that the development bank and the existing functions of Business Wales will enable each region to develop quite a distinctive approach in terms of how the services respond to customers.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.

We turn now to item 8—the debate on the general principles of the abolition of the Right to Buy and Associated Rights (Wales) Bill. And I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children to move the motion—Carl Sargaent.

Thank you, Llywydd. I move the motion today. I’m pleased to open this debate on the general principles of the Abolition of the Right to Buy and Associated Rights (Wales) Bill. I introduced the Bill last March, and it aims to protect the supply of social housing from further erosion in the face of a high level of demand and shortage of supply. As well as abolishing the right to buy and right to acquire, the Bill will encourage social landlords to invest in new social housing, safe in the knowledge that it won’t be at risk of having to be sold after a few years.

Llywydd, the Bill has a solid evidence base. Between 1981 and 2016, over 139,000 local authority and housing association homes were sold under these schemes. Many properties have ended up in the private rented sector, creating higher costs for tenants, and where housing benefit is claimed, that cost can add more to the public purse. While the right to buy has been suspended in some parts of Wales, significant housing pressures still continue across the country, and the Bill abolishes the rights across Wales, meaning that social housing will be protected throughout the country. The Bill was developed following consultation on the White Paper of 2015, which showed clear support for the aims of this Bill.

The Bill will abolish the right to buy, preserved right to buy and right to acquire for social housing tenants, at least one year after Royal Assent. But to encourage investment in new homes, the right will end for homes that are new to the social housing stock, and therefore have no existing tenants, two months after Royal Assent. The Bill includes provisions to ensure that tenants are fully informed, in a timely manner, of the effects of the Bill, and the Bill has been considered by members of the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee, the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee and the Finance Committee, and I’m grateful to those three Chairs, John Griffiths, Huw Irranca-Davies and Simon Thomas, and all the Members for the thoughtful scrutiny. I’d also like to place on record my thanks to stakeholders for the evidence that has contributed to the robust report provided to me. Inevitably, some stakeholders do not agree with every aspect, but I believe all recognise the need to safeguard our social housing stock for future generations.

I’m carefully considering the committees’ recommendations, with a view to responding positively to as many of those as possible, either through Government amendments, or by other means, such as guidance. I share the desire expressed by the ELGC committee to ensure the provision of clear and appropriate information to tenants about abolition. If the general principles of the Bill are agreed today, I intend to launch a consultation on the information document to tenants tomorrow. A series of tenant engagement events will form a key element of the consultation. They will be hosted by the Tenant Participation Advisory Service Cymru to gauge the views of tenants on the information, and they will feed the results back to us. I’m grateful to TPAS for their assistance in this matter.

I also intend to consult the financial inclusion steering group of the National Advice Network about the financial aspects of the right to buy and the information provided to tenants also. In addition to providing a copy of the information document to social landlords, the ELGC committee recommends an amendment to require Welsh Ministers to provide other relevant organisations with a copy of the document when it’s issued to social landlords. We do intend to send the document to a wide range of stakeholders, but I consider the recommendation would improve the Bill and I propose to bring forward an amendment at Stage 2 following the recommendations of committee.

The committee also recommended an amendment to specify the information that qualifying landlords must provide to all their relevant tenants, such as the dates on which restrictions on the new homes and the full abolition will take place. I also accept the committee’s recommendation, and I recognise concern that tenants may be less well informed than others, and I intend to bring forward that amendment at Stage 2 to specify the minimum information about the effects of the Bill that all social landlords must provide to tenants.

Finally, Llywydd, the committee recommends an amendment to ensure that qualifying landlords communicate the required information to tenants in the most appropriate and accessible ways to meet their varying needs. I appreciate the committee’s concern that the information-for-tenants document should be made available to tenants in whatever way is necessary to meet their needs and I wholeheartedly agree with the principle behind this recommendation. However, I do not consider it necessary to make provision in the Bill, as landlords are already very effective in engaging with their tenants. In line with the principle behind the recommendation, therefore, as part of the consultation on the information to be sent to tenants, I will also consult on the best practice for tenant engagement and will also provide advice to social landlords on disseminating that information.

The committee’s other recommendations do not require amendments to the Bill, Llywydd. They recommend that I should work with the relevant advice services to monitor and review the impact of the Bill on the demand for services, with a view to providing additional financial support ahead of abolition if the need arises. We will work with advice services and monitor the impact of the Bill, and I do not anticipate the need for extra resources, but I’m happy to keep this under review.

I also welcome the report from the CLA committee. The committee has asked that I explain the reasoning behind the Bill amending existing UK legislation as opposed to the consolidation of a freestanding Bill. Llywydd, if I may take a moment to explain, the Bill abolishes the right to buy that was established in England and Wales by legislation dating back to 1985. In order to do this, it has to amend existing England-and-Wales legislation insofar as it applies to Wales. To combine these necessary amendments with freestanding independent provision, the Bill would require very extensive restatement of the law relating to the right to buy for a temporary period only. In the Bill—whose whole purpose is to abolish the right rather than to make provision about that—that’s why we’ve moved in that direction. The Welsh Government remains committed to promoting the accessibility and coherence of bilingual Welsh law. In many cases, this will result in consolidation of existing legislation. A general housing law consolidation project would not, however, be an appropriate addition to the Bill, which is making substantive provision about the narrow and discrete area of just housing law on this particular issue. Consolidation of housing law would go well beyond this and needs to be considered on its own merits.

Other recommendations concern the provision of information by the Welsh Ministers to landlords, and the committee recommends amendments are made to the duty of the Welsh Ministers to take all reasonable steps to provide landlords in Wales with the information. Llywydd, while I note the recommendation of the CLA committee, these provisions were also considered by the ELGC committee, who were content with the current arrangements in the Bill. So, I do not propose to bring forward an amendment on this matter on the basis of the recommendations of the ELGC policy committee.

The other two recommendations from the CLA committee for amendments relate to quite technical aspects concerning the detailed drafting of the Bill, and I’ll be seeking further advice on the technical matters ahead of Stage 2, and I will give the committees and the Senedd the opportunity to scrutinise that.

Llywydd, finally, I’m grateful for the scrutiny and support of the Finance Committee. I’m pleased that they are content with the modelling in the RIA, and their view that the burden the Bill could place on the sector would not be too onerous. I formally move.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, and thank you for the promotion as well.

Galwaf nawr ar Gadeirydd y Pwyllgor Cydraddoldeb, Llywodraeth Leol a Chymunedau, John Griffiths.

Diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd. I’m very pleased to be able to contribute to today’s debate as Chair of the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee, and I’d like to thank all those who provided evidence to us to help inform our work—in particular, tenants across Wales who took time out to attend our focus group events. I would like to thank the committee for their work on the Bill and to acknowledge their willingness to work together, even when we had quite differing views on important matters relating to the substance of the Bill.

Cadeirydd, our consideration of the Bill focused on testing whether the general principles will deliver the policy aims to protect the supply of social housing from further erosion in the face of a high level of demand and a supply shortage. In our scrutiny, we have considered each of the provisions in detail. In doing this, we have touched on broader issues, including housing supply and the impact of the Housing (Wales) Measure 2011. This Measure was a stepping stone to this legislation, and enabled local authorities to apply to suspend the right to buy and the right to acquire in areas of high housing pressure.

Of course, the right to buy is one of the most well-known public policies, and, since its introduction in the early 1980s, around 135,000, 136,000 local authority homes in Wales have been sold under the scheme. It has been both well used and controversial. In Wales, the policy focus in recent years has been to protect the social housing stock, firstly by reducing the level of discount available, and by offering local authorities the opportunity to apply to suspend the schemes in areas of significant housing pressure. This Bill, then, is the culmination of this approach.

We received strong evidence that indicated that all available policy levers should be used to address the significant housing pressures faced in communities across Wales. We know that there is a high demand for social housing and that most social housing providers could fill each of their properties many times over. We acknowledge that removing the right to buy and the right to acquire is not the only tool at the Welsh Government’s disposal, nor is it the main one in terms of increasing housing supply. However, it will make sure that existing and new social housing is maintained in the sector and can be used for its intended purpose: providing affordable homes for those in greatest need.

We understand that tenants will lose a right that they have been able to exercise for over 30 years, but we agree with the Welsh Government that, without abolishing the rights, there is a risk that these schemes will continue to undermine efforts by the social housing sector to increase the supply of affordable housing. Although the right to buy and right to acquire will be abolished, there are now other initiatives to help people into home ownership, including Help to Buy. Whilst some members of the committee had specific concerns about tenants in suspended areas not having a further opportunity to buy their home, the committee came to the majority view to recommend that the Assembly agrees the general principles of the Bill. While supporting those general principles, we have, however, made recommendations that we believe will improve the Bill, and I turn to these areas now.

All of our recommendations look to strengthen those provisions in section 8. These place a duty on Welsh Ministers to publish information to help tenants understand the effect of the Bill before abolition is introduced. It is intended that this information will help tenants to make informed decisions about their options. Cadeirydd, this, of course, is a significant policy change, which overturns that well-known and long-lasting policy of over 30 years. It is, therefore, vital that the Welsh Government takes the lead in making sure that those who may be affected by the change may understand the impact it could have on them, and make decisions about whether they wish to exercise their right to buy or acquire before it is lost permanently.

In recommendation 2, then, we call for the Bill to be amended to require Welsh Ministers to provide the information document to relevant organisations such as advice services and groups representing tenants. We also believe that it is important that tenants across Wales receive consistent information. To this end, in recommendation 3, we call for the Welsh Government to amend the Bill to specify the information that qualifying landlords must provide to tenants. Such information should include the dates on which restrictions and full abolition will come into force.

It is essential that tenants across Wales receive consistent information to ensure that where they live doesn’t affect the amount and quality of information they receive. There should not be a postcode lottery. Closely linked to this, we also recommend that the Welsh Government makes provision in the Bill to ensure that landlords communicate the changes in the most accessible and appropriate way. We have clear evidence to show that this is something that social landlords are good at, but, by amending the Bill as we suggest, we believe that this will ensure consistency across the sector. It will also minimise the risk of any specific groups of tenants not having the information to make informed decisions.

Cadeirydd, I’m grateful for the Cabinet Secretary addressing these issues around information in the Chamber today. I have heard, and Members generally will have heard what the Cabinet Secretary had to say. It goes some way, I believe, to addressing the concerns of the committee, but, obviously, the recommendations we make are as I have outlined them.

Clearly, Cadeirydd, in terms of the advice that will be made available, the importance of tenants having access to clear and impartial advice as to whether to exercise their right to buy or acquire is vital. We were not persuaded of the need for additional advice services, but we do feel it is important that the Cabinet Secretary monitors the impact of the Bill on the demand for existing advice services and considers providing additional support, if necessary. Again, I’m pleased that that Cabinet Secretary addressed those issues in his opening speech today, Cadeirydd, and we will all, I think, reflect on how that’s taken forward in due course.

Cadeirydd, we welcomed the opportunity to review the draft information for tenants, which was provided by the Cabinet Secretary during our scrutiny, which was very useful. By doing this, we were able to share it with stakeholders and get their views on it, and our final recommendation suggests this should be taken further by the Welsh Government and the information document tested with tenants to ensure that it is fully fit for purpose.

Cadeirydd, I can see that my time has elapsed, so, in conclusion, Cadeirydd, we recognise the importance of this recommendation. We were very pleased to contribute to the legislative proposals and we hope that our work will improve the eventual Act. Diolch yn fawr.

Diolch yn fawr. Galwaf ar Gadeirydd y Pwyllgor Cyllid, Simon Thomas.

Diolch, Cadeirydd, ac mae’n bleser gen i siarad ar ran y Pwyllgor Cyllid yn fyr iawn, jest i amlinellu goblygiadau ariannol y Bil Diddymu'r Hawl i Brynu a Hawliau Cysylltiedig (Cymru).

Bydd y Pwyllgor Cyllid am dynnu sylw’r Cynulliad yn benodol at yr amrywiaeth eang yn y ffigurau yn yr asesiad effaith rheoleiddiol—yr RIA—wrth amcangyfrif y costau neu’r manteision posibl a allai godi o weithredu darpariaethau’r Bil. Mae’r ffigurau a ddarperir yn amrywio o fudd posibl o £57.4 miliwn i gost bosibl o £75.3 miliwn. Byddai hwn, fel arfer yn achosi pryder, mae’n siŵr, ond eglurodd Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet mai ansicrwydd wrth ddarogan nifer y gwerthiannau eiddo oedd y rheswm am yr amrywiad. Rhoddodd fanylion am y dull modelu a ddefnyddiwyd gan Lywodraeth Cymru i fesur yr effaith ariannol ar landlordiaid cymdeithasol, ac roedd hyn yn fodd o ddarparu sicrwydd i’r pwyllgor.

Mae rhai rhanddeiliaid wedi lleisio pryder y gallai cynnydd o ran ceisiadau gan denantiaid cymwys i arfer eu hawl i brynu arwain at gynnydd yn y llwyth gwaith yn y cyfnod o flwyddyn yn dilyn y Cydsyniad Brenhinol. Credwn fod yn rhaid pwyso’r pryder hwn yn erbyn honiad Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet bod llawer o gefnogaeth i’r Bil yn y sector tai—cefnogaeth sydd wedi ei atseinio gan John Griffiths, Cadeirydd y pwyllgor, sydd newydd adrodd.

Yn olaf, felly, hoffwn ailadrodd mater y mae’r Pwyllgor Cyllid hwn, a’r Pwyllgor Cyllid blaenorol hefyd, wedi’i godi sawl gwaith yn ymwneud â chostau gweithredu darpariaethau is-ddeddfwriaeth. Yn achos y Bil hwn, mae Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet wedi ein sicrhau bod y costau y gellir eu rhagweld wedi cael eu hystyried yn llawn. Diolch.

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

Diolch, Gadeirydd. We reported on this Bill on 7 July, and we made five recommendations to the Cabinet Secretary. In general, we were satisfied with the balance struck between what is on the face of the Bill and what is left to subordinate legislation, and also that human rights are engaged as set out in the explanatory memorandum and the Cabinet Secretary’s evidence to us.

However, we did suggest that we would have liked to have received a more thorough explanation as to why the Cabinet Secretary chose to introduce a Bill that amends existing UK legislation, rather than one that is consolidated and freestanding. So, I’m actually very grateful today, and the committee is very grateful, for him setting out his views and further clarification on the record here today in the Chamber. That was very helpful indeed—and also for his comments on bilingual Welsh law, as well as the future of consolidated legislation.

We made two recommendations in relation to section 8 of the Bill. Firstly, it has been a long-standing view of the committee that for law to be effective, citizens must know what is expected of them. So, we therefore welcome the requirement set out on the face of the Bill to prepare and publish an information document aimed at assisting tenants in understanding the effects of this Bill. However, we note that the Bill requires the Welsh Ministers to take ‘all reasonable steps’ to provide every qualifying landlord with a copy of this document. We did not consider that that went far enough, so we therefore recommended that the Cabinet Secretary should table an amendment at Stage 2 to place an absolute duty on the Welsh Ministers to provide all qualifying landlords in Wales with the information document.

Now, we recognise the challenges in accessing landlords based outside of Wales, and recommendation 3 of our report reflects that position. In the Cabinet Secretary’s remarks today, he noted in those remarks that the ELGC committee considered this matter too, and were content on the shape of the Bill proposals as they stand. So, we would simply ask the Minister whether, therefore, he will look again at this as Stage 2 approaches to see if it is unduly onerous and unduly complicated and, if not, perhaps he would give further consideration to our recommendation there.

We made two recommendations also in relation to section 9 of the Bill about regulation-making powers. The first of these seeks to reduce the breadth of power, and the second is aimed at improving clarity. Now, I note and I welcome the Cabinet Secretary’s comments in regard to those two recommendations today that he will be seeking further evidence ahead of Stage 2 of the Bill, and I’m sure members of the committee and Members of the house here will duly return to these matters at that stage. And I thank my committee members and our team for their scrutiny of this Bill.

Chair, we need to build more homes—many more homes. This is the only way to meet the housing crisis. Demand for housing has outstripped supply in Wales, as across the UK, for many years. The extra requirement for housing is mainly due to the increase in the number of households, especially one-person households, but also other factors such as the increase in the overall population. The sustained attack on the right to buy is a marginal diversion from the main issue—a lack of house building. The abolition will remove a vital opportunity for social housing tenants to become home owners. It has been a massively popular policy—perhaps the most acclaimed of the twentieth century.

Instead of addressing housing needs through appropriate house building rates, the Welsh Government has set a target of 20,000 additional affordable homes in the current Assembly—welcome, but insufficient. Since 2004, successive Welsh Governments—always involving Labour, one involving Plaid—have been warned of the impending housing crisis, unless house building was dramatically increased.

Professor Holmans’s report, which was commissioned by the Welsh Government—I give it credit for that—and is entitled ‘Future Need and Demand for Housing in Wales’ estimated that Wales needs up to 240,000 new housing units, or 12,000 annually, between 2011 and 2031, under what is called the alternative projection. This means that, even if the Welsh Government succeeds in meeting its own targets, in 2031 Wales will have a shortfall of some 66,000 homes, or a town the size of Merthyr.

But the worst aspect is that the Welsh Government is not even meeting their inadequate targets. The new housing completion rate consistently falls short of the target set by the Welsh Government, with just 6,900 homes completed in 2015-16, as opposed to the target of 8,700. The last time the Welsh Government achieved its own housing target was in 2007-08. If the Welsh Government really wants to tackle this housing crisis, they need to stop wasting time on peripheral factors such as abolishing the right to buy, and need to adopt the alternative projection that was put forward by Professor Holmans. In 2015, the Federation of Master Builders argued that Wales needs 14,000 more homes a year to keep up with demand. Whatever projection you take, it is quite clear that the Welsh Government is falling very, very far behind anything like an adequate rate of house building.

As the Minister said, between 1981 and 2016 139,000 homes have been sold under the right to buy. And you have to say it’s met its intended purpose—139,000 families have been supported into home ownership, and that’s something that the Welsh Conservative Party warmly welcomes. It’s however the case that, in recent years, the sale of social housing stock has been at very low levels, therefore having a marginal impact on overall housing availability. The impact is only felt at all because the Welsh Government is not building enough homes—that’s the root problem. And, indeed, the Welsh Government’s own research, whilst developing this legislation, found that, and I quote,

‘The Right to Buy has had very little or no impact on the ability of local authorities to invest in new social housing over the last ten years…. Other factors, such as the economy and the availability of land and funding appear to carry greater influence.’

I only wish you listened to you own expert advisers in this respect and tackled these problems, because that is obviously what we need to do.

Now, I have to say, even the most successful policies should be reviewed from time to time. And if the Welsh Government were to propose a reform of the right to buy, then we would engage constructively with that, because there are some arguments that can be made for that sort of policy. But—

Will you take an intervention?

Briefly, yes.

Do you accept that there will always be a need for social housing stock, and are you ideologically opposed to social housing?

Not only do I accept there should always be social housing stock, I think for very many people by far the best option for them is social housing, and we should meet that demand, and build more social homes. That’s what we need to do. And I just wish that the Government had brought forward policies on that basis, to meet the undoubted crisis that we are in in general on house building.

I now have to conclude, as time is running short. Regrettably, Chair, the Welsh Conservative Party is in a minority on this subject. I’m enough of a realist to acknowledge that. So, assuming that this motion will pass—not with our help—we will then, as a party, move to the next stage and seek to constructively amend the Bill. Our main priority will be to strike the correct balance between the rights of tenants to a reasonable transition period—all tenants—and, if it’s the will of the Assembly, an end to the right to buy. That will be our main focus.

Chair, can I just say finally—

Yes, could you conclude, please?

I’ll take this opportunity to thank the chair of the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee, John Griffiths. I did say that I was the minority voice, but I do thank you, John, for the exemplary way you chaired the committee and ensured that I had every opportunity to advance the concerns I had in the preparation of the report. Thank you.

Plaid Cymru will support proceeding with this legislation today. It’s about time that it happened. It puts right a historic error that has contributed to an inadequate supply of social housing in Wales.

Every week I, like many of you, have people coming to my surgery with housing problems—people living in inappropriate social housing, or they live with relatives, are about to become homeless, or they can’t find social housing and they don’t have enough points to move up the waiting list. This is something that happens on a weekly basis.

The committee report does reflect general agreement on the principles, apart from the clear dissent of the Conservative Member. My colleague Jocelyn Davies did a great deal of work in this area as Minister for housing, and I praise her for establishing the processes that have enabled local authorities to suspend the right to buy. In a way, this legislation simply confirms that good practice.

Just a few things on the right to buy: it didn’t make much financial sense because it was a subsidy for those who had some money behind them and happened to be in the right place at the right time. It didn’t benefit people in blocks of flats in areas that weren’t attractive, who couldn’t get mortgages. It did mean a reduction in the social housing stock, increasing the problems of overcrowding and homelessness as a result. In some cases, it did create profits for buy-to-let landlords, creating poorer housing conditions, more often than not.

So, it is about time that we made progress in this area, and we do need the investment, too. I agree with what David Melding has said—we do need that investment also, which will bring forward a new wave of social housing. This legislation alone won’t solve the problem of a shortage of supply of social housing, but unlike the Conservatives we do believe that it is part of the jigsaw. It’s not a peripheral issue; it’s part of the solution, and one that should lead to an increase in investment and more social housing being available.

Having passed this Bill, there will be some people in social housing who would still want to purchase their own homes, and I have some sympathy with that, of course. So along with this legislation we need to develop shared equity options and rent-to-buy schemes—schemes that housing associations have made use of in the past. We should also seek alternative ways of helping people to move towards owning their own homes, if that is their desire.

Finally, there is a risk as the deadline approaches—a risk that we will see some organisations offering funds to people to buy their homes with a view to making a quick profit. Some people have described this as something that needs to be avoided specifically. It was discussed in committee and we did receive some evidence to that end. I do think that this deserves further consideration and further research, and we should consider providing independent financial advice to those who need it.

I’m also concerned that there could be a sudden increase in the number of people wanting to purchase their homes before this Bill is enacted, reducing the stock further—this spike that some have mentioned. I would like to see the Government giving greater consideration to that aspect, too. Thank you.

The Welsh Government’s abolition of the right to buy Bill seeks to address the issue of the social housing stock, and this certainly is a serious issue, but of course we have to find the most effective means of addressing the problem.

There are various aspects to the housing crisis. Abolishing the right to buy is one way of looking at the problem, but it is only a small part of the overall picture. There are only insignificant numbers of right-to-buy sales being transacted now, in comparison to 20 or 30 years ago. We in UKIP accept that the right to buy has been problematic in some ways. It was wrong that the proceeds of council house sales were not allowed to flow back into the pot of money allowing new council houses to be built. We would advocate a policy whereby all future revenue from right-to-buy sales is ploughed back into social housing. We do accept the evidence that this would, in itself, in no way facilitate a like-for-like replacement of one social housing property sold for another one built. This is not economically feasible, as various witnesses asserted during the inquiry at the committee stage.

But there are a variety of tools available to the Welsh Government to stimulate further house building in Wales. In UKIP, we advocate the construction of more factory-built modular homes, which could be much more affordable than conventionally built houses. And the Welsh Government’s own finance Minister, Mark Drakeford, recently alluded to the problem of land banking, whereby major property developers hold considerable land assets, but not do build on them for many years. With the advent of the Welsh Government’s new tax powers, ways could be devised—again, as Mark Drakeford has suggested—in which to prod the developers into building. We think this could open up a new vista of opportunity.

When the Minister brought his proposed legislation to the ELGC committee, I was broadly sympathetic to the objectives, and I listened to the evidence. I’ve taken the Government’s case back to the UKIP group to test out the propositions, and to subject them to robust discussion and debate. Ultimately, the group took a decisive view that removing the right to buy was too strong an impediment to the aspiration of property ownership. Therefore, as a group, we are not supporting the general principle of the Bill, and we would urge the Minister to look at the other levers he now has available to him to allow for much higher levels of house building in Wales than we’ve seen in recent years.

I acknowledge that the right to buy has been very important for many, many families, particularly those who have a child with a disability and who worry about what’s going to happen to that person when they die. Enabling them to leave them their home does provide some security for that individual who may be vulnerable and unable to earn their own living. So, I’m not ideologically opposed to the right to buy, but I think that the combination of the right to buy and the failure to replace the housing stock has led to a perfect storm. And that is why we need to take this measure.

Because there wouldn’t have been a problem if the receipts from the right to buy had been ploughed back by the Treasury into local authorities to enable them to replace the stock, obviously including the discount, which was pretty substantial at the very beginning, and had it also been accompanied by the building of private houses as well, but the opposite was the case: the private house builders have been sitting on their hands and simply failing to build the quality, affordable new homes that people need. This, in particular, for young people has meant an absolute storm. Because if you don’t have a child you’re not eligible for social housing, they are pushed into the private rented sector and it is so overpriced that they are simply unable to save the money to get a deposit. People put up with this while they don’t have children, particularly students—they put up with terrible housing conditions—because they think, ‘Well, this is temporary and I’ll be moving on next year’, but once you start having children it’s absolutely desperate, because it means that your children can never establish the security of being able to continue to go to the same school. They can be moved on year after year, and they have absolutely no security of tenure.

So, I absolutely agree that we need to build a great deal more homes, but I know that the Cabinet Secretary is having huge difficulty achieving the challenging targets that have already been set. If, David Melding, you had access to the magic money tree that Theresa May has, then maybe we could all be building more homes, and that is what we would like to do—both private and social housing.

I just want to finally say that, if we hadn’t been planning to do this measure we would certainly have needed to do so after the Grenfell fire because I think the Grenfell fire changes everything. I think that the behaviour of many local authorities in London who have been exporting the poor at a rate that is extraordinary, particularly those local authorities who decided to demolish housing estates to make way for new private sector developments, is completely unacceptable and will need to be put a stop to. I confidently predict that all local authorities will have an obligation to plan for and meet the social housing needs of their populations. But, for now, we couldn’t, I don’t think, go on allowing stock to fall outside the social sector at almost the same rate at which we plan to build. Therefore, it was completely correct—

Will the Member give way? The figures are—. Even if the Minister hopes to build getting on for 3,500 to 4,000 social homes a year, there are barely 400 sold at the moment, so there is a big difference.

Okay. Well, I accept that, now, with the reduction in the discount, that is less. But the fact is that social housing organisations are telling us that they are very reluctant to build new social housing if they think it’s then going to be used to exercise the right to buy, and that is what is holding them back. We need to give them that certainty that that is not what is going to happen. If the situation changes and there’s a huge amount more money coming into local authorities to build social housing, then we can completely revisit this but, at the moment, it isn’t possible to do this and we absolutely have to build more homes of all types, and therefore I think this measure is entirely appropriate.

The explanatory memorandum to this Bill begins:

‘The Welsh Government is committed to doing all it can to help people meet their housing needs….This Bill…recognises the importance of safe, secure and affordable homes as being part of the fabric of people’s lives and of strong communities.’

A bit, sadly, of a tragic and sick joke. By the time the Conservatives left Government in 1997, right-to-buy sales in Wales were being replaced on an almost like-for-like basis, but, during the first three Assembly terms, Welsh Government figures show that Welsh Government—Labour Welsh Government—cut the number of new social homes by over 70 per cent, as waiting lists mushroomed, and the 2012 UK housing review said it was the Welsh Government itself that gave housing lower priority in its overall budgets. By the time of the second Assembly, the Homes for Wales campaign was warning that there would be a housing crisis. It was dismissed by the Welsh Government. As the opening paragraph of the October 2014 Homes for All Cymru manifesto states, ‘There is a housing crisis’; a crisis caused by Labour’s failure to build new affordable homes since 1999, not the right to buy.

Welsh Labour’s intention to abolish the right to buy in Wales would deny the prospect of home ownership to tenants and miss another opportunity to increase affordable housing supply and start tackling that housing supply crisis. The tenant’s right to buy has been the most effective low-cost home ownership scheme ever, but it did not herald an end to social housing supply, but a switch to not-for-profit housing associations as main providers, because they could access greater finance and build more homes focused on outcomes. There are of course restrictions on purchase. A tenant must have been a resident and paying rent for a minimum of five years and the size of discount is determined by the length of tenancy. If tenants sell early, they have to repay discount. Of course, most don’t. Independent research showed that two thirds of tenants who purchased were still resident two decades or more afterwards. Other independent research has shown that tenants in local authority properties are, on average, going to be remaining in them for a further 15 years or more, showing that the impact on supply of abolishing right to buy would be absolutely negligible.

The proposed scrapping of the right to buy does nothing to create more homes or increase the number of households with their own front door. As the Welsh Affairs Committee found some years ago, the suspension of the right to buy would not in itself result in an increase in the supply of affordable housing.

By contrast, the Welsh Conservatives did set out proposals to reform right to buy, investing the proceeds of sales in new social housing, thereby increasing affordable housing supply and helping to tackle Labour’s housing supply crisis, reflecting right-to-buy policy in England, where the UK Government after 2010 committed to reinvest, for the first time ever, the additional receipts from right-to-buy sales in new affordable rented housing. If a council fails to spend the receipts there within three years, they’re required to return the unspent money to Government, with interest.

Independent research presented to an Assembly committee some years ago showed us that, for each three sales, the money released could generate two new homes for two new households. By comparison, abolition will, by itself, not build a single additional home, won’t increase supply, and won’t therefore improve affordability. Between 2010 and 2015, more than twice as much council housing was built in England than in all 13 years combined of the last Labour Government at UK level, when English waiting lists nearly doubled as the number of social homes for rent there was cut by 421,000. The explanatory—

Will you take an intervention?

Briefly.

Thank you. I thank you for taking the intervention. Do you agree with the House of Commons research library that the Conservative Government has built the fewest number of houses in England and Wales since Baldwin?

Wales has been Labour since 1999, nothing to do with England, and England numbers have gone up since Labour left power. That’s what the statistics say. You created the crisis. You live with it. You do something about it.

The explanatory memorandum to this Bill states that between 2011-12 and 2015-16, a total of 11,508 additional housing units were built, but this has been inflated by the inclusion of low-cost home ownership and intermediate rent homes. But Welsh Government figures also show that in the same time period, the total number of dwellings completed in Wales was 29,939, compared with 47,598 between 1992-93 and 1996-7, the last five years in which a Conservative Government was responsible for housing in Wales.

Welsh Government figures also reveal that only 4,347 dwellings were completed by registered social landlords and councils in Wales between 2011-12 and 2015-16, compared with 13,558 during the last five years when a Conservative Government was responsible for housing in Wales. This is why Wales has an affordable supply crisis, and why this cynical Bill is simply an ideological smokescreen for Labour’s great housing betrayal. You may smile, Minister. You should be shaking your head in shame, because you caused this, and you sat there ignoring the warnings of crisis, and now you’re pretending the crisis was of somebody else’s creation. Well, you’re good at blaming other people. Isn’t it about time you started taking responsibility for the mess that you have made?

I think I’d like to congratulate some of the Labour AMs for doing their bit for the housing crisis, given that so many of them are landlords, and have an interest in more than one property. I find that slightly hypocritical, to be frank. [Interruption.]

Will you take an intervention before you go any further?

No, no. There are going to be AMs voting here—

If you throw it, you need to take it back.

Take what back?

Your insinuation.

I’m congratulating you all on doing your bit for the housing crisis by owning extra properties.

Will you just continue, Neil McEvoy?

Okay. I think, really, this is more of a PR stunt than anything else. I’m yet to hear of a valid response to, if a house is sold and the money is put back into the system and replaces the stock, what is wrong with that? I’ve not really heard an answer to that, because, I think, across the Chamber here, nobody agrees with reducing the social housing stock in Wales. One thing we’re all missing, also, is that there are thousands of long-term empty properties that should be renovated. We should be employing local builders to renovate those properties and house people quickly.

In terms of solutions, I think most public bodies in Wales are short on capital, but there are huge pension funds in every local authority, which should be harnessed for capital investment, with a scheme to provide social housing for rent and also, if people can afford it, to be bought. I think that’s a very valid proposal and would finance a hell of a lot of house building. Because, if you look at the private sector, and people investing pension funds, one area they will always invest in is housing. The asset accrues value and also there’s almost an immediate rate of return on the property.

So, I think, to come back to what I said earlier, what disturbs me about this is that—of course, I’m bound by the whip today, but what disturbs me about this is that there are people sat in this Chamber who don’t own one property, they’ve not got an interest in two, some have an interest in three, and they’re telling working-class people on our estates that they cannot be allowed to own their own property. Hypocrisy. Hypocrisy.

It’s a pleasure to follow two combative speakers in comparison with which I can be made to look moderate and consensual. [Laughter.] It’s a curiously retrogressive Bill, this, because one of the policies that made Labour unelectable in the 1980s was its determined opposition to the introduction of the right to buy. Of course, the numbers are very different now so possibly it may not have quite the same toxic effect on the Labour Party as their attitude did then. Also, I have a curious sense of déjà vu, because I had a part in persuading the Thatcher Government to include housing associations in the housing Bill of 1979, which gave to housing association tenants the same rights that were proposed for council tenants, and, for the same reasons as David Melding has outlined, a very good thing it was too in increasing the diversity of ownership in estates.

This is an ideological Bill because it’s always seemed rather absurd to me, in terms of social policy, that a Government should subsidise the bricks and mortar rather than those who need help with being able to afford a roof over their head. It’s, of course, an extremely expensive way for catering for a social need, actually to build houses as opposed to provide people with the means of paying rent.

The figures are unambiguous that this Bill is totally irrelevant to the solution to the housing crisis that we have in Wales. Just look at the figures. Local authorities sold under the right-to-buy provisions last year only 141 houses. Registered social landlords sold 133 under the right-to-acquire legislation; they sold voluntarily 299. So, the total number of houses in local authority ownership and RSL ownership that were sold under the right-to-buy legislation was only 274 in a housing stock of 1.4 million houses in the whole of Wales. So, clearly, this has no significance at all beyond an ideological one for the Labour Party, now reverting to type after 20 or 30 years. If we look at the stock figures, this is quite dramatic. Local authorities currently own 87,000 properties for rent. RSLs own 137,000. There are privately-rented houses in Wales—202,000. Owner occupation—nearly 1 million. And what we’re talking about here is 274 houses or flats that have been sold under the right-to-buy legislation in a year.

Will you take an intervention?

Yes.

Between 1 April 1981 and 31 March 2016, 139,000 local authority housing association homes were sold off. That’s 45 per cent. None of them were replaced.

It’s true, over the time period involved. Yes, 139,000. In the same—[Interruption.] In the same period, the number of houses or flats that are rented privately has risen by 110,000. So, the market changes and there is a housing crisis for the reason that David Melding pointed out. We have a perfect storm in a sense because we have very significant restrictions on building through the planning legislation, on the one hand, and we know that, with the immigration figures, there’s tremendous pressure on demand, as well as for the reasons of splitting up households and single occupation. There is an increased demand for property, and we know that, despite all the talk of austerity that we constantly hear in this Chamber, the vast increase in the amount of money in circulation through quantitative easing has actually fed largely into asset prices, and there’s been a ripple effect that has worked outwards from London and the south-east. So, if we want to solve the housing problem—and, of course, we all do—then we have to look elsewhere than this measure to achieve that result.

But what I find so extraordinary about this is that this has been a great liberating policy over the years for hundreds of thousands of people who wanted to own their own houses. The fact that they were in council ownership or social housing ownership didn’t mean that they would be moving out to exercise their desire to own their own property and then making their properties available to others who needed them. Properties are locked up for generations, often, by people who live in local authority housing or social housing. That doesn’t in any way mean that you are going to be able to satisfy the social objectives that we all agree about. I was in favour of a property-owning democracy, and I still am, and I’m in favour, as Neil McEvoy pointed out, of aspirational working-class people being able to participate in it.

Rhianon Passmore.

Thank you, Llywydd—I didn’t realise I was going to be called. In March of this year the Welsh Government announced it was introducing the Abolition of the Right to Buy and Associated Rights (Wales) Bill. In the months since, there has been an emerging near consensus in broad support for the general principles of the Bill. Too many pundits have closed their ears to practical solutions that do not follow a market-based solution, but, for a new generation of voters, this is simply commonsense ideology. This will be taking control of key utilities that have so badly let them down, or shaping a housing policy that works for people and not markets, and, to ordinary people, they care little about the rationale behind Thatcher’s revolution; they want to know, simply: is it working for me and my family?

So, what is the reality of housing and social housing in Britain and Wales? There is a huge demand out there, a demand that can cause untold heartache, overcrowding, poor mental health, and spoilt childhoods for thousands of families. The Welsh Government alone seem to recognise this and are building new council houses. It is worth noting that the right to buy was not Margaret Thatcher’s idea, nor did it originate with her. What she did was to create, as I pointed out, a dogmatic version that removed any flexibility for policy on the ground—no room for councils to act on the basis of declining stock.

Labour Governments in the 1970s allowed councils to sell off stock, but on a very managed and sustainable basis. The Tories, in my view, could not help themselves in creating the chaos that they always do, which has led to where we are today. This includes former council homes in the hands of hugely wealthy foreign investors in parts of the UK where key workers desperately need them—disenfranchised, those on the list, those watching. What form of dogmatic nonsense would it be to further build only to sell off? As politicians, we have to be controlled by practicalities. In his statement introducing this Bill, Carl Sargeant stated:

‘Our supply of social housing is under considerable pressure. Between 1 April 1981’—

as I’ve stated—

‘and 31 March in 2016, 139,000 local authority and housing association homes’—

45 per cent of that stock—

‘were sold under the right to buy’,

and these houses were not replaced.

What sort of dogmatic Government would see this and do nothing, based on an outdated ideology of a housing market that has been so exposed as having failed? It is not just, as has been said previously, about that. We all saw the tragedy in Kensington, a borough that cannot provide its residents with adequate housing, but continues to allow whole blocks to be built as investment properties. These empty blocks symbolise where we have gone wrong with housing. The Tories talk today about the importance of family and home, but cynically refuse to answer any practical questions, and waxing lyrical about a supposed panacea of the 1980s while failing to talk about it now. So, how can Welsh families trust a party that would build no council houses, sell off the few we have left, and, more cynically, use housing at a local level as a political football?

Finally, I want to talk of the importance I place on delivering on promises made, and in 2016 we saw a Welsh Labour Government returned by the people of Wales. We stood on the abolition of the right to buy in our manifesto, and I believe we must now deliver.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary to reply to the debate. Carl Sargeant.

Thank you, Llywydd. I welcome the opportunity to have this debate on the Bill and the comments made by most of the Members today. Undoubtedly, there are points of detail that, as we progress through the scrutiny process, we will need to consider further. There are also commitments that I’ve made in areas that need development, and I thank the Chair and all of the committee for their constructive approach to the programme as we take that forward.

I repeat the comments I’ve made many times already, Llywydd, that I want to approach these reforms on a collaborative and cross-party basis, but it appears very clear that some of the opposition parties are clearly not in that space. Indeed, Gareth Bennett, during committee stages, was very promising in terms of his approach to the Bill and the supportive nature of that, but he said he formed an argument in the group that he took to the UKIP colleagues, and it’s clear to me that Neil Hamilton told him that he wouldn’t be supporting this Bill for no other reason than that.

The fact is that they’re statistically selective on all of the issues that they’ve raised today, including my great friend David Melding. I think his contribution was distorted in the figures that he used today. He seems to believe that the 20,000 units that we are pursuing from Government are the only homes that are ever going to be built in Wales. It’s our 20,000 contribution, plus the private sector, that will deliver the housing need for our communities. I will give way.

I did say, ‘affordable homes’; I didn’t say ‘total number of homes’; I said ‘affordable’.

And it’s very clear also that the Member raised the issue of the performance of this Labour administration since 1999, and he was ably supported by Mark Isherwood’s shout and contribution.

Let me give him some facts about the right to buy and, indeed, Joyce Watson’s intervention was absolutely right. The Conservative Governments under Theresa May and David Cameron have failed to deliver homes across the UK. In fact, it’s the lowest amount of homes delivered by a Conservative administration since 1923. So, we’ll take no advice from you on building new homes in Wales. You need to get it right from the centre, too. Giving £1 billion to the Northern Ireland administration is one opportunity that you could deliver for Wales here so that we can build more homes. Give us what we rightly deserve here in Wales, too, rather than complaining from the edges.

The other fact I think it would be worth mentioning in this Chamber is that, for the last five-year period—up-to-date figures—between 2012-13 and 2016-17, under the one-for-one additions policy—this is the one that Mark Isherwood tells us about, selling one, building one—I’ll tell you what happened in England: 54,581 right-to-buy sales by local authorities in England. What did they build? Twelve thousand, four hundred and seventy-two. That’s not quite one-to-one in my mathematics. So, don’t give me the rhetoric of building—[Interruption.] I’m not taking an intervention just yet, but I will if I get some more time in a little while.

Finally, in terms of some more details that colleagues have brought forward—Sian Gwenllian, I’m very grateful for your commitment to support the Bill. I’ve met with your lead Member on housing and am very grateful for the support that she has been able to give from the group. You’re absolutely right, the issue of rent-to-own and the spike does worry me in terms of what that may allude to, but I think the positive outcomes of the long-term policy objectives of this outweigh the issue of the spike over the 12-month period. But I will work with your colleagues to see if we can find a way through that.

I think—again, Huw Irranca raised the issue with regard to the absolute duty on Ministers in terms of advice. I will give that some further consideration, but I did listen to the advice of the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee and they were very clear on what their views were, but I will reconsider that.

Again, what may be useful to Members, on the basis that some Members have used statistics that I just don’t recognise here—the fact of the matter is £4.4 million extra cost to the UK Government on housing benefit for ex rent-to-buy properties that are now in the private-rented sector. So, how does it make economic sense to do that in the first place? I think, again, Members should consider this as a suite of tools to provide social housing and housing further for the people of Wales. The products that we’re developing in our department, such as rent-to-own and other administrative processes through Rent Smart Wales and other factors in the Housing Bill, now the Housing Act, give us the opportunity to use this suite of tools to create a better housing solution for all people in Wales. I wasn’t going to respond to the master of conspiracy, Mr McEvoy, in that he doesn’t support the socialist principle of ending the right to buy. I am quite surprised as his party has been very supportive of this approach. Indeed, I think it was part of your manifesto approach and it’s something I’m grateful for—that support. I would ask him to reflect on his contribution and to maybe be more positive in his support for this Bill.

Llywydd, I’m very grateful for the opportunity to bring Stage 1 to the committee. It’s always an interesting debate when Mr Melding has his clear views on this Bill. I will look forward with vigour—. The conversations will continue, I’m sure, as we move forward, but my offer is for more consensus around the opportunities that this Bill presents in terms of making a better solution on housing for the people in Wales who are most in need. I formally move.

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

The next item is the debate on the financial resolution in respect of the Abolition of the Right to By and Associated Rights (Wales) Bill. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children to move the motion.

Formally, Llywydd.

I have no speakers to this item, and therefore there’s no need to reply to the debate. As the vote on the general principles of the Abolition of the Right to Buy and Associated Rights (Wales) Bill has been deferred until voting time, I will defer voting on the financial resolution until voting time, too.

And therefore the next item is the debate on the first supplementary budget 2017-18, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government to move the motion—Mark Drakeford.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. I move the usual motion for the first supplementary budget before the National Assembly. This is the first opportunity to improve budgetary considerations for this financial year, which were published and approved by this Assembly in January. The first supplementary budget is often quite simple in terms of its remit, and this year is no different. It’s mainly of an administrative nature. It regulates a small number of allocations from reserves, switches between resource and capital and transfers between portfolios. It includes adjustments to the Wales departmental expenditure limit budget to reflect transfers and consequentials received in the UK Government’s March budget 2017. It also reflects changes in the annually managed expenditure forecast, in line with our latest details provided to Her Majesty’s Treasury. However, it represents an important part of the budget and scrutiny system, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Finance Committee for considering this budget in detail and for the report that was published at the end of last week. I will respond formally to that report in due time.

Llywydd, mae nifer o’r newidiadau a nodir yn y gyllideb atodol gyntaf yn dod o gytundebau a wnaed gyda Llywodraeth y DU ac eraill. Mae cytundeb ar drefniadau llywodraethu ar gyfer y fargen prifddinas Caerdydd yn golygu bod yr £20 miliwn erbyn hyn wedi ei ryddhau ar gyfer y diben hwn; £7.18 miliwn gan y Swyddfa Gartref ar gyfer ein cyfran o'r derbynebau gordal iechyd mewnfudo wedi ei ddyrannu i brif grŵp gwariant iechyd, llesiant a chwaraeon yn y gyllideb atodol hon; mae £20 miliwn o bunnoedd o gronfeydd wrth gefn wedi ei ryddhau ar gyfer buddsoddi mewn gofal cymdeithasol, ac mae swm ychwanegol o £750,000 mewn refeniw a £1.6 miliwn o gyllid cyfalaf wedi eu dyrannu ar gyfer darparu Wi-Fi ar drenau ac mewn gorsafoedd. Ac rwyf, wrth gwrs, yn ymwybodol o'r un argymhelliad penodol a wnaed gan y Pwyllgor Cyllid yn hyn o beth.

Llywydd, mae'n rhaid i ni hefyd adlewyrchu’r addasiadau a wnaed i derfyn gwariant adrannol Cymru gan Lywodraeth y DU, ac mae'r gyllideb atodol yn diweddaru'r sefyllfa a nodwyd yn y gyllideb derfynol ym mis Ionawr ar gyfer symiau canlyniadol refeniw a chyfalaf. Mae'r gyllideb hon yn ein galluogi i adlewyrchu'r diwygiadau a wnaed yn y cyfrifoldebau portffolio gweinidogol. Yn dilyn trosglwyddo cyfrifoldeb am Gyrfa Cymru i'r Gweinidog Sgiliau a Gwyddoniaeth, mae £18.8 miliwn mewn arian refeniw a £6 miliwn o gyllid gwariant a reolir yn flynyddol wedi ei drosglwyddo o'r prif grŵp gwariant ar addysg i'r prif grŵp gwariant economi ac isadeiledd. Nid oes unrhyw gyllideb wedi'i thorri o ganlyniad i'r gyllideb atodol, ac mae unrhyw addasiadau negyddol ar lefel prif grŵp gwariant wedi eu gwrthbwyso gan addasiadau cadarnhaol cyfatebol mewn prif grwpiau gwariant eraill. Mae effaith net y newidiadau hyn ar y gyllideb gyffredinol yn sero.

Dros y misoedd nesaf, byddaf yn monitro ein sefyllfa ariannol yn ofalus, ac rwy’n bwriadu cyflwyno ail gyllideb atodol yn yr amserlen arferol. Rwyf yn parhau i archwilio gyda chydweithwyr yr achos dros ddyrannu yn ystod y flwyddyn o gronfeydd wrth gefn, gan gadw lefel ddigonol o adnoddau i gydweddu â'r cyfnod ariannol ansicr yr ydym yn gweithredu ynddo. Bydd hyn yn ein galluogi i ymateb yn ôl yr angen i bwysau ychwanegol posibl ar y gyllideb, ac i gario cyllid ymlaen drwy drefniadau wrth gefn newydd Cymru, i warchod yn erbyn toriadau pellach i'n cyllideb yn 2019-20 a thu hwnt. Bydd unrhyw ddyraniadau pellach o gronfeydd wrth gefn yn y flwyddyn hon yn cael eu hadlewyrchu yn yr ail gyllideb atodol.

Llywydd, hoffwn ddiolch i'r Pwyllgor Cyllid unwaith eto am ei waith craffu ar y gyllideb atodol hon, a gofynnaf i’r Aelodau ei chefnogi.

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

Thank you, Llywydd. And, generally, the Finance Committee was content with the proposals, and noted that the allocations in this supplementary budget were relatively small. However, the committee welcomed the opportunity to discuss the changes with the Cabinet Secretary, particularly his commitment to continuing to use the supplementary budget process.

In terms of the social care, health, well-being and sport portfolio, the committee considered the two revenue allocations that had been made from reserves, namely £20 million for social care funding, and £7.2 million for the immigration health surcharge, as we’ve just heard. In relation to the £20 million, we note that transfers out of the social spending programme area to elsewhere in the MEG means that the overall increase is actually £18.7, because of changes to other parts of the MEG. However, having said that, we were pleased to see that the funding is being allocated to social services, and is being distributed to local authorities according to their needs, and I think my colleague Mike Hedges will have a little more to say about that.

In terms of borrowing, the committee is interested in decisions that have been taken to reclassify, for example debt guarantees and housing association debt, and how this may impact on the prioritisation of capital spending and borrowing plans going forward. We will consider this as part of the draft budget scrutiny in the autumn. We also had an opportunity to briefly consider the implications of the budget arising from the decision not to proceed to support the Circuit of Wales. The Cabinet Secretary assured us that no other projects face the same restrictions regarding off and on-book accounting. There is certainly more scrutiny to be done on the implications of this decision as the Assembly examines the draft budget, but it is an example of how beneficial it is to have a supplementary budget and to scrutinise the budget process with the Cabinet Secretary.

The economy and infrastructure MEG shows an additional allocation for Wi-Fi provision on trains and in stations. We urge the Welsh Government—and this is the only recommendations of the committee—to ensure that any future train franchise is contracted tightly to ensure that it’s the responsibility of the contracting company to reinvest profit to fund improvements.

In relation to the health board funding, the aggregate position for all local health boards for the three-year period up until 2016-17 was a net overspend of £253 million, which is almost £0.25 billion, of course. We note that the Welsh Government is continuing to provide cash support to meet the financial demands of the LHBs and repayment is yet to be agreed. We remain concerned about health board overspends and the impact of the NHS finance Act is something that is currently of interest to many Assembly committees. So, as Chair, I will be liaising with the Chairs of those committees in order to ensure that the issue is properly considered going forward.

I’m pleased to contribute to today’s debate, and to have taken part in the scrutiny of the supplementary budget by the Assembly’s Finance Committee that was mentioned by the Cabinet Secretary earlier, the conclusions of which are in our report, quite a succinct report, well worth the read—short, yes—well worth a read when Members get a chance.

This is the first supplementary budget, as we’ve heard from the Cabinet Secretary. Can I concur with the words of the Chair of the Finance Committee? A supplementary budget may be just one technical way of making in-year changes to a budget, but the Finance Committee did conclude that it was an appropriate way and the most appropriate mechanism to make this type of in-year adjustments. We need to ensure that it is continued to be used as the mechanism in future by future finance Secretaries. It’s transparent, understandable and it’s a system that has worked in the absence of a preferable solution. We believe that supplementary budgets are the way ahead. And we do believe that the finance Cabinet Secretary has dealt with the committee in a very open and transparent way, but we did question whether in future Cabinet Secretaries for finance might be quite so open, so there may be a case for looking at regularising the supplementary budget process to make sure that the process is as smooth in future as it has been hitherto.

Without going into all the areas that the Chair of the committee has mentioned, I do appreciate that this is a mainly administrative supplementary budget and it does include adjustments and various consequentials to the Welsh block, which resulted from the 2017 UK budget.

Specifically, I welcome the £20 million for the Cardiff capital region city deal, and also the £750,000 provision for Wi-Fi on trains and stations. That was discussed to a great extent during our scrutiny sessions. That was to be welcomed. However, I’m afraid to say Welsh Conservatives will be abstaining on today’s motion since it does ultimately amend the previous budget, which we did not support.

I will be very brief, Llywydd. We will also be abstaining because that is in accordance with what we did on the budget that this supplementary budget changes, of course. I know that I do have some previous with supplementary budgets, but I thought I should tell the Cabinet Secretary that we are going to allow this supplementary budget to go through. I think I’ve upset him once today already, so I’m not going to do it a second time. I don’t think that I have too much to add to the detailed scrutiny that has taken place. The only thing I would say is that there’s a great deal of scrutiny of supplementary budgets, and that’s a good thing of course, but are we getting the balance right in terms of the main budget and the level of information available to us? There was reference to the fact that there’s no need for additional funding for implementing the new policy on the new vehicle park in Ebbw Vale because funds can be vired within current resources, which does raise a question whether there is enough transparency and detail in passing the full budget in terms of the specific purposes of the sums allocated under the main headings. So, it’s a matter of getting the balance right. There’s a great deal of scrutiny of this supplementary budget, which in reality, as the Cabinet Secretary said, is mainly administrative in nature, where perhaps we haven’t had sufficient information yet, in looking at the full budget, to enable us to do our work as a Parliament.

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, of course.

I’ll just bring the Member some news of great joy: there’ll be even more time to scrutinise the draft budget in the autumn, extending the period from five weeks to eight weeks. So, I hope that helps.

Well, I am absolutely delighted. ‘Hallelujah’, is what I would say, of course. We all look forward to that and it’s a pity that we have to wait until after the summer recess to undertake that scrutiny, but certainly I look forward to seeing the outcomes of the other negotiations that are ongoing between the Finance Committee and the Cabinet Secretary in terms of restructuring the whole process, in order to allow the kind of transparency I referred to earlier.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I just want to raise three very brief points. First, I welcome the decision of the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government to produce a first supplementary budget for scrutiny by the Finance Committee. I strongly agree with the Finance Committee’s recommendation, and what’s been said by Nick Ramsay and Simon Thomas, that:

‘Whilst the changes in this supplementary budget are not significant, the Committee agrees with the Cabinet Secretary that bringing forward a supplementary budget is an appropriate mechanism at this stage and wishes that this procedure continues to be used.’

Unfortunately, it wasn’t put into the Standing Orders, but I think it’s becoming, now, custom and practice that we do have it, and I think that any future Cabinet Secretary who didn’t bring it forward would have a very unhappy Finance Committee and a very unhappy Assembly.

However small the change, I believe that a supplementary budget should be produced. It give clarity to both the Finance Committee and to this Chamber, far more than the alternative of a letter to the Finance Committee would do, just telling us what just happened. I think this the right way, and I’m very pleased that the Cabinet Secretary has kept on doing this.

The second point I’d like to make is how pleased I am that the additional social services money is provided to local authorities not through the full standard spending assessment, but through the social services part of the standard spending assessment. This will only make a small difference, but the principle, I believe, is an important one, and one I’ve called for previously. I think it is important, because if there were much larger sums involved, it would start having a significant effect on which authority got the extra money.

Finally, on health, the committee noted that, for some local health boards, the Welsh Government is still providing additional cash support to enable local health boards to meet their financial demands, and that repayment of these overspends is yet to be agreed. The committee recognises the importance of following up on the impact the National Health Service Finance (Wales) Act 2014 has had in terms of identifying improvements to financial, service and workforce planning, future sustainability of services and work to address whether the allocations between local health boards accurately reflect needs. Put simply, are the overspends due to poor financial management or is the funding share wrong?

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

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd, and thanks to all those Members who have recognised the importance of bringing forward this supplementary budget.

Rwy’n cydnabod beth roedd Adam Price yn ei ddweud am y balans rhwng y prif gyllideb a’r gyllideb atodol, ond, fel dywedodd Simon Thomas, mae’n rhan o gylch y ffordd rydym ni’n gwneud pethau, a, thrwy weld beth rydym ni’n ei ddweud yn y gyllideb atodol, mae’r Pwyllgor Cyllid yn gallu paratoi’r tir am y gwaith y maen nhw’n mynd i’w wneud yn yr hydref ar y gyllideb lawn.

I just picked up a couple of points that were made, specifically about the budget. Nick Ramsay mentioned the £20 million for the Cardiff capital city deal. It’s a good example of what the supplementary budget can do. Once the arrangements were in place to oversee the deal, it unlocked the door to the money that comes from the UK Government in this case. It’s £10 million in the last financial year, it’s £10 million in this financial year, and it’s the UK Government’s part of the deal that has been unlocked by those arrangements, and which we report here. Mike Hedges pointed to the fact that the single greatest beneficiary in terms of Welsh Government investment in the supplementary budget is the £20 million being provided for social services, and I felt it was right to use the social services component of the local government formula to distribute that money, because it is for those social care purposes.

We will no doubt pick up those wider conversations about investment in health and other pressures on the Welsh Government’s budget when we come to the scrutiny of the draft budget in the autumn. The background to that, Llywydd, remains deeply uncertain. In recent conversations with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I continued to press the case for an end to the programme of austerity in the United Kingdom, but, to date, this policy remains firmly in place. Although this supplementary budget puts in place a strong foundation for the current year, until there is a change of course by the UK Government, there is no doubt at all that more difficult budgetary decisions lie ahead. I move the motion.

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

The next item is the debate on Stage 4 of the Trade Union (Wales) Bill, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government to move the motion—Mark Drakeford.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. It’s been a very enjoyable experience helping to take this Bill through the National Assembly for Wales. It’s been one of those happy occasions when all the best arguments, and almost all votes, have been on the right side of the debate.

Can I thank all those who have taken part in the scrutiny of the Bill: the team of officials who’ve worked on it from the Welsh Government’s perspective; those who gave evidence during the scrutiny process, both employers and trade unions; and, of course, those committee members who oversaw scrutiny of the Bill, both those who were convinced of the rightness of the cause and even those who are yet to see the light? The result is, if the Bill is confirmed today, that the democratic will of this National Assembly will have been firmly and formally asserted, and asserted in support of the social partnership model that we have developed here in the devolution era.

The conduct of public services in Wales is a matter for this institution, putting into practice the propositions that political parties have put before the electorate here in Wales. We do not seek to interfere with the way in which public services in other UK nations are organised and no-one should seek to interfere in the decisions democratically determined here.

Llywydd, for some of us, this Bill reminds us of why we campaigned for devolution itself—so that policies and approaches that are inimical to Welsh preferences and Welsh ways of doing things could not be foisted on us by those who understand neither. Let us mark this final week before the summer break by getting this Bill onto the statute book today.

Llywydd, there is little left to say on this Bill that has not already been said in this Chamber. However, I shall have one more go. The Welsh Conservatives remain thoroughly disappointed that the Welsh Labour Government’s first piece of legislation in 2017—yes, in the fifth Assembly term—sets out to back their trade union paymasters, responsible for 91 per cent of registered election campaign donations in May. This, at a time of national crisis for our health and social services, [Interruption.] grave concern—

Okay, I can’t hear the Member. Quiet, please.

[Continues.]—grave concern for our Welsh educational standards, and underachievement in many other aspects of Welsh Government delivery. The proposals laid out in this piece of proposed legislation seek to rob the Welsh taxpaying public of protection from undemocratic strike action. They seek to undermine the values of transparency, accountability and openness in the public sector, and this will enable mass disruption for the many by the few, whilst preventing the use of agency workers to keep key services running during strikes in certain sectors.

The Welsh Conservatives will not be supporting this Bill. We believe that the UK Government was right to bring forward the Trade Union Act 2016—an Act that rebalances the interests of employers, employees and the public with the freedom of trade unions to strike, and which, contrary to what many others seem to believe, does not propose to stop facility time, but ensures greater transparency by extending the requirement to publish information about the time and money dedicated to this in the public sector.

The UK Act also moves to end check-off, where the cost is simply picked up by the public purse. The fact that the actual cost of this is so much higher than the evidence taken in committee would lead us to believe, gives us clear motivation for improved transparency in this sector—almost £0.5 million per year for the pro rata provision of check-off services across the public sector in Wales. This is not an absolutely minimal amount, and it is not negligible, as we were advised in evidence. This is a significant amount of money that our public services, including local authorities, would do well to be able to invest elsewhere, employing additional social workers or teaching assistants, for example.

Llywydd, the UK Government’s intention for this Act remains unchanged. These new safeguards should apply to protect employers, employees and the public across the United Kingdom. The Wales Bill will clarify that industrial relations are a reserved matter, and the UK Government will act at the earliest possible opportunity, following the commencement of the Wales Act, to ensure legislation properly protects our public services.

I take great pleasure in opposing this Bill.

I’d like to remind everyone that Plaid Cymru strongly opposed the Trade Union Act of the UK state when it was brought forward during the last Assembly. We also opposed all of the amendments presented by the Conservatives in this place throughout the journey of this Bill during this Assembly term, challenging every tireless attempt by the Conservatives to attack workers’ rights in the public sector here in Wales. Only through partnership between workers, industry, employers and the Government can we do the best for our country and our economy, and by fully respecting the workforce we can reduce the need for industrial action and dispute.

The greatest sorrow with this Bill is that it needs to be pushed through the legislative process so swiftly. The reason for that, of course, is because it must be passed before the Wales Act is enacted, because the Wales Act will remove powers from this Assembly. It’s very disappointing that we didn’t therefore have an opportunity to expand the rights of workers in the public sector in Wales, for example, by undoing some of the elements of the Acts that go back to the days of Margaret Thatcher.

So, we could have created legislation to protect workers’ rights in the public sector in Wales, but also a piece of legislation that would enhance workers’ rights, and, in the process, strengthen the relationship between the employer, the unions and the workforce. Perhaps we will have an opportunity to look at this at some point in the future.

This Bill is a clear attempt by the establishment here to safeguard the rights of workers in Wales from Conservative assaults on those rights, and, clearly, Plaid Cymru will be voting in favour of this Bill today. Plaid Cymru believes in safeguarding and promoting the positive role that trade unions can and should play in Welsh society.

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

Thank you very much. Can I start by recognising the fact that Plaid Cymru has supported the Bill throughout the process, and they have been of great assistance in the scrutiny process and in bringing this Bill into force?

Llywydd, nid wyf wedi gwrthwynebu honiad parhaus Janet Finch-Saunders mewn dadleuon blaenorol mai hwn yw'r darn cyntaf o ddeddfwriaeth i wneud ei ffordd drwy'r Cynulliad yn ystod y flwyddyn hon. Nawr, rwy'n siŵr fy mod i yma pan gwblhawyd Cyfnod 4 y Bil trafodiadau tir. Roeddwn bron yn sicr yma pan gwblhawyd pedwerydd cyfnod y Bil treth gwarediadau tirlenwi. Roedd llawer ohonom yma pan wnaeth y Bil iechyd y cyhoedd ei ffordd i’r llyfr statud yn gynharach eleni. Rwy'n ofni bod crebwyll Janet o rifyddeg yr un mor dda â’r crebwyll sydd ganddi o flaenoriaethau a dewisiadau Cymru, ac mae'n debyg na chefais fy synnu gan hynny. Roeddwn i’n llawer iawn mwy siomedig bod y crebwyll sydd ganddi o ddemocratiaeth yn amlwg yr un mor ddiffygiol â’r crebwyll sydd ganddi o rifyddeg syml. Mae'r Bil hwn bellach wedi dod gerbron y Cynulliad hwn ym mhob rhan o'i broses. Pleidleisiwyd arno yma yng Nghyfnod 1. Pleidleisiwyd arno yn y pwyllgor yng Nghyfnod 2. Roedd yma eto ar gyfer pleidleiso arno yng Nghyfnod 3, a bydd y Cynulliad Cenedlaethol hwn yn pleidleisio arno eto yng Nghyfnod 4. Ac eto, rydym yn clywed gan y Blaid Geidwadol fod ei Llywodraeth wan a methedig yn San Steffan, a sicrhaodd cymaint ag wyth sedd yng Nghymru yn yr etholiad cyffredinol prin fis yn ôl, yn mynd i ddod o hyd i amser ar lawr Tŷ'r Cyffredin i geisio gwrthdroi’r ewyllys ddemocrataidd a arddelwyd gan y Cynulliad Cenedlaethol hwn. Wel, rwy’n gobeithio’n fawr iawn eu bod yn gwybod yn well na cheisio gwneud hynny. Byddai'n sarhau democratiaeth cyn belled ag y mae’r Cynulliad Cenedlaethol hwn yn y cwestiwn, a byddai’n wastraff difrifol o’r cyfalaf gwleidyddol bychan iawn sydd gan y Llywodraeth fethedig hon ar ôl. Byddwn yn rhoi'r Bil hwn ar y llyfr statud heddiw yn ffyddiog yn y gred ein bod yn gwneud y peth iawn a bod pobl sydd â mwy o synnwyr nag yr ydym wedi ei glywed y prynhawn yma yn gwybod yn well na cheisio ei wrthdroi yn rhywle arall.

The question is that the motion be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will defer voting under this item until voting time.

This brings us to voting time.

The first vote is on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. If amendment 1 is agreed, then amendment 2 will be deselected. I call for a vote, therefore, on amendment 1 tabled in the name of Neil Hamilton. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour five, no abstentions, 44 against, and therefore amendment 1 is not agreed.

Amendment 2. A vote on amendment 2 tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 16, no abstentions, 33 against, and therefore amendment 2 is not agreed.

A vote now on the motion tabled in the names of Jane Hutt and Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 33, no abstentions, 16 against. Therefore the motion is agreed.

The next vote is on the debate on the general principles of the abolition of the right to buy and associated rights Bill. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Carl Sargeant. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 33, no abstentions, 18 against. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

The next vote is on the financial resolution in relation to the right to buy and associated rights Bill. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 33, no abstentions, 18 against. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

The next vote is on the first supplementary budget. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 31, 20 abstentions, none against. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

The final vote is on the Stage 4 of the trade union Bill. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Mark Drakeford. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 38, no abstentions, 13 against, and therefore the motion is agreed.

And that brings today’s proceedings to a close.