National Assembly for Wales

I call Members to order.

The first item on our agenda this afternoon is questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport, and the first question, Jayne Bryant.

As it's within my portfolio, I'm delighted to be able to respond, especially on this day, when I must begin by answering your question: yes, I am looking forward to a great success from Newport County this evening. 

Just like Swansea last night.

Thank you. And having secured total agreement on that early part of my reply, I'll carry on.

The development of professional sport is the pinnacle of a pathway system, and I have never seen any contradiction between investing in community sport and professional sport, because it is out of communities that the professionals grow. The Welsh Government provides funding for the Welsh Football Trust, for example, to support the development of football, which enables young people to have better quality opportunities to play, and can lead to progressing, as I said, to the professional level. One million pounds, including lottery funding, went to support Welsh football last year, channelled via Sport Wales to the FAW Trust.

Thank you, Minister, and thank you for the support, and for the enthusiastic support from around the Chamber. Tonight, Newport County AFC look to build on their fantastic performance at Rodney Parade, to replay Tottenham Hotspur in the FA Cup at Wembley. Following on from our great escape last season, this has helped to inspire a new generation of supporters who will forever be Newport County AFC fans. Professional sport can galvanise and bring people together, but it goes further than the first-team players. The county and the community programme, led by Norman Parselle, delivers sporting projects to schemes in Newport, Torfaen, and Monmouthshire. They've increased participation from ages three to 83—men, women and children, of all abilities and all backgrounds. So, how can the Welsh Government work with clubs like Newport County AFC and their community team to expand the benefits of professional sport? And will you join with me in meeting Newport County and their community team to see some of the excellent work, on and off the pitch?

I will be delighted to join you at such a meeting, obviously, and hopefully celebrate a success tonight. The key investment that we make, through the Football Association of Wales Trust, is to the development of football in Wales, and systems for developing the game enable more to play, reach a higher level of competition and progress through. And, at the top end, Sport Wales invests £7.4 million a year, across the board, in elite sport, and that also includes National Lottery investment, and this equates to about 17 per cent of Sport Wales's total income from Welsh Government and the National Lottery. So, what we do in football and in rugby, and in cricket to a lesser extent—but I'm hoping to address some of those issues—and certainly in hockey, to mention some of the governing bodies that I have met, what we invest in these national governing bodies are investments that permeate, as you implied in your question, throughout the whole community, and that happens across Wales. I'm delighted, as someone who began trying to play rugby on football pitches in the north, at the success of Rygbi Gogledd Cymru, which is another example, in another sport, of what can be achieved at the regional level.

If I could also pass on the best wishes from the Conservative group to Newport County as they play at Wembley this evening. Perhaps they can take some inspiration from Swansea's performance last night. With the Welsh Rugby Union having taken over ownership of Rodney Parade late last year, will Welsh Government support the continuation of ground sharing between Newport County and Dragons once the current lease expires in 2023?

Well, we will in any way—. I haven't discussed this issue with the relevant clubs, but within any particular needs that the individual football and rugby clubs have, we would be very willing to support further shared spaces. The important thing is that the shared spaces don't suffer from overuse, and this is a key issue that we have to address, about what is happening at the Liberty, what happens at the Cardiff City Stadium, what is happening now in Rodney Parade, and what happens, of course, in the example I quoted, in the north in Parc Eirias. These are ways in which we can develop further, as well as the further investment coming in in Wrexham. These are ways in which we can develop maximum use of our facilities. And I do believe it's very important that public facilities, whether they're in education or in any other part of our lives, which have been put together with Government funding for public use, are available, not 24 hours, but at least throughout the evenings and weekends to ensure that people can participate. 

Yes. Our active travel promotional programme, Active Journeys, is delivered to schools right across the length and breadth of Wales, including to schools in Cynon Valley. Local authorities also have a duty to promote active travel in their community, and I'll be delivering an oral statement on active travel this month, I believe on 27 February.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. When Sustrans looked into how 25 disused railway tunnels in Wales could be converted into active travel routes, there was one clear winner. That's the Abernant tunnel, which links Cwmbach in my constituency to Merthyr Tydfil, which scored highest on the rate system in terms of both benefit-to-cost ratio and annual usage estimate. Some work has been ongoing between Rhondda Cynon Taf council and Merthyr council regarding this, but how can the Welsh Government engage and support this scheme, which has huge potential in terms of promoting cycling and walking within the Valleys?

Well, I'd very much agree with the Member. Wales has an abundance of fantastic rail tunnels that could be utilised for the purpose of cycling and walking, particularly for the tourism sector, and I'm pleased to confirm that we have awarded Merthyr Tydfil council up to £25,000 in local transport funding for the current financial year in order to undertake Welsh transport appraisal guidance work on the Abernant tunnel. And the Member is also right that that partiuclar tunnel did come top of the list. Five tunnels were shortlisted for further work: Abernant, Rhondda, Pennar, Tregarth and Usk. Abernant was considered the most likely to be able to deliver in the short term. And we're also considering a request for an additional £40,000 in this financial year to undertake a structural survey for that particular tunnel, to inform the potential longer term maintenance costs of the asset. 

Cabinet Secretary, can I say I've not seen such an elegant button hole since William Graham was a regular in the Chamber?

You will be aware that the 2016 Tour of Britain event was a huge success for the Cynon valley, not only its economic benefits, but also for the promotion of cycling. I know it's at the elite level, but the rest of us can take inspiration. I believe the 2018 route is about to be announced, and RCT were looking to host the departure stage. It's very important, I think, that we get across to people the health benefits, and also the benefits in the speed of journeys that you can get from cycling, and it's a great opportunity when these big sporting events come along to do that as well.

May I thank the Member for his question, and add that I've been inspired by his sartorial elegance in the Chamber over many years?

The Member is absolutely right that people can be inspired by elite sportspeople, particularly in those sports that can influence behavioural change in everyday life, such as cycling, swimming, walking and running. We're keen, through programmes that are delivered by professional bodies, and also, through programmes that are delivered at local authority level, to ensure that more people have access to opportunities to get on a bike and to walk, that they get the right support, and that they also get the right training. And that's why I'm particularly keen to ensure that we go on supporting the right programmes at a school level, and we're doing that by extending for a further year the programme within our schools estates to ensure that young people are equipped with the right skills and the confidence to be able to cycle on a daily basis. 

We now turn to spokespeople's questions and, first of all, UKIP's spokesperson, David Rowlands. 

Diolch, Llywydd. Cabinet Secretary, sadly Wales currently has the lowest productivity of any UK nation, standing at just 83 per cent of the UK average. Economists identify improving productivity as central to our economic future. Can the Cabinet Secretary outline his plans to improve productivity levels in Wales?

Yes, absolutely. The productivity challenge is something that this Government and the UK Government have made critical parts of our respective industrial and economic strategies. Insofar as our actions are concerned, we're looking at the factors that contribute to making an economy more productive. In Wales, we've analysed those factors and found that driving up skills levels and increasing investment in modern infrastructure and making sure that we have the right management techniques are absolutely critical in the development of a more productive economy. But we also recognise that the economy is changing fast and that we need to change the shape of the economy in order to attract more investment that's going to be based on high-tech industries of the future. And we also need to take account of the fact that if you have a workforce where the well-being is poor and where workers are not able to contribute as fully as they would wish to during their working day, then that will impact on the competitiveness and productivity of a business. So, through our economic contract and, subsequently, through the calls to action, we are challenging the problems that are holding back our economy, in particular the productivity challenge that so very urgently needs to be got to grips with.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his reply, but I'm sure he will agree that any strategy or improvement plan needs to be assessed and measured over time. This demands that the Government has to have in place economic indicators that facilitate this analysis. This, of course, applies as much to the notoriously unproductive public sector as it does to the private sector. Can the Cabinet Secretary outline to us any target figures or strategies that he has in place to measure the progress, or otherwise, being made?

We're making sure that our indicators are consistent across Government. So, the well-being indicators will be applied to our interventions in economic development, but, as I've already said in this Chamber, I'm also keen to have a good degree of international challenge applied to the actions of this Government. Therefore, we've opened up discussions with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. It's my intention to also open up discussions with the World Economic Forum in terms of how they can challenge and test the effectiveness of our economic action plan.

Again, I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his reply, but, given such startling figures as places such as Camden in London being 23 times more productive per head of population than north Wales, there appears to be a huge gap to fill. Economists say that they're not surprised at Wales's lack of productivity, identifying low levels of business investment, poor transport infrastructure and our lack of investment in skills, and low levels of innovation—all critical factors affecting productivity. Are you confident, Cabinet Secretary, that Welsh Government's economic strategy is robust enough to achieve a dynamic private-enterprise-driven economic expansion, or possibly, I should say, 'explosion' that Wales so desperately needs?

Yes, I would, and, taking up the first point that the Member made, there is a very great need to rebalance the economy of the United Kingdom. Again, that is touched upon in the UK industrial strategy and it's at the very heart of the economic action plan with our commitment to empowering the regions of Wales. But each of those factors that the Member has just outlined that contribute to a more productive economy are going to be tackled through the calls to action and through also the economic contract. So, in order to get support from Government, you have to deliver on a set of criteria that will deal with skills, that will deal with the well-being of the workforce and that will deal with ensuring that you have growth potential. But then, our support in the future will be challenged through a new prism. The prism will be the calls to action, again aimed at making sure that we get a greater degree of innovation diffused across the economy, making sure that we have greater commitment to the development of high-level skills across the workforce in all sectors and in ensuring that businesses are able to challenge Government in order to bring forward funding programmes that meet their requirements as well.

The Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Adam Price.

Diolch, Llywydd. The Permanent Secretary and other officials appeared before the Public Accounts Committee on Monday to give evidence in relation to the Circuit of Wales project. In that session, the Permanent Secretary told us, I believe for the first time, that you'd arrived at the conclusion that any solution could only be achieved if the Welsh Government guarantee was to be reduced by at least 50 per cent, effectively reducing it to around 25 per cent of the overall project cost. Could I ask the Cabinet Secretary, given that you previously announced a target of 50 per cent of the overall cost and 50 per cent of the risk, I believe in July 2016, why you did not tell the Assembly that that had, effectively, changed to 50 per cent of the risk and 25 per cent of the project cost, particularly as this wasn't the first time, of course, that the goalposts had been changed? More pertinently, could you specifically address questions that officials were not able to answer on Monday? Was the company or were the other private sector partners told, in advance of the Cabinet decision, that it was necessary to reduce the guarantee further in the way that the Permanent Secretary described? And were the company's principals told on the preceding Friday that there were no major problems or outstanding issues that had been identified through the due diligence process? 

Can I thank the Member for his question and confirm comprehensively what we informed the Heads of the Valleys Development Company? Back in 2016, I told the Heads of the Valleys Development Company that no new proposal to support the Circuit of Wales project would be considered until at least 50 per cent of the finance and 50 per cent of the risk was being taken by the private sector, and the project also needed to provide evidence of value for money. The Welsh Government did not arrive at a formal conclusion as to what level of guarantee would not give rise to a classification risk in practice. However, it can be established that a much smaller guarantee would have been needed to reduce the risk of an adverse classification ruling—a reduction potentially of more than 50 per cent—but no definitive number can be established in the abstract. Now, reducing the classification risk would not necessarily have made the project suitable for Welsh Government support. Classification risk is not the same as commercial risk for neither the Government nor for the senior funders for the scheme, who would have found themselves investing in a proposition with a different risk and reward profile.

I've said repeatedly that we have worked with the Circuit of Wales backers to try to make this scheme a success and a viable project. We are now moving forward with the £100 million automotive tech park and this is already attracting considerable interest globally and we're moving forward with the development of the sites required to deliver that vision.  

Could I ask the Cabinet Secretary just to address specifically the detailed questions that I asked him and, indeed, I asked officials on Monday? So, was the company told, in advance of the Cabinet's decision, about the assessment that the Permanent Secretary described in terms of the need to reduce the guarantee further? And, also, were they told on the preceding Friday, before the Cabinet decision, that there were no major problems? Now, the issue of balance sheet classification was core to the Government's rejection of the proposal. We know from information provided by the Permanent Secretary that advice was provided by the Welsh Treasury on balance sheet classification on 20 June last year. Now, there's some ambiguity following Monday's evidence as to whether the official or officials that provided that advice on classification on 20 June were fully aware of a number of relevant details about the project. Specifically, again, can I ask the Cabinet Secretary if the official or officials in the Welsh Treasury that gave that classification advice on 20 June were aware, at that time, that the guarantee only commenced when the project was completed? 

Can I thank the Member again for his questions? And, in order to seek the clarification that he has asked for, I will ask my Cabinet colleague, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, to engage Welsh Treasury officials to provide the answers that he requires. In terms of whether the company was told that there were no major problems, again, I would need to ask my officials whether that was the case. I am not aware of the discussions that may have led to that assurance being given, but I will seek clarification from my officials. 

And could he also seek clarification about the other question that he's been unable to answer? 

Finally, Cabinet Secretary, in an interview you gave following the Cabinet decision on 29 June to Brian Meechan on Wales at Work, I think you said that your door was still open if a restructured proposal came forward, that you were willing to sit down and talk again. And the Permanent Secretary did say in her remarks on Monday that the reason the Welsh Government had invested so much time and money and energy in this project was because of its huge potential to bring about a major investment in a part of Wales that hasn't seen investment at that scale.

Now, I understand that there is ongoing an attempt to restructure the proposal, to bring it forward in a different form, and that those discussions are proceeding positively with local authorities. If they do bear fruit, would the Government not give financial support, but give its blessing and actually welcome the possibility that a restructured proposal would be able to bring about the badly needed investment that was anticipated in Ebbw Vale?

I think it's important that Government considers all legitimate proposals for economic development in all parts of Wales. With regard to the Heads of the Valleys, I'm determined to move on with the development of the automotive tech park. It was found, based on international evidence, that the development of a cluster did not require the circuit that was proposed—that specific proposal—however, a test facility, which would be akin to a circuit, could be complementary to the development of an automotive tech park, and, indeed, build on the investment that could go into it. So, I remain open minded about the long-term development of that particular project.

In the short term, we're determined to move ahead with the building of a suitable facility that can kick-start the vision of delivering 1,500 jobs. In the longer term, it's entirely possible that automotive companies that will be based in the tech park will require a test facility, and that's something that—I think we can base it on 5G technology. If we can base it on autonomous and connected technology then it's something that would provide Wales, but particularly the Heads of the Valleys, with a really unique selling point in a global market.

Conservative spokesperson, Suzy Davies.

Diolch, Llywydd. Cabinet Secretary, I'd like to refer back to the economy committee report on city deals if I may, and the recommendation that the boundaries of the deal area should be as flexible and as fuzzy as possible. Now, you rejected the recommendation on the grounds of governance, explaining in the debate two weeks ago that you're establishing chief regional officer roles to ensure that the deals are complementary, and so these fuzzy boundaries are unnecessary. I wonder what you can tell us about these chief regional officers, because they've not really come up in open exchanges like this before. Will they be Government appointed and funded, from whom will they take their steer, and to whom will they be accountable?

Can I thank Suzy Davies for her question? I think it's important to revisit this issue. My problem was largely with the wording, the 'fuzzy' boundaries, and the implications that that could have for the governance structures that are already in place. My vision for the chief regional officers is that they will be the voices of Government in the regions, but also, crucially, the voice of the regions in Government, able to influence Welsh Ministers, not just within my department, but across Government, on what it is that each of those regions requires in order to become more productive and to generate a greater degree of prosperity.

In the first instance, they'll be pulling together business plans across each of the regions—business plans that will be developed in partnership with the city and growth deal stakeholders and with local government across each region and with a wider degree of stakeholder engagement that will include representative bodies such as the Confederation of British Industry, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Institute of Directors and trade union partners as well. So, by developing a regional business plan that will examine what the pipeline of opportunities is right across the patch, we'll then be able to ensure that all initiatives across Government, whether it be city and growth deals, whether it be the development of infrastructure, whether it be the development of hospitals and schools and skills training provision, can all be aligned to meet those strong regional projects that are going to develop a future economy in Wales.

Thank you for that answer. I think what I got from that is that they're Welsh Government individuals.

They are.

That's fine, thank you. In the same report, of course, governance and scrutiny also came up as areas of concern. My understanding is that once the Swansea city deal board has been established, made up, as it will be, of local authority leaders, of course, its work will not go back to those local authorities for scrutiny, and nor will any supporting advisory bodies—[Inaudible.]—such as the economic strategy group. Can you confirm, then, whether the role of scrutiny falls entirely to both Governments, and, if so, what joint and separate key performance indicators have you already determined for the gateway assessments, as, of course, they'll be the looming threat for the success of these deals?

This is largely a question for the Cabinet Secretary who leads on the city deals in the south, which is Mark Drakeford, the finance Secretary. But working to ensure that each of the projects delivers on the aims that they were meant to deliver on, that they do create jobs that we aspire to see created in those regions, and particularly within the Swansea bay area, it's absolutely essential that each of the projects is deliverable and that they deliver to the aspirations that the communities that are represented by the local authorities hope to see delivered.

Now, in terms of the chief regional officers, I should have added as well that these roles could evolve in the future. This is the first time that we've had a structure where we have individuals that can become single points of contact for local government, for businesses and for stakeholder organisations. And, over time, I see the chief regional officers becoming increasingly important in terms of being able to ensure that each of the regions works in a collective way and also in a complementary way, so that we can avoid unnecessary and damaging competition within the regions in Wales.  

Thank you, and thank you for the elaboration as well, because I was hoping you'd say 'avoiding duplication of effort' in that as well. And thank you for taking the question. I appreciate that some of this is the finance Cabinet Secretary's responsibility, but, as an economy Secretary, I would hope that you would be at least playing a part in defining those KPIs.

The deals, of course, have had a lot of media focus and attention over the last year or so. That means that businesses have been contacting me to ask how they can get involved, and I've already raised the example of Associated British Ports with you, who could, in my view, be obvious players in your ports strategy. With the logistical expertise and experience that they have, I think they could be significant players in the city deal as well. In September last year, the First Minister said that he would ask the shadow board what they are doing to engage with ABP, but ABP have still not heard anything from the shadow board. So, I'm wondering if you could check and report back whether the First Minister did write, and what response he had to that particular overture, but, more generally, how the board respond to any request you may make of them now about how the city deal projects might be tweaked in order to fit better with subsequently produced Welsh Government strategies—the economy and the port strategies being the obvious ones, but those that have come after the city deal, rather than before.

Yes, indeed. And, again, that will be a role for the chief regional officers. We've been quite consistent in our call on the shadow board to work in social partnership, as we do in Welsh Government, with businesses, with business representatives, and with trade union partners and with the third sector. I think it's absolutely essential that, with projects of this magnitude, there is full buy-in from the business community and from other stakeholders, as I say, from the trade union movement and the third sector. I will ensure that an answer is delivered concerning the potential input of ABP. As you rightly say, ABP are a major employer and a significant business that could have a very important role in the development of the city deal and the projects that are contained within it.

Thank you very much. As the responsible Minister, my first response is that place names, as every other use of national and community languages, are a key part of creating a sense of place for citizens and visitors to Wales, as in any other country, and Visit Wales encourages tourism businesses to retain and use Welsh names for their businesses.

Thank you very much for that response. Place names, of course, are a part of our heritage. It’s important to celebrate them, but, more importantly, it’s important to use them. We all know of examples of names that have been changed. I heard this week about 'Sausage island' on Anglesey. That's Ynyslas. I hope that everyone will vote for one of the best beaches in Wales in the Countryfile BBC competition, but it’s not 'Newborough beach' that’s the name of the beach on the shortlist, but Llanddwyn, one of our most iconic beaches. And truth be told, the picture that’s used by Countryfile is of Penrhos beach, which is the other side of Llanddwyn island. 

There's a list of them: Porth Trecastell, Porth Swtan, Porth Llechog—not Cable Bay, Church Bay and Bull Bay. I genuinely believe that trying to return to the use of those indigenous names can be something that adds value to our tourism offer for people who come here to Wales. I would have liked the legislation to safeguard place names rather than just having registers. But considering the warm words that we heard from you, as Minister, what steps can the Government take? What steps are you willing to take to try to persuade us to go back to using these historic, indigenous names?

I do have some difficulty with the word 'indigenous', or otherwise I would have to speak Brythonic in this place. But to be serious, the heritage of place names is key, and the statutory list is part of the Government strategy for that. It was published in May 2017, and it is kept by the commission on ancient monuments, which is a very important commission in my view, and will continue to be so. The register is free online. There are over 350,000 individual names to be seen on that schedule. There is a full-time curator maintaining that list, and it continues to grow consistently. The way of strengthening appreciation of historic names is that people should be able to see them—that they are visual as part of their daily lives.

I'm not in favour of doing away with names in languages such as English used in Wales side by side with the Welsh names, because I don't believe that that would be appropriate or consistent with the bilingualism legislation that we have. However, I am most confident that the public bodies—the national parks, Natural Resources Wales and so on—will continue to pay attention to the statutory guidelines on the use of the records of the historic environment, and particularly these records of place names. 

Minister, if I could take a slightly different angle to Rhun ap Iorwerth, key to promoting places in Wales once tourists and visitors get here is, of course, through signage. I remember raising with Carl Sargeant, when he was the Minister for transport, the issue of the rather outdated and, in some cases, tatty brown signage, which is found around Wales advertising our places of interest. He said back some years ago that he would look into reviewing the way that that signage is presented and possibly making it more inspiring, more linked with the internet. So, I wonder if you could tell us how you and the current Cabinet Secretary, who's now spurred into action—this covers both of your areas, of course—are working together to make sure that we do undertake a full review of that brown signage in Wales so that places like, in my constituency, Raglan castle, which by the time you see the sign you've passed it, are properly marketed both internally and externally so that we get the best out of all the places that Wales has to offer.

Thank you for that. Signage, above all, has to be clear, has to be intelligible, and has to not cause the person observing the signage, especially if that person is driving, to be interrupted in the proper work that that person has to do. But we now have a new way of describing how visitors travel through Wales, and this is called the Welsh way. This is not the Welsh way of life; this is something else—llwybr Cymru—one across the north, one all the way down from Aberdaron to Tyddewi, and then another one, of course, the A470, as that classic route is known. Now, along that route it is possible to follow a whole series of destinations, and what we are trying to do is create the idea of a modern pilgrimage, or even perhaps a post-modern pilgrimage, where people are going to look at things that are meaningful to them when they've worked out where they are along those routes. So, signage, yes, but more important than the immediate signage is the information available on the internet, the information available on tourism brochures, and the idea that Wales, as a whole, is a destination and a place, as I said, of pilgrimage.

Entrepreneurship is the fuel of a vibrant economy, and 'Prosperity for All' and the economic action plan outline our actions and interventions to support a greater degree of entrepreneurship in Mid and West Wales and across the whole of the country. 

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for your answer. In November last year, the Welsh Government did announce a £4 million investment to establish four new business hubs. I understand that that will be part-funded by the European regional development fund. Two of the new hubs will be in my constituency: one in north-west Wales and the other in mid Wales. Of course, it's a very welcome investment, because it's expected to create jobs with above-average salaries for those areas and provide space and help for budding entrepreneurs. Cabinet Secretary, when can we expect the business hubs in north and west Wales, and mid Wales, to be established?

Can I thank the Member for her question and for the keen interest that she has shown in entrepreneurship in her region? The Member will be aware that we've already allocated £1 million for an innovation business hub in Wrexham, which will help to support the development of 100 new businesses and 260 jobs over a two-year period. I'm pleased that we've also been able to announce, subsequent to that, £4 million for other innovation and business hubs across north-west Wales, mid Wales, south-west Wales, the Valleys and the south-east Valleys as well. In total, if those figures could be replicated across each of the hubs, we'd be looking at the establishment of something in the region of 500 new businesses over the course of two years and more than 1,200 new jobs. It would only take one or two of those businesses to become a Google or an Apple for that investment to be paid back tenfold or more. It's an exciting development, and I expect to be able to announce the winning tenders for the additional four hubs before the summer recess. And, of course, dependent on the tender process, I envisage that they'll be able to be operational by the end of this calendar year.

Cabinet Secretary, one way to promote entrepreneurship more widely across Wales is to ensure that enterprise skills are taught as part of the curriculum here in Wales, to encourage children and young people to look at ways in which they can develop and manage their own projects. Therefore, can you tell us what steps the Welsh Government is taking to develop youth entrepreneurship across all parts of Wales, and can you also tell us what discussions you've had with your colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Education on this particular issue?

Well, it's been a particular issue that we've examined very closely over the course of many years, with the current education Secretary and also with her predecessor. Changes to the curriculum will be crucial in driving up an entrepreneurial spirit at an earlier age, but we're already investing heavily in the Big Ideas Wales service that's rolled out across schools in Wales. That encompasses interventions such as Enterprise Troopers and also role models. As a consequence of our investment and the concerted effort in driving up entrepreneurialism amongst younger people, we now see the greatest number of young people wanting to start up their own businesses than we've ever seen before. I think that's down to young people in Wales wanting to apply their creativity and their innovation in the modern age.

Yes, of course. Transport for Wales are currently assessing the three bidders for the next Wales and borders rail services and the south Wales metro. The contract will be awarded in May of this year and it will be operational from October of this year.

It's baffling as to why you are conducting the franchise tendering process under such a thick veil of secrecy. Unlike the UK Government's Department for Transport and Transport Scotland, you are refusing to publish the invitation-to-tender documents that have been issued to bidders. If you did publish those documents, people in Wales—the people who are herded onto those train services every day—would have the opportunity to analyse the criteria and offer ideas as to ways in which they could be improved. The mistakes of the last rail franchise for Wales can be laid at the door of an arm's-length Westminster body.

As a frequent traveller on the Valleys lines coming down from the Rhondda, it's no surprise to me to see customer satisfaction with rail services in Wales has dropped. The conditions are often appalling. If things don't improve this time, there'll be no hiding place for you and for your Labour Cabinet colleagues. Why not publish the franchise documents, get the people involved, open yourself up to greater scrutiny to deliver a better rail franchise that works for everyone? What are you afraid of?

We're afraid of nothing. The Member should recognise, though, first of all, that this a world first in terms of the process that we're following. It's not being done anywhere else in the world, it is truly innovative and it's designed to ensure that we challenge experts in the field to bring forward the best possible solutions for Welsh travellers. There is no doubt whatsoever that we have to see a step change in terms of service delivery, in terms of punctuality and in terms of satisfaction, and each of the bidders have been challenged to bring forward within an envelope all of the best solutions based on new and emerging technology, and based on the drive for greater satisfaction amongst passengers.

Now, I can accept criticism for not publishing the full tender documents at this stage, but the reason we can't publish detailed information within the period of invitation to submit final tenders is because we could jeopardise the entire competitive procurement process, which, as I say, is a world first. That's why the Scottish have taken a different approach and that's why the UK Government have taken a different approach. Releasing commercially sensitive information relating to the bidders' business plans could lead, potentially, to a prejudicing of the commercial interests of those companies. However, once the service provider has been appointed, we will make further documentation, including the full tender document, public, and I will be more than happy to face full scrutiny for the future franchise that will be operating on the Wales and borders network. I can say this: Welsh Government is not the cause of the problems on the Welsh network at the moment, but Welsh Government will be the cure.

Yes. Thank you. Our plans for investment across Wales are detailed in the national transport finance plan, which was updated, of course, at the end of last year, and our responses are directed to achieving a sustainable and integrated transport system across the length and breadth of Wales, including in Islwyn.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Thank you for that reply. An independent report released just last week that evaluated the Valleys rail strengthening project noted—and it was a groundbreaking project—that it improved air quality, it delivered a 19 per cent increase in capacity on the Valleys rail network, and also generated evidenced access to the jobs market. Indeed, the Ebbw Vale to Cardiff line formed one of the main strands in this project, and was created to reduce the level of car usage. Cabinet Secretary, with independent evaluation validating the success of this line, which does run through the heart of my Islwyn constituency, what further measures can the Welsh Government take to enhance our Welsh rail network, including ensuring the critical service from Ebbw Vale to Newport?

Well, I was very pleased to note the findings of the report. It fully justified the significant investment made by the Welsh Government in the area over many years, and it also demonstrates what can be done when investment is provided in a way that can meet the aspirations of passengers. We've been underfunded for too long. Certainly for the whole of the last control period, we were underfunded: 1 per cent of investment for about 5 per cent of the network. But we as a Welsh Government are investing very heavily, and as we take forward the vision of the south Wales metro, we're determined to ensure that we link in developments in transport with developments of our hospital and health estates, and with school estates as well, to get maximum value for the public purse.

I'll be speaking a bit of Welsh before long, however—.

I'm learning again and I wouldn't want to do a disservice to the Member's question by struggling with my Cymraeg in answering the question, which is concerning the £2 million that we have offered to help secure a network of charging points throughout Wales, focusing first and foremost on locations near trunk roads to serve the major road network, which caused the greatest range anxiety. We're working with all local authorities at present across Wales on the delivery framework in order to deliver funding as soon as possible.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for that response, and I'll continue to ask questions in Welsh so he can practice his Welsh. I have looked at several maps for where the charging points are for electric vehicles, and it’s clear that there is a major gap in mid Wales. If we want to use public funding, I would suggest that closing that gap should be one of the priorities for that funding. But it’s also true to say that many people have an interest in developing these charging points, including supermarkets and new public developments. So, could you tell us in what way you want to bring all of these things together to ensure that one thing stemming from this funding is public justice, so that everybody has access to these electric charging points, and that that happens consistently across Wales? 

Diolch yn fawr iawn. I'd absolutely agree that, whilst we have charging points not in abundance but certainly there are plenty of them along the M4 corridor and the A55, in between it's a barren land insofar as public access to electric charging points is concerned. Simon Thomas is absolutely right that whilst the available funding may only be £2 million, we can use it in a way that draws in match funding and therefore rolls out more electric charging points. We'll be looking at how we can lever in funding from the private framework supplier on a 50:50 basis. With the availability of this funding, it will give local authorities, I think, excellent bargaining power to get good profit-sharing deals and control over price setting, for example. It's my view that the £2 million will also enable us to establish a standard, Wales branded, EV charging specification. It will also allow us to create an EV charging procurement framework, which can then be utilised longer term as well. It's an exciting policy agenda and I'm pleased that we're able to take forward this particular area of work together.

Finally, question 8—Mohammad Asghar.

Thank you very much for that question, which I'm replying to as tourism, as you know, falls within my responsibility. We believe we have evidence to show that our themed marketing is proving extremely successful. The Year of Adventure generated an additional £370 million in 2016. The Year of Legends is also showing promising results, with record-breaking summer visitors to Cadw and national museum sites. We are also looking forward to strong results from this year, which is the Year of the Sea, and the coming Year of Discovery.

Thank you very much for that positive reply, Minister. Welsh Government support is vital for the effective marketing of Wales as a tourist destination. The Wales Tourism Alliance has expressed concern that the current marketing budget for Visit Wales, when compared to competitor destinations, is inadequate to realise the potential of the tourist industry in Wales. Is the Cabinet Secretary confident that the current budget for Visit Wales is sufficient to maximise the full potential and benefits of the tourism sector to the Welsh economy? Thank you.

I am in the process of beginning further discussions on the coming two years of budgets, but the proof is in the eating, so to speak, or in this case in the nominations received by our various campaigns and, indeed, the awards that have come the way of Visit Wales—for the nature of their campaigns and the way that they generate a response. Thematic years is but one part of that, another part that doesn't fall directly upon my responsibilities but is clearly a part of tourism is major events. There were 35 major events supported by Welsh Government—cultural, specifically, and sporting, which also is of course cultural. We estimate that about 350,000 visitors travelled to Wales to enjoy these events, generating an additional spending of £52 million and supporting 1,215 jobs. That commitment to supporting events throughout Wales remains, of course, and increases. In south-east Wales: the Newport Wales marathon; the Festival of Voice, close by here; and we are looking forward very much to the Volvo Ocean Race, where Cardiff is one of the great international maritime cities that is part of the destinations covered by this race.

So, we are not at all complacent in relation to the budget, but we are ensuring that we are very sharp in the way it is spent.

I thank the Minister and the Cabinet Secretary. 

The next item is questions to the Counsel General, and question 1—Jenny Rathbone. 

I thank the Member for her question. I fully support the Welsh Government's commitment to improving air quality across Wales and its various initiatives for tackling air pollution specifically. The Member will be aware, as she says, of the recent High Court litigation, which was heard on 25 January and in relation to which judgment is awaited. The Welsh Government has accepted that its proposals did not comply with the statutory duties and is taking immediate action to address this.

I welcome the fact the Welsh Government has taken the bull by the horns and has admitted that we have illegal inaction in this regard, which is more than the UK Government has done. My understanding is that the QC acting on the Welsh Government's behalf, Jonathan Moffett, said that the Welsh Government was going to be working with ClientEarth obviously to rectify this unlawful inaction. I wondered if you could tell us a bit more about the level of urgency required to ensure that you don't end up in the High Court again. Obviously, I have a wealth of ideas on how we could be tackling this as a matter of urgency, but it would be good to know if we're going to get consulted. How is this urgent action going to occur?

The Member's questions involve a number of points of policy, which it would be inappropriate for me to comment on specifically, but in relation to how this was dealt with in the court action, which may answer part of her question, because of the Welsh Government's acceptance that the 2017 plan did not comply with its duties, it made that representation in court, and so the discussions between ClientEarth and the Government relate to the terms of the consent Order, which embodies the Welsh Government's representations to the court. It told the court that those parts of the 2017 plan that fell within devolved competence were not compliant and that, at the time of the plan, it didn't have the available information to model exactly what steps would have the required outcomes.

The Government has said that a supplemental air quality plan will be consulted on very shortly, with a view to that being implemented or brought into effect later this year. There are some areas that are within Welsh Government control and some areas that are within the control of Cardiff city council and Caerphilly borough council, and there are discussions ongoing with those two authorities at the moment in relation to specific steps to tackle the problem.

Clearly, from what you've just said, Counsel General, it's very important for the citizens of Wales to have this access to the High Court and to justice in general to hold the Welsh Government to account with regard to air pollution, and hopefully to see the improvement following these legal processes. Now, as we exit the European Union, there are several of these environmental issues where we are deficient, if you ask me, because at present the citizens of Wales have access not just to the High Court but also to the European Court of Justice, and there are several important environmental cases that are being taken through those processes, which ensure that citizens have their rights—their rights to a clean environment—and that those rights are safeguarded by the legal processes. What steps is the Welsh Government taking to ensure that this right that's just been outlined in these legal cases is maintained in Wales as we leave the European Union?

As the Member has already said, a number of the rights protecting the environment emanate from European legislation. Welsh Government have stated clearly that we wish to see those regulations continuing to be relevant in Wales and for those rights to come here to the Assembly and not be reserved to Westminster. So, we wish to ensure that people have the right to secure those standards for Wales.

Thank you for the question. We are considering the implications at present, and officials have met the Solicitors Regulation Authority to discuss the proposed new qualification and the implications for Wales, including the devolution settlement and use of the Welsh language. A further meeting is being set up to widen that discussion to include our law schools and the legal profession.

Thank you very much for that reply. May I say there are concerns about this examination, particularly in thinking of the ability of individuals to take the examination in Wales in Welsh and the fact that it doesn’t actually address the legal issues that pertain only to Wales, particularly following devolution? Will you join me in taking the opportunity to thank Professor Richard Owen from Swansea University for his work in the field, and tell us what the Government is doing to address the situation?

Certainly. A meeting has already been scheduled and has taken place with the officials of the SRA where these specific issues were discussed. I’m meeting the SRA again in a few weeks’ time and I intend to continue that discussion with them. There are two points arising here. The first is the role of devolved law in the new qualification, and we have to encourage law schools in Wales to come together to provide that qualification through their courses. This isn’t just of benefit to people working in Wales; it’s important for lawyers who practice outside of Wales who have clients here or who have clients who operate in Wales. So, there is a wide-ranging impact for the question, as you would expect.

In terms of the question of the language—this question was raised also in meetings with officials. It’s clearly important for the Government's goal of reaching 1 million speakers that the use of the Welsh language within the profession should be normalised and an everyday occurrence. So, it’s very important to ensure that this does happen. I have had communication this morning from the Welsh Language Commissioner on this subject, as it happens, and I looked at some of the announcements made by the SRA in this context, and I have to say that I was disappointed to see that there wasn’t enough ambition in what was being proposed at the time. Several assessments within the new qualification are going to happen on a multiple-choice basis, so that should be quite simple to provide jointly through English or Welsh.

Does the Counsel General welcome the proposed changes, not least the scope they may give for expanding the socioeconomic intake into the profession? One of the drawbacks of the current system is people start their conversion course and find out that many of the largest and top firms have already closed their recruitment in July for two years ahead. Would this new proposal not allow broader socioeconomic intake?

I think the answer to that question is that it may have the potential to do that. At this point in time, obviously, although the new qualification is being consulted on, the detail of how it will operate in practice and how it will relate to the academic stage and the work experience stage is not entirely clear, and that's one of the issues I want to explore when I meet with the SRA.

The Member is correct to say that in providing a common benchmark across a range of routes into the profession, it ought to have the ability to provide a level playing field. But as he will also know, some of the larger practices have tailored courses with the legal practice course providers, and if those survive into the new regime, as it were, it might have the potential to create a kind of two-tier system. So, there are some questions that I think need to be explored. Obviously one would hope that—as his question outlines—there will be a level playing field that comes as a result of this. It is certainly the case that the current arrangements aren't satisfactory for the reasons that he gives. 

I thank the Member for the question. The decision whether or not to prosecute in relation to non-payment of council tax lies, of course, with the local authority and not with the Welsh Government. So, local authorities and local magistrates will seek their own legal advice when they need it. That said, the Welsh Government clearly has an interest in ensuring that council tax arrears are managed appropriately and the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government, as he then was, published research on this at the end of 2017.

A recent judicial review case in relation to a woman committed to prison for non-payment found that the overall system for enforcement in Wales is not unfair but that some individual magistrates courts' decisions have been wrong.

Unfortunately, that judgment has been taken by some people to mean that paying council tax is optional, and that if you don't pay it, nothing can be done to you, so you might as well not pay it. And social media has been awash with people making statements like that. So, will the Counsel General discuss the impact of the recent court case regarding the legality of imprisonment for non-payment of council tax with his counterpart at Westminster?

I'm absolutely happy to discuss further. Just to be clear, the decision found that the system itself is not unfair. There were two issues in the proceedings: one related to the individual decisions of the magistrates' courts on committal to prison, and one was whether the system was capable of being fair. And actually the Welsh Ministers successfully defended their position in relation to the fairness of the system. But, as I indicated in my answer a minute ago, the individual decisions of magistrates' courts have been wrong, either because they've misunderstood the law, or because the law has been misapplied in individual cases, where people have been committed to prison or been expected to pay back council tax over too long a period.

As he will know, of course, the magistrates' courts and their training is not devolved to Wales, and his question acknowledges that. I am aware that the Lord Chief Justice has provided additional guidance and training to magistrates' benches on this particular issue since the litigation began. But on his broader question of the payment of council tax, obviously, there are households struggling to cope in the current financial circumstances, and the research that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance published at the end of last year, which he is currently considering, had at its heart, I guess, the objective of understanding the current practice in relation to recovery, and how that relates to individual circumstances.

I thank the Member for his question. The Welsh Government is committed to complying with the law relating to personal data.

I’m very pleased to hear that. Of course, I believe that the Counsel General will be aware of a recent case of the Government revealing personal data, namely my own personal data, with regard to correspondence, not just mistakenly but misleadingly. Could he say whether he has provided advice in that particular case as to whether or not the Government has breached data protection rules, and can he share the contents of that advice? As the Lord Chancellor has created protocol with regard to confidentiality of correspondence with Members of Parliament, would the Counsel General be willing to meet with me, and other elected Members, so that we can create a similar protocol here, so that there is certainty with regard to the confidentiality of our correspondence?

Thank you for that supplementary question. As the Member’s colleague in the front row will know, parliamentary convention here prohibits me from discussing any specific advice given, or even the fact that I gave any advice at all. The Member will know that Welsh Government’s view is clear on this that no offence had been committed under the 1998 Act, and that’s a matter of public record now. You mentioned the Lord Chancellor’s convention. I have to admit that I am not familiar with that convention, and so I would be willing to discuss the contents of that convention with him, if he sends me a note.

Will the Counsel General confirm that, regardless of the position regarding data protection legislation, the misuse of private information for party political purposes when that private information is obtained in a ministerial capacity, with the use of official resources, is wrong, and that is also a breach of the ministerial code and should not be repeated? We have had instances of this before, and it appears that the conduct of the First Minister last week, in respect of Adam Price, might well have infringed that code as well. I wonder whether the Counsel General can give his opinion on that.

The Member is a highly experienced parliamentarian, and will know full well that's not an appropriate question for the Counsel General to comment upon, and so I won't.

The Welsh Government has taken every opportunity to raise with the UK Government our concerns that access to legal services is currently beyond the means of those victims of crime who have low or modest incomes, and this raises serious issues, both of access to justice and social justice more broadly.

Thank you, Counsel General. Last year, the UK Government released statistics showing a shocking rise in the number of domestic violence survivors with no legal representation in family courts. The statistics reveal that the number of those having to represent themselves in courts in England and Wales have doubled during the last five years. In the first nine months of last year, 3,234 domestic violence survivors had no legal representation in at least one hearing. Does the Counsel General believe that this worrying rise needs to be addressed by the UK Government, and what representations can he make on cuts to legal aid and its devastating impact?

I thank the Member for the question. It highlights a very grave injustice that victims of domestic violence in particular face. As her question recognises, thousands of women find themselves in family courts representing themselves in person against their own abusers. That is not something that is permitted any longer in the criminal courts, but it still remains a very real experience for women in the family courts. That is because of the withdrawal of legal aid, and although there have been some concessions by the UK Government at the end of last year, they are nowhere near adequate to tackle the scale of the issue.

As she will know, in order to qualify for legal aid at all, the assets, which may be under the control of the abuser, or even their income, can be taken into account in calculating the financial thresholds, which is obviously not acceptable. The former Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children wrote to the Secretary of State for Justice in January of last year, highlighting the need to improve practices within the family court in cases involving victims of domestic abuse and violence, and the Government has written to the UK Government on a number of occasions, challenging its approach to legal aid, and the cuts and the impact of those cuts in Wales, and the Welsh Government takes every opportunity to express its concern on this vital issue of justice and social justice to the Ministry of Justice in the UK Government. 

Thank you for the question. In this Assembly, the Welsh Government has incurred £20,486.30 in external legal costs, excluding value added tax. Further such costs are anticipated in relation to the Welsh Government’s recent appearance before the High Court, along with the claimants’ costs, to be capped in accordance with the Aarhus convention.

Thank you to the Counsel General for confirming the costs. Clearly, the costs wouldn't be met unless there was a failure by the Government to meet the legal requirements with regard to air pollution. I realise that you as Counsel General are not responsible for that side of things, but the sums that you have talked about are more than enough to pay for several air pollution monitoring stations outside schools or hospitals as a contribution towards meeting this legal requirement that has stemmed from that. So, just to make sure that the Welsh Government doesn't face further costs, what steps or what guidance do you use as Counsel General, when you deal with court cases of the kind, to ensure that the Welsh Government either defends itself or yields, or whatever's appropriate, to ensure that the funds spent on these costs don't go on legal cases, but go on getting to grips with air pollution?

As a former solicitor, of course, I am aware that the expenditure on legal costs and court costs are of necessity unpopular, and I can well understand the reason why that is so. When the Government finds itself in a position where somebody brings a case against the Government, we have to ensure that when the Government has a good case to fight, that that happens, and that's important in terms of public resources in general.

He asked a question about the guidelines, or which steps can be taken when we have a situation where specific actions by the Government could have a positive impact on the costs of defending or bringing a court case. Well, this is an example of what is possible: namely, an analysis of the point of view and the legal position of the Government and then deciding in the case itself to make it clear that we accept that we did have a deficiency as regards meeting the statutory standards and agreeing to do so—in partnership, that is, or trying to do so in partnership with those who had brought the case. That, of course, might have a positive impact on court costs or legal costs in general.

I welcome the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service to review all active rape and sexual offence cases in Wales and England that are currently ongoing to ensure that disclosure procedures are being properly applied. It is essential that action is taken to ensure that we can have faith, trust and confidence in our criminal justice system.

I thank the Counsel General for his response and I agree entirely with him that the fact that a number of cases have failed because the disclosure procedures on both sides—well, one side in particular—have failed endangers the way that we deal with rape cases and sexual offences in Wales, and undermines confidence in the system. That’s not something that I want to see, and I’m sure that the Counsel General doesn’t want to see that either. It’s important that justice is being administered in the right way on both sides, of course. It’s clear that there are severe deficiencies in the disclosure of information to the defence and that the Crown Prosecution Service hasn’t acted satisfactorily on every occasion to ensure that that has happened. So, can I ask specifically whether you have a number that you can give us of the cases under review in Wales? Are you discussing this with the Crown Prosecution Service to ensure that appropriate resources are given to the service and on the policing side of things to ensure that we don’t fall into this trap again?

Yes, we have actually contacted them. I can’t make any comments on individual cases, of course. I’m sure the Member will accept that. We welcome the review. We have to ensure that all the regulations are followed. One of the challenges is keeping abreast of the use of technology and training in the courts, and the growth in the use of social media specifically does mean that that is now beyond anything that was imagined when those regulations and techniques were first introduced. This is not a new problem; this is not a problem that is specific just to social media. This has been a factor for decades in all sorts of prosecutions. So, I do welcome the review in both Wales and England, but this review is only an interim phase. We have to have a legal system and a criminal system that is fit for the age in which we live in terms of the people’s use of technology and information, and we have to futureproof it too.

I would like to say specifically that many of the cases have been in the context of rape cases, as the Member mentioned. It’s very important that people should continue to come forward with their complaints on that. I accept what the Member has said about having faith and confidence in the system. The figures on rape cases in Wales have been increasing. We have to be very careful with those numbers, of course, for the obvious statistical reasons, but the fact that people are willing to come forward with their complaints is to be welcomed in terms of people's willingness to bring these cases to the authorities.

As the Member will be aware, the Welsh Government’s preference is for an EU withdrawal Bill that respects devolution. However, we are ready to introduce a continuity Bill should it prove impossible to amend satisfactorily the Bill currently before Parliament. We are working very closely with the Scottish Government, as he's aware, on these issues.

I thank the Counsel General for that answer. I'm conscious that it is the last resort for the Welsh Government, but we are at the doorway of the last-gasp saloon, effectively, where, time-wise, we need to do something very quickly. I appreciate the fact that you need to talk to the Scottish Government, because they also have a continuity Bill. I can understand the differences in the devolved settlement and therefore there are differences in the Bills. But in answer to Simon Thomas earlier, you actually talked about the fundamental charter of rights in the EU. I suppose it's important to ask the question: have you considered the inclusion of elements of the fundamental charter of rights, particularly those pertaining to Welsh areas of competency, to ensure that citizens here in the UK can actually benefit from those rights and they're maintained in Welsh law if nothing else?  

Well, as I've made clear in previous answers to questions on this subject matter, the Welsh Government's strong preference is for the UK's EU withdrawal Bill to be the basis on which the charter of fundamental rights remains part of our jurisprudence here in Wales. However, if the Welsh Government's forced into a position where we were bringing forward our own legislation, we'd want to make sure that we would do everything possible to ensure that the rights reflected in that charter are not eroded for Welsh citizens. As he is aware, a Bill has been submitted to the Presiding Officer for determination, so it's not appropriate for me to comment on the content of that Bill, but I hope that the reassurance I've given him will at least make it clear to him that that is a priority. 

Counsel General, the discussions between the devolved countries and the UK Government are crucial as we look towards a continuity Bill to protect the constitution of the Welsh nation. The First Minister had a meeting with UK Government Ministers last week, which those Ministers described as helpful. There have been several meetings now where the outcome has either been described as constructive or helpful but without any amendments being agreed. During the meeting, can you tell us, did the UK Government provide any additional assurances to the Welsh Government regarding amendments to the EU withdrawal Bill? 

Well, I'm not going to comment on the individual matters under negotiation or discussion with the UK Government, for reasons which I hope the Member will understand. Obviously, the Welsh Government and the Scottish Government have worked together in relation to mainly clause 11, but on other clauses of the Bill, and now together in discussions with the UK Government. Obviously, the Welsh Government remains hopeful that agreement will be able to be reached on the terms of amendments that would be acceptable to the Welsh Government and would enable the EU withdrawal Bill to be appropriately amended and, therefore, consent to be recommended. But, obviously, as her question refers to, time is running out and so we need to see progress on that happening very quickly. Obviously, we are mindful of the parliamentary process in Westminster in terms of the discussions and thinking here in relation to the possible introduction of a continuity Bill, were that to be necessary.  

The Welsh Government continues to work closely both with academia and the legal services sector to understand the impacts and opportunities that automation is likely to bring. 

Well, like all industries that have repetitive elements, the legal services sector is especially vulnerable to automation. Some estimates suggest that 39 per cent of jobs in the legal sector could be replaced by algorithms and machines within the next 20 years. We can just imagine, in law firms where currently large numbers of people are occupied doing repetitive tasks, document searches and trawling through files, these can be easily done within seconds by new and emerging technology. Now, this is happening and it can't be stopped. The question for our Government, and all governments, is what can we do to try and shape this? And would the Counsel General investigate what opportunities there are for the legal sector in Wales to get ahead of this, to adapt and to see whether or not we can lead the way in this sector?

Well, the Member's question focusing on repetitive and tedious tasks takes me back to the early years of my practising career, so, thank you for that moment of nostalgia there.

But the serious answer to the Member's question is that there are obviously risks here, but there are also opportunities. I was pleased to see recently the launch at Swansea University of the Centre for Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Law, which really is intending to explore some of these risks and opportunities for the legal services sector in Wales. It held a conference at the end of January this year where it focused not just on the challenges, but, importantly, on those opportunities. They talked about cognitive computing as being a key area in law, including disciplines such as natural language processing, semantic indexing and data science.

Technology forms a key disruptor, of course, as well as an opportunity, and there are two key technologies forming the basis for the digitisation of law beyond law firms, in the court service, for example, and in particular in family, criminal and corporate law. Both robotic process automation and artificial intelligence are already playing a significant role here. In the US, the legal market there has started in a small way to use IBM's Watson cognitive computer, where the user asks questions in plain English and gets a response, having trawled through the entire body of law, and a legally reasoned answer with cited footnotes, which is an extraordinary development, actually. What this enables lawyers and law firms to do—as he identifies in his question—is move away from the more mainstream activities into more higher value legal work and customer engagement. There are software packages that enable law firms to analyse the patterns that judges have taken in taking their decisions, or the arguments that other lawyers have made in their cases, which is an extraordinary thing, moving us beyond instinct and half recollection into data-driven legal practice. So, I'm pleased that the initiatives such as the Swansea University centre, which is in within the Hilary Rodham Clinton faculty, have got under way.

There is a critical dimension to this, that this is not just available for commercial law, but it's also available for the justice system and for people bringing cases in small claims courts and for whom legal aid is not currently available and for whom access to the system itself is prohibited. We need to make sure that the benefits of these technologies are harnessed for the entire system, not simply for the high-value, high-end, corporate litigation, if you like.

Thank you very much, Counsel General.

There are no topical questions this afternoon.

Therefore, we move to item 4 which is the 90-second statements, and the first is from Jane Hutt.

Dirprwy Lywydd, as we mark the centenary of partial women's suffrage this week with the Representation of the People Act 1918 on 6 February 1918, today we'd like to pay tribute, I know, to women from Barry who played their part in the suffrage movement, including Annie Gwen Vaughan-Jones, who was the Secretary of the Cardiff and District Women's Suffrage Society. Annie was a student at the university college in Aberystwyth and a governess in Russia before world war one. She was also a magistrate sitting in tribunals, sympathetically hearing cases of female conscientious objectors. In addition to this historical figure, Eirene Lloyd White—Baroness White—who was a Labour peer with a successful political career, attended primary school in Barry, and, when Eirene was a little girl, Mrs Pankhurst came to visit Eirene's parents in their home in Park Road. Eirene remembered being dressed up in a white dress and a green, purple and white suffragette sash.When Emmeline Pankhurst came to Barry, she spoke at the co-operative hall and said,

'a free man could not be born of a slave mother.'

At the age of 10, Eirene White moved to London, where her father worked with David Lloyd George. She became a determined anti-racist after she was unable to eat in the same restaurant as Paul Robeson. She was a political journalist with the Manchester Evening News, the first woman to hold such a post. In 1950, she was elected MP for Flintshire East, and persuaded the Labour Party to vote for equal pay for women in the public sector. In the 1960s, she was Under-Secretary of State in the Colonial Office, later Minister of State at the Foreign Office and at the Welsh Office. Her ashes were scattered in Barry, where she spent a very happy childhood. In May, the Barry women's trail, which marks the lives of both Annie Vaughan-Jones and Eirene White, and 15 other exceptional Barry women, will be featured in the Valeways walking festival, and this will be a fitting tribute to these women in the centenary year of women's suffrage.

Thank you. Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I have been at the excellent Velindre Cancer Centre this morning and I'd like to thank the staff for leading the way in the fight against cancer there and send my best wishes to all of the patients that I saw in fighting their own personal battles. One of our number is battling at present—a young colleague. Our best wishes go to Steffan Lewis who's received treatment already for bowel cancer and who is continuing to undergo treatment. When another Member of the Assembly, Glyn Davies, survived bowel cancer, he established a rugby team, and, since then, the Assembly rugby team has kept close ties to Bowel Cancer UK, raising funds where we can and raising awareness at all times. I'm wearing the team tie now, but I won't be wearing a tie on Saturday, but the team kit.

Our match against the Houses of Commons and Lords is the big annual match for the Assembly rugby team, held on the day of the Wales-England six nations fixture. I’ll be there, at Roslyn Park in London on Saturday, alongside a number of other Members, hopefully with all of you invited to play or to support. We’ll be there as Members, as support staff, as researchers, as security, and my son will be there too, all with one main purpose: no, not to extend our six-match winning streak, as important as that is, but to do all we can to raise the profile of the charities we support.

The bowel cancer charity has had a busy week, publishing a new report, calling for strengthened services and better diagnosis. And in donning our Assembly rugby kit, and, yes, putting our bodies on the line for 80 minutes this Saturday, we’ll try to do our bit to shout as loudly as we can for Steff and everybody else in the same position as him that, when it comes to the fight against cancer, it’s game on.

Dai Lloyd.

On Sunday, millions of people across the country joined forces to mark this year's World Cancer Day. Over 19,000 people in Wales are diagnosed with cancer each year, so I would like to take the opportunity today to mark World Cancer Day in the Chamber, to show that cancer remains high on the political agenda.

Cancer Research UK is the world’s leading cancer charity dedicated to saving lives through research. Their work to improve the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of cancer has helped save millions of lives. Today, I’m wearing my Cancer Research UK unity band to show my support for World Cancer Day.

As Rhun has just mentioned, here in the Plaid Cymru group, this is very close to us, and our thoughts are always with our colleague, Steffan Lewis, and we wish him the best.

Early diagnosis is critical to improving patient outcomes. With incidence of cancer increasing in Wales, the high and growing demand for cancer tests means it’s essential to develop diagnostic capacity in certain parts of the NHS, particularly endoscopy, imaging and pathology. This will help to improve cancer survival in Wales and ensure cancers can be diagnosed quicker.

Given that each of those 19,000 people each year require a cancer test, it is imperative that we have the capacity in our diagnostic services to ensure that more cancers in Wales are diagnosed early.

Item 5 on the agenda is the Assembly Commission motion, a consultation on the Assembly reform, and I call on the Llywydd to move the motion—Llywydd.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. It's a pleasure to present this in my name.

Last year, the Wales Act 2017 was passed, heralding the start of a new phase of devolution in Wales. There are differing views in this Chamber about the Act and what it means for the future of devolution in Wales. Nevertheless, I am sure that we can all agree that the devolution of powers over our own electoral and internal arrangements is an important development. It's an opportunity to ensure that our national Parliament better represents the people of Wales and works in the most effective way possible in responding to the needs of our communities.

An important first step is using these powers to change the Assembly's name to 'Welsh Parliament', to ensure that everyone in Wales understands what this institution is here to do and how it works with them and on their behalf.

The Commission has also set in chain other measures, including establishing a Youth Parliament for Wales to inspire and engage young people in the work of the Assembly, and implementing the recommendations of the independent digital news taskforce in order to make it easier for people to understand and stay informed about what the Assembly does.

However, when the Wales Act comes into force this April, we will be able to go further than this, to change the size, electoral system and internal arrangements of the institution, and to change the elective franchise at our elections, including the voting age.

Last year, the Assembly Commission established an expert panel on Assembly electoral reform to provide robust and politically impartial advice on the number of Members the Assembly needs, the most suitable electoral system, and the minimum voting age for Assembly elections.

Since then, as you know, the panel has published a detailed report and specific recommendations, which include a clear message on the capacity of our institution. It concluded that a 60-Member Assembly is too small to carry out its functions effectively. I would like to thank the panel, under the chairmanship of Laura McAllister, for their thorough and comprehensive report.

All of us in this Siambr know that a call for more politicians is never going to be popular. Nevertheless, this report highlights the need to take action to address the capacity gap. The panel noted the proposals that have already been implemented to increase the capacity of the Assembly, but those methods in themselves aren't sufficient. So, the Assembly Commission has a responsibility to explore what more can be done.

In order to elect more Members, we need a system to do that, of course, and the panel has favoured three specific systems, based on a series of core principles. A consultation by the Assembly Commission will invite responses to those recommendations and the other proposals on external and internal arrangements that have been discussed by Assembly committees in their previous work. The consultation will also include innovative ideas included in the panel's report about ensuring diversity and representation, particularly as regards gender balance, and I look forward to hearing the comments on how the proposals for the electoral system can lead to an Assembly that better reflects the people and communities that we serve. Therefore, I look forward to hearing the comments of the parties on these recommendations and any alternative suggestions that they believe could draw the required consensus here in the Chamber.

The expert panel's report makes it clear that if the Assembly accepts the case for enhancing the size of the Assembly and changing its electoral system then it is now, during this Assembly term, that we should actually make the legislation. These matters go to the heart of our constitutional arrangements. That's why co-operation over the past year between the parties has been so important. May I thank the party leaders for their input, and also those individuals and the representatives who've actually been part of the political reference group? I'm very grateful for the positive, constructive and sensitive way in which everybody has contributed on these very difficult issues.

My intention is to continue in that vein, and such an important reform should always be driven on a cross-party basis, with a cross-party consensus within and outwith this Chamber. The consultation of the Assembly Commission will also include consultation on reducing the voting age to 16 and 17-year-olds, and ensuring that everybody lawfully resident in Wales can vote, even if they are not UK citizens, as well as some prisoners.

The Cabinet Secretary for Local Government and Public Services made a statement in this Chamber a fortnight ago outlining his recommendations for the reform of local government, including changes to the franchise. I am grateful to him for his commitment to working with the Assembly Commission to ensure that our respective reform proposals are developed to form a coherent, workable, and effective framework for elections in Wales. The next phase of the work is to have a broad consultation with all Assembly Members, with civic and political society, and, more than anything else, with the people of Wales.

The Commission has, therefore, decided to launch the public consultation next week, seeking views on the expert panel's recommendations and on other possible reforms to the Assembly's electoral and operational arrangements. This conversation will have to include the voices of many people throughout Wales: some people who engage with the Assembly frequently and people who might never usually consider responding to an Assembly consultation, along with people who might currently know little about the institution at all. To this end, the consultation will include a variety of different approaches that will help people to understand the proposals and respond in ways that suit them. For example, as well as publishing a formal consultation document, we will launch a microsite to provide information about the proposals and help people to respond on the issues that matter most to them.

The proposal before the Assembly today invites Members to endorse the Commission's decision to consult with the people of Wales on the way forward—no more, no less. Listening to the views of the people and understanding their concerns and ideas will help us decide whether the time is right to introduce legislation to reform the Assembly and the content of that legislation. So, I very much hope that every Member will support this motion today, thereby making sure that it is the voices of the people that we serve that shape the future of our Parliament.

Diolch. We have a number of speakers. I'll try and get you all in in the short debate time that we have, but I will appeal to you to remember that your fellow colleagues may not get called. So, if you could just be as brief as you could be. Thank you. Angela Burns.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'd like to thank the Presiding Officer, and I welcome very much this debate today. I would also like to place on record the formal thanks of the Welsh Conservatives to Laura McAllister and her team. We're very grateful for the engagement that has occurred with political representatives, and the Welsh Conservatives will be supporting the motion before us today, because it is now essential, we believe, that we ask the people of Wales for their views and that we do not pre-empt their opinion. The key responsibility for the Assembly Commission, as we see it, is to ensure that the people of Wales have a clear understanding of the additional responsibilities the Wales Act 2017 will bring. We believe that the Assembly Commission has a very clear responsibility to ensure that the people of Wales have a good understanding of the proposals made by the expert panel. These proposals are quite complicated in detail. Some of them are very technical, particularly recommendations 6 and 7, which talk about how we may be enfranchised, or how the people of Wales may be enfranchised, to vote Assembly Members in. I think there needs to be real clarity about any consultation going forward so people can understand very clearly what the various options are. It is a very, very complex system.

We also believe very strongly that the Assembly Commission now has a very deep responsibility to ensure that as wide a suffrage as possible is enabled to take part in this consultation. It cannot be just the usual stakeholders. We must get out to all of the people. So, we will encourage you to look to innovative and different ways of getting out to people, whether they're in the north, the south, the east or the west of this land, to ensure that everybody, but everybody, has a chance.

We are no longer an Assembly but we are a Parliament, and it is vital that Assembly Members in this place have the ability, the time and the tools at their disposal to be able to scrutinise effectively the Welsh Government. As I sat here listening to the Presiding Officer's opening gambit, I think that, in my years of being an Assembly Member, I've always been in the main opposition party, bar a very, very minor blip, and I do know how important it is to be able to scrutinise, when you're in that role, to be able to hold the Welsh Government to account, and the governing party to account, because every society must have check and balance, and we must be the check and balance for whoever is in Government in Wales. In order to do that we need to be effective, fair, impartial and a lot less tribal when it comes to committees, and we must also enable a governing party to have a robust back bench, because that is the way a really good democracy works. So, we can see that the call to action, the call to review how we run our Assembly, the call to review the tools we have at our disposal, is of great, great importance now. But it's a difficult one to explain to people, and we've got to make very, very clear—or the Assembly Commission have an obligation to make very, very clear—that the people of Wales understand that, and then, once they've made their decision, we must absolutely listen to it and abide by it, because, after all, this is nothing if not their Parliament.

Thank you to the Llywydd for introducing this debate today, and to Laura McAllister and her team for such thorough work. This, of course, is a debate that we've had before. I remember going on behalf of Plaid Cymru to give evidence to the Richard commission about expanding the Assembly at that time, when it was recommended that we should move—even 10 years ago—to an Assembly of 80 Members, and here we are, still an Assembly of 60 Members. So, it's about time for us to talk to the people of Wales about the thorough, genuine and purposeful recommendations about turning an Assembly that is evolving into a Parliament into a genuine Parliament, with real balance between the Government and the opposition parties.

We in Plaid Cymru welcome the report, but I don't want to influence the genuine consultation with the public. So, I just want to talk a little about the principles that Plaid Cymru feels are important as we look at this issue, keeping the options open on the methods of achieving those principles.

First of all, I want to talk about the fact that we need to expand the Assembly's capacity to scrutinise the Government and to hold it to account. This is something that Angela Burns has just talked about as well. Usually, that's described as 'more politicians', but I would like to describe it as more politicians but less power for the Government, because the Government that has to face a more powerful Parliament is a Government that can be more accountable—that has to be more accountable—to the people of Wales. We are also losing politicians in Wales. We'll be losing Members of the European Parliament, and we're talking about losing Members of Parliament at Westminster through parliamentary reform.

The second principle is to extend the franchise to younger people to vote. I know, from talking to schools myself, that young people can be divided 50:50 on this issue themselves, but I think that extending that right to young people to vote from the age of 16 onwards is something that we ought now to genuinely consider along with changes to the national curriculum.

Thirdly, we have to ensure that whatever we do is commensurate with or proportional to the representation that we have in the Assembly already or improves on that proportionality. And it's important to Plaid Cymru that we strike the right balance between local accountability and the fact that votes across Wales should be reflected as much as possible in this place in the way that people vote. We celebrate the fact that a by-election took place yesterday and we welcome Jack Sergeant as a new Member, which shows that there is a process, and, even though some might be disappointed in the number that turned out, I thought it was quite encouraging that almost one in three people in Alyn and Deeside voted in a by-election—it's better than some Westminster by-elections. But the more we can build on participation, the better it will be for this Parliament in dealing with the issues before us.

Of course, we have to ensure that we retain and improve representation according to gender here. This is something that Siân Gwenllian has talked about in the Assembly recently. There are specific recommendations from Laura McAllister in the report. What I'll say now is that it's not uncommon in a modern democracy to see processes and techniques in place to ensure that the parliament represents, as much as possible, women and men on an equal basis.

And I think, finally, Deputy Presiding Officer, it really is time to ensure that this Assembly is transformed into a Welsh Parliament in name, and not just in name, but in composition and status as well. This is because of the history that we've had. Make no mistake: giving Wales an assembly instead of a parliament was quite deliberate; we were intentionally shackled from the start. No legislative powers until the 2011 referendum, of course. No tax powers at all. We didn't even have a Government in the first days of the Assembly. That's how shackled we were, and the description of a 'county council on stilts' was a little too close to accuracy for my tastes. But we have moved on; we have become, in our deliberations, in the way we've worked on the tax legislation over the last few months, we've become a real Parliament. It's time to acknowledge that in conjunction and consultation with the people of Wales. But I'm certainly hopeful that that will come to a time where we now have true parliamentary scrutiny of all the Government, whichever political colour it is.

I rise to speak in this debate as chair of the National Assembly Labour group. The issues addressed in the report of the expert panel on Assembly electoral reform are matters not for the Government in the first instance, but for us as representatives of our political parties, and for our communities and parties more widely to consider. 

I would like to place on record the thanks of my party to Professor Laura McAllister for undertaking this substantial piece of work. The breadth of expertise of the panel members has ensured a detailed exploration of some very complex issues. They are issues that deserve full consideration and full consultation.

There are two areas in the report where we have existing policy. Firstly, Welsh Labour supports votes at 16, as was evident by the recent Welsh Government announcement to extend the franchise in local government elections. This was a commitment made in our 2016 manifesto and we support proposals to extend this to Assembly elections too. Secondly, Welsh Labour has a proud record of electing women in Wales. We have more women in this Senedd than any other party, making up over 50 per cent of our group. While it's taken Plaid Cymru 80 years to elect a woman to Parliament, and the Tories, to their shame, still have never elected a woman to the House of Commons from Wales, of the 11 Welsh women MPs, 10 of them are Labour. And it’s not just at Westminster and Cardiff Bay that Welsh Labour leads the way on this. In council chambers across Wales, Welsh Labour has more women representing their communities than any other party. In my own constituency of Cynon Valley over half of local councillors, and over half of Cynon Valley Labour councillors, are women.

But I don't want to get carried away. Positive mechanisms to increase the number of women have played a significant role and, in the process, are transforming my party. This has given a voice to women and helped to make this place a better, more constructive arena to debate the future of our country. All parties have a duty to ensure that they reflect the communities they seek to represent. It shouldn't take an expert panel to make that clear to anybody. Some of you will agree with the quotas as set out in the expert panel's report. Others won't. Whatever your view, I hope we can all agree that we need more women engaging in politics, standing in politics, and succeeding in politics. I don't want us to need quotas, but I especially don't want any party to think they can wait until they are mandated by law to take equal representation seriously.

Dirprwy Lywydd, 100 years ago some women were given the right to vote. It is within our grasp to give all women now a real voice, too. The Labour group has had an initial discussion on other areas of the report, and we will continue these. We will also feed into the consultation that our party has committed to during 2018 before reporting to our conference in 2019. Dirprwy Lywydd, to conclude, I would like to again thank the expert panel for their work and look forward to engaging in the conclusions from the Assembly Commission’s consultation.

Diolch, Llywydd for bringing today's motion on behalf of the Assembly Commission. I also would like to give my thanks to the expert panel for producing its report, and the political reference group itself, which has been meeting over the past year. The PRG meetings were very interesting, so I'm told, although I must point out I only attended one myself, as a substitute. But the UKIP representatives listened carefully to the panel and what they had to say, and also to the response of the political parties.

But I think it's less important, really, what the political parties think about these proposed changes, than what the public think about it. This is why UKIP supports the public consultation and is therefore happy to support today's motion. But we do feel that the consultation should act as a way of educating the Welsh electorate about these proposed changes, the biggest of which, we believe, is the proposed expansion of the Assembly. We think that this is such a major issue that the consultation should ultimately lead to a referendum, because no popular consent can be deemed to have been given unless we first have had such a referendum.

Now, in terms of the other issues, votes at 16: we also have a national policy on that, and we do oppose extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. Equal representation of genders: we believe that should be up to the political parties themselves to decide. The problem with the consultation is how to get widespread involvement, and how to ensure that voices that are heard in it are not merely those of the usual suspects—that is, the stakeholders who are already fully supportive of the Assembly as an institution and would be quite happy with an enlarged Assembly. We have to ensure that the consultation is not rigged in any way.

Now, the Llywydd has spoken of the need for consensus in this place, but also of the need for some measure of popular consent. We believe in UKIP that it would be unwise to proceed, particularly with the expansion of the Assembly, without securing that popular consent by means of a referendum.

Can I also join with other Members in congratulating Laura McAllister and the panel for producing an authoritative report? I think it stands comparison with anything you'd see produced in other parts of the United Kingdom and it stands in a proud tradition of constitutional reporting that we've had in our history of devolution. Perhaps we've had to do a lot of the thinking along the way—and so we've had the Richard commission, we had the Silk commission, and also the Holtham commission, though that was more directly related to the Welsh Government. They constitute a very formidable body of evidence, I think, on these central constitutional matters. I don't think any of us can really doubt the central finding of the report, which is—and I quote—that

'the Assembly is undersized and overstretched.'

I've served in the Assembly from the start in 1999. I've seen it evolve and I realise, at close quarters, that the amount of work we do is remarkable—and it's because we are very well supported, have outstanding staff, and have learnt to adapt our procedures. But, it's not necessarily unforced in some respects, and maintaining the capacity of the work that we do does put quite a lot of strain on certain parts of the legislative apparatus, and it is appropriate for us to look at this. The report says that we need between 20 and 30 more Members. I'm not sure I completely agree with that, but certainly when you compare us to Scotland and Northern Ireland, we are very much smaller and we do need to address this issue.

Can I turn to what the Electoral Reform Society said? One of their central insights was that we only have about 42 AMs who can sit on committees to scrutinise the Welsh Government. This is at the heart of our weakness, really; there aren't enough AMs to scrutinise. Whatever we say about devolution in the United Kingdom, it has produced very, very strong executive powers. I was talking to someone the other day who remonstrated with me for using the 'federal' word, and I said, 'Well, actually, in the UK, we are beyond federalism; our Governments are a lot stronger than most federal Governments in the western world.' So, we do need a powerful legislature too to scrutinise the work of that Assembly.

The Electoral Reform Society point out the fact that increasing membership, in their view, would require an adjustment in the electoral system, and they prefer the single transferable vote. But, myself, I don't think it is wise to connect increasing the size of the Assembly with a new electoral system. The one could blight the other if we're not very careful, and I think I detected that tone from Vikki Howells's contribution. I think we'd be very wise to look at what is essential, and that is to see if we can increase, with public support, the size of the Assembly.

Now, I did say 'between 20 and 30'. Certainly, 30 extra Members, I think, would be too big an ask. That would increase our size by half. In Northern Ireland, they're thinking of coming down a bit, I think to below 90. I have a proposal that if we were to more modestly suggest 75 Members then the proportion between constituency and regional Members would remain the same. So, we would not have to change the electoral system—though, of course, we would then need 50 directly elected constituencies. So, there would be a boundary commission that would have to meet to do that. But, at least we could proceed on the basis of preserving the current electoral system of the additional member system, which does produce quite a high level of proportionality. That's why it's endured in Germany for so long. So, that would be my suggestion. I know you could also keep that proportion if you had 90 Members, but I think that is really too demanding given the general political climate at the moment.

Can I finally just turn to the role of citizens? I do believe that we are seeing a great force being generated now for citizen involvement, and we are moving quite decisively to participatory democracy. Representative democracy has had its day, citizens require much more activity in decision making and I welcome this. That's why I've suggested that we should look at a citizens' chamber being established at some point in the National Assembly. Now, you might want to do that at the twentieth anniversary of devolution and ask that chamber to look at the constitution as a whole. That may be one task, but it could also look at our legislative programme and suggest items for that legislative programme.

But I do have this one piece of advice for the Commission: I think something far more active in terms of citizen involvement is required than what I have seen suggested so far by way of consultation. We need at the very least a citizens' jury or panel to look at this question, because that could open the doors for this policy to become practicable. If we had a powerful endorsement from the public and that was seen to be unbiased, then I think we could move ahead on this issue. I'm not convinced by those who say, 'Well, it's going to cost £100,000 or £200,000 to run that sort of panel or jury.’ After all, we are considering a significant increase in our membership, which will bear additional expenditure running into millions of pounds. So, that's my advice to the Commission: ensure that citizens get to have their say.

I too welcome the report of the expert panel on Assembly electoral reform, and I congratulate everyone who has been involved in the work, and I congratulate the Commission and the Llywydd for commissioning the work in the first place and moving with a sense of urgency following receipt of the Wales Act 2017, which makes all of this possible at last. Without that Act, of course, we wouldn't be in this place discussing this.

The next step is to hold a wide-ranging consultation on these issues that are contained in the report, not only about the number of Assembly Members—I'm slightly concerned that the discussion will focus on that, the number of Assembly Members and whether we need to increase the number of Assembly Members, and that that will dominate the discussion. We also need to emphasise the other important issues that are mentioned in the report. I believe that we need new arrangements. It was a small percentage that voted in the by-election on Deeside yesterday, and even though Simon might not be overly concerned about that, I do think that it does show that there needs to be change and that people need to feel that there is a value to their vote and that people feel that the people who are elected genuinely do represent the whole population.

Recommendations 14 to 16 include lowering the voting age to those aged 16 and over, and of course we need the political education to go along with that. I'm pleased to see that recommendations 15 and 16 refer to that. There are many young people who are eager to vote, and I very much hope that this aspect of the report will receive approval, certainly the approval of young people, and hopefully the approval of everyone who is concerned about the future of our nation.

Recommendation 10: I have a particular interest in this as spokesperson on equality for Plaid Cymru. Recommendation 10, of course, is the recommendation that talks about a gender balance representation, and recommendation 10 suggests that there should be a gender quota integrated with any electoral system put in place for 2021. Certainly, I do believe that we need to have a gender balance through legislation and that this Assembly should lead the way in Wales so that public bodies follow in our footsteps and so we avoid internal party-political arguments, because that's the kind of thing that tends to happen when we leave it to the individual parties. We need statute here.

I would encourage everyone to take part in the consultation and in this debate, and I do very much hope that it will encourage discussion and debate about the Assembly itself and that it will educate people about the value of the Assembly and also encourage a wider debate about the role of women in public life in Wales.

I'm very pleased to take part in this debate, and welcome the consultation that will ensue on 'A Parliament that Works for Wales'. I'm going to also make particular reference to the recommendations, which seek to widen the participation of women and young people in this Assembly, this Welsh Parliament. And I think it's appropriate that we consider these recommendations—I don't think it was necessarily planned—in the week we celebrate the centenary of partial suffrage for women, and look back to the pioneers, a century ago, who fought to get the vote. And what would they be thinking today, in terms of where we move forward?

I know that those who fought for our right to vote 100 years ago would have supported the Labour Party’s positive action, as Vikki Howells has outlined, leading up to the establishment of the Assembly, with the twinning of constituencies—we commented on that yesterday. It did result in unprecedented numbers of Labour women being elected in 1999, including myself; indeed, I was twinned with the First Minister, Carwyn Jones. And how proud the Suffragettes would be in our constituencies to see that gender equality we achieved in 2003, largely because of that positive action. But, sadly, we've slipped back from that groundbreaking parity, and we need to address that. I think we do need to use this opportunity to explore—and I'm glad the Llywydd talked about exploring in this consultation the changes proposed in recommendations 9, 10 and 11.

Yesterday, Chwarae Teg’s Natasha Davies made a plea that we should take this opportunity to vote for a parliament that works for women. And I do urge—as others have—wider civic society to engage, as well as the political world and political parties, in this consultation. We want to know what the National Federation of Women's Institutes, Merched y Wawr, the Soroptimists, our young people’s forums, the National Union of Students, trade unions, tenants groups, as as well as our faith and non-faith communities, think about these opportunities—citizens' juries, which David has mentioned. We need to look to consult on the widest possible political enfranchisement of people in Wales. And that includes, of course, consulting on the recommendation to extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds for our Assembly elections.

Now, Richards has already been mentioned, I would say, Dirprwy Lywydd. In 2002, let's remember, it was First Minister Rhodri Morgan who announced that independent commission, chaired by the Labour peer, Lord Richards of Ammanford, to examine the powers and electoral arrangements of the Assembly. He reported back—it's worth looking back at his report—in 2004. Recommendations such as the fact that the Assembly should have primary law-making powers have come to fruition, the corporate body structure replaced with the Executive and legislature, and, of course, so many of his recommendations have been adopted, but the wider recommendations on the electoral arrangements—size of the Assembly; of course, Richards recommended we move to 80 Members—remain in play.

Richards didn't focus on the issues that I've been highlighting—and, indeed, Siân Gwenllian and Vikki Howells—today, to how we seek and deliver gender parity for this Assembly, our Welsh Parliament. And I think we are here for a purpose. We must look back to the examples of our sisters in the Suffragette movement, enabling us to be here today, and look forward to what our future generations would expect of us in taking the opportunities we have to make a Parliament that is fit for purpose, in terms of the widest representation of people in Wales.

Thank you.

I call on the Llywydd to reply to the debate. Llywydd.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. It was an unintentional tactic on my behalf to allow so little time for myself to respond to the debate. It's obvious that I'm out of practice on the timing of speeches.

If I could just refer very quickly to some of the main points made—some of which are common across all the contributions. The point that Angela Burns made at the outset, of course, on ensuring that the consultation that we're embarking upon is as broad as possible within the resources available to us, and that it should extend to every part of Wales—yes, we are going to make every effort to do that. David Melding referred to the specific point with regard to trying to be as innovative as possible with regard to the work we undertake on consultation—a citizens' panel, a jury. The Commission did look at these options, but, unfortunately, as David Melding has said, we came to a decision in this case that it would appear to be too expensive to undertake, although we were aware of how valuable that would have been.

A number of people contributed from their party's point of view, and it was very valuable to hear their points of view on some of the issues that we will be consulting upon, and a number also alluded to what we can be looking at arising from the gender balance report. And as Vikki Howells said, we could look, of course, at using legislation to secure gender balance, but we shouldn't avoid the responsibility of each one of our parties, and each individual here, to ensure that we promote making women and people from underrepresented sections of the community to be engaged in the politics of Wales. 

May I also say thank you to David Melding for talking about an alternative option—an option of 75 Members? We haven't started the consultation yet, and yet, we have been given an additional option to consider. So, I am very appreciative of the thought that has gone into that option.

A number of Members have mentioned what is core to the work of the panel and the discussion that we've had this afternoon, namely the need to ensure that the balance between the work of this Assembly, this Parliament here, the work of its committess, the work of this Chamber, and the work of the Government all works for the benefit of the people of Wales—more and better scrutiny. More scrutiny leads to better legislation, better policy decisions by Government, and that all ultimately benefits the people of Wales as we represent them in this Parliament. So, may I thank you for the encouraging response to move forward, hopefully, to take the step of authorising further consultation on these fascinating and interesting issues?

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

We now move to item 6, which is a debate on a Member's legislative proposal, and I call on Vikki Howells to move her motion on an inclusive play Bill. 

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Play is something that is vital for children and young people. It encourages physical health and well-being, tackles obesity, improves dexterity and motor skills, builds resilience and fitness levels. It also promotes mental well-being. Play contributes to healthy brain development. It offers opportunities to use the imagination. It grants children new chances to engage and interact with the world around themselves. But it also fulfils a more fundamental role in the creation of one’s identity. Renowned paediatrician Donald Winnicott said:

'It is in playing and only in playing that the individual child…is able to be creative and to use the whole personality, and it is only in being creative that the individual discovers the self.'

The UN’s declaration of the rights of the child afforded children the right to play. It placed a duty on Governments to ensure that right was met, codified in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. This Assembly has been proactive in meeting this, being the first Parliament to adopt a national play policy and the first to legislate for children’s play.

The Children and Families (Wales) Measure 2010 placed a duty on local authorities to assess and secure sufficient play opportunities for children, such as through fixed playgrounds. Whilst these aren’t the only opportunities for play, they remain one of the most popular and convenient options. But that is not true for all children. In particular, it is not true for those with a disability. In 2015, Sense undertook a public inquiry into the provision of play opportunities for children aged zero to five with multiple needs in England and Wales. Published in 2016, this contained some stark findings. It found a strong consensus that children with multiple needs face significant barriers to accessing play. Families wanted to be able to access mainstream play settings in the community. However, 92 per cent of parents felt that their child lacked the same opportunities to play as their non-disabled peers. Many settings were just not accessible to children with multiple needs. And this impacts on health, wellbeing and the ability of these children to interact with their friends, family and society.

Many constituents have also contacted me to tell me about the problems that they face. Since being elected, two playgrounds in my constituency have been made inclusive. In one case, Glyncoch, this was in terms of the accessibility of the playground site. And in the other case, Cilfynydd, where I had the honour of meeting a very remarkable young lady called Mia Thorne, this was in terms of installing new inclusive play equipment so that Mia could play with her friends.

An inaccessible site or inaccessible equipment can both be barriers preventing children from play. Both of these improvements were part of Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council’s incredibly ambitious £1.7 million investment in local play sites. They could be taken to say, 'We are meeting the challenge.' Rather, I think they actually work to highlight the problem. For example, one of my colleagues here invited me to see a new playground in their constituency elsewhere in Wales. The investment had cost hundreds of thousands of pounds, and it was a very impressive site with some really good bits of kit. The park itself had been made accessible as part of these works, but there was no inclusive play equipment. Children with disabilities could travel right up to the play equipment, but not use it in any way. I felt that this was a real chance that had been missed, considering the huge amount that had been invested. Just for £1,000 or so more, there could have been inclusive play opportunities provided.

So, a chance had been missed, and this is exactly where my proposal would come in. I am asking Assembly Members today to note my proposal for an inclusive play Bill. This Bill, quite simply, would enhance inclusive play opportunities by placing a duty on local authorities so that they must provide play equipment and areas that meet the needs of children with disabilities. This would build on the 2010 Measure. That already tasks local authorities with providing play sufficiency assessments and play action plans. Of the nine matters within this, two involve an awareness of inclusivity issues, but Play Wales has noted challenges around councils meeting these due to resource and capacity. My proposal would strengthen and amend this, prioritising the provision of inclusive play equipment.

I want to take a few moments to address possible obstacles to my proposal. Would such a Bill place undue financial pressures on councils, particularly in the context of wider public sector austerity? I believe that this is not the case. Changes could take place over a long-term timescale with no immediate expectations of wholesale alteration. Councils could develop and plan inclusive playgrounds on a manageable basis as part of any routine work. As the example of RCT I cited earlier suggests, councils do invest and upgrade play equipment on a fairly regular basis. My proposal would only ensure that planned upgrades include provision of inclusive pieces that are accessible or adapted for those with sensory issues—that it was a starting principle rather than a last-minute addition.

Moreover, the differential between inclusive and non-inclusive play pieces is not so substantial as may be presumed. It could be comfortably met within a playground refurbishment costed within the tens of thousands, and RCT council tell me that the average that they spend on the refurbishment of a single playground is around the £25,000 ballpark figure. This also explains why such a proposal would not lead to an unintended consequence of councils not refurbishing their play equipment. But a more challenging issue could be that there is no one-size-fits-all piece of play equipment that would suit all disabilities or all ages. However, what I would say is that there are various pieces that could benefit a number of different user groups.

Now, even if Members support my proposal today, I know there will be no sudden change in the law. However, there are several sensible proposals that could be used to further explore the issue. For example, I would like to see the publication of the play sufficiency assessments that local authorities already produce. Better sharing of information would empower children and their families so that we and they know what is actually out there. Awareness could be strengthened by some type of Green Flag good practice award, either as a free-standing initiative or as part of the already established green spaces recognition scheme. And any work done on this could be advertised through a website so that parents would be able to access and see where good practice inclusive playgrounds were situated. So, I look forward to Member’s contributions on my proposal.

Plaid Cymru are broadly supportive of this motion today. We believe that children living with disabilities and special needs should be able to have the important and precious life experiences that any other child in our society should have. But I do feel that it is unfortunate, in a sense, that we should be considering the needs to place inclusive play and access to play opportunities for children with disabilities on a more statutory footing, because one would have hoped that, by this time, with devolution as progressed as it is, there would be widespread recognition from authorities and the wider public for the need for play opportunities to be accessible to every family and every child with a disability or special need.

We would also have hoped that with the programmes that the Welsh Government have, and I'm sure we'll hear more about them later, that there wouldn't be the uncertainty over provision and access, which exists for many families. Perhaps it would be useful for the Minister to outline what provision there is already and how they currently, or plan to, ensure uniformity of access and services across the whole of Wales when he responds. 

In my experience as an Assembly Member there is a myriad of services that people and the Welsh Government expect to be provided by local authorities, but which in reality are not, or if they are, then it varies from place to place and sometimes within an authority itself. We often hear that a Government Minister has issued guidance or is making more money available for a particular service and, often, that is welcome, but without a legal basis and requirement for an authority to act, particularly when money is difficult to find, constituents come to us with complaints that they are simply unable to do things that should be guaranteed.

We see this with things beyond play. I'm currently working with young carers—and I have a meeting with the Minister tomorrow—who have told me that, for example, young carers assessments are written within the legislation, they should be happening, they should be enacted, but they are not in many, many areas. So, if there is going to be this new duty on local authorities, as described by Vikki Howells, what will this actually mean in practice, and what will change on the ground? I think that's key to any new legislation. 

I was thinking perhaps it might have been to do with play in more general terms. So, I was going to go on to say about a situation in my area, which the Minister is aware of, with the Action for Children playgroup in Neath Port Talbot, where people felt they were left in the dark about the changes there and the potential downgrading of some of those services. I think it's still pertinent here, because, of course, many of those children who are accessing those services will be those with autism, and if there is specific equipment within that playgroup that they will have, via Action for Children, then we need to make sure that they have access to that equipment whatever provider it is in the future. This is just one anecdotal example, but it is an example of concerns that people raise with us all the time.

I'm sympathetic to calling for new legislation in this regard, because I think that local authorities need to do more, but again it comes back to this lifelong discussion that we have about what local authorities have discretion to do, or not do, and the flexibility that they have. And if there is going to be a statutory obligation on local authorities to do this, then we have to actually make sure they do it and do it well. 

I'd like to thank the Member for the Cynon Valley for bringing this debate, which I'm delighted to be able to speak very briefly in support of.

Many disabled children are missing out on the opportunity to socialise and mix with children who are not disabled. Mumsnet, the UK's biggest website for parents, and the charity Scope are calling on local authorities to do more to make local children's provision like leisure activities, groups and play centres inclusive for disabled children and their families. And, besides the missed play opportunities for disabled children, there is a clear knock-on effect that non-disabled children don't get to play with them either.

Children are the most naturally inclusive citizens we have, yet we seem to be reasonably effective at taking that away from them as they grow, for instance, by not providing inclusive play equipment. Segregating them by not supplying combined play equipment and provision is clearly one of the ways it begins to happen. So, giving children equality with their peers and encouraging inclusion will undoubtedly be a step in the right direction to nurturing them to become more inclusive adults.

It has to be said, of course, that the principle of making sure that there's equal amount of inclusive play provision is academic in those areas with minimal or no play areas. So, equally, I'd be encouraging councils not just to think about the play opportunities there are for disabled children, but the play opportunities there are for all of the children, because we're not exactly swimming in playgrounds and safe places for children to go and play. So, I'd like to see that provision improved. But I agree that where it does exist, play equipment and provision should, of course, be inclusive. No child's more important than another, but actions speak louder than words, and if we don't redress this inequality, can we really complain and preach when negative attitudes towards disabled people continue?

Play is important for all our children; socialisation is important for all our children, and the concept of equality is vital for our children to grasp, accept and respect. If this proposal is not resourced properly, it will do nothing, but with the right money behind it, it could achieve great things for all of our children. So, I wholeheartedly support this motion and would ask that it's backed with meaningful resources, if it actually comes to fruition. Thank you.

I'm delighted to contribute to this debate on the legislative proposal on inclusive play, brought to the Chamber by Vikki Howells. This does provide us with the opportunity to take stock of progress since the groundbreaking play sufficiency legislation in the Children and Families (Wales) Measure 2010. Many Members—not here at this moment in this Chamber—contributed to that at the time.

It's noteworthy that the word 'groundbreaking' was the word used by Play Wales, the national charity that I know that you've closely engaged with, Vikki. A national charity for children's play, they've led the way in the world with their rights-based approach to children's play. I spent time in my early community work career developing and working on a bunch of playgrounds in Cardiff and in Pill in Newport. I was proud to incorporate that evidence of my experience into the world's first play policy in October 2002, when I was health and social services Minister.

In straightforward language and terms, the play policy set out the Welsh Government's recognition of the vital importance of play and a commitment that society should seek every opportunity to support it. And believe it or not, play was not a policy priority at that time. But we were working as a Government, as you do now, to implement the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. In 2006, 'The Assembly Government's Play Policy Implementation Plan'—a very long title—committed to ensure full implementation of article 31 of the convention that recognised the importance of play for the child. The play implementation plan did refer to the Disability Discrimination Act and also it cited case studies, such as Interplay in Swansea and Neath Port Talbot, and I quote:

'Interplay began in 1987 as a summer play project and has since grown to become a year round provider of inclusive play and leisure for 5–19 year olds in the counties of Swansea and Neath Port Talbot.

'The majority of users have some degree of learning disabilities; many have physical impairments, sensory impairments and challenging behaviour. Interplay does not run play schemes, but instead provides additional support staff to enable children aged 5-11 with various needs to be integrated into play schemes organised by local authorities, local voluntary groups and leisure centres.'

Any policy to enhance inclusive play needs to draw as well on the natural environment: for example, street-based play, 20-mph zones, and it must engage with children themselves to identify their rights in play. And that was the glory of the development of adventure playgrounds, such as—and I know she's not here at the moment, but with Lesley Griffiths, many times I've visited The Venture playgrounds, as some of you might have done in Wrexham, which are still very pioneering.

I think Play Wales has provided a very useful briefing on the current state of policy thinking and provision, including reference to the Equality Act 2010 and the definition of inclusive play, but I believe that Vikki Howells has widened that definition to ensure we include the needs of disabled children and young people.

I think this debate enables us to put play back on the agenda, enhancing well-being and children's rights, remembering, of course, that the foundation phase indeed opened up play-directed learning that has resulted in greater confidence in our young people. Obviously we look forward to the Minister's response, but let's use our groundbreaking policy and legislation to restate the importance of play in Wales and consider what more we can do on the legislative front, as Vikki Howells has proposed today.

Thank you. Can I now call the Minister for Children and Social Care, Huw Irranca-Davies?

Thank you very much. First, I'd like to start by congratulating Vikki Howells for securing an important debate here today in the Chamber.

A very important debate, and I thank Vikki as well for all her time and hard work in this policy area since she's arrived here, and her passion for championing inclusive play, both here and also in her own constituency, and others as well, as Jane has just reminded us. Thank you as well to Bethan and to Michelle for their contributions to this debate.

It is a very welcome opportunity to raise the profile of the play agenda and the importance of inclusive and accessible play opportunities to meet the needs of all children. As Vikki and Jane in particular mentioned, we can be rightly proud of the fact that Wales has absolutely led the way on this: the first country in the world to legislate for play. Wales is acknowledged as a world leader in promoting recognition of the importance of play and embedding this in our legislation. And together with our partners, we've done much, as we've just heard, to work towards creating a play-friendly country.

I agree with Vikki that there is more that can be done to improve inclusive and accessible play opportunities, and I'll turn to some of the suggestions shortly. However, I would suggest that introducing further legislation is not necessary, or the best way forward, for a number of reasons. First amongst those is that the current legislative framework—as has been mentioned in this debate already—is widely regarded as sound and fit for purpose. So, alongside requirements under the Equality Act 2010, our Children and Families (Wales) Measure 2010 places a duty on local authorities to conduct play sufficiency assessments and to secure sufficient play opportunities.

Would the Minister take an intervention?

Indeed. I will give way.

Minister, I agree with you that there is some really good practice out there already, and I'd just like to invite you to come to my constituency where I could show you an example of a really good inclusive play area. Maybe you could meet with some of the children and parents that I've been working with.

I'd be absolutely delighted to take that opportunity up because part of the challenge here is seeing what good looks like and then making sure that good appears everywhere right across the country, with partners on the ground, with every local authority. But the statutory underpinning is there; it's making sure now that that's delivered on consistently everywhere. And it will be diverse because the needs of the children are diverse as well. I happily take that invitation up.

There are clear requirements already in place, but neither we, nor others in the field, such as Play Wales, mentioned by Jane there, feel that placing an additional duty on local authorities is the best way to achieving inclusive play opportunities. But, secondly—and you would expect me to mention this—Welsh Government has provided local authorities with just short of £5 million since 2013-14 to improve accessible and inclusive play in their areas, and, in fact, we've probably seen some of the results in your local area and others as well. The play sufficiency assessments reveal that local authorities have indeed been making concerted efforts to provide accessible play opportunities. The progress reports have shown that funding has been used throughout Wales to address accessibility issues with regard to outdoor play spaces and, by the way, it is wider play spaces, not simply playgrounds, but wider play spaces as well.

Thirdly, the introduction of new legislation could—despite the reassurances that Vikki was giving in her contribution—could—and it's been observed not just by me but by others—lead to some unanticipated outcomes and could even be counter-productive. So, for example, what is accessible play for some children is actually a barrier for others. There is a risk of decisions that might result on the ground in inappropriate design or even further segregation between different children, and we wouldn't want that to happen.

However, Vikki raised a number of interesting proposals during the debate that I'm keen to consider further and take forward. So, for example, with regard to the Green Flag good practice award, while I understand the intention behind the suggestion, we'd probably need to carry out further work to see whether this could be achieved as part of the established green spaces recognition scheme, perhaps, or via another route. But I'm happy to look at that. So, for example, we might want to work with partners to gather and publish case studies that clearly set out the important key features of particular schemes and interventions across Wales.

And turning to the vital issue that Vikki raised about awareness and sharing of information and public-facing information, I completely agree that local authorities should be making information publicly available about their play sufficiency assessments, and where people can go for the appropriate play. This should include actions they propose to take to achieve sufficiency and to improve inclusive play opportunities.

So, on the back of this debate and the points that Vikki and others have made, I will ask officials to immediately take forward the suggestion so that information is made available by local authorities in a way that supports children and their families to know what's available. There might be a role, for example, for family information services, which we can explore, along with making greater use of Play Wales's 'Creating accessible playing spaces toolkit', which is a tool for providing good information for parents.

So, ultimately, Presiding Officer, enabling all children to play and to play together is about a benefit to the whole community. If any child is prevented from playing, then it diminishes the play experience of all children. So, thank you to Vikki.

Thank you to Vikki Howells for the opportunity to discuss inclusive play. It is important that we continue to work with our partners to ensure that our children can play in our communities. So thank you very much.

We can see that there's an agenda here to take forward, and I thank her and other Members present today for giving play this airing it deserves more frequently.

I call on Vikki Howells to reply to the debate—Vikki Howells.

I'd like to thank all Members who took part in this debate today, and especially the Minister as well. Just to respond to some of the points raised, my colleague Bethan Jenkins asked what would it look like on the ground, and Michelle Brown raised some concerns about resourcing. I think that's the beauty of my suggestion, that these changes could be incremental. I've been trawling through different play catalogues, and you see, for example, that an inclusive roundabout costs just a few hundred pounds more than a standard one, and a basket swing costs, again, just a few hundred pounds more than a conventional one. So, when a local authority is going out with a budget of, say, £25,000 to revamp a play area, it's quite easy to fit those things in with no additional resource requirements.

So, I hope Members will be able to note my proposal today. If Wales could legislate on this matter, we would not only be the first country in the world to have passed a law on the right to play, we would be the first country in the world to have specifically legislated on inclusive play. That achievement would not just be about having passed a new law; it would be about starting to put in place measures so that disabled children could have the same rights to play as their peers. It would be about creating safe spaces that parents and families are happy for children to use to improve their physical, emotional and mental well-being, and it would be about recognising that disabled children have the same right to play as their peers.

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

The next item is the Plaid Cymru debate on the proposed M4 relief road. I call on Adam Price to move the motion.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. It’s my pleasure to rise to move the motion in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth, which is to do with the M4 relief road, a new motorway, in truth—that’s what it is, of course. It’s true to say that it is one of the most controversial infrastructure projects perhaps that we’ve been discussing, not only recently but for some decades. There is a great range of opinion in Wales, and that’s reflected in this Chamber. But this motion asks us not to decide today on this issue, but to ensure that there will be an opportunity for us to make a decision, so that the range of views from elected Members in this place can be heard—that is, that there is a democratic will expressed as far as the decision is concerned.

Of course, we’ve seen throughout the time that this project has been discussed—and you can go back to 1991 originally, when the scheme was proposed—throughout that time, the costs have increased, partly for inflation reasons, but even in recent years we’ve seen a significant increase in the estimates that the Government itself has given for the project. That is, the First Minister just three years ago was talking about the fact that the cost would be significantly less than £1 billion, but we know now from the evidence of the Government itself to the public inquiry that that has risen at least—. Well, without including VAT, it’s risen to more than £1.3 billion, and, if you then include VAT, and as we’ve seen with so many projects recently, in terms of roads, the possibility of the cost increasing even more than the contingency of about £150 million that the Government has provided for—you can see that cost very easily increasing more. Indeed, Friends of the Earth have estimated, in their evidence to the inquiry, that we're already closer to £1.8 billion. So, this is a mega-project, isn't it? I don't think anyone can argue with that.

And, when we think of it in those terms, when we think of the possibility we're already looking at way over £1.5 billion when you add in these different elements, then I think it is only right and proper, of course, that this Parliament will get the right to decide. Because there's a huge opportunity cost in there: £1.5 billion, £1.7 billion, £1.8 billion. You can have a new integrated transport system, a metro, for Swansea bay and the western Valleys—Mark Barry has estimated £1 billion should do the first phase of that entire new regional transport system. You'd have some money to spare—probably the estimates that have been suggested for the reopening of the Aberystwyth to Carmarthen railway line you could do as well. You could have an entire new public transport system and reopen the railway line in west Wales instead of doing this.

Now, there will be Members, quite rightly, who think, actually, no, there is still—. Their assessment will be different, and they'll see cost-benefit different to my party, and, of course, that's within their right. The point of this motion, very simply, is that range of views needs to be heard and brought to bear on the final decision. Now, we've had debates, I think in every Assembly, on the M4 relief road, partly reflecting the range of disagreement there is. The problem is, of course, they've been brought on opposition motions, and we've heard in recent weeks, of course, that the Government doesn't always listen to the result of opposition debates. That's why this motion makes it clear that it should be brought forward on a Government resolution, so that it's a binding motion. And, you know, that is really standard practice for major infrastructure projects: when we look at Westminster, if we look at some of those mega-projects where, again, there have been a range of views, sometimes within parties as well—HS2, the third runway in Heathrow, even the renovation project of the House of Commons, you could say; that's a major infrastructure project now, £5 billion—there have been votes on these issues. And, of course, that's absolutely vital in a democracy, and the process, with the National Infrastructure Commission and the national policy statements in the UK, is that there is a parliamentary vote—there is a parliamentary vote—as there should be, certainly when we're talking about this level of expenditure. And so I hope that we will get support across the Chamber, across the range of views in terms of what should happen after the end of the public inquiry with this particular project.

I'll just say briefly about the Government amendment, which says that we shouldn't do anything to prejudice or prejudge the outcome of the public inquiry, the point of the motion is that we should have a vote after the public inquiry. That doesn't prejudge; we will then be informed by the outcome of the public inquiry. But, ultimately, it's Parliaments that should decide, surely, on major policy decisions. And, certainly, when we're talking about the scale of the expenditure, the scale of the impact in other terms—in transport, environmental and social terms—then it should be right, it absolutely has to be right, that it's this place that should make the final decision, and we'll be listening very, very carefully to what the Government has to say on that matter.

Andrew R.T. Davies. Ah, before you stand on your feet, I need to call the amendment. And I call on the Cabinet Secretary to move the amendment, amendment 1, formally.

Formally.

Bit of an anticlimax there, Presiding Officer. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. It's a real pleasure to take part in this debate. [Interruption.] I will not take the conversation any further. It's a real pleasure to take part in this debate, and I have to say, as the lead spokesperson for Plaid Cymru said, that debate after debate on this subject has been held in the 11 years that I have been an Assembly Member, and I'm sure people who were here before me remember previous debates. And, even before this institution was established, people were talking about the new M4 relief road or a road around Newport, obviously to solve the congestion problems. And, actually, this debate isn't about getting into the intricacies of the engineering, the environmental impact, et cetera, et cetera, it is about a simple proposition, a proposition that we on this side of the house do agree with, that this institution should have a vote—a stand-alone vote—as to whether the Government should or should not proceed on what is quite clearly its largest infrastructure project that it has considered and, no doubt, will press a button on to either say 'yea' or 'nay' after the public inquiry.

Surely, as Assembly Members whose constituencies and regions will all be affected by that decision, we should have a role to play in that decision-making process. If the Government is confident of its position and it, by virtue of being the Government, should have a majority in here, it should be able to carry the house and carry the vote to give the permission for this project to go ahead. So, it's not really a mind-numbing question that we need to spend hours and hours debating; it's a simple proposition for a democratically-elected house to play an active role in sanctioning what, as I said, is the biggest infrastructure project this Government, or any predecessor Governments, have had to consider. From our side of the house, what we have real concerns over is the costs, and the escalating costs, of the project, and we very much want to be able to have a say on that. We have made it quite clear that we will not give any blank cheques when it comes to this project, and only now, over the last couple of weeks, in evidence to the economy and transportation committee, we've heard from the Government that the costs range somewhere between £1.4 billion and £1.5 billion at the moment. I'm failing to find many infrastructure projects that start at a figure and don't just end up going up from the figure that you started with. I'd be grateful if the Cabinet Secretary could give us an indication of such fixed contracts that have delivered such mega-schemes within the budgets that they've been charged with delivering. [Interruption.] And I'd also—. Public projects.

And I would also invite the Cabinet Secretary to give us some explanation as to why there's the substantial rise in these costs to give us some confidence that the Government's proposals might be still on track. Obviously, only two years ago the First Minister talked of a figure coming well under £1 billion. And now, some two years later, to be standing here and, by the Government's own estimations, and the figures that you've lodged with the public inquiry, to be on a figure of £1.4 billion does deserve an explanation, I believe, rather than just pointing to inflation, because—

Will the Member give way?

Yes.

I agree with the Member on what he said so far, and certainly the principle in taking—you know, spending those sums of money should be taken here, and not left to the Executive on its own. Does he take or have any acceptance of the evidence that the costs are more likely, plus VAT, to be closer to £2 billion? And where does he think the line starts to be drawn on a project like this?

Well, that's where I was going to take my argument, because the Cabinet Secretary is clearly in possession of information, and the evidence he's given to the economy and transportation committee is that costs would have to rise significantly before the question mark was put in on this project. Well, we've had a figure of under £1 billion from the First Minister some two years ago. We've got to £1.4 billion today—perhaps £1.5 billion—without VAT. That's a £600 million increase. I'm just wondering, myself, what the Cabinet Secretary believes is a significant rise in costs before the Welsh Government themselves question the viability of the project and what solutions might well be coming forward. [Interruption.] Well, I haven't got access to the—. I hear the chuntering from the Plaid Cymru benches, but I have to say—[Interruption.] I have to say I haven't got access to the detailed information. We have put our cards on the table and said that we believe a solution needs to be put in place. [Interruption.] We believe that a solution needs to be put in place. I was travelling this piece of road this morning—at 5 o'clock this morning—heading up to Raglan livestock market. At 6:30 this morning, that road was chock-a-block, three lanes, all the way from the Severn bridge back to the Brynglas tunnels. You cannot turn your back on that situation, that the road has a serious problem and a serious stranglehold on the Welsh economy. What you can't turn away from either is the escalating costs that seem to be associated with the Government's preferred project. And so I do go back to the original proposition that we're debating here today, which is the substantive motion that this house should have the ability to vote on the project going forward and becoming a capital project of the Welsh Government and the Welsh taxpayer putting resources in. And I would hope that like-minded Members on the Government benches would consider that a reasonable proposition and consider voting for this motion today.

It feels as if we’ve been discussing the M4 for a number of years. I gave quite a bit of attention to this as spokesperson for the economy before Adam, and this is a discussion that has gone on for a generation or more by now. There have been arguments about how to tackle the traffic jams around the Newport area; it’s been going on for almost a quarter of a century. I’m very happy to make it quite clear here again that we acknowledge that the traffic jams in those parts of Wales in the Newport area can be seen as something that is detrimental to the Welsh economy and if we accept that, we must seek a solution that is effective but that is also sustainable and affordable.

As regards sustainability, we need a solution that is appropriate to deal with the future need, a future where we hope many more people will be using public transport because, hopefully, we will have invested more in public transport, and a future where there will be driverless cars and the impact that that will have. I would declare my interest in the Cabinet Secretary’s statement earlier today as regards establishing a test centre for driverless cars in the Gwent Valleys. There will also be changes in the way people work. So, we have to consider the future in taking decisions for the present.

We need an affordable solution. The costs have increased substantially. I won’t go into detail. I don’t know which figures to use by now—£1.3 billion is noted in the paper, or £1.4 billion or £1.5 billion, with value added tax on top of that. I won’t even take a guess, but I’m sure we’re talking about a project closer to £2 billion, and who knows how much more? And how can Welsh Government and how can our national Parliament, if a vote is held following the public inquiry, justify such an investment without proving that it’s part of a broader strategy that would lead to spending on infrastructure in a balanced way throughout the whole of Wales?

I have no interest in depriving any part of Wales of an investment that is vital, but striking a balance is essential, and you’re bound to fail to do that in having a situation where one region is pitted against another. I hope that nobody in this Chamber would wish to see that happening. By depriving some regions of Wales of fair investment that they need and deserve at the expense of others, then the long-term project of nation building will fail, and the reality is that the south-east of Wales sees twice as much investment in infrastructure in north Wales, and almost three times more than mid and west Wales. That is not something that we can ignore here in Wales.

Adam has alluded to the Government’s amendment. I would like to refer to one thing that is of great concern to me as regards what I view as the Government undermining and intervening in the process of holding an independent inquiry. We in Plaid Cymru for some years have been asking for a study of the potential of the blue route, or at least something which is based on what has been identified as the blue route, and the investment in railways and public transport, and so on. But the investment of £135 million in Newport docks recently led to that company withdrawing its opposition to the black route, in addition to all the compulsory purchasing that the Government has been doing. That has had a total impact on the allegedly independent process that was supposed to take place.

So, our motion today calls for a meaningful vote, as we have heard, following the conclusion of the independent inquiry. This is totally common in other Parliaments. I like Adam's term, 'superproject'—that's what we have here. When you have something on that level it makes sense on a democratic level to ensure that our national Parliament is allowed to decide. I believe that rejecting our motion today and our proposal would reject that opportunity to put an important vote in our hands as a national Parliament, would betray our constituents and the people of Wales, and democracy in Wales.

I absolutely agree that we need to have a substantive discussion on this very important matter in Government time. We cannot simply rely on opposition motions on this important matter. This proposal is in danger of completely gobbling up every aspect of the Welsh Government's borrowing limits, which means there's a real danger that it would be the only capital investment that we would be able to make. I am unconvinced that this is the best way of spending £1.5 billion.

Andrew R.T. Davies talks about the traffic backed up at 06:30 in the morning coming west towards the Brynglas tunnel. I've yet to be convinced that spending all this money on these 14 miles of new road would make any difference to that problem on its own, because you'd simply have the traffic backing up just a little bit further down the road. Unless we have modal shift, we are not going to be resolving the congestion problem that we get at particular times of the day. When I go down the road at 10:30 or 11:00 in the morning, no problem at all. This is a commuter problem, and the reason we have this problem is because we have not invested in public transport historically over the years, and that is why people are choosing to travel to their work in Newport and Cardiff by car, which is a completely crazy way of using resources.

Actually, the roads were closed today because the bridge had not finished its maintenance work overnight—that was the long and short of it. I do take the point, but that's a reason more to have a debate here, so that we can all participate in that debate and that substantive decision on whether to press the button for this project to go ahead or not.

Okay. Well, it's useful to clarify that. I was surprised that, at 06:30 in the morning, the traffic was backed up, but you've now told us why there was a particular problem today.

But the fact is that if we have a super-duper road around Newport, what is going to happen, even by the Government's own evidence to the public inquiry, is it's actually going to increase the number of vehicles commuting into Newport and Cardiff and actually will increase the congestion in Cardiff. Given the problems we have over having to admit we have illegal levels of air pollution in the high courts, it is very difficult to see how this would be a way of resolving the problems we have.

Transport is a huge contributor to the fact that we have lower productivity, as we discussed earlier. Obviously, time wasted sitting in traffic jams is time that is not being put to productive use. But my argument is that this project will not solve the congestion problem, and that we have not seen a proper comparative evaluation of transport investment to indicate how, if we spent £1.5 billion on public transport to make it much more attractive than commuting into Cardiff and Newport by car, we'd have a very different scenario. That is a huge disappointment to me, because I think that that is something that is completely absent, particularly as we know that a mile of motorway costs about the same as a mile of new rail, and that rail investment carries between eight and 20 times more people. This is why we need rail and trams, light rail, to convey people into work and back again. Simply encouraging people to come into work by car is a completely ridiculous proposal.

So, I hope that we will get some commitments that we will have a substantive debate on this matter once the public inquiry has concluded, but also that we will have a serious look at the alternative option of spending £1.5 billion on public transport to improve the journey to work for people and deliver the modal shift that is required.

Can I say at the outset that my party will be supporting this motion? The reason for this is that, as has been said before, the M4 relief road scheme is one of the biggest and most expensive projects ever undertaken by the Welsh Assembly and one of such importance that the Welsh Government itself saw fit to launch a long-lasting and exhaustive inquiry into its form and format. It therefore would seem eminently important that the whole of the Assembly should have a meaningful input into the decision made, with reference to the outcome of the inquiry.

Our concerns are that if we are not allowed to engage in this way, the Government's intentions with regard to the black route will go ahead in spite of the findings of the inquiry. We cannot help but witness the agreement already reached by the Government and the ports authority with regard to the extra funding allotted to alleviate their concerns, which appear to have been entirely in relation to the planned black route. I feel it prudent to point out here that this is an M4 relief road, whatever the derogation may be. A relief road indicates that it will only truly be needed for periods of peak traffic use.

I'd therefore urge the Cabinet Secretary to keep an open mind as to which of the options available shall be chosen. I know that he will bear in mind the huge cost differential between the blue and black routes. This cost differential could be used on other much-needed transport projects, and I'm sure he'll forgive me for again mentioned the appalling condition of Rover Way, which is more redolent of a country lane than that of a main artery into the country's capital. I'm sure that there are many AMs across the Chamber who would be able to make a case for other much-needed projects, some of which have been mentioned earlier by Adam Smith, or even consideration of the modal shift mentioned by Julie Rathbone—[Interruption.]

I apologise. You're not that old, Adam, I'm sure. Adam Price. I do apologise for that slip, Adam.

However, I urge the Cabinet Secretary to allow this consultation and vote. After all, if things do go wrong with this huge project, the whole of the Chamber could then be held culpable.

The original Adam Smith, of course, is a lot closer to the Adam Price that we have here, rather than the Adam Smith Institute, which is a completely different kettle of fish, I think. 

I very much welcome this debate and the welcome from the parties so far that's been given to the principle of having a substantive vote on such a large expenditure. I want to approach the debate from the point of view of the well-being of future generations Act, but I think the issue around the environment and the well-being Act will be debated thoroughly in another time. I want to approach it from the point of view of policy making and how we use our resources for policy objectives in light of that Act. 

The first thing to say around that, of course, is that, with the title, we have been pretty clear: future generations is the future parties Act, if you like. So, as an opposition party here, Plaid Cymru wants to become the Government of Wales. I'm sure the Conservatives also want to become the Government of Wales. I'm not sure about UKIP—I would never even presume to know what UKIP thinks these days. But, anyone who's elected to this place wants to become the Government. We want to have, therefore, a real say in any major, even super, investment that will bind the hands of future generations and future Governments as to how they might address the real challenges of Wales for the future, not just in terms of the environment but in terms of infrastructure, in terms of anti-poverty work, in terms of dealing with the future economic needs of Wales. I can't put it better than was put in 2015 by someone, who said:

'It is, to me, astonishing that a Government that is committed to reducing poverty will spend £1 billion of public money on a project that will have no economic impact on my constituents'.

I think that person is no longer in his place, but he is the Member for Blaenau Gwent, speaking after Jenny Rathbone was dismissed from her post for criticising these proposals. So, I think I want to apply that prism of future generations very hard to this decision making and to allow this Chamber and this Parliament to make that final decision.

Now, it's been very clear from the evidence given in the local public inquiry just how badly fitted to the future generations Act this proposal is. As the future generations commissioner said herself:

'Building roads is what we have been doing for the last 50 years and is not the solution we should be seeking in 2017 and beyond.'

Those trends that we are talking about in Government that other Members here have talked about, from automation to decarbonisation of transport, emissions reduction, the changes in air quality that will emerge as we go from a fossil fuel-led transport system to one that's more reliant on electric vehicles, hydrogen possibly—all of those need to be factored in to such a major spend that will influence future generations, not just one generation but two or three generations to come. And also, of course—

Will you give way?

I will give way on that point, yes.

Thank you, I appreciate that. You quoted Sophie Howe's submission about the wisdom of building roads. Of course, as part of that submission, she also said that building the blue route was not in keeping with the spirit of that either, which is Plaid Cymru's policy. So, to properly embrace her logic, you'd drop road building altogether as the solution to congestion.

I think we'd be open to re-examining the evidence around that, and I've got my own personal views that the blue route, which was chosen 10 years ago now, as an alternative to a brand-new M4 and by a Plaid Cymru transport Minister in a coalition Government, it has to be said—. We now have to re-examine in light of the new appraisal tool that the Welsh Government has for transport as well whether any road building itself is an answer to what's happening and the congestion problems around Newport, or whether we invest in lots of different things, including road improvements. There is already an existing distributor road to the south that can be used and utilised, but also junction closures, phased traffic, investment in the public infrastructure in that area, rail—which is the point that Jenny Rathbone made very powerfully as well. So, all of these need to be put in; I completely understand that. We're no longer, I think, in a position where we're making such binary judgments. We are making a judgment around up to £2 billion of transport money, how it can be invested and how it's going to best benefit not just Newport but Wales as a whole, and I think Adam Price has set out how the alternatives could work in that regard.

So, the commissioner, just to reiterate the point that Lee Waters has just made, has called for this wider investment in transport around the use of technology, as I said, about the junction controls and the metro. This is not—. This may be new to Wales, but it's not blindingly new to countries and cities that have to deal with bad air quality, bad transport and congestion. They have dealt with it in alternative ways. All that happens when you build a new road is you shift the problem several miles east or west, and in the case of this proposal, shift it probably closer to Cardiff, as it happens, because the bridges will have dealt with their tolls in a different way. I think that's something that we have to bear in mind when we approach this.

I think it's also worth remembering that when Plaid was in Government and when Ieuan Wyn Jones made the decision to cancel—it was about the fifth decision in a row to change the new M4—that wasn't just done for cost reasons. It was also explicitly done because we were rebalancing the transport budget between sustainable transport and road building. And that's been lost in the debate that we've had since 2011, and I want to reinstate some of that back into our appreciation of using the future generations Act to look at this.

I think the final thing, if I may say, Presiding Officer, is that I'm very persuaded by the changes that are happening in our economy and our environment about what Friends of the Earth Cymru say, which is that, clearly, this, if it were to go ahead, would only be a very temporary solution. They say this:

'From 2038 onwards, the "do something" scenario produces more carbon emissions than the "do minimum" alternative. The climate is impacted by total emissions. This scheme is therefore ultimately more climate-damaging than the "do minimum" alternative.'

I've been a member of this Assembly now for almost seven years, and there have been two debates that have been ongoing throughout that entire period of time. One has been the metro—and I was very privileged to be able to lead the first individual Member's debate on that issue—and the other is the M4 relief road.

I was also a member of the environment committee. I see there are a number of members of that here. We spent a considerable amount of time, I remember, in the last Assembly, going through very, very carefully the issue of the M4 relief road, the impact—environmental, the issues with traffic, the issues with sustainable transport and so on. There'll be those who remember the anger at the time when just before the committee was about to publish its findings, Welsh Government actually announced that it was going to go for the black route—a decision that I think I said at the time undermined that report and the actual work that went on in this committee to look at all those particular options.

Of course, then the potential cost was between £350 million to £1 billion, depending upon which particular routes were being talked about. And we are now talking about—if we're totally honest about it—by the time of conclusion and drift and so on, a £2 billion project. It has become an economic juggernaut that, in my view, is out of control. And if we want to talk about congestion, you will have seen a report yesterday that the A470 is in fact the most congested road in Wales. I'm not asking for a bypass to the A470, but, of course, I have been asking for the new rail link as part of the metro to Llantrisant to get people off the roads.

We have given a commitment, a fundamental commitment to the metro, to sustainable integrated transport. We've given a commitment to the people of the Valleys that the stranghlehold around there—with the growth of housing all around the Taff Ely area, the outsides of Cardiff, and in the Valleys—would actually be partly resolved by our transformational commitment to the metro. My big concern is: where is the capital if we were to go ahead with, effectively, a £2 billion project? I do not want the metro to effectively become the equivalent of the Loch Ness monster—everyone has seen a picture of it but no-one knows whether it actually exists or not. That's my concern.

I've given commitments to my constituents, we've given commitments in our manifestos, and I think there is time now to actually stand back and to review where we are, bearing in mind the scale of this project, where it stands and what its implications are for all our other commitments. It may be that I don't win those arguments in due course, but I think we have to have that particular debate. We have to actually have the opportunity to discuss something that is on this scale. What I'm seeking, really, is the assurance from Government that there will be that particular debate, that it will take place—

Will the Member give way?

Yes.

May I ask, given the terms of the motion, as well as a debate, is he seeking a vote on this matter?

I think if you have a debate, there has to be a vote, and it has to be a vote that is actually within Government time. So, that's the assurance that I seek because I think this is the largest project that we have ever faced, and it has very, very significant implications for many of our other commitments. And if we are truly committed to sustainable transport, to getting traffic off the roads, we have to consider all the options and all the financial implications.

The M4 Newport corridor plays a vital role in connecting south Wales with England and Europe. One of the most heavily used roads in Wales, the M4 corridor is the economic and social gateway to Wales. It connects our ports, airports and serves our tourist industry. Deputy Presiding Officer, I live only 20 to 30m away from the M4 and I travel regularly, and of the 11 years I've been in this Chamber, I've worked out I've spent more than 24 hours waiting time each year. So, that means 11 days I've wasted on the M4 just to come to this Chamber.

However, the M4 in south Wales is synonymous with traffic hold-ups and the stretch around Newport is Wales's busiest length of road and it is one of the worst in the whole United Kingdom. As it stands, this vital stretch of motorway does not meet modern motorway design standard also. This results in poor, sometimes hazardous, travelling conditions for its numerous users, including sports fans who travel to Wales quite often—virtually every week. With many lane drops, an intermittent hard shoulder and just two lanes, the road is regularly congested at peak times. The worst congestion hotspot in Wales is the Brynglas tunnels. The westbound tunnels saw no fewer than 465 jams last year; that is the statistic. Gridlock is taking its toll on the Welsh economy, and it is Welsh businesses and motorists—they are bearing the brunt. It is estimated that traffic jams on our roads last year cost the Welsh economy almost £278 million. It's a pretty striking figure, Deputy Presiding Officer.

The Conservative Government action to remove the value added tax from tolls on the Severn crossing is the first step towards scrapping charges on the bridges altogether by the end of this year. The benefits for the Welsh economy of abolishing charges is estimated to be about £100 million. All this benefit to the Welsh economy is put at risk by the failure to progress the M4 relief road. Thanks to Welsh Government dithering, the cost of this vital project has escalated. The cost of gridlock and the financial benefits of abolishing tolls on the Severn bridge crossing must be taken into consideration when deciding to commit nearly £1.5 billion on this project. We all recognise this is a vast sum of money, but, in this case, I believe the key to improving the regional economy is not to spread the jam too thin. That is what somebody said recently. Otherwise, we are in danger of turning the M4 into Wales's largest car park. The stakes are too high, Deputy Presiding Officer, for the problem of the M4 to be kicked into the long grass for much longer.

By reducing tolls on the Severn bridges, the Conservative Government has further opened the gateway to Wales. We have to ensure the infrastructure is in place to reap the maximum benefit for the Welsh economy. The Welsh Government must now do its part to ensure Wales is open for businesses, and also I urge the Welsh Government to ensure that the public inquiry reports as soon as possible. It will then be for this Assembly to debate and decide on its recommendations. And, actually, they're all boxes we can tick to have this very important road in this place as soon as possible. Cabinet Secretary, it is going on since 2006 when TR111 was produced for the Government, and 2014, when the Minister was very upbeat in this Chamber about the blue and black route, and, basically, some of the areas, which my colleagues mentioned at that time, were very negative also. Some of them said that it was not useful. One of them said in this Chamber, 'It's a wrong position of the Government', and also that it was money going in the drain sort of nonsense.

But, basically, it's a great project and it ticks all the boxes: value for money; Welsh Government objectives; commercially viable; commercially affordable. And whether we can achieve it—it's the public that will take the benefit and our economy in the end. Minister, I'm pretty sure that you'll do it and please do it as soon as possible. Thank you.

I think it's right that the debate around the M4 is in flux, and it's clear from the contributions this afternoon that opinions are still fluid around this. There are people, obviously, on this bench and the Conservative bench who have consistently argued for the black route, though I was pleased to hear Andrew R.T. Davies cancel his blank cheque that he's given this project and introduce a degree of qualification to his support. There are those on the Conservative and the Plaid Cymru benches who support the blue route, and I was very pleased to hear Simon Thomas open up the way of Plaid Cymru rethinking their position in the light of the very persuasive judgment of the future generations commissioner.

I'm not sure where we're at on the Conservative benches—whether Mark Reckless, as part of his charm offensive on Alun Cairns to allow him into the Conservative Party, has abandoned his blue route support and upgraded it to black route—so I look forward to watching that development with interest. But I don't think Alun Cairns is going to warm to you whatever you do, Mark—that would be my advice to you.

So, things are in flux, and I think it's right. In the old quote of John Maynard Keynes—

'When the facts change, I change my mind.'

This is a 30-odd-year-old solution to a problem of congestion and the technology is changing rapidly—we expect driverless cars to be for sale within the next three years and the costs have changed. When we fought our manifesto at the election, we were talking about a project of under £1 billion. We're now looking at £1.3 billion to £1.4 billion. That's on 2015 prices and that's without VAT, which we're told is being negotiated. So, I'd imagine that we're going to be looking closer to £2 billion than £1 billion, and I think that that changes the nature of the commitment we had in our manifesto, and that allows us to look at that afresh.

I'm not going to rehearse the arguments this afternoon—I've made them before in this place. Suffice to say, I take this very seriously and my position on this isn't about game playing. I heard the interviews that Adam Price gave on the weekend about opening a common front with the Conservatives and his hope that they could have a joint position on this today, which would entice Members of the Labour backbenches to join their side as a way of causing trouble for the Government and discomforting the First Minister. I want no part of that. I want to kill this road, I don't want to play games around it.

I think there is also some difficulty around the motion itself. Adam Price conceded that opposition motions don't have full force. And also, the point Simon Thomas made that decisions should be taken here not by the Executive. Well, this motion, explicitly, is about the financing of this project, and decisions on the financing of projects are made in the budget. Plaid Cymru could've killed this project in the budget, should they have wanted to, but they chose not to. So, this is not a debate—[Interruption.] Let me just make progress. This is not a motion today—[Interruption.] I will do in a second. But this motion today is about the financing and I think financing should be in a Parliament, decided by a budget, but I do think there should be a substantive vote in Government time. I will give way.

I thank the Member for giving way. Just to be very clear to the Member, the budget only puts in reserve the capital for this funding. There would need to be a supplementary budget and a vote on the supplementary budget to allow this to go ahead, and on that I look forward to joining him in the lobby, as they used to say, to vote down the money for this project.

Well, I'm not in the business of voting down the budgets of a Labour Government, so that's why I want to de-couple this issue. This motion today is about the financing. I want a separate motion before this Assembly, after the public inquiry has reported, before Ministers make their decisions, on the principle of the road, not explicitly about the financing, but on the principle of the road. That's what I would like Ministers to consider, so that's why I won't be able to support the words of the motion today, even though I support the force of it.

So, I hope Ministers will listen to the strength of feeling that there is on this issue. I'm not interested in being part of Plaid Cymru's parlour games, but I am in the business of trying to shift transport policy in our country, because we have become wedded to predict and provide, and we've cast aside the principle of modal shift. And that, in the principle of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 that we have passed, should be the project that we concentrate on for the years to come.

Therefore, I shall be supporting the Government this afternoon, but I'm opposed to the road, nonetheless. The Plaid position, the Tory position, is in flux and they're more interested in game playing on this. I remember sharing platforms—[Interruption.] Leanne Wood, as ever, is showing a lack of dignity in all her heckles. I remember sharing platforms with Leanne Wood, arguing against roads as a way of tackling social justice, and we hear from her, 'Let's put hundreds of millions into a blue route instead', or Rhun ap Iorwerth: 'Hundreds of millions into other road-building schemes across Wales.' I want a change of policy to honour what you and I both agreed on at that time, Leanne Wood. Shame you've changed your position to play games. I'm not in that game.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport, Ken Skates.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I just begin by saying how much I do respect Members' views on this issue? There have always been a wide range of opinions on this topic—passionately held beliefs and principled positions, and I recognise that strength of feeling. I hope that Members will also recognise the sincerity with which I respond to this debate today.

There are Members in this Chamber who have been consistent for many years in either supporting or opposing the proposed black route—the M4 relief road. I don't think there is disagreement, to be honest, in this Chamber on the very question of whether something needs to be done around Newport and the Brynglas tunnels. I think everybody in this Chamber would agree that the situation is unacceptable and that it cannot go on. Commuters, passengers and businesses, freight goods and produce—they all spend far too long delayed, queuing and waiting on that stretch of the M4. 

Deputy Presiding Officer, even those who question the proposed scheme and those who hold principled concerns about the need for any major road upgrade do not think that 'do nothing' is a viable option. What I think is the cause of disagreement is what we do to tackle the problem around Newport and the Brynglas tunnels, just as how we go about tackling problems with congestion in other parts of Wales is often a central point of disagreement: whether we go blue or whether we go black, whether we pour the capital into a single road project or into active travel, or rail, or a combination of solutions. As a Welsh Government, we have put forward a proposal, based on a manifesto commitment my party was elected on at the last election. Crucially, the scheme is part of a wider vision for an integrated world-class sustainable and multimodal transport system in south Wales, which Mick Antoniw talked warmly of. One that, alongside the ambition and creativity of metro, can provide a strong and lasting foundation for inclusive growth—growth not just in, but around the region.

Now, as I said, I am mindful of the varied views that have been expressed about this proposal today and over many years. And to ensure that all views on all sides are rigorously and systematically considered, independent inspectors have, over many, many months, been taking evidence, carefully listening to and considering all views. Every Member in this Chamber, every political party, every business, every group, every individual in Wales, has had the opportunity to input into that process, and evidence presented to the inquiry is now being tested rigorously. Given the rather unpleasant and unfair comments we have seen in recent times, concerning public officials who provide independent advice, I know that we will set a better standard and a better example over the next few months, by respecting the process by which evidence has been tested, and by respecting the outcome of the inquiry. The inquiry will soon conclude its work. I've always said that I want this public inquiry to be open, and also to be robust, testing all suggested alternatives to inform what would be a significant infrastructure investment for Wales.

Given the interest from parties in this Chamber, that's why I instructed the blue route to be developed and assessed in considerable detail, with seven variations of it laid before the inquiry, to compare it against the Welsh Government's proposed scheme. Members have, of course, talked about the cost differential as justification for the motion today, and yet, until the inquiry has reported, we won't really know what the cost differential is. Indeed, there may not be a cost differential.

I also recognise that many Members today have talked about the emerging technologies that can be utilised in cars in the future. Applying the so-called predict and provide model of the present to vehicles of the future could actually see, based on a lot of international evidence, increased need for road space, given that autonomous cars, certainly in their infant stage, are likely to require more space in order to comply with new rules and regulations. [Interruption.] Yes, of course. Yes.

I was just wondering, before he concludes his remarks, could he just address the central issue of the motion, which is the question as to whether there will be a substantive vote in this Assembly after the conclusion of the public inquiry.

I'm coming to that very point, and I should say that the Welsh Government has not, and nor will it, make a decision without fully and diligently considering the inspector's findings and conclusions, and that's why the Welsh Government has tabled the amendment that it has today.

I will say something on the issue of the Assembly, and its role concerning the voting on stand-alone projects. On finance for this particular project, the Cabinet Secretary has already stated that the public inquiry will be allowed to report before any allocation decisions are made, and these allocation decisions will be reported to the National Assembly. And, where they need the approval of the National Assembly in subsequent budgets, that approval must and will be sought. I've listened very carefully to Members who have made the argument that, because of the scale of this particular project, it deserves special procedures. But, as a Parliament, I do think that we need to think carefully about how stand-alone financing of stand-alone projects would operate.

Will you give way?

What other projects would have to be considered in isolation? Because there is no manual, there is no handbook, there is no guide in our constitution that describes how big a stand-alone project must be to warrant a stand-alone vote on its financing that could be held on the floor of this house. Indeed, I would fear that regional interest could overtake, potentially. As Rhun ap Iorwerth said, we need to ensure that, as part of the nation-building process, we don't have the regions playing off against one another. There would be a real risk of regions being played off against each other if we were to have stand-alone votes on stand-alone projects. But I give way to Nick Ramsay.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. You moved on slightly from the point I was going to make, but I think it needs to be made. The decision of Beeching to close many railways, back in the 1950s and 1960s, is now looked back on in history as a huge mistake. That decision wasn't properly judged or futureproofed. You've mentioned driverless cars, and you've said that, in their infancy, they may need more space, but actually, once that technology is developed, you can fit more of those cars into a given road space because they don't need the same stopping distances and they can be computer controlled. So, my point is: will you make sure that this decision, when it is taken, is adequately futureproofed to make sure that we don't end up with a load of road capacity in the future that we won't actually need?

Well, I'd agree entirely. That is an absolute requirement of the thorough assessment of all of the evidence that is being given. Actually, if you look at some of the predictions that have been made about the longer term use of autonomous vehicles, it's likely that autonomous vehicles will lead to lower car ownership, but higher car use, and that more cars will be used more of the time on roads, thereby leading to more vehicles being in use at any one time. That, in turn, could lead to greater demand for road space.

Deputy Presiding Officer, this month marks a year of the M4 project being examined by two independent planning and engineering inspectors. Due to conclude shortly, this will be the longest public inquiry to have ever been held in Wales. I've repeatedly said in this Chamber that this review process must take as long as is necessary to scrutinise the evidence on the scheme and to allow all people to have their say. That is happening, and I would ask Members to allow the inquiry to complete its work, to allow all evidence from experts and interested persons to be fully considered and, above all, to respect the process and accept the outcome of it before a final decision is made.

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

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I was going to say halfway through the debate that I felt it was Parliament being at its best because there was a range of views on this issue, but we were coalescing and uniting, actually, around the core principle that, ultimately, Parliament must decide. I was hoping that the Cabinet Secretary, in his remarks at the end, would give us some clarity on that central issue, and yet I'm completely unclear. He can intervene on me, if he would like to, in reverse order to the intervention I made on him.

He talked about having stand-alone votes on stand-alone projects, and then he went on to talk about some of the downsides of that if the precedent was set. I'm not quite clear, still, whether the precedent is going to be set. Is there a commitment to have a specific vote? It's not enough to have a vote on the supplementary budget. The supplementary budget could have a number of things in it. Then I know what would happen, because it's happened to me several times, Lee Waters. I vote for one reason, but then the list of other things that are in the budget I am accused of being against, and they're usually things that no-one could possibly be against. That's why we need to have a specific vote.

In relation to the point that Lee Waters raised, if there are lexicological problems with the motion, then I have the responsibility for that. I think the spirit of the motion is clear, though. What we were trying to do with the motion was to say that the Government could not go ahead with expenditure on the project before there was a vote on the principle following the public inquiry. I think that was clear to me. If it wasn't clear to other Members then I apologise for that, but I'm clarifying the intention. You know, we don't live in a perfect world, and we certainly don't live in a perfect Parliament. So, if you want to actually vote in favour of the principle of a vote on the principle then this will be the only vote that you're going to get, okay. And what I would say—in all honesty, and delving deep into all the resources of charity in my soul, I would say to the Member opposite, I would say to the Member opposite: see beyond your antipathy, either to me or to my party, because there's a bigger issue here, which is beyond party. In fact, as Simon Thomas says, it's beyond generations, isn't it? It's intergenerational equity that we talking about here. And so, I would appeal to him—I know that he is absolutely sincere about the substantive issue, but in terms of ensuring that the Government gives us all a vote then this is our opportunity. Take it. Take it now. Take it tonight. We won't get another chance; this is it.

The consensus that I heard in the contributions in the Chamber, from Andrew R.T. Davies, from other Members, including Lee Waters, I believe, is the figure of £2 billion. I think we all accept that there is a certain kind of inevitability about where we're going to end up. Jenny Rathbone, I think, in a very, very powerful contribution, pointed out that opportunity cost exists in all parts of Wales, doesn't it? Rhun ap Iorwerth referred to some of the relative underinvestment that there's been in some regions of Wales. But it is true: Mark Barry, in his initial assessment of the cost of the first phase of a metro—you know, £1 billion, £1.5 billion, £2 billion would make a massive transformational effect for public transport in the south-east of Wales as well. And it's that opportunity cost calculation that we have to be able to bring to bear as individual Members, across our parties, and, yes, Simon Thomas was right to say that we are—as a party, we have to re-evaluate our position in the light of the evidence that has been presented. So, we place that on the record. We would urge Members—. I realise this is inherently difficult, and I really pay tribute to those Members on the Labour benches who spoke very, very powerfully of the need for us to have a democratic vote, primarily because, of course, of the doubt that you share, we share, about whether this represents true value for money, but also the truest values—the values that we want to enshrine in the future that we're trying to create for our country.

Look, I realise that we all engage from time to time—it's an occupational flaw, maybe—in knockabout. But there are some things that are more important, and if I, in any way, in any comments that I made, have clouded your judgment in that then I would apologise, because— there have been a lot of apologies in this Chamber recently, and I'm prepared to make one as well—this is more important than political theatre. This is more important than actually winning or losing in that shallow sense. This is about the future of our country, and I'm heartened by the sense of consensus in this Chamber, that on these kinds of decisions—decisions that, once made, will impact upon generations to come—then we as a Parliament, as parliamentarians, regardless of party, must insist that we get a vote. And I did invite the Cabinet Secretary—in the few seconds that I've got left, if he wants to get on his feet, if he wants to reassure us that we will get that vote, he can. But I'm afraid to say that the silence speaks for itself. If you want to see that democratic vote then use your vote tonight.

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

Item 8 on our agenda is the United Kingdom Independence Party's debate on Assembly electoral reform, and I call on Gareth Bennett to move the motion.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. We're here today to debate the proposed expansion of the Welsh Assembly. We heard earlier from the Presiding Officer about the report of the expert panel, which has recommended expansion, and about the public consultation that will now take place. We in UKIP believe that the expansion proposals represent a huge change that will be very costly. We have to establish that there is popular consent for it, and that consent can only be demonstrated by way of a referendum. That is why I'm moving today's motion to that effect in the name of Neil Hamilton.

Now to the amendments. There is only one, from the Labour group. We've had a good hard look at their very detailed amendment, which says, 'Delete all after point 1', and we've decided, after much robust discussion, that we oppose the amendment.

Now, the main premise of the report is that there is now so much legislation going through the Assembly, requiring so much scrutiny, that it is all too much for the 60 Assembly Members that we currently have. The suggestion is that we increase the size of this place to something like 80 Members or, more preferably, 90. So, the first thing we need to look at is this: is it true that we are all overworked as Members of this place?

No, not all.

Only those that turn up.

Yes, well I do tackle this point, David and Mike, so thank you.

It is interesting to note that the statutory obligations of an AM, that is, our legal duties, amount to almost nothing, in effect. So, if we are going to say that more AMs are needed, perhaps we first need to lay down a much more stringent set of statutory duties. You will recall how the Assembly was brought into some disrepute recently by the frequent non-attendance of Nathan Gill. Well, we can all shake our heads and say, 'Naughty Nathan Gill', but, actually, here's a question: how often is this Chamber ever near full? It is now, but it wasn't earlier on today. A point I would like to make is that on Wednesdays we now quite often begin proceedings with only about 20 to 25 Members, and sometimes we are down to less than 20. So, even something as basic as attending Plenary is not an obligation, it is optional, as is the rest of the job, and some—[Interruption.]—and some opt not to be here very much. We've even had the Labour Government telling us recently that Wednesday debates are mere opposition debates that don't really matter very much at all, almost suggesting that we don't need to be here. On top of all that, every Friday is free of any scheduled Assembly commitment. Yes, Members do—[Interruption.] Yes, Members do things—[Interruption.] Members do things on Fridays, of course. But the point is that you don't have to do things. Yet this report speaks about us as if we're all—[Interruption.]—as if we're all perpetually snowed under with work.

Can we just listen to the Member, please? I'm finding it difficult.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Now, there is a problem of committee work. This is probably the most serious part of the job, because we could be scrutinising legislation, and the committee work, I find, is quite demanding. However, even there, there are caveats, which the report doesn't go into. For instance, we aren't looking at legislation all of the time on committees, only some of the time. If we look at the forward work programme of all of the Assembly's committees, does all of this work really need to be done? I have to say—[Interruption.] I have to say, from my viewpoint, no, a lot of it doesn't. So, a lot of the committee work is unnecessary. Some of this could be stripped out and the programme significantly reduced. [Interruption.] Oh, yes, I'm going to go into all that now. Some of the committees, in short, could meet every other week rather than every week. That brings us to another question. Do we need eight Members on seven of the committees? Well, actually, no, we don't. You could have six-Member committees with two Labour—

Then UKIP wouldn't have a Member on the blinking committees.

If you would just wait for my proposal, Simon, you might actually have that point clarified. You could have six-Member committees with two Labour, three places between the Conservatives and Plaid, and one UKIP. This would still be proportionate if the Labour Members wielded two votes each in any voting situation. After all, the four Labour Members always vote the same way in any case, with the Labour whip, and this business of one AM wielding more than one vote already occurs on the Business Committee. So, we could simply extend the efficient operation of the Business Committee to these seven current eight-Member committees. This would reduce the workload of the Labour backbenchers, who currently shoulder the biggest burden of the committee work. This is why I'm rather surprised that you don't seem to like this. So, there are ways around this business of AMs supposedly being overworked. We just have to be creative in how we think about this challenge and not simply go for the stale response of, 'We need more Members.' Now, the report says, in the introduction: 

'As an independent, impartial Panel, we have used our expertise and experience to conclude that a 60 Member Assembly does not have the capacity it needs'.

End of quote. Can I give an alternative view on what the panel are actually saying? Beginning of quote: 'We are a bunch of people who make our considerable livings from politics. We live in a political bubble, completely detached from the lives of normal people. We think that the solution to every political challenge is to create more jobs for politicians. Then, hopefully, those politicians will put us on more of their commissions and inquiries, and then we go on making lots of money, all of it funded by the taxpayer.' End of imaginary quote.

The problem is that, to balance the people from politics and governance, we also needed on this panel people who were not from that world. We needed somebody, possibly more than one person, to represent the business community. We also needed someone to represent the man in the pub and the woman in the coffee shop. [Interruption.] But, in appointing this panel, the opinions of such people were never solicited. This failure of democracy means that the opinion of this panel can be completely discounted. There is also something—[Interruption.]

No, sorry. I have asked nicely. Will you please—? Can we listen to the Member? We will listen, please.

Thank you. There is also something more than a little dishonest about this argument over more Members being needed. The 1997 referendum was a vote for an Assembly, which was then set at 60 Members. There was no talk of it having to expand later. The 2011 referendum called for primary law-making powers, but didn't explain that more Members would be needed once this had been achieved. Curiously, though, as soon as the new powers arrived, politicians in Cardiff Bay started to tell us that there was now too much for everyone to do—too much legislation, too much scrutiny.

So, it has been a bit of a circular argument, really. 'Give us more powers', the AMs screech. Westminster, after a bit of a battle, duly obliges. Five minutes later, the AMs screech, 'Give us more Members.' So, the Assembly asks for more powers, gets them, then tells the public they don't have enough people to deal with the new powers they themselves called for. This is basically a political scam to hoodwink the Welsh public into accepting more AMs by stealth. Well, you're not going to get your 30 more Members, not unless we have a referendum on it first. That's my view, and that's the UKIP view, and that's why I'm moving today's UKIP motion.

Thank you. I have selected the amendment to the motion and I call on the leader of the house to move amendment 1, tabled in her name.

Formally.

Thank you. Angela Burns.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The Welsh Conservatives will not be supporting this motion. The Welsh Conservatives believe that we should not pre-empt the views of the people of Wales by closing down options, such as your motion does. The Welsh Conservatives believe we should enable and support the Assembly Commission to conduct a thorough and inclusive consultation process. And the Welsh Conservatives say 'no' to referenda, because, ultimately, we should then have the power and the courage to proceed or not, using our collective political judgment in line with our mandates and in tandem with the views of the people of Wales.

Caroline Jones.

That was quick. Sorry, I wasn't ready. [Interruption.] Oh, I'm ready, believe you me. [Laughter.]

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I want to make it clear at the outset that I'm not ideologically opposed to expanding the Assembly. Labour's great constitutional experiment, introducing different systems of devolution to the three devolved nations, shows that they didn’t have a clue how to deliver true devolution. The scattergun approach left Wales with the short straw, evidenced by the fact that we're constantly having to tinker with the settlement and a new Wales Act every couple of years.

But, putting aside the constitutional arguments, what is the purpose of devolution? It certainly wasn’t to create another layer of bureaucracy. People didn’t vote in two referendums for an institution that would endlessly debate constitutional issues or decide whether we have a Welsh legal system or not. The public didn’t care about these issues. They care about whether they are going to have jobs at the end of the year, whether their children are getting a good education, whether the NHS will be there for their families when they need it. That is why I became an Assembly Member. Over the last two decades, our economy has deteriorated, our schools are failing and our NHS has got worse, not better.

The reason for those failures is not because we don’t have enough politicians. It’s because we have a one-party state, an elected dictatorship—a Labour Government in power for too long, devoid of ambition, vision and ideas. Another 20 or 30 AMs is not going to change that. As long as we have a Government that avoids scrutiny when it can get away with it, another 50 politicians won’t change that. And until we start actually improving people’s lives, no matter how overworked we are, we cannot make the argument for more politicians.

Just weeks ago, we passed a budget that will see massive cutbacks across the board, which will place our public services under massive strain, yet we are asking the public to employ more politicians, not more nurses and doctors. Our NHS is on its knees; it's struggling to cope. People are dying on waiting lists. We haven’t met cancer waiting times in a decade, we have the worst cancer survival rates in Europe, and a massive shortage of diagnostic staff is one of the key factors. We are introducing a new screening test for bowel cancer next year but have set a sensitivity level half that of Scotland’s because we don’t have the capacity in colonoscopy.

Until we deliver real change to people’s lives, how can we possibly expect them to support making our lives easier? We have to work smarter until such time as the country can afford the tens of millions of pounds it will cost to employ more of us. We have to stop playing tribal party politics and truly work together to improve health, education and the economy. Only then will the public support righting the wrongs of the Blair devolution experiment. [Interruption.] I will. 

The Welsh Government need to stop trying to shut down debate, stop trying to do things differently from the Tories in England. Do things better. And we all need to redouble our efforts. Yes, there aren't enough of us. Tough. We have to work with the tools we are given. We could increase our number by two by passing the duties of the Presiding Officer and Deputy Presiding Officer over to Assembly clerks. After all, they are impartial and have a rulebook to follow. We can look at it differently and then we will have our full quota of 60 Assembly Members—[Interruption.] We have to run with—[Interruption.] We have to—[Interruption.] My opinion may be different from yours but it doesn't mean it's wrong. We have to run with the hand we've been dealt and, instead of railing against, we have to do the very best that we can.

The more time we spend debating constitutional issues, the less time we spend improving people’s lives. Although—[Interruption.] Although if more powers become devolved, it would be unrealistic not to review—[Interruption.]—not to review this in future, but at this time the country can’t support and cannot afford more politicians. I say 'at this time' because it would be unrealistic not to review more Assembly Members in the future, but if you look at the current state of the economic climate, now is not the time. Thank you.

Can I call on the Llywydd, Elin Jones?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, for my being able to contribute once again on this subject and respond on behalf of the Commission. I also want to take the opportunity to thank all the political parties that have been collaborating over the last year as part of the political reference group on Assembly reform—Angela Burns, Mike Penn, Peter Black and Robin Hunter-Clarke. The meetings of this group have been very beneficial, with all of the parties ready to contribute ideas and comments on the options that are before us. We intend to continue to have those meetings of the reference group as we develop this work further.

Earlier this afternoon, we had the Assembly’s support to note the report on the expert panel on Assembly reform, and to approve the decision by the Assembly Commission to consult on the recommendations of the report. Therefore, we will be moving forward now to engage broadly in a constructive way with constituents across Wales to hear their viewpoints and their priorities in terms of how we can develop our own Parliament for the next 20 years of devolution.

Despite the political differences in this Chamber, I’m sure all of us want to see action in order to promote the democratic process, and to ensure that we serve in the most thorough, representative and transparent Parliament. The motion in this debate tries to temp us to take a position on one aspect of the electoral reforms. As Chair of the Commission, I’ll be allowing the consultation to take place before the Senedd takes particular viewpoints, remembering that any increase or electoral reform through legislation won’t be possible without the support of two thirds of the Members of this Senedd.    

As the woman who prefers to be in the pub rather than the coffee shop, I'm sorely tempted to respond to some of the intriguing proposals from Gareth Bennett, especially the 'vote twice' proposal to alleviate the pressure on our committees. I'm particularly tempted to respond to the proposal by Caroline Jones on Presiding Officer and Deputy Presiding Officer roles being undertaken by clerks, but I can see the horror on the face of the clerks in front of us today, so I'd better not say any more on that one. I shall practise what I preach; I should allow the people of Wales now to have their say on the future of this Assembly and not be tempted or sidetracked into supplying my own views at this point.

Can I call on Neil Hamilton to reply to the debate?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Well, when we all stood for election in UKIP 18 months or so ago, we said we were coming to this Assembly in order to confront the Cardiff Bay consensus, and I think the debate this afternoon shows that there is a role for a party like UKIP that will do that.

We have been graced in this debate unusually by the Llywydd, who's added lustre to what we've all had to say, and I appreciate her position in doing so, not wishing to pre-empt the decision of the Welsh people. But that's really ultimately what this motion is all about: whether the Welsh people themselves are to be allowed to make this ultimate decision. When Gareth Bennett opened his speech—I won't comment on certain of his recommendations—but I'm sure everybody will agree that I like to allow heterodox opinions to flourish within my group. But on the two basic principles of his speech—that the Welsh people will certainly be concerned about the costs that have mushroomed since 1997, when it was forecast that this would cost us about £10 million a year—. The Assembly now spends about £54 million pounds a year. So, that's a significant sum of money and increasing the size of it, of course, would increase the cost.

But the most important principle is the principle of consent that Gareth Bennett focused upon. I know that some Members of this house are very keen on referenda in certain circumstances to reverse other referenda, but I think if we are to be honest with ourselves, the public at large doesn't really regard this institution with the kind of respect that we all know it deserves. There was never really any full-hearted consent in the first place for its creation. I don't in any way want to detract from the devolution settlement that I've become increasingly enthusiastic about, actually, over the years. As a result of my immersion in the debates of this place, I've seen the merits of it, and I certainly—as I've said many times in this house—believe in bringing Government closer to the people and also in having competition between the various jurisdictions of the United Kingdom. I think that's a very good thing for government and democracy in general.

So, I'm not—as Caroline Jones said in her speech—ideologically opposed to increasing the size of the Assembly. Certainly, in terms of the internal workings of the Assembly, I think there is certainly a very good case for that, and, as I think Angela Burns pointed out earlier on this afternoon, to increase the number of backbenchers in the Labour Party, for example, where perhaps that might lead to greater heterodox opinions within their own party as well, and Lee Waters might not then, perhaps, be quite so concerned about having to step outside the stockade on issues like the M4. That would be a very good thing for the workings of this institution and representative democracy, which we embody.

But I do believe that we need to make the case and carry the people with us. One of the reasons why I was in favour of having a referendum on the EU was not only because I wanted to get out of the EU, but because when we first went into it, the then prime minister, Edward Heath, said that it would not happen without the full-hearted consent of Parliament and people. Well, it did have the tepid support of Parliament because at the time, the majorities were reduced to single figures as the European Communities Bill went through the House of Commons, but it never had the full-hearted consent of the people of this country, as a result of which, over the last 40 years, the European Union has always remained a matter of controversy.

And I think that if the Welsh Assembly is the confident body that I believe it to be, then it shouldn't be afraid of seeking the decision of the people on whether we should increase its size. We know that in the last referendum there was a promise that we should not devolve taxing powers to the Assembly, and that promise was broken. I, personally, am in favour of the devolution of income tax to the Assembly and, indeed, other taxes too, but as we had promised the people that that wouldn't happen without another vote, I think it was a betrayal of trust that it didn't occur. And I do believe that if we are to increase the size of this Assembly, we must carry the people with us and seek their opinion in a meaningful vote. I can't see any democratic reason why that shouldn't be acceptable to all the other Members of this Assembly.

It is vital, I think, that we increase the interest of the people in the Assembly. I think it's quite astonishing that half the people of Wales have no idea that the national health service is administered in Wales by the Welsh Government rather than by Jeremy Hunt and his friends at Westminster. We have a great deal more to do to increase the civic awareness of the Assembly and the legitimacy of what we do in the minds—[Interruption.] Yes, I'll certainly give way.

A lot of us who have the experience of fighting the 2011 referundum and trying to articulate a case that people would understand about moving from Part 3 to Part 4 of the Government of Wales Act are slightly seared by the experience, and the question of whether or not we should change the internal configuration of the Assembly is not, I would suggest, a matter of principle, just as there hasn't been a referendum on whether the number of MPs should be reduced. 

Well, I, indeed had a searing electoral experience in 1997 too, but it was in the 1997 general election. So, I do understand what Lee Waters is saying, but I don't think this would be a complicated decision: it would merely be asking the Welsh people whether they want to increase the size of the Assembly by 50 per cent or whatever figure is arrived at as a result of the deliberations that the Llywydd referred to earlier on. I don't think that's a difficult question for people to understand at all.

We have had extra powers devolved to the Assembly and more yet may come, but I go back also to the argument that Gareth Bennett made in his speech earlier on: are we overworked? Well, maybe we are. I'm on three committees as well as being a party leader and I'm an enthusiastic contributor to the debates of this Chamber, and I also, along with my three colleagues, of course, represent 75 per cent of the land mass of Wales in Mid and West Wales. I don't feel myself to be particularly overworked, but it is a full day and a full week, I quite agree, and we could all do with more time, perhaps, to think as well as to speak. That is certainly an area of my life that I would like to see a bit more freedom to explore. But, on the whole, the main point that we make in this debate is that we are all here as proxies for the people, and in order for us to secure greater legitimacy in the minds of the people—. After all, turnout in elections is dismally low compared with what it ought to be. Indeed, in the by-election in Alyn and Deeside it was only 29 per cent yesterday, and in the Assembly election last year, it was only in the forties. So, that is by no means a ringing endorsement of our institution. And therefore, before we seek to expand the size of it, I do believe that we should go back to our masters, the people, and seek their approval and permission before we take that step.

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

Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will proceed directly, now, to voting time.

We move to voting time on the proposed M4 relief road, and I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. If this proposal is not agreed, we'll vote on the amendment tabled to the motion. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 26, no abstentions, 28 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed and we vote on the amendments.

So, I now call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Julie James. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 28, 11 abstentions, 15 against. Therefore, the amendment is agreed.

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

Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amended motion 28, 11 abstentions, 14 against. Therefore, the amended motion is agreed.

We now move to vote on the UKIP debate on Assembly electoral reform. I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Neil Hamilton. Again, if the proposal is not agreed to, we will vote on the amendment tabled to the motion. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion six, no abstentions, 48 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed. 

We now move to vote on the amendment and I call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Julie James. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 48, no abstentions, six against. Therefore, the amendment is agreed.

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

Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amended motion 48, no abstentions, six against. Therefore, the amended motion is agreed.

We now move to the short debate. Can I ask Members to leave the Chamber quietly, please? Can I ask Members, please, not to conduct conversations in the Chamber?

We now move to the short debate and I call on Caroline Jones to speak on the topic that she has chosen.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'd like to give Suzy Davies and Dai Lloyd a minute of my time to speak in this debate. My debate is on the role of community hospitals in the twenty-first century.

On Thursday 5 July this year, the NHS will be 70 years old. Those 70 years have seen tremendous advances in care: the eradication of smallpox and polio, the world’s first liver, heart and lung transplants were performed, and diseases such as coronary heart disease, stroke and cancer are no longer a death sentence. As a result, we are all living much longer. In 1947 the average life expectancy was 64. Today, that has risen to around 82, and those born today are expected to live well into their 90s and beyond. King William will be sending rather more telegrams than his grandmother. In 20 years, there will be around 45 per cent more over-65s. However, old age rarely comes alone, and over the next decade, around a quarter of us will have a limiting long-term condition.

The NHS have cut bed numbers by a staggering 45 per cent. In 1990 there were nearly 20,000 beds in the Welsh NHS. Today, there are just over 10,000. Community hospitals across the country have shut, wards have been closed or merged, and plans have been unveiled for further closures. We have also seen a lack of investment and planning in the social care sector, which has accelerated under austerity, and in the last five years, per capita spending for social care has fallen by over 13 per cent. This has a knock-on effect on our hospitals, and in the last 10 years, there have only been slight improvements to delayed transfers of care, which month to month hover around 400 to 500.

Each month we have hundreds of patients who are unable to leave hospital, simply because there is no social care available. In December, we had 238 people who had been waiting for more than three weeks to leave hospital, and of those, 51 had been waiting between 13 and 26 weeks, and 25 people had been waiting for more than 26 weeks—25 people spending half a year longer in hospital than they need to, simply because there is no step-down care available. Hundreds of people are spending weeks in a hospital bed they don’t need to be in. Not only does this impair recovery, it also reduces our already limited bed numbers.

A hospital stay is estimated to cost an average of £400 per day, so the cost of these unnecessary stays is costing our NHS millions of pounds in care. This will place our health and social care services under a tremendous strain. Services are already at breaking point, and despite months of planning, millions of pounds of investment and assurances that the chaos of previous winters was a thing of the past, our NHS struggled to cope this winter. It was so bad that emergency consultants took the unprecedented step of writing to the First Minister to warn that they could no longer guarantee patient safety. Our top accident and emergency consultants told the First Minister that a lack of beds was hampering their ability to treat patients in a safe and timely manner. And despite all the innovations in NHS care over the last 70 years, one thing that hasn’t improved is the ability of those at the top to forward plan. Over the last three decades, our population has grown by over 10 per cent, yet those in charge of the NHS have cut the beds by a staggering 45 per cent.

In the past, we had the perfect solution for those patients who didn’t need acute care but were unable to go home for whatever reason. It was the community hospital, or cottage hospital, as we used to refer to them. The community hospital offered step-down care to those patients who no longer needed the same level of care provided at the district or general hospital. Unfortunately, many of these hospitals have closed, not because they didn’t provide excellent care or that we no longer needed to provide step-down care—many of our community hospitals closed because of poor planning, particularly workforce planning. Successive Governments have failed to recruit sufficient clinical staff for those hospitals. As a result, many of our community hospitals have been forced to close because a lack of staff has left the services unsafe and unsustainable. Short-term cost-saving decisions have led to a number of other closures.

Within my region, South Wales West, years before the closure of Fairwood Hospital, nurses warned that NHS managers were deliberately running down the service in order to justify its closure, because the health board needed to save money. Managers got their wish and Fairwood, indeed, did close. This has left a black hole in step-down care. Social services have been unable to pick up the slack in the system. I have dealt with a number of cases where constituents have left hospital without any care plan in place. The most recent case involved an elderly gentleman in his 80s who was sent home days after receiving bypass surgery. There was no step-down care, and without the help of friends and neighbours, the poor gentleman would have been unable to feed or, indeed, dress himself. This is totally unacceptable, and we shouldn’t expect care to be dependent upon the generosity of neighbours and friends.

It’s clear that we can't depend on local authority social services, who are facing unsustainable cuts to their budgets, and it's no wonder that we are seeing reports of patients spending years in hospital. Social services are also at breaking point and are unable to cope with the demand.

We had the answer in the past—the community hospital. My constituent would have been transferred to Fairwood for nurse-led care to give him the time to recuperate and be able to fend for himself. Unfortunately, bad planning and poor decisions led to Fairwood’s closure. So, today, the only choice is to keep him on an acute ward or turf him out to fend for himself.

This is not the NHS Aneurin Bevan envisioned nearly 70 years ago. We have made so many advances, but proper planning of care hasn’t been one of them. We have to stop taking short-term decisions based on financial pressures, and deliver an NHS with a complete care pathway—a pathway that involves step-down care at a community hospital.

The Cabinet Secretary is working on a long-term plan for health and social care, and I hope that he doesn’t make the same mistakes as his predecessors. We have to stop closing community hospitals and hope that local authorities will provide the step-down care. We know that this is not happening. Community hospitals are not an anachronism of nineteenth and twentieth-century care. They have a key role to play in our twenty-first century NHS.

I urge the Cabinet Secretary to stop local health boards from closing any further community hospitals and plan for the reopening of hospitals like Fairwood that were wrongly closed. Events of the past few months have shown us how wrong the decisions to cut beds were, and it’s time we reversed those decisions if we are to have any hope of celebrating the NHS’s one hundredth birthday. Diolch yn fawr. Thank you.

Thank you, Caroline, for bringing the short debate to the Chamber today. I think you could argue that the health service has been characterised in this way—that hospitals are very difficult to get into, and then it's very difficult to get out of them again. One of the reasons we lost our community beds was because of the risk of institutionalisation, and I think all of us, as Caroline has mentioned, really, are seeing more and more cases where individuals are getting institutionalised in the acute expensive beds in district general hospitals rather than in the local beds.

Having said that, the parliamentary review gives us some scope for hope here. My main concern with that remains that social care—or let's just call it 'care' because, actually, you're confusing that with medical care—I think it's sometimes our difficulty—and concentrate a little bit more on where care can be carried out more locally, which I know is the principle behind the review, and in the meantime not necessarily look to spare spaces in care homes as the step-down provision, as we're seeing a lot at the moment. Because, as you know, some individuals who go to the care home for step-down care never leave. Thank you.

This, really, is to celebrate the phenomenal success of the NHS, actually. Let's set all this in context: back in 1950, King George VI, I think it was then, signed 250 birthday cards for people who were 100 years old—there were 250 centurions throughout the whole of the United Kingdom then. Fast-forward 40 years to 1990, Queen Elizabeth II had to sign 2,500 birthday cards for centurions in 1990. Fast-forward to two years ago, she had to sign 13,700, and last year, another 14,500 birthday cards for centurions. So, if nothing else, the phenomenal success has implications for the work-life balance of the monarch.

Obviously, that means that there are an awful lot of people in our towns and villages walking around who are older and more frail than they used to be, and that's why we need more beds in our communities. It can be in a care home, and, yes, community hospitals. Yes, we've been there with Fairwood, Hill House Hospital, and Cwmdonkin hospital in Swansea—yes, I am that old. [Laughter.] But there is a category of people now, because we are all living longer, who are just too ill to be left in their homes, even with the most surprising amount of domiciliary care packages, but they're also not ill enough to justify being on an acute medical and surgical emergency ward bed. We need that creative thinking involving community beds. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you. I now call the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services to reply to the debate. Vaughan Gething.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. As you know, the Welsh Government's aim is for people to have access to the right care, at the right time, and in the right place, and for that to be as close to home as possible. Our planning guidance to health boards each year reinforces this. To deliver on that aim, we need to challenge and break down the traditional medical model of health, with its focus on illness and hospitals. We need to do even more to construct and deliver a social model of health and well-being, with its focus on an integrated response from public services, and the third and community sector working collaboratively within our communities.

The needs of the population of the twenty-first century are changing, usefully highlighted by Dai Lloyd's reminder of the increasing number of centenarians—I think that's the phrase—from the accession of the current monarch to now. And we expect that to continue in the future. We expect more and more of us to live longer. And I think most of us, maybe not all of us, would like to live to a ripe old age, and perhaps live to an old age where we have dignity and be able to make choices—and we know that old age doesn't come alone.

But I do recognise that the issue of community hospitals is sensitive. Local communities can often be very attached to their community hospitals. You see either defence committees or league of friends committees that raise funds, that are very attached and proud of the care that is provided. And trying to change any service in a local hospital can be seen as an attack on that community, as opposed to a genuine attempt to reform, change and improve health and care services. All plans for service change need to meet needs now and in the future, and they must be grounded in evidence, informed, and shaped by effective involvement from the people who deliver those services and, of course, the wider public. And I expect health boards and their partners to have genuinely robust arrangements to involve everyone in the conversation where there is a case for change and options for providing the best solution that will meet the needs of the population, in the today, but also in the future.

And of course, all health boards have established primary care clusters. We had a debate in this place about the role of primary care clusters, again mentioned positively by the parliamentary review's final report. And there are collaborative arrangements that are beginning to mature, and part of the challenge in the cluster report was about how we do more with them, not do less, about how we try and enhance and accelerate that maturity and the way in which they can plan and deliver a range of local health and care services.

I do expect them increasingly to drive the planning and delivery of the right care at the right time, and in the right place, as close to home as possible. And these are groups of people who understand the communities they're in. We are trying to make sure we align some of the planning processes to make sure that we're not planning on the one hand here in primary care, in those local clusters, and then having something different come with the integrated medium-term plans from health boards. And I do want to see all of those partners be creative in how they make effective use of community services, and for this to develop the concept of hubs to integrate a clinical and a social response to the needs of the community that they serve.

The case for change that the parliamentary review recognised, indeed, is that some of that is in how people take responsibility for their own health and well-being, and the way they use and access care and support. We can't duck this as a challenge. I remember when I first became an Assembly Member, we had a report from the Bevan Foundation, and one of its key principles was about people taking more responsibility for their own health and care, their own sense of well-being, things they could and should do for themselves. Then, actually I think it was within the last year or two, NHS England produced a report that said something very similar to that. It was headline news on network channels, as opposed to a conversation we'd already had in this place several years previous. The challenge always is not just about saying the right thing, but how we help people to make those choices.

But preaching on the right thing to do often doesn't reach the people we want it to. So, we have to get alongside communities and individuals and help them to make their own choices. There's a role of leadership for people like me, of course, and for everyone else in the Chamber, including those who've departed, health and care professionals, but actually people within their communities, peers, and the way in which children are educated now, that should make a real difference in developing attitudes. That case for change, again, as I said, was articulated in the parliamentary review's outcome.

We then come back to community hospitals, and when people complain about the closure of community hospitals they almost always say that loved facilities that have provided a good service were removed. The accusation always is that nefarious NHS managers deliberately ran down the service, and it was all about cost. Money is always a factor in any service that we deliver. Ultimately we give services a finite amount of money to deliver a service, and particularly so—remember, we're in the eighth year of austerity here, and that has a very real impact on the services that we can deliver. But the case for change isn't really just about saying, 'We have to close services because of money.' The case for change is about: can we deliver a better service with a better experience and better outcomes for people? A number of the community hospitals have closed in recent years because they're no longer capable of providing the levels of care that each of us should expect and demand for our communities. I think that's what the challenge always is, if you are in a position like mine, otherwise you're saying to one local community, 'If you're really attached to that care then that's okay, that's good enough for you, but it wouldn't be acceptable for my constituency.' There's a challenge about getting around and through and understanding that debate, which in itself is not an easy one to have.

So, some did close due to safety concerns about staffing levels and the inability to recruit to older models of care, and that's a challenge in the mainstream hospital sector, actually, as well—about having models of care that will attract the right staff with the right experience to run and deliver effective care. And others were just about the physical state of buildings. If they're no longer able to comply with fire regulations, you shouldn't say to people, 'If you put up a big enough fight, then actually your health and safety doesn't matter anymore.' So, there are very practical reasons to want to do that as well.

But in redesigning services for this century, there has to be a combination of more nearby modern community facilities and enhanced care at home or in the community. So, the term 'community hospital' may no longer be appropriate. It usually brings up the image of a local hospital with beds, doctors and nurses, and we actually think that, in many cases, that isn't what the future's going to look like in every single instance. We'll look at that more dispersed view on community care. We'll still see smaller hospitals with doctors and nurses in them, and I'll go on to talk about some of those shortly, but I think we need to have our focus on creating the sort of integrated health and care service, the seamless care system, that the parliamentary review suggested should be our future vision.

If you think about those services, some of them will be physical, some of them will be virtual. Yesterday we had a debate about digital technology. We heard quite a lot about digitalisation and what that will do in sharing records, but also the ability to communicate remotely, and to deliver a service remotely, where someone either doesn't need to leave their own home or potentially goes to a local centre and not have to travel further, with the inconvenience that often produces for people, but to go to a very local facility to have access to different sorts of care. That will have an impact on people—not just our ability to stay healthy, but their physical and mental health, too.

An excellent example of the sort of thing I'm talking about is the Ystradgynlais Community Hospital, which has been reinvented, describing itself as a 'community hub'. It has in-patient care for older people's mental health, day care, therapy, including for dietary, occupational therapists and physiotherapist care. It also has x-ray and ultrasound services, minor injuries and a minor ailment service. There are also social care staff and third sector providers on site. That is not what you would think was a traditional community hospital, and that's the model I think we should be investing in in the future.

Another example is the Flint integrated health and social care centre due to open in the coming weeks—a matter of some controversy within Flint, about the plans for it to happen. And yet the centre is adjacent to a care home and it will provide accommodation for services transferred out of secondary care, with consulting and treatment rooms being supported by telemedicine. In addition there will be community, third sector, social care services and mental health care and support on site as well. So, we're able to do more in remodelling our service, and that's why we're going to direct our capital resources in that way in local healthcare.

I recently announced, in October, that I've earmarked £68 million for an initial pipeline of facilities for integrated health and care services right across the country—19 different projects in the north, south, east and west to try and do exactly what I've been describing and talking about. I think that's where the future is, because the advances in clinical and social care practice, together with advances in technology, should allow us to change the way, positively, that we plan and deliver more and better integrated care to support people in their own homes and communities. That's what we'll continue to do in working alongside our partners in health, social care and beyond to do just that.

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