National Assembly for Wales

I call Members to order.

The first item on our agenda this afternoon is questions to the Minister for Finance and Trefnydd, and the first question is from Nick Ramsay.

I thought Lynne Neagle was going to be answering the questions there for a moment.

Thank you. The 2019 budget, approved by the Assembly in January, provides £7.4 billion for core NHS funding, representing record levels of investment in the NHS in Wales.

Thank you, Minister. In yesterday's statement, I asked you about the way that the future generations legislation was being incorporated into the budget. Another area of concern that's been under some criticism from the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales is that of moving the focus of healthcare towards the preventative agenda, which hasn't always happened in the past, and which we clearly need to do in the future, with restricted resources. So, can you tell us, with the supplementary budget and, indeed, last year's main budget, what discussions have been held in terms of extending that preventative agenda so that we can put the health service in Wales on a more sustainable footing in the future, because we know costs are only going to increase?

Thank you very much for raising this, and for your interest in the way in which we are making the future generations Act come to life through the budgetary decisions that we make here in Wales. I've had a recent meeting with the future generations commissioner to explore how we can better incorporate the Act within our budgetary decision making at the earliest possible opportunity. And it's certainly one of the areas that I will be talking to my ministerial colleagues about as we enter our next budget round. But, looking back, we'll be holding a round-table with the commissioner and a number of senior finance officials very shortly to have a lessons-learned kind of exercise to explore what we did well this time in terms of considering the Act, but also how we can improve things in future.

We worked very closely with the future generations commissioner to come to an agreed definition of preventative spend, which has very much guided some of our thinking. So, some of the additional funding announced for health and social services in 2019-20, for example, comes very much within that preventative agenda. The £192 million to take forward the implementation of our long-term plan for health and social care, 'A Healthier Wales', is part of that, because that piece of work really does try to refocus our efforts, really, at the preventative end. Because we know, in the long term, clearly, it's better for people, but obviously, in terms of our budgets, it doesn't store up problems for the future.

We're investing in our high streets through a range of measures, including up to £100 million over three years through the targeted regeneration investment programme, £26 million next year to provide further business rates relief for businesses across Wales, and £31.5 million for a town-centre loans scheme.

Thank you for that answer, Minister. Sir John Timpson, chairman of the Timpson chain, has said that making town centres more friendly to motorists will stop the rot of the high street. He doesn't subscribe to the simplistic assumption that the death of the high street is down to online retail—'You can't get keys cut online', he says—but it's largely down to motorists preferring to go somewhere they can easily access by car. That's why Timpson says 40 per cent of their trade is done out of town, and that's expected to rise to 70 per cent over the next 10 years. A couple of years ago, Timpson opened 95 new shops, shops that provide services not available to buy online, and yet only four of the new stores were on high streets—the rest being in or near out-of-town supermarkets. This is because, he says, local authorities are killing off the high street by making shopping inconvenient to the motorist. Increased trade on high streets leads to improved employment levels and increased business rates for local authorities. So, will you pledge to help fund de-pedestrianisation in dying town centres across Wales?

Thank you very much for that question. It is really important that we work very hard to increase the footfall in our town centres across Wales, and there are various ways in which we can do that, including through the investment that we are making in active travel, but also making sure that we have better interconnectivity between our various towns and communities. So, I think that the answer here isn't a simplistic one. It is about using our investment that we do have through the Building for the Future programme, to ensure that we have jobs in the city centre, and the investment that we make through our housing programme to ensure that we turn some of our empty properties into homes in our towns and city centres.

So, the answer really to having thriving vibrant high streets in the future is multifaceted and will require work across Government, and we are undertaking that work. The targeted regeneration investment scheme, for example, is a fantastic example of how we are rejuvenating high streets right across Wales, but also putting the power and the decision making there in the hands of local authorities so that they can come together and work out for themselves what their particular local priorities are, and then we'll support them to deliver them. 

Trefnydd, I believe that business improvement districts are a good way of seeing businesses and local community councils working together, and it's a good model I do believe, and Newtown is going through that process at the moment. Is it intended that any of the financial proceeds from a potential bid will be channelled through town and community councils so that they can work on behalf of their communities to influence the impact of other outcomes of bids? And, also, can you give consideration, along with your colleagues, of course, to provide further funding to extend this model to other towns across Powys through the allocation of the funding for specific area-based improvement district schemes, because I think they are very beneficial, particularly for, for example, improving tourism in a town centre? 

Thank you very much. I share your enthusiasm for business improvement districts as being a mechanism which brings local businesses and other stakeholders together with the aim of improving their trading environment and, again, making shopping a much more pleasant experience for the people who use those business areas and to attract more footfall to those areas. And that's one of the reasons why we have a revenue budget of £620,000 in 2019-20 to support wider community regeneration efforts, which do involve the expansion of business improvement district programmes to other areas. Certainly, were there to be other areas in Powys that would be interested in exploring how business improvement districts could work for them, I know that Welsh Government officials would be more than happy to develop those proposals with them. 

Minister, you will be aware that funding has been invested in trying to regenerate Swansea High Street. However, while there have been some improvements, we are still faced with a row of deserted crumbling old buildings in that area, as you know. Among them, we have the site of the historic, but now overgrown, Palace Theatre still dominating the area, which is a sad reflection on the city. Will you, therefore, commit the Welsh Government to having further discussions with Swansea Council and provide the necessary funding in order to tackle the remaining unsightly buildings along this key gateway to our city? 

Thank you for raising the issue of Swansea High Street. Certainly, it's an area I'm very familiar with, and I have seen the major improvements that have started to take place there over the past couple of years in particular, and I know that Swansea Council has particularly ambitious plans for the city as a whole. I'm quite excited by the housing-led regeneration that is taking place on Swansea High Street. I think that's a good model for other parts of Wales to look to, in terms of having more people living in our town centres, where the footfall is there then in order to make the most of all of the town's cafes and shops, and so on. I'd certainly be happy to have further conversations with Swansea to explore how we can support the regeneration efforts on High Street. 

Questions now from the party spokespeople. The Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Rhun ap Iorwerth. 

Diolch yn fawr. I have some questions on post-Brexit funding. You will be very aware of the £1.6 billion post-Brexit towns fund for England. Could you update us on Welsh consequentials that we can expect as a result of that? 

Thank you very much. This announcement came out of nowhere to us and we're still trying to work through with the UK Government to what extent the funding is new money. I understand that around £1 billion of that is potentially new money. So, I think we would be looking at  consequentials of around the region of £50 million, if our understanding is confirmed to be true. The other £600 million, I understand, would be for towns to bid into, and we would be able to bid in to that, or potentially have consequential funding from that, but unfortunately it's proving extremely difficult to get clarity from the UK Government on this. I see this very much as a bribe to towns across England. It offers nothing like the kind of funding that we would have, in Wales certainly, attracted from the European Union—£350 million a year. So, the £50 million consequential is just a drop in the ocean, should that figure be the correct figure.

And, of course, I agree that it will be very difficult for us to maintain the kind of funding levels that we have benefited from due to our membership of the European Union. There are other funds also. We had a funding package announced for local authorities in England with ports in them recently. There's the £140 million package for Northern Ireland announced recently. Could you update us on the consequentials of that for Wales?

Yes, with regard to the ports funding, our understanding is that that funding isn't new money; it's just reannounced money. So, there'll be no consequentials coming to Welsh Government as a result of that. 

With regard to the £140 million that has been provided to the Northern Ireland budget in 2019-20, that is a matter of huge concern to Welsh Government because we have a quite clear agreement with the UK Government in terms of of our statement of funding policy. Our statement of funding policy is there to offer fair funding across the nations, and this certainly is not within either the spirit or the letter of that. 

Welsh Government would have expected in the region of £246 million in consequentials for the additional funding that Northern Ireland has been given. We raised this particular issue in terms of the fairness of the funding that's gone to Northern Ireland during our finance quadrilateral. Scottish Ministers are equally as frustrated as we are, and we continue to press this. I wrote to the Chief Secretary of the Treasury just this week, expressing our deep concern and offering the Chancellor the opportunity to use the spring statement to right what is clearly a wrong.

I sympathise with Welsh Government's frustrations, clearly, but so much of this is about Welsh Government being reactive. The question is here: who is being proactive in seeking deals for Wales on funding, post Brexit or now for that matter? I've been holding discussions with some individuals this morning about the notion of free zones for trade or free ports. Where are the bids being prepared for Wales for potentially taking advantage of those kinds of new models. The north-east of England already has a bid prepared for taking advantage of perhaps the development of new free-port areas.

The question is: who can we depend on to fight for Wales? It seems to me that we can't look to the Secretary of State for Wales, because the office of the Secretary of State for Wales is redefining itself very much as UK Government's voice in Wales rather than Wales's representation at the UK Cabinet. So, we have to look to Welsh Government to go out there and seek deals for us. It seems to me that 10 members of one political party in Northern Ireland are using more leverage than the Government of our country. So, when can we expect a ramping-up of efforts by Welsh Government to be more proactive in putting together and putting forward cases for additional funding for Wales at this hugely crucial time for us as we face the uncertainty of Brexit?

I would reject any suggestion that Welsh Government hasn't been working at pace and with real energy on this particular issue for a long time now. There are numerous meetings between the First Minister, the Prime Minister, the Brexit Minister and his counterparts, and between me and my counterparts, and all Ministers with a particular portfolio interest in this area. 

During the finance quadrilateral, we talked particularly about the potential for a 'no deal' Brexit. We were very clear that, should there be a 'no deal' Brexit, there should be additional funding coming to Wales in order to help us deal with what would be a catastrophic result. The Chancellor has previously said that the spring statement that will take place next week could be a full fiscal event, yet the Chief Secretary to the Treasury tells us that the spring statement will be nothing more than an administrative event that doesn't even warrant a phone call to Welsh Government because there will be no particular areas of interest to the devolved nations. 

So, Welsh Government has been working very hard in order to ensure that Wales's voice is heard and that the seriousness of the issues facing us is heard. But that doesn't mean that we're not using the funds that we do have to develop innovative ideas in order to address the risk of a 'no deal' Brexit but also the challenges that will be posed in any Brexit, which is why, of course, we have our £50 million European transition fund, which is making allocations across the breadth of Welsh life in order to ensure that we are well prepared for Brexit—well prepared to make the most of any opportunities that might arise, but also well prepared to deal with the catastrophe that might be a 'no deal' Brexit.

The Conservative spokesperson, Nick Ramsay.

Diolch, Llywydd. Minister, I'd like to ask you about procurement. Can you provide us with an update on Welsh Government plans for the future of the National Procurement Service, the NPS, and public procurement in Wales in general? 

Yes, certainly. You'll have heard the First Minister's statement when he was in the finance portfolio back in September, which outlined the fact that we're taking a new approach to procurement in Wales, and that we'll be operating a smaller unit that will be much more focused, reducing the number of large contracts from around 60 to around 30 in order to have a more focused approach, and an approach that takes greater account of local and regional interests, which is what our stakeholders told us they wanted from procurement when we asked them towards the end of last year.

Thank you, Minister. When I asked your predecessor—you referred to the statement—now sitting on your left—sitting there anyway—about Welsh Government plans for the future of the NPS—physically, that is—in October 2018, he told me that customers felt that

'a collective approach to public procurement in Wales was better secured through a strengthened regional tier'— 

you've just alluded to that—

'rather than discharging things at a national level'.

And consequently, the

'NPS will not continue in its current format, and it will migrate to being an organisation with a stronger regional and local presence, and an organisation that is better placed to make sure that those organisations across Wales that spend public money are well equipped to respond to the new opportunities'

ahead. Minister, specifically, how do you see the public procurement regime in Wales working in future on the regional basis that you've just mentioned? How will that regional base be supported, and how will those plans dovetail with the new approach to regional economic development, as outlined in the Welsh Government's economic action plan?

Thank you very much. So, as we move to transitioning the NPS and Value Wales teams into new functions, we'll certainly be taking into consideration the recent Public Accounts Committee inquiry into procurement, which concluded in February. We'll be considering the observations that PAC has to make in terms of helping us shape our way forward. But we have engaged with the support of the Centre for Local Economic Strategies to help shape our future approaches, and we're very keen to draw on their particular experiences, having worked on procurement initiatives across the UK and across the EU. The example of Preston has often been given as one that has been seen as particularly successful in terms of ensuring that procurement benefits the local community.

We'll also be looking at the work we've been doing through our Better Jobs Closer to Home pilot programmes. I think that they offer us particular opportunities to maximise the benefit from our investment, not just in terms of ensuring that money circulates within the local economy, but actually benefits people who are currently out of work, for example, people who are furthest currently from the employment market, and also exploring what more we can do to use procurement as a lever in terms of our decarbonisation agenda. 

Diolch. I always like it when Ministers refer to public accounts inquiries, clearly with my Chair of that committee hat on as well. Aside from the work that public accounts has done into this area, according to a recent written Assembly question and answer to that question in 2018, 22 per cent of procurement spend by the Welsh Government on construction contracts worth over £500,000 went to firms based outside Wales—you've just mentioned that issue. That leakage represents a lost opportunity for investment in Welsh supply chains and, consequently, lost opportunities to further strengthen the economy of Wales. Now, I know when we've mentioned this previously in the Chamber, you and your predecessors have said there are, of course, issues in terms of giving contracts to English firms. Of course, that is a vital part of the UK economy as well, but I'm sure we would all like to see greater support, greater opportunities for Welsh firms and local firms.

You've mentioned the regional basis and the public accounts inquiry. Without pre-empting your reaction to that, could you tell us how you see the economic action plan and other aspects of Welsh Government policy ensuring that the Welsh firms, local firms, do get a fair share of the cake when it comes to the distribution of future procurement contracts in Wales?    

Thank you very much for that, and I'm sure that the work that we're doing in terms of improving and increasing the community benefits as a result of our investment is one way in which we can ensure that local firms and local people do benefit. So, as of the end of December, 519 projects have created 2,465 job opportunities, with over 102,000 weeks of training also provided. So, there's certainly a lot of work that we could be doing in terms of community benefit, and a great deal of work that we could also be doing in terms of the ethical code of practice to ensure that those people throughout the supply chain, whether they are based in Wales or elsewhere, are treated well, paid well, and, obviously, have their rights at work respected.

So, I think that procurement is an area really ripe for a real focus by Welsh Government in terms of ensuring that we can circulate as much money that we invest, keep it circulating in Wales, but also look at the huge range of other benefits that we can achieve from procurement. 

UKIP spokesperson, Neil Hamilton.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I've been looking at the Minister's list of responsibilities and they include, amongst many other things, strategic direction and management of Welsh Government resources, strategic investment, financial accounting and audit, and value for money and effectiveness.

The Wales Audit Office has recently published a report called 'Welsh Government Financial Support for Business' and I'd like to ask a few questions arising out of that. The principal criticism that the Auditor General for Wales had in that report was that

'The Welsh Government did not fully translate its vision for economic renewal into a co-ordinated programme of financial support to businesses',

and that the Government

'has monitored individual projects separately but has not managed financial
support to businesses as a programme'.

We've seen a number of fiascos, which are listed in the report, including: the well-known one of Griffin Place Communications, the £600,000 set-up grant for 127 jobs, which was all lost; Oysterworld, a computer game developer, which had £1.5 million altogether; Mainport Engineering, a fabrication engineering company; and Kancoat, of course—another well-known case—a metal-coil-coating production line. These are very, very diverse grants and loans that have been given. I wonder if the Minister can tell me what steps she's taken and what discussions she might have had in Government since that report was published a few months ago, to ensure that any future support for businesses by Welsh Government isn't a piecemeal ragbag of grants, but a co-ordinated programme with clear vision and proper control.

I would disagree with the characterisation of the way in which Welsh Government provides support for business, but this is an area that I've taken an interest in since coming into portfolio, and I'm exploring what more we might do in order to satisfy ourselves when grants are being made and, indeed, when business loans are being made, that we can be sure that we're investing in the right company and taking the right level of risk with those companies.

So, one thing that we could, potentially, be looking to ensure is that we have named officials dealing with specific projects, who Ministers can meet with regularly in order to oversee those loans. I do have to say that there is a huge structure of auditing already in place within Welsh Government in terms of ensuring the correct and good investment of the money that we invest.

I'm not entirely satisfied that we're making any great deal of progress as yet from that answer, regarding it as work in progress. But the auditor general's recommendations concerning Welsh Government risk management are also important. He says that

'the Welsh Government’s Sectors and Business Team only assesses risk for individual projects in isolation and does not have a defined risk appetite across its programme of providing financial support to businesses.' 

That's a broad point about the whole structure or the theoretical basis on which the Welsh Government's financial support for business is based. I've looked through the Assembly's Record of Proceedings and the Welsh Government website, and there's very little there to confirm what the approach is to risk management and risk appetite. So, what exactly is the Minister doing within Welsh Government to ensure that there is a clear and robust approach to Welsh Government financial support? Because we're dealing with significant sums of money here, which, of course, if they're put at risk, means that we can't spend them on other worthwhile things.

Thank you. So, when Welsh Government does make an investment or offer a grant or a loan over a certain amount of money, then I oversee and I have a view to take on each and every one of those decisions that are made by my colleagues. And I provide challenge to my colleagues, asking about affordability, about payment profiles, about value for money and efficient spending, and exploring to what extent those funding decisions that are made, or those grant decisions that are made, represent value in terms of being in line with our overarching Welsh Government priorities as found in our programme for government. So, there's certainly a level of personal interest that I take in this, but, clearly, individual funding decisions taken by individual Ministers have to be done within the context of their own budgetary management as well.

I recognise that this is a subject in which the Minister has taken a considerable interest, and I do find that reassuring, but I think we're still a long way from being reassured that this is going to produce any practical results. The auditor general also said in this report that

'The Welsh Government has not put in place systems and processes to produce information for publicly reporting on whether overall, its financial support for business contributed to achieving its intended outcomes'.

In other words, a progress report on how successful the project has been altogether.

Much of the information that has been extracted, in some cases, had to be extracted, not from the Welsh Government's own proactive publication of information, but had to be extracted by journalists and opposition political parties in freedom of information requests. For example, the online food ordering service, kukd.com, had £1 million, failed to create the promised 100 jobs; and Bad Wolf—a well-known case of course—£4 million given to the company, out of which nearly half was paid to the executives themselves. The company ultimately showed a loss of £3.1 million. So, these are cases where the taxpayer's been fleeced for no advantage whatsoever. In such cases, surely it's vitally important in order to secure public confidence in the way that public money is being spent for the Welsh Government to be as upfront and open as possible.

So, can she assure me that, as regards value for money and effectiveness, the public reporting of business grant moneys is going to be improved in future?

Thank you for raising that, and I'll certainly give further thought to what action might be able to be taken in terms of increasing transparency, but within the confines, obviously, of the commercial sensitivities for those businesses involved and also within the context of the auditor general's report.

Question 3, Lynne Neagle.

Thank you. I understand, Presiding Officer, that you've given your permission for questions 3 and 4 to be grouped together. Together, the Minister for Housing and Local Government and I met representatives of local government at the finance sub-group on 23 January, where we discussed a range of matters, including the funding challenges facing local government.

Thank you, Minister. Because of Tory austerity, Torfaen council yesterday were forced to put up council tax by 5.9 per cent in order to protect vital public services, especially schools and social care. I'm very proud to represent a Labour council that is fighting so hard to protect local services, and although I welcome the additional funding the Welsh Government announced for local government after the draft budget, it is undoubtedly the case that local authorities are facing huge funding pressures, especially in education and social care.

In terms of education, you may be aware that the Children, Young People and Education Committee is currently conducting an inquiry on school funding in Wales, and I have to say that the evidence we've received so far from teachers and school leaders paints a very worrying picture. 

Hear, hear.

Can I ask what discussions the Minister will have with both the Minister for Education and the Minister for Housing and Local Government, and what assurances you can give that ensuring sufficient funding for our schools will be a priority for you?

Thank you for raising this, and I do find it quite staggering to hear the shouts of 'good question' and 'hear, hear' from the Conservative benches when, as a result of austerity, funding per head of the population for day-to-day devolved public services, such as schools in Wales, will be 7 per cent lower next year than it was a decade ago. Between 2010-11 and 2019-20, the Welsh budget will have fallen by 5 per cent in real terms, when repayable funding's excluded. So, that's equivalent to £850 million less to spend on public services every year, but nonetheless, we're clearly prioritising the NHS, we're prioritising education, and we're prioritising social services.

So, with regard specifically to schools, we are directing to local authorities all of the £23.5 million announced by the UK Government last September towards funding school teachers' pay award in 2018-19 and 2019-20. And, in addition to this, we've gone further and announced an additional £15 million of funding that is being deployed over this financial year and next to help local authorities meet those cost pressures associated with teachers' pay in particular.

However, I do absolutely recognise the huge pressure that local authorities are under at the moment. We've given the best possible settlement, but we're under no illusion that it does mean difficult choices for our local government colleagues.

Minister, one of the consequences of Tory austerity is not only does the Assembly have less money, but also it means that local government has less money. And, of course, one of the pressures is on the leisure centres that are provided, which are of considerable public value to our communities. We are already seeing leisure centres having to close or be transferred into trusts. What I'm asking you, Minister, is to consider this: there is an opportunity, by removing the obligation in respect of council tax on local authority leisure centres, to actually put them on a level playing field with trusts. That would save, certainly in my council of Rhondda Cynon Taf, in the region of £800,000 a year. If those authorities have to actually close or transfer those leisure centres into a trust, we lose that money in any event. So, this would be, I think, an imaginative way of actually supporting our community publicly owned leisure centres where we pay decent pay—decent conditions, accountable to the community. And, by removing the obligation and creating a level playing field, we could do a lot to protect them and to protect this element of public service.

Thank you very much, and I know that you raised this particular issue in the Chamber with me a week or so ago, and I've certainly had some further opportunity to explore the issue further. I think that what we have to remember is that all non-domestic rates revenue received in Wales is distributed to local authorities to help fund local services. So, the vast majority of local authorities in Wales will receive more as a result of the payment of non-domestic rates than they see paid out within their own areas. Providing rates relief or exemptions to councils or other public bodies could distort competition and markets, giving publicly run facilities an unfair advantage over the privately run ones, and that could have some state-aid implications, as I've been told. But, obviously, I know that this is an area of particular interest to you; I'd be more than happy to continue that conversation.

Minister, council tax payers in south-east Wales are facing huge increases in their bills thanks to the Welsh Government's inadequate local government settlement. People living in Newport, Torfaen and Merthyr Tydfil are facing bills increased by nearly 6 per cent, and Caerphilly council is set to rise by nearly 7 per cent. Given that the Welsh Government 5 per cent cap has proved to be just a PR exercise, I think, what discussions has the Minister had with her colleagues about the devastating effect that these huge increases will have on hard-pressed families often in the poorest parts of Wales?

I think the brass neck on the Conservative benches is quite incredible this afternoon. If public spending had kept pace with growth in the economy, we would have an extra £4 billion to spend next year, and imagine how generous we could be to local authorities then. But I do have to say to the Conservatives, if the Conservatives want more money for any area of Welsh life, be it local authorities or the NHS or anywhere else, then they would have to tell us where the cut would fall.

Minister, the Welsh Local Government Association is always pleading with the Welsh Government to reduce the amount of specific hypothecated grants allocated to councils on an annual basis. They argue, obviously, that this funding should instead be provided directly by the revenue support grant, giving local authorities as much freedom as possible to respond to local need. Now, do you recognise this call, and, given the current state of local government finance, will you commit to listening to local authority leaders on this point during the next budget-setting process?

Thank you very much. It is always the case, obviously, that local authorities would like to have as much of the funding in the revenue support grant as possible, and we have taken steps, on an annual basis I think, to explore what more we can do in order to give local authorities the kind of flexibility they need. We have a further meeting of the finance sub-group coming up very shortly, and I'd be more than happy to pursue that conversation there.

Despite all authorities seeing increased financial demands, it's widely known across Wales now that, as regards social care, we have a ticking time bomb. Local authorities just cannot manage their social care budgets. We now know, as of a protest in north Wales this weekend, and through speaking with unions and people, teachers and leaders within our educational area, that we have an educational funding crisis within our local authorities.

Now, you must be aware that local authorities such as Conwy County Borough Council have already striven to make serious financial savings: £15.6 million this year alone. So, there's nothing left for them to trim. Now, as a result of that, a 9.6 per cent council tax increase in Conwy, Ynys Môn 9.5 per cent and Flintshire 8.75 per cent. Yet many local authorities, and those with over £100 million in actual reserves—they received an increase in their funding. At what point will this Welsh Labour Government look across the whole of Wales and actually provide the financial funding that's required on a demographic base need, and stop this political meandering of actually rewarding local authorities that are Labour-led? And really, frankly, you are letting down local authorities in north Wales, and none more so than my own in Aberconwy.

Well, look, there's absolutely no truth whatsoever that there is any politics involved in the local government funding formula. The local government funding formula is developed in collaboration with local government. The local government Minister and I have been very clear with local government that, if they want to come forward with a different way of apportioning funding amongst local authorities, then we would be happy to have those conversations, but such an idea and such proposals have not yet come forward.

I met the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 15 February and pressed for clarity on Brexit-related financial issues, including the possibility of an emergency budget. The message was clear: a full fiscal event is not on the agenda, adding to the uncertainties facing us.

I welcome the fact that both the Minister in front of us and her Scottish counterpart have both now raised it directly with Liz Truss, the relevant Minister, in their discussions, but I'm very disappointed with the response. Back on 28 October last year, Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, made it clear in response to an interview that there would indeed be need for an emergency budget in the case of a 'no deal' Brexit. Because the economy is expected to contract—we don't know how much, but it will contract—there will need to be an expansionary budget. It is not for the Welsh budget to pick up the pieces of that; it's for the UK Treasury to pick up those pieces. Now, if Philip Hammond feels that—and he surely would be the person that knows, although I note that within 24 hours No. 10 had slapped him down—then, surely, as part of the 'no deal' planning, the UK Government, the Treasury, Ministers and others must be working through the options of a 'no deal' could also mean the case that they have to pump money into the economy. It seems ridiculous that they're not considering that possibility. 

Thank you, and I completely agree with every word that you say, and I would be horrified if they were not working through every possibility in terms of the measures that the UK Government could take in terms of supporting the economy in the event of a disastrous 'no deal' Brexit. We've been clear, time and time again—and I'm grateful for the support of the Finance Committee, and for yourself and for Members of the Assembly who have been making the case to the UK Government—that an emergency budget must be forthcoming, additional funding must be forthcoming, in the event of a disastrous 'no deal' Brexit.

Well, Minister, I have to say I find it a bit rich that you're warning about the disasters that would follow from a 'no deal' Brexit. I agree there would be incredible dislocation and we don't know how deep that would be, and I would never take that risk, but the only way to prevent that is to have a deal. There's only one deal that's been negotiated by the British Government and—remember—by the European Union, and, if that deal doesn't go through, then the sort of disaster that you're predicting is going to be more and more likely. Your duty is to row behind the UK Government at the moment, and get this deal through.

With respect, I think our duty as a Welsh Government is to ensure the best possible future for the people of Wales. A 'no deal' Brexit certainly isn't that. Welsh Government, alongside Plaid Cymru, worked very quickly following the referendum to set out what a best possible Brexit would look like for the people of Wales in 'Securing Wales' Future'. The UK Government has only managed to deliver on a small part of what we set out would be the best possible way forward, and, actually, our plan has remained incredibly robust in terms of the kinds of challenges that we're facing and the discussions I think the European Union would have been open to having, had the UK Government had the sense to follow our plan.

The funding of social care is a key focus of the inter-ministerial group on paying for social care, of which the Minister and Deputy Minister for Health and Social Services and I are members, alongside the Minister for Housing and Local Government. It last met on 7 February, and will convene again next week.

I'm very grateful to you for your answer, Minister. Can you give us some indications of the timescale under which that group is expected to report? Because I'm certainly being told that we are, in some parts of Wales, facing a crisis in social care, one of the major issues being recruitment of staff. Of course, there's a Brexit element to that, but, in the context of this question today, one of the other major issues is the lack of parity of pay as well as parity of esteem between those who do identical jobs in the health service and those who do exactly the same roles in the care sector, where the work is less secure, where the terms and conditions are less favourable. And I'm constantly being told by care providers that they are training staff and then losing them to the NHS because the conditions are so much better there.

Is the working group that you've just mentioned addressing those parity of pay issues? If it isn't doing so at the moment, can I ask you to commit to doing so? Because, in the end, the quality of our care services, as of our health services, is entirely dependent on the people that provide them. Everything else you can do, but, unless you get the people right, you really can't provide the service that people need, particularly in terms of caring for the elderly. If you've got a constant turnover of staff, the effect that has on quality of care and the well-being, the emotional well-being, of individuals is devastating.

So, can I ask both for a timescale and that the working group does address those issues? We hear a lot about parity of esteem between health and care, but we say in Welsh 'diwedd y gân yw'r geiniog'—at the end of the song is the penny, and I don't think that people working in care care quite so much as about esteem as they do about what's in their pay packet.

Thank you very much for raising that. The main focus of the inter-ministerial group is very much on the challenge of paying for care, and that would be looking at how care is paid for in the future, very much in the context of the Holtham report on paying for care and the Finance Committee's report on the cost of caring for an ageing population. That said, however, there are a few streams of work involved, one of which is purely financial; the other really is about what the offer is.

So, if we are asking people in future to pay, potentially through a social care levy—that's one of the ideas that Gerry Holtham put forward, but it's not the only one, but, nonetheless, people will need to know what the offer is, what the deal will be for them. I think part of that conversation certainly is about the quality and the qualifications of the staff who would be looking after them in future. So, we are at the start of a journey on this particular piece of work. It is a wide-ranging piece of work. I would expect that it would be informing all of our thoughts as we move towards the next election in terms of what we might be offering to people. I'd be more than happy to have a further meeting with you to talk about what we've been learning so far through our discussions and the kind of big questions that we are exploring.

Neil McEvoy is not here to ask question 7 [OAQ53494]. Question 8, therefore, Jenny Rathbone. 

Our 2019-20 budget included an additional allocation of £192 million to implement 'A Healthier Wales', our long-term plan for health and social care in Wales. Decisions on the allocation of funding to deliver policies are a matter for the Minister for Health and Social Services.

One hundred and ninety-two million pounds sounds a lot of money, but the size of the problem is enormous. We have nearly 7,000 people under the age of 25 with type 2 diabetes and 1,500 of them are under the age of 19. That is a very, very serious statistic. So, it seems to me that we are going to need to roll out across Wales, proper weaning advice for all new parents, as well as cookery classes in all our schools to ensure that people aren't eating things that are literally killing them. So, I appreciate that the consultation hasn't yet closed, but presumably—is there any possibility that, were the health Minister to identify additional needs over and above that £192 million, that that might be a conversation you'd be prepared to contemplate?

Thank you for raising the consultation. As you say, it hasn't yet closed, but I know that your views will be very keenly received by that consultation. There have been some immediate measures that have been agreed by Cabinet, because, like you, we recognise that this is one of the issues that can't wait. So, proposed initial actions that we would take would be, for example, to increase daily activities through schools' environments. So, we currently have 303 schools now signed up to undertake the daily mile across Wales, and if we see this is effective, and I understand that it is, then we will be looking to double the number of participating schools by 2021.

We also, as you know, want to support more active travel and remove the barriers to walking and cycling. We've also committed to reviewing the delivery of the national exercise referral scheme and to work with partners to expand opportunities for social prescribing and delivery of initiatives to engage with people who currently have multiple barriers to engaging in activity. Another one of the initial, immediate actions that we wanted to take forward was to create new loans and grants for small physical activity-related businesses and clubs, and Business Wales and the Development Bank of Wales are exploring this at the moment. Another area that we want to take forward is for Sport Wales to provide more proactive planning advice. So, we want to strengthen and enhance their capacity to engage proactively with developers and local authorities on their local development plans, and also with developers, universities, schools and colleges in order to plan in physical activity at the start of that planning process in a much more strategic way. So, although the consultation is ongoing at the moment, there are some initial plans that we have put in train.

Finally, question 9—Suzy Davies.

It is always our ambition to provide long-term clarity over budgets whenever possible. However, this must be balanced with realistic and sensible planning assumptions. The UK Government's austerity agenda, coupled with the uncertainty regarding Brexit, constrains our ability to do this.

Thank you for that answer. You'll be aware, of course, and we've heard today about the serious concerns now being expressed about school funding, and one of the things that we hear is that schools can find themselves in receipt of extra money at very short notice at the end of the financial year, which makes it very difficult for them to spend it in-year effectively. It also has the unintended consequence of artificially inflating reserves at the end of the year.

Now, I appreciate the timing of this extra money isn't entirely down to Welsh Government because it does depend to a degree on when the UK Government passes money on, but there is still some time lag that is exacerbating the problem. Assembly terms are now five years. The Welsh block figure goes up in actual terms every year. Is there anything legislative that is preventing you from allowing schools to plan on two-year cycles with an indicative third year figure in a cycle that would help them solve the late windfall problem, help schools plan better, and safeguard their funding from being raided by councils to meet other demands?

Thank you very much for raising that. I'll explore the specific question you raised with my colleague the education Minister. I would say we are very sympathetic to the calls from the public sector for budgeting over a longer period whenever possible in order to have more straightforward financial planning. However, the continuing uncertainty that we are experiencing at the moment is causing a great deal of concern. We have the comprehensive spending review coming up later on this year. We still don't even know, at this point, what period that comprehensive spending review will cover. Despite this, we have ensured that the chief economist's report, which was published alongside the draft budget, does provide an analysis of the medium-term fiscal projections, so that will provide us with some of that information we need to predict, I suppose, as far as we best can, some of those scenarios moving forward, which you described as being useful for education. But, in relation to your specific question, I will have a discussion with the Minister.

I thank the Minister for Finance. 

And the next item is questions to the Minister for International Relations and Welsh Language, and the first question comes from Janet Finch-Saunders. 

I have regular discussions with my colleague the Minister for Education to ensure that, as a Government, we're all working together to create an education system to increase the number of Welsh speakers that supports and encourages the use of Welsh within schools, in communities and also in workplaces.

Thank you. According to the Welsh Government, Welsh-medium immersion education is the principal method for ensuring that children can develop their Welsh language skills and for the creation of new Welsh speakers. Now, I agree with the importance placed on Welsh-medium education, however, we are seeing the number of Welsh-medium schools fall from 434 in 2013 to 389 in 2018. Moreover, despite the number of children being taught in Welsh having increased, many are now concerned that the impact of Welsh-medium schools closing has not been fully considered. Therefore, what assessment have you made of the impact of these continuing school closures and the impact on the use of the Welsh language—how this is impacting on the use of the Welsh language and how it will ultimately impact on the aim of achieving a million speakers by 2050?

Well, thank you, and thanks for your interest in this area. I think what we've got to do is to keep an eye on the big picture, which is how we increase the number of Welsh speakers in our schools. And what's important, therefore, is the number of pupils, rather than the number of schools. And that's why we're focusing very much on increasing the number of pupils who are having their education entirely through the medium of Welsh from 20 per cent to 40 per cent by 2050. And what we have is a very clear trajectory in terms of how we're going to make that happen. That's why we have allocated an extra £46 million in terms of capital funding to open new schools, to allow an extension of schools that already exist, because the demand is there. What we are doing is to create, for example, an extra 2,800 school places with that extra money that we've given. That's 41 extra projects. So, I think that the key thing, as far as I can see, is to keep our eye on not just meeting the demand, but what we're trying to do now is to get ahead of the demand. That's why we've created the Welsh education strategic plans so that we are asking councils to actually create the demand, rather than just meet the demand. And it's a very different philosophy and a different approach. And what's great is it's really transformed the way that local government in Wales is thinking in relation to the provision of Welsh-medium education. 

Minister, I recently met with the headteachers of the Welsh-medium schools from Bridgend county borough, who were concerned over the impact cuts were having on Welsh-medium education. Upon visiting Ysgol Gyfun Gymraeg Llangynwyd, I was shocked at the poor state of repair of the building and the school's resources. Minister, what assessment have you made of the impact local authority cuts are having on the ability to teach through the medium of Welsh and the effect that will have on the wider goal of creating a million Welsh speakers?

Thank you. I'm sure that the Member is aware that, actually, unlike in England, we have given a massive injection of money to really transform the provision of school estates in Wales. It's something that is absolutely the envy of the rest of the United Kingdom. So I don't think we've got anything to be ashamed of in this area. 

Now, of course, there are still some schools where we do need to ensure that we improve the facilities, and there is a programme of work that is being undertaken. There is an order of priorities, based on the conditions of the schools, largely. But, as I say, what we've done recently is to provide this additional funding specifically for Welsh language schools because there is increasing demand. So, I think we should be really proud of the fact that that capital expenditure that simply doesn't exist in England that is transforming not just our educational establishments but also is having an impact on the economy in the area because we've got local people building those schools, apprentices. So, there's a lot, I think, we should be proud of. 

The 2018-19 action plan, Cymraeg 2050, is based on the 2017-21 work programme. We will be reporting on progress against the objectives in the autumn, having gathered and analysed the data, and the objectives focus on creating demand, increasing numbers and increasing use of the language.

Thank you. I look forward to that update. According to your predecessor, Alun Davies, one of the purposes of the Welsh language Bill was, and I quote,

to create an institution of the best possible quality and of international level that would bring together the necessary critical mass of talent and expertise to lead language planning to a new, broader and more sophisticated level.

Although the Bill has now been withdrawn, do you agree that we continue to need an arm’s-length body in addition to the commissioner in order to carry out that language-planning work that Alun Davies and myself believe is necessary for the success of your million Welsh speakers strategy?

Well, I accept that we do need to do much more in the field of language planning. I have asked officials to bring forward ideas to me about where would be most appropriate to set that. I am eager to discuss with experts in the field to see where the best place for that function is, as some believe that is should be at an arm’s length from Government, but others say, 'Actually it needs to be very close to Government, because that’s where the levers are to make changes.' So, I’m eager to see what the options are first of all before making a decision on where the institution or this new expertise should lie within the system, whether it’s within the system itself or at arm’s length.

One aim of the strategy is to increase the provision of post-16 Welsh learning to help people use more of the Welsh language in the workplace. I think I’m pleased to see ideas such as a telephone helpline to help provide free translation services to small businesses and charities, for example, but that is a very small step towards the target of a million Welsh speakers in 2050. What do you tell these small businesses who aren’t aware of your Welsh for Business officials or haven’t heard from them how they can take best advantage of small resources such as that helpline, never mind taking that leap to take seriously the fact that they have a role in creating or increasing the number of Welsh speakers and reaching that million Welsh speaker target?

Thank you very much. I think that a great deal of work is being done in this field, and the majority of that work is being done by the Welsh Government. One of the things we have done, of course, is to find about 12 people who go around Wales providing advice to people in the field of business about how they can expand their use of the Welsh language within the workplace. Of course, we also have provision for people to learn Welsh in the workplace, and I’m very eager to ensure that people are aware of these services. That’s the challenge now. We are already doing a great deal to ensure that people know about the telephone helpline. I think we need to do more marketing in this field to ensure—and that is already happening, but, of course, we need to try to do more to raise the profile, so that people are ware that this service exists. 

Questions now from the party spokespeople. Conservative spokesperson, Darren Millar.

Diolch, Llywydd. Minister, can I ask you—? As 29 March approaches, there will clearly be some opportunities for Wales as well as some of the concerns that have been raised. One of those opportunities is the opportunity for the United Kingdom to strike its own trade deals with other nations around the world. What are you doing as a Welsh Government to make sure that Wales can be at the vanguard of those trade decisions and the opportunities that they might present?

Well, we're already having extensive conversations with the Minister responsible in the Department for International Trade about how we can engage with the process. So, we're in the process of establishing a very formal structure, so that we can not only have an input into what should be the priority areas for the Welsh Government, in terms of countries that will have an impact—and they won't necessarily always be the same thing as the rest of the United Kingdom. The United States, for example, is at the top of the list for the United Kingdom; that's not necessarily where we would have our priority at the moment. So, we want to be able to influence, first of all, who we make trade deals with, but then to influence the debate, and the question then is to what extent we can influence that—can we be at the table, which of course would be our preferred option? If not, then how close can we get to the negotiation? But one thing we made absolutely clear, and that is, if there's any area where there's a devolved responsibility, we would expect to be a part of that discussion before they enter into conversation with any third country.

I'm very pleased to see that you've recognised the need to be at the table, and it's been interesting to see the noises that have been made by Business Wales, which have obviously been encouraging and promoting trade, in a very different way to the sorts of messages that we've heard in this Chamber from the First Minister and members of the Cabinet on occasions, which have been predominantly very negative about Brexit and the opportunities that it might present. Now, my party, of course, has put forward a suggestion that there ought to be trade envoys in many different parts of the world, shouting up for Wales, involved in the discussions, working very closely with British embassies in those different nations of the world where trade opportunities are there for Welsh businesses. What consideration have you given as a Welsh Government not just to supporting the infrastructure that you have already in the Welsh Government offices in different nations, but supporting the infrastructure within British embassies too, to make sure that the Welsh voice—the distinctive Welsh voice—is heard?

Thank you, Darren. I don't want you to get the impression that I'm keen to be making trade deals with other countries for the sake of it. I am absolutely clear that the priority for the Welsh Government should be in ensuring that the most important trade relationship—our relationship with the European Union, where 60 per cent of our goods goes—should be the priority, above all other priorities. And it is, I think, very disturbing that we are less than 30 days away from a situation where we could be leaving the EU with absolutely no idea about what that relationship looks like. So, I have huge concerns about that relationship. But, in the meantime, we understand that there are conversations going on by the UK Government, and we don't want to be left out of those. So, I just want to make sure that that's clear.

In terms of trade envoys, I think that you're absolutely right—there's a real opportunity. One of the things that I'm clear about is that, actually, we have Welsh people all over the world who have great expertise in a lot of areas, and we need to be using that expertise in a way where some of our generalist officials can't get us into the kind of top-level companies. But if we have people who have contacts, they can get us to the absolute top in these organisations. So, we will be working on how we develop a diaspora strategy—what is our relationship. But I'm absolutely clear that that diaspora, and those trade envoys, whatever form those take—so, it may be something very unofficial, it could be something a little bit more formal; we still have yet to map out what that might look like—are absolutely key.

But the other thing that you point out, which I absolutely agree with, is that what we have is a network of British embassies around the world, where they are massively resourced, and we need them to be doing a lot more work for us. So, we will be doing a lot of work in really trying to give them a lot more guidance in terms of what we're looking for from them as a Welsh Government.

Clearly, Minister, there are businesses in Wales that are already trading with the wider world, even in the absence of distinctive trade deals with many of those nations. What work are you going to do to harness the opportunities that that presents, where people have already got a foothold, if you like, into trading with some of these very significant economies around the world where there aren't already trade deals in place? I'm thinking particularly of Australasia, other parts of the North American market. I heard what you said about North America not being a priority for the Welsh Government in the future. I think that that is a great disappointment actually, because I think there are huge opportunities for Welsh businesses in North America. Of course, we have got to make sure that any future trade deal is in good shape and is in the right shape to benefit Wales, but clearly there are opportunities because of existing business relationships. What discussions has the Welsh Government had with the CBI, with the FSB, with the Institute of Directors, to make sure that we're harnessing the existing relationships that are already there, not just in terms of the diaspora, but in terms of those existing discussions that are already taking place and trading relationships that are already available to us? 

Well, I actually don't think you always need a trade agreement to be having very strong trade relationships. An example of that is the United States. So, we have more investment from the United States into Wales than any other country around the world. I'm not saying that we shouldn't trade with the United States; I'm just saying we don't necessarily think having a trade agreement is the priority. What I think we can do, and what we are doing already, is to put Welsh companies that have an interest in expanding into the US market in touch with operators in that market who are already there who have Welsh contacts, who can get them into a level of discussion and debate in terms of how to access the market, and what we have to do is duplicate that around the world. So, part of what we need to be doing in the next few months and years is to just make sure that that database of contacts is really up to speed so we know exactly who is actioning where and who has got the appetite to help us as a nation. 

The Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Delyth Jewell. 

Thank you, Llywydd. I’m sure that supporters the length and breadth of the nation have been following developments in the world of rugby in Wales this week with a mixture of confusion, excitement, hope and fear. Residents of north Wales will be delighted there’s a possibility they will receive a professional region at last, which would mean that rugby would be entirely professional on a national level, providing opportunities to develop young players for the future. But, there was a different response from supporters of the Ospreys and Scarlets with concerns that the plans would destroy the identity of the teams that they’ve followed for a long time, or would damage the game at a grass-roots level. I’d like to ask the Deputy Minister what discussions have been held between the Welsh Government and the Welsh Rugby Union about these plans and whether there is truth behind the report that the union has asked for financial support from the Government to continue with these plans.

May I first of all answer the last part of the question? There has been no application for additional financial support made to the Welsh Government this year from the WRU. We have contributed the usual sum to the union, which is £880,000—I apologise, £853,000 this year. We have also contributed towards Conwy County Borough Council, where I happen to reside—I should perhaps declare an interest as a result of that—for work on the development of Parc Eirias. That is a capital investment.

I do regularly speak to the rugby union as I do with the Football Association of Wales and a number of other sporting bodies and associations of all kinds, and, of course, Sport Wales too. But there have been no negotiations, and I wouldn’t expect there to be, because it’s clear to me that the WRU or the regions have yet to agree what they wish to do. As one who recalls the discussions of the past, back at the beginning of 2003 particularly, I think it’s important that these negotiations happen between the clubs and the new professional board so that they can find a way forward before they consider any sort of funding. I wish them well in the process of doing that, because I do want to see the game strengthened. But, it needs to be strengthened the length and breadth of Wales, and I am still looking at the success of Ireland, and the very interesting situation there, where the regional teams are owned by the rugby union there. Now, it’s not my role, as sports Minister, to suggest any such approach in Wales, but there are different models of support that are possible.

I thank the Deputy Minister for his response. I’d like to now turn to broadcasting. Last week, we heard that Welsh morning broadcasts on the Heart and Capital networks will be brought to an end, with British broadcasts provided in their place. Clearly, many people were extremely disappointed with this announcement. The reason that the parent company, Global, has been able to scrap these programmes is that Ofcom has recently slackened the rules in order to decrease the required number of locally produced broadcasts.

In addition, there’s been a great deal of attention given to Pitching In, the new BBC programme—a programme written in England, from an English perspective, with the identity of Anglesey, where the programme is located, being ignored. Many characters in the programme have Valleys accents, and the programme portrays an image of north Wales that is entirely foreign to local residents. Ofcom has rejected making regulations that would force producers of programmes of this kind to cast local actors. If this were to happen, it would avoid such a mess arising again, because local voices would be heard from the beginning. Time and again, regulators in London prioritise the interests of wealthy commercial companies over the benefits and interests of the people of Wales. What steps has the Welsh Government taken to put pressure on Ofcom to consider the interests of audiences and the creative sector in Wales in making decisions, and what steps do you intend to take in future to undo this damage and to try to ensure that Welsh interests will have a better hearing in future?

Ofcom does have a Welsh representative on its central board. Ofcom also has a consultative committee representing Wales. I do hope that these issues will be discussed in the appropriate manner within those structures.

As it happens, I have one of my regular meetings with Ofcom taking place over the next fortnight and I will certainly be listening in order to learn in more detail how Ofcom in Wales does seek to influence Ofcom throughout the rest of the UK. I don’t think that the current regulation system for broadcasting is a regime that works for the benefit of Welsh broadcasting at best. So, I’m eager to see any recommendations that could be put in place to strengthen the situation. And if it is true—to answer your second question or perhaps your third question—that the reduction in Welsh and bilingual materials—and I’ll finish now in two minutes—in terms of Welsh and bilingual broadcasting on commercial radio has reduced because of a decision by Ofcom, then I do think that that is an issue that we should be able to discuss in detail with Ofcom.

I do have some experience in this area as a former director of the Marcher company, which created the well-known radio station, Champion FM, in Caernarfon. This is the point I wanted to make: the intention of that station was to broadcast bilingually, to broadcast both in Welsh and in English, using different sentences but doing so bilingually and using music in both languages too in order to create bilingual commercial radio that people in communities where the language changes consistently and regularly—that both those languages could be heard so that more people listen to Welsh than those actually tuning in to specifically Welsh broadcasts as we get from Radio Cymru and the BBC.

So, I think there is far more work to be done in this area in terms of how we increase bilingualism in our broadcasting in a way that ensures that the audience, which is gradually increasing in terms of the number of people who are bilingual, can use that medium and hear the Welsh language and English with a Welsh accent—and that’s important too—without any difficulty. 

I thank the Deputy Minister for his response again, but it appears to me that this is a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, if you forgive me for using that idiom. The truth is that the only way of ensuring that the benefits and interests of Welsh audiences and the Welsh creative sector are safeguarded is the devolution of broadcasting to Wales.

Devolution of broadcasting would enable us as a nation to tell our own stories from our own point of view, giving a better understanding to our citizens of our cultural wealth and the reality of life in modern Wales. This would be the most effective way of getting to grips with the democratic deficit because recent evidence shows that around half of the people of Wales still believe that it's in Westminster that decisions about health services are managed, even though the powers have been devolved for 20 years. Now, this has serious impacts on accountability, because it's difficult for constituents to hold politicians to account if they are not sure who is responsible for running different public services.

In the evidence that was provided for the Silk commission, 60 per cent of respondents were in favour of the devolution of broadcasting, and opinion polls find, time and time again, that there is widespread support for greater devolution to Wales. As it is clear that the Westminster Government is failing in its responsibilities to Welsh broadcasting, and that there is wide-ranging support for providing greater powers to this Senedd, does the Deputy Minister agree that it is now vital that broadcasting is devolved to Wales as soon as possible?  

Well, no, because I think it's very important in this area that we look not only at broadcasting but at all the digital communications media. What's important for me is that the Welsh language and the English language in Wales appear on as many mediums as possible, and that includes social media and through the screens that people so regularly use. We shouldn't only be looking at broadcasting. Trying to regulate broadcasting on a stand-alone basis and separately from any other methods of communications and other kinds of audio-visual culture—. That would be a mistake, in my view, because, if you're talking about closing the stable door after the horse has bolted, then—. Trying to devolve broadcasting alone would be a mistake, in my view.

But, of course, culture policy does have to include an understanding of communications. I have an overview of broadcasting, although broadcasting, as it isn't devolved, doesn't relate directly to our department, but we do have regular and useful debates with the Welsh broadcasters. What I would encourage is that you, and other Members, discuss these issues at every possible opportunity with the broadcasters and with the organisations that I named in my first answer, who are responsible for expressing a consultative view to the authorities—in this case, Ofcom—and, likewise, there are similar arrangements in broadcasting and in television so that the audience and the views of the audience are reflected by you as elected Members to the bodies responsible for broadcasting.

I don't think we make sufficient use of the devolved structures of accountability that we have, and we should certainly take every opportunity to do that in order to have a formal and informal discussion on these issues. Assembly committees—as the culture committee has done recently, in its work on radio and in other areas—have a particular role to play in that regard. Thank you.

UKIP spokesperson, Gareth Bennett.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Minister, it's World Book Day tomorrow, as you probably know. Can we have an update from you on what new work and new projects the National Library of Wales will be undertaking in the coming year?

The National Library of Wales has a new chief executive, and I'm sure that that new chief executive will be, in the next few months, setting out a programme of activities, and I do hope that a recognition of the role of women in Welsh life will be a part of that.

Thanks. Thanks for that answer, and I look forward to the new programme when the new chief executive gives us that announcement. Do you agree that—? Aberystwyth, of course, is where the national library is, for perfectly good reasons, but, of course, it isn't that accessible for people in many other parts of Wales, so it is important that the national library undertakes outreach projects so that people throughout Wales can benefit from its cultural heritage. Do you think it's important, going forward, that there is an outreach role for the national library?

I do, but I think what's more significant and more important is for the national library to make sure that they digitalise their resources and that that is made accessible to the people of Wales. And I know that that has been a task that has been undertaken by the National Library of Wales over the past few years. There's been a huge task of work to undertake that, and that now, I think, is how the majority of people will be able to access that invaluable resource, which is one of the great treasures of Wales.

Yes, I agree that online technology is going to be crucial as well. Now, one factor that we have had in recent years, with local government finances being stretched, is there is an unfortunate consequence of the closure of many local libraries, among other local facilities. Wales has lost quite a lot of libraries—I believe a sixth of Welsh libraries have been closed since 2010. So, thinking about your previous answer with digitalisation—obviously that is going to help to mitigate the problem to some extent, if that programme is rolled out effectively—are there other ways in which the national library can help to mitigate the problem of communities losing their local library?

Well, I think it's a real tragedy that we're losing so many of our libraries around Wales and, of course, that is a consequence of the austerity that has been imposed on our country over the past 10 years. Of course, we all know that it's the non-statutory areas that are the first to be cut, and that's why libraries have really suffered in some of our local communities over the past few years. There are some really good models, I think, of communities getting together to ensure that they can continue with their library provision, and I think there's a lot that we can do to learn from each other across Wales on how we can ensure that that provision, as far as possible, can be kept open for the public. Of course, the real answer to this is that we need to see a reversal of the austerity that has been imposed on our country for such a long time.

Thank you. Question 3—Michelle Brown.

Well, since devolution, we've worked hard to develop relationships with countries around the world. Last year, as a part of the Brexit preparedness work, we opened two new offices—one in Qatar and another in Canada. We undertook 10 trade missions to non-EU countries and, of course, we maintain strong diplomatic links with non-EU consuls and embassies.  

Thank you for that answer, Minister. A recent media report shows that the UK public finances are on the mend, recording a healthy surplus in January on booming tax receipts. Employment—[Interruption.] Read the papers. Employment is at record levels with real-wage growth at a two-year high. Despite a global slowdown, Britain expanded 1.4 per cent last year, recording just 4 per cent unemployment. Yet Germany and France are on the brink of recession, the Italian economy is contracting, and eurozone joblessness is twice as high. It's clear that Labour's wish to stay in the EU against the wishes of a majority of Welsh voters is economically flawed. Although we can't enter into trade deals separately to the rest of the UK, we can forge lasting and productive relationships that result in inward investment from countries that are on the up, including those in the Commonwealth. So, what is your assessment of the scope for trade and investment between Wales and key economies in the Commonwealth? 

Well, I think this is one of those old chestnuts that's been pushed by members of UKIP and other Brexiteers over the years. They want to hark back to this ideal of when Britain was great and we ruled the world and we had empires, and, actually, the world has moved on since then. What we have now is a globally interconnected world where we are totally dependent on each other. And you can see that what's happened in recent weeks is that companies like Honda have recognised that, because of the links and the supply chain that can't be cut off, actually, that interconnectedness and the fact that we don't have an interconnectedness if we leave the European Union will cause problems and will cause unemployment. And you're absolutely right: I think we should be proud of the record levels of employment that we have in Wales at the moment, but we do still have issues with low pay, and that's why what we're doing now is we're trying to focus attention on trying to create new jobs that are high-skill, highly paid jobs, and I think that, actually, I've got to tell you that in my recent dealings with trying to speak to inward investors, the real issue is how we keep people who've invested here already here when they know that, actually, there could be barriers to trade in future. It's a very, very difficult message for us to sell at the moment. I'm confident that, actually, we have the skills, the ability and the talent in Wales that people will continue to invest in our country, but I've got to tell you that Brexit doesn't make it any easier.

Minister, I know that, in the international strategy you're developing, you will have regard to 'Selling Wales to the World', the report of the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee, and I think it's really important in developing these export strategies that we realise that, as well as the big companies—they're very, very important—SMEs in higher level high-value manufacture and in digital industries are key, really, to our future growth. And I do hope when you're choosing trade missions that you will give full recognition to the needs and desires and the recommendations that SMEs are making for markets that could be more open to Welsh trade.

I think that's absolutely right, and I think, if we are going to make an impact globally now, we're going to have to learn to really specialise. That's the way that we're going to really make an impact globally, and I think your emphasis on digital is crucial. I think we probably need to go even more detailed—. I would like to see us specialising absolutely in cyber security, for example—really digging in on an area like that, making sure we have the skills available amongst colleges and universities here so that we can really attract companies. It's not just about attracting companies here that are high-skill, high-tech that can be nimble and quick—those SME companies—but actually what we want is for our SME companies to be selling their skills across the globe. And I think you're right: I think what we're going to need to do in future is to perhaps focus not just on randomly going round the world on trade missions, but to really focus on where do we want to make an impact, going to trade fairs where you can meet a whole load of different companies at the same time, but take then specialised companies in those areas. So, that's certainly something I'm exploring in the context of the new international strategy.

Minister, I think it's important that we do look beyond the EU as to where our next markets are, and your strategy will hopefully prioritise those countries very much so. Last night, at the meeting of the cross-party group on STEM, we had Newport Wafer, who were in talking about their expertise, their skills and how many overseas countries and staff wanted to work with them here in the UK and in Wales. Now, it's that type of approach that we need to take. Are you therefore meeting with our businesses here in Wales to see the countries that they are talking to, the countries that they are working with, so we can ensure that we do target the right areas for employment and high-skilled jobs here in Wales?

In relation to the Commonwealth, we met with the New Zealand ambassador when we were in Brussels a couple of weeks ago, and it was quite clear that they have different agendas as well because they recognise the distance between us and New Zealand, and they have an agenda focusing more on the Pacific. So, it's clear that we need to focus upon the businesses that want to come here, the businesses that are working with Welsh businesses, but also markets that are close at hand so that, when we do want to sell, particularly agricultural goods, we have the businesses to sell them to.

So, I think these are slightly different markets. So, there are areas where, clearly, what we need to do is not lose the market share that we have in Europe at the moment. We have 60 per cent of our trade with the European Union, and we don't want to lose that. So, part of what we need to be doing over the next few weeks and months is to lock down that relationship, irrespective of what happens in relation to Brexit. That's got to be one of the priorities. But it's back to this: what are those companies where we have real expertise, real specialism—like you've mentioned, the semiconductor operations we have here—that are world-leading? It's not necessarily about going to a particular country. It's perhaps about linking up with relevant companies, universities, researchers in those areas. And I do think that that we probably have to change our mind frame slightly, because I'm not sure if it's always going to be about choosing a country that we think might grow in future. I think we have to understand that the world is becoming a lot more specialised and, if we want to make an impact, we have to specialise also. Semiconductors is, apart from cyber security—those are two of the absolute key top priorities that I would see that we need to really focus on.

Question 4 [OAQ53512] has been withdrawn. Question 5, Rhianon Passmore.

Thank you. I'm sure that the Member will be aware that I've just returned from a successful visit to the United States where I was promoting the benefits of Wales as an inward investment destination for American companies, and I'm sure that you'll be pleased to hear that companies from the US have made about 168 investments into Wales in the past few years, and around 10 per cent of them are in Islwyn, you'll be pleased to hear.

Notwithstanding the huge existing trading bloc with the European Union and how critically important that is to Welsh business and the Welsh economy, as you say, Minister, you visited the United States of America recently in your appointment on international trade for Wales. During that four-day visit promoting Wales proactively, I believe you held meetings, as you've alluded to, with United States companies that already have a presence in Wales, or are considering expanding to Wales. So, can you update the National Assembly how the Welsh Government intends to now follow up those specific and targeted proactive meetings and this important work? And, can you outline to me now how the Welsh Government can introduce United States businesses to the skilled and loyal workforces of the communities of Islwyn, further to the statistics that you have quoted, who would give a warm Welsh welcome to United States businesses that wished to set up further in the Gwent Valleys?

Diolch yn fawr. I will be producing a written statement on my visit in the next few days, but just to make it clear that one of the sectors that I was really targeting and looking at was the cyber security sector where we already have a great deal of expertise. One of the things, as a follow-up, that I'm very keen to do is to speak to our higher education establishments and further education establishments to just see what precisely they are offering in terms of the courses that they are providing to people.

The message we got very clearly is that, actually, there's a real shortage of people with cyber security skills, so if we produce those cyber security skills here in Wales, those companies will come. They made that absolutely clear to us so what we now need to do is to make sure that the kinds of courses we are putting on are absolutely relevant to what businesses and the market are looking for. So, that's a conversation that I'll be having in the next few weeks, just gathering together, knowing exactly what's happening, and seeing if there is scope to expand that opportunity. And I hope that some of those colleges in the Valleys will also engage in that development, because there's a whole world out there that is looking for skills in this area, and we've got to remember that Welsh young people are as bright, as clever and as able as anyone else in the world, we just need them to believe that and give them the courses where they can develop that expertise.

Minister, in July 2017, the USA and United Kingdom Governments launched a US-UK trade and investment group to provide commercial continuity for businesses, workers and consumers in both countries, as the UK leaves the EU, and to explore ways to strengthen trade and investment ties between the two countries. What study has the Minister made of the potential investment benefits to Islwyn, south-east Wales and other parts of Wales together from these positive moves by the UK and US Governments, especially given that Mr Morgan, not long ago, couldn't sell Wales to America, but I'm pretty sure that your talents will and that our economy will boost in south-east Wales?

Thank you. I think that that relationship between the UK and US is crucial. I think we already have a huge amount in common. One of the things that I'm really keen to do is to leverage the Department of Trade and Investment much more than we do already. They have a vast network. So, whilst we have 20 different offices around the whole world, they literally have hundreds, with thousands of people working in them. So, if we can give them a very clear message as to what we are looking for from them in terms of the UK Government, I think we should be able to leverage that expertise that exists within the UK Government. And I do think that, again, what we need to do is to just come back to the specialisation, make it absolutely clear: what is it we're trying to sell? What is it that we want in terms of investment into Wales? But I've got to tell you, once again, that this, in terms of investment—it is a really difficult time when we have literally no idea what our relationship with the rest of the world looks like in terms of trade. That is a really, really hard sell at the moment.

Well, we're committed to building on Wales’s recent success in hosting major sporting events, and we're proactively working with partners in Wales, the UK and internationally—including numerous international sports federations and rights owners—in order to identify and pursue new opportunities for attracting major sporting events to all parts of Wales.

Thank you, Minister, for that answer. Wales has been relatively successful over recent years in bidding for a whole host of events, from golf to the ocean-going races out here in Cardiff Bay, to major footballing events. One of the blips, though, was the previous Minister's decision not to continue a bid for the Commonwealth Games. I wonder whether you've had a chance to make an assessment as to whether Wales, in the future, will be in a position to bid for a future Commonwealth Games, or to look at partnering to make a bid for the Commonwealth Games, given that cities in England are prepared to put bids in, yet we as a country seem to be unable, at this juncture, to put a bid together that ultimately would be very prestigious for Wales and beneficial in promoting the value that we have here in Wales.

Thank you. Well, this is a question that I was discussing with my officials earlier in the week. I think that part of the problem here is that the cost of putting on the Commonwealth Games for us would be huge, partly because we simply don't have the infrastructure in Wales, in Cardiff—let's be honest, that's the only place that we could hold it. We don't have the infrastructure even in Cardiff to put on all the events that you would need to put on in relation to the Commonwealth Games. You have to have certain-size swimming pools and you have to have cycle routes and this, that and the other. So, the infrastructure—the cost of developing the infrastructure I think would be prohibitive for us at the moment as a Government. Maybe when austerity ends, it's something we could consider.

Thank you very much, Minister.

Item 3 on the agenda is questions to the Assembly Commission. All the questions this afternoon will be answered by the Llywydd. Question 1, Dai Lloyd.

No assessment. The Commission provides the property, staff and services required for the Assembly's purposes irrespective of the political affiliation of individual Assembly Members.

Thank you very much for that response. Now, naturally, recently, in responding to the fact that Labour MPs had left that party in London and their parliamentary group, the First Minister, Mark Drakeford, and I quote, said that

'If you are elected as a representative of a particular party and you decided that you do not want to do that in the future, you should go back to the people that put you there and let them have that choice again'.

Those are the words of Mark Drakeford. Now, I agree entirely with that view, and because we have seen similar moves here in this Senedd, what assessment will the Commission make of the possibility of developing legislation that would require a Member that leaves a political party to face a by-election? Or are we only to rely on the precedent of what’s happened in the past, and therefore are we to deprive people of a representative of the party that they voted for in the first place?

Well, as I said in my response, no assessment has been undertaken to date on this issue. The Senedd and Elections (Wales) Bill has been introduced in the past few weeks. There was no mandate from this Assembly or any of its committees, nor was this issue included in the remit for the independent review undertaken by Laura McAllister. But, it is an issue, of course. It is raised here, perhaps for the first time, or one of the first times. It's an issue that perhaps the committee that scrutinises the Bill that at the moment is before the Assembly will want to consider or it's an issue for Assembly Members in this place, now that the powers are held in this place since the Wales Act 2017 for us to be legislating on our own electoral systems. So, may I encourage, if there's interest in this place, you to be discussing this and to be bringing forth any proposals? But, until those proposals come before us there will be no mandate for the Commission to be pursuing legislation to this end.

I was privileged to chair the inspiring first meeting of the Welsh Youth Parliament here in the Siambr a little over a week ago. Perhaps Members will be aware that the Youth Parliament formally agreed three priority issues to pursue: emotional and mental health support was one of those; littering and plastic waste is another; and also life skills in the curriculum. Commission staff and the 60 Welsh Youth Parliament Members will meet next in the regions in April to devise a plan to engage with young people across Wales on the priority issues chosen by them.

Thank you, Llywydd. I was very sorry to miss the first meeting. I was intending to be here but a family emergency took me away. I, like I'm sure many other Members, have been looking at some of the speeches online and I'm incredibly impressed by the quality and the depth and also the honesty of the young people's contributions. I'm very pleased to see that the work streams that they've chosen are being taken forward so quickly. What consideration is being given to putting the Youth Parliament together with the Assembly's committees and forming some kind of more formal link? I know that many Members are meeting our individual Youth Parliament representatives, but it seems to me there is an opportunity there potentially for the young people to help us set some of our agendas in our committee work and in our scrutiny of the Welsh Government. 

I am aware that there were discussions during the weekend residential that encompassed the formal meeting of the Welsh Youth Parliament on how the young people wanted to have an impact on the policy priorities that they had voted on. It is for them to decide how they want to make that impact, but certainly there is a very easy way of ensuring that in some of the committee work that's being done in this place, which may well mirror some of the priorities that the young people chose—that we facilitate, as part of our ongoing work with the 60 young parliamentarians, the way that they can make those important links to feed into actual policy making via committees and ultimately Welsh Government and National Assembly.

I think it's difficult for anyone not to be inspired, really, by what we saw that weekend. It was a phenomenal and historic success and I was particularly pleased that two of the areas that have been identified as priorities—the life skills in the curriculum and the emotional and mental health of children and young people—are issues that the Children, Young People and Education Committee are already taking a very keen interest in and are prioritising ourselves. Of course, it's for the young people to decide how they take their work programme forward, and I'm mindful also of your answer to Helen Mary Jones, but in areas where the committees are already working on particular topics, what particular consideration has been given to ensuring that the committees and the Youth Parliament Members can work together if that is what they would like to do?

When I was here chairing the discussion on mental health and young people, in the inspiring contributions from so many of the young parliamentarians on that issue, I was reminded of course of the work that your committee, Lynne, had done on mental health issues. There's a very clear early relationship there so they can feed into the continuation of your work as a committee. So, I think that my officials are already looking to create the relationship between the young parliamentarians, especially those who want to work on this particular issue, and your committee, and that's a very natural relationship. I am absolutely convinced that your committee will benefit from the very real-life experiences that these young champions want to progress.

The National Assembly for Wales has a protocol on the flying of flags on its estate. It outlines the usual arrangements for the displaying of flags and the procedures for other circumstances including annual days of significance and unplanned events. The current arrangements set out the flags that will be flown every day unless other arrangements have been agreed, and these include the European Union flag. The protocol will be updated ahead of any date agreed for the departure of the UK from the European Union.

Thanks for that answer. Of course, there is uncertainty, but we may well be leaving within a few weeks, so I'm glad to hear, Llywydd, that there are plans to update the procedure, and I look forward to seeing them in due course, and hopefully quite soon.

I'm not sure whether there was a question there for me to respond to, but Brexit is about much more than the colour of passports and the flying of flags, in my opinion. There will be a flagpole that may be without a banner, either in a few weeks' time, a few years' time, or possibly not at all. If that happens, then you may have seen, over the last week or so, that the Welsh dragon has, in a global poll, come out on top as the coolest international flag, and I think it's about time that we had at least two of those flags flying outside our building, if not four.

Like the Llywydd, I'm extremely proud of the Welsh flag, and very pleased to see that it was rated very highly in an international poll. Another flag that, of course, is extremely popular in Wales, particularly on St David's Day, is the St David's flag, the flag of our patron saint. It's not widely recognised, I'm afraid, around the world, unlike the saltire and unlike St George's flag. Can I urge the Commission to consider flying the St David's flag on a permanent basis on the Assembly estate in order to promote this important part of Wales and our identity?

I fear that I've set in train a competition now for whose flag is the favourite flag. I'll reiterate what I said: if the world thinks that the Welsh dragon is the coolest flag on earth, then I reckon we should fly it with pride.

The Commission does not have plans for a memorial of this nature. We have recently agreed a policy that notes the process the Commission will follow to consider suggestions for memorials and decide on them. The policy is available on the Assembly website. 

Thank you for that answer, Presiding Officer. I look forward to having a look on the website. I was unaware that there was a policy, so I look forward to seeing that. But I do think that that is a piece of architecture that we are missing on the Assembly estate. Thankfully, not many Members have died in post, but over the years four or five at least, I do believe, have passed away in post, and I think that, as a Parliament, we should be commemorating their service and the service that they’ve given, because it was whist they were AMs that they achieved so much, and with the passage of time it would be wrong to forget their legacy, if you like. As this was their home within their working life, I do think that that would be a noble gesture on behalf of the Commission, and I would implore the Commission maybe to put something together that could bring such a commemoration together.

I'd urge you to have a look at the policy. It is only recently agreed by the Commission, so many Members may not yet be fully aware of it. It's been put in place in order to have a framework for decision making around any memorial or plaque for any person or event to be placed on this estate. We remember our fellow Members sadly deceased with a great deal of fondness and we carry with us in our everyday life many of the aspects and priorities they brought to our discussions in this Chamber. I would urge you, if Members are supportive of an initiative such as this, to work with families and friends of those deceased Members—to work across political parties to make a proposal to the Commission, and the Commission will look at that when it comes before us. 

Diolch, Llywydd.

Item 4 is topical questions. There is one this afternoon, to be answered by the Deputy Minister for Culture, Sport and Tourism. Andrew R.T. Davies. 

Thank you very much. You will have heard me replying succinctly, briefly, about our relationship in response to an earlier question, so I can confirm that I have had regular meetings with the Welsh Rugby Union and, indeed, have discussed with them their development plans and their business model, including regional restructuring. However, I would emphasise that it is not my intention in Government, nor the intention of the rest of the Government for that matter, because we have discussed this at some length—we have no intention at all of being involved directly in any of the current discussions, and we shouldn't be. I do believe it is very important that, in matters of culture and sport, we maintain the arm's-length principle, which allows for independent businesses and independent organisations, whether in sport or in culture, to conduct their business as they think fit. 

On your sentiment there, Minister, I do fully agree with you. The governance of the game in Wales is completely in the hands of the Welsh Rugby Union, and so should be the case. But I think many fans are punch-drunk by some of the developments that have happened, and I saw just a couple of minutes ago a news report saying that the merger is off the table. But from the grass roots right up to international level, there is grave concern over the current proposals that have been put forward—whether they would be lasting, whether they would be durable. Again, I reiterate the point: I'm not calling on the Welsh Government to indicate that they've been involved in these discussions, but I would have thought that the Welsh Government would have a view as to how they would like to see the Welsh game develop given the strength of grass-roots rugby and, obviously, the implications for many of the messages that Welsh Government brings out about sport and inclusivity. And so, given that the Welsh Government put £853,000, I think, into the game, can you assure us that you will keep a watching brief on this particular subject? You did, in your earlier answer, indicate that you had had thoughts about the Irish model; are those personal thoughts of yours or are they thoughts that have been developed by the Government as maybe a solution to some of the challenges that the Welsh game faces?

No, those were very much personal thoughts. Also, it's an obvious personal thought of mine that I would like to see professional rugby in the north of Wales, and have wished to see that happen for many years. I'm now having to be at arm's length from myself and that particular view, but that will be no surprise to you. But what I would say is that there has been no discussion, but there has been very close involvement by our senior officials in ensuring that we were fully informed of the implications of what the Welsh Rugby Union is discussing. But, obviously, there would have to be a—. We have had a discussion, I should say, with Nigel Short of the pro rugby board and others, so we are aware of their intentions, but it's not at this stage that Welsh Government would be involved in any of the consequences. But I think, as I indicated in the earlier discussion, there might be a call on our resources, as we have done in the past, for investing in infrastructure in areas that would benefit from that in order to develop not just rugby but other sports. For example, we have invested substantially, as I indicated, in 3G facilities and in all-weather pitches in the north, and we've done it in Wrexham as well as in Eirias Park. 

Minister, I thank you for the answer you've just given. Clearly, the message we're now getting is that the merger is off, but we often talk about the two rugby teams, the Ospreys and the Scarlets, and we just think of those two teams, but there's a lot more behind the scenes than just those two teams on the pitches. The Ospreys have embraced the regional concept very much and they work with our local communities. They have Ospreys in the Community, they go and meet with the schools, they work with science, technology, engineering and mathematics groups and organisations to promote STEM and other career pathways. There is a lot more going on. They're actually one of the best at women's rugby in the area. They do a lot more than simply what we see with the 15 players on the field. And they are issues that the Government should be involved with, and it's the funding you give to the Welsh Rugby Union that feeds into that.

So, I think it is important the Government has a say on this to ensure that the services that the Ospreys currently give to the communities aren't lost. Because if the Ospreys disappear, Scarlets are going to have their own commitments already. They haven't got the funding to go beyond that, so what will happen to our region and those community services? And, therefore, the Government will need to look very carefully at what that actually means to the local communities—not just the fans, but the people who live in the area, the children in the area, the schoolchildren they get support from. And I'll declare an interest: my granddaughter actually very often goes to the Ospreys camps in her holiday time. These are services that people get a huge lot out of, and the Welsh Government should be looking at what happens to those as well. 

Thank you very much for expressing that so forcefully, David. Certainly, it is our intention as a Government to ensure that any programmes that involve community engagement, any programme that develops women's rugby, under 20 rugby, youth rugby—all those commitments are commitments that have been made to us by the WRU, centrally, and it is the WRU, therefore, that is responsible at the moment that that commitment should be delivered. And I will certainly speak with them about this because, clearly, if there are to be any differences, any developments in the structure of the regions, whereas that matter is a matter for regions to discuss, where commitments have being made and public funding has been invested through Sport Wales into the Welsh Rugby Union, then I can assure you that we will pursue the constant delivery of that commitment. 

Very much in the same frame, actually—I declare an interest as an Ospreys season ticket holder. Very much in the same frame as David Rees, the Ospreys is more than the 15 guys on the pitch. There's a whole umbrella of teams from under eight upwards, of both sexes, playing all the time, not just at half time during Ospreys home matches. It is really a huge community event, which totally reflects my region. I mean, it's called South Wales West in this place; it's actually 'Ospreylia'. It's the same boundary. So, we've been through one painful reorganisation, which you alluded to in your earlier answer, in 2002, when, as Swansea fans, we had to overcome our natural antipathy towards Neath fans, and later on Bridgend joined as well. So, we've been through a painful process, and it is overwhelmingly a community concern, like it is now. People are absolutely in a state of bewilderment and devastation that this has just happened. Ospreys is the most successful region—not just Welsh region, but most successful region in Pro12, Pro14 terms, with four championship victories. That's why people feel so terrible and devastated it's come out of the blue. Because we'll all be, in a couple of weeks' time, glowing in the reflected glory of another Grand Slam for the Welsh rugby union team, so why we need this now when the boys are on their way to Scotland for the next leg—it's something we can do without. It is most destabilising on Alun Wyn Jones—Osprey—Justin Tipuric—Osprey—Adam Beard—Osprey—George North—Osprey—who will be playing on Saturday—

We all know who the members of the team are. We don't need them rehearsed here. 

And as the Llywydd will remember, when Wales beat England in Twickenham for the first time in 20 years in 2008, 13 out of the 15 players that day were Ospreys. So, I'll just leave it there in terms of—. But it would be good to reflect this overwhelming community concern about a potentially devastating merger—on, off, whatever—in any consultations you have with the WRU. And in particular, the long-term concern has always been there's an overwhelming lack of money in Wales, compared to France, compared to England. We know that. It's what to do about that. And why does it happen now during a vitally important six nations championship? Diolch yn fawr. 

Thank you, again, for that forceful expression. I made the comparison with Ireland precisely for the reasons you've been pursuing in that discussion. We need to have a serious look about what structure is required to make rugby in Wales, at whatever level—at the community level, at the youth level, at the women's level, which I obviously strongly encourage, but also at the international level, the six nations—we are now doing really well at that level. Obviously, I wish them well in Scotland—not always an easy place to take a Grand Slam march through, as it were. But, because there has been such clear concern expressed by Members in the Chamber—I'm well aware of the public concern—I will make sure that I will seek an early opportunity to speak formally with the Welsh Rugby Union about this. But I think it's best if I wait until the discussions that are currently going on are resolved, if they are to be resolved, and I hope that they will be resolved very soon.

Can I associate myself with everything said by Dai Lloyd and David Rees? What I would like also to say, of course, is that the seventy-fifth biggest company in the SA region is the Ospreys. The eighty-fourth biggest company in the SA region is the Scarlets. We're talking about major employers. Many of my constituents have been worried, since it was talked about, that they would not have a job. And relocating to north Wales to be a ticket salesperson, I would suggest, is not really on the cards, and Llanelli will have more than they'll need if there's a merger anyway. So, what I'm saying is: will the Welsh Government look at this from an economic point of view, as opposed to a sporting point of view—and my interest in sport is well known, I think, to almost everybody in this room, but, from an economic point of view, and also the economic benefit that my constituency gets, having the Liberty stadium there, from events taking place there, from the rugby matches taking place there, the 8,000 to 10,000 people who turn up, who bring money into the area for the benefit of our local economy? Our local economy in Swansea cannot afford to lose jobs, it cannot afford to lose people coming in and spending money. Will the Welsh Government look at this from the economic point of view? I'm very upset from a sports view, and very upset, as David Rees is, from the point of view of providing support within the community, but what I'm more worried about is people losing their jobs, and a loss of employment and a loss of money in my constituency.

Thank you very much for that. I can confirm that the official who has been acting on my behalf in this area clearly understands the economic implications, because the head of sport is also involved in regional development—not exactly in the same area, but in south Wales. So, I will re-emphasise in further discussions, both with other officials in Government, and with him, and in my forthcoming discussions with the Welsh Rugby Union, that these matters will be properly addressed. And this of course relates to what David asked earlier about the social programme and the community programme. Rugby is a form of culture, as well as a major sport in Wales, clearly, and therefore we must look at all aspects of what we do. Because, on the one hand, we can't talk about the benefit of sport to the community and yet allow the community to be denuded of some of that direct benefit when changes like this are being contemplated. I only wish that these sorts of discussions—as many Members have echoed—should be happening at another time, and not during the heights of the rugby season at this moment.

I thank the Deputy Minister.

The next item is the 90-second statements, but no statements were accepted today.

Therefore, we move to our next item, which is the motion to vary the order of consideration for Stage 3 amendments to the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Bill. I call on a member of the Business Committee to move the motion—Rhun ap Iorwerth.

I formally move.

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

The next debate is the debate on the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee report on the inter-institutional relations agreement between the National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Government. I call on the committee Chair to move the motion—Mick Antoniw.

Thank you, Llywydd. I'm pleased to open this discussion. It was important to the committee that this agreement that has been reached, which is constitutional in nature, relating to the scrutiny of the Assembly, was made available on the floor of this Chamber so that Members became aware of it, members of the public became aware of it, because, in the difficult times that we are operating at the moment, transparency and scrutiny are extremely important, and this is a unique agreement designed to try and deal with that.

In February 2018, we issued our report 'UK governance post-Brexit', and its purpose was to examine existing inter-governmental relationships to determine whether they are fit for purpose and to assess whether they need to change. Our inquiry took place against the backdrop not only of 20 years of devolution, but also the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union and our desire to ensure that Wales's interests are not marginalised in the constitutional arrangements that emerge in the UK as a result. The final recommendation of our report was that the Welsh Government enters into an inter-governmental relations agreement with the committee to support its scrutiny of Welsh Government activity in this area.

I'm pleased therefore to be in a position today to formally welcome the reaching of just such an agreement, which is contained in the short report before the Assembly today. The agreement is a very important document. The relationship that exists between Governments in the UK is going to change if we leave the European Union. It will be vital, therefore, that Assembly committees and the National Assembly are able to scrutinise how Governments are working together for the benefit of our citizens across the policy spectrum and with regard to the establishment of common policy frameworks. We believe that the inter-institutional agreement before us today will help to facilitate that process.   

The agreement adopts the same approach that exists in an agreement between the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament. A 2015 report published by the Scottish Parliament’s Devolution (Further Powers) Committee observed that:

'The effectiveness of Parliamentary scrutiny of IGR will depend in part on its ability to be informed of the subject matter and timetable of the discussions between governments.'

That view resonated with us, and, in particular, our belief in the need for transparency around inter-governmental relations and the mechanisms to facilitate them. We believe that the agreement delivers on these points, and I will very briefly outline its requirements, which are set out obviously in more detail in this document, which is before Members. 

The agreement establishes three principles that will govern the relationship between the National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Government with regard to inter-governmental relations.  These are transparency, accountability, and respect for, and recognition of, the part confidential discussions play between Governments, particularly when developing policy. The agreement applies to the participation of Welsh Ministers in formal inter-governmental structures, including the Joint Ministerial Committee in all its functioning formats, the ministerial forum on the future relationship between the UK and the EU, the British-Irish Council, and various ad hoc inter-ministerial fora of similar standing that exist or may be established.

It provides two important benefits for the work of committees. Firstly, my committee and others, will receive, as far as practicable, at least one month's notice of agenda and key issues to be discussed prior to scheduled relevant meetings, unless the Welsh Government’s participation takes place at short notice. This will enable a committee to express a view on the topic and, if appropriate, to invite the Minister responsible to attend a committee meeting in advance of the inter-governmental meeting. 

Secondly, after each inter-governmental ministerial meeting within the scope of the agreement, the Welsh Government will provide relevant committees with a written summary of the issues discussed at the meeting as soon as practicable and, if possible, within two weeks. Such a summary will include any joint statement released after the meeting and information related to the meeting, including an outline of the positions advanced by the Welsh Government.

In order to monitor progress, the Welsh Government will prepare an annual report on inter-governmental relations. It will be laid before the National Assembly and submitted to my committee. The annual report will summarise the key outputs from activity that is subject to the provisions of this agreement, including any reports issued by relevant inter-governmental fora. It will also comment upon the range of broader inter-governmental relations work undertaken during the year, including dispute resolution, which is going to be of considerable importance.

As I said when we debated our 'UK governance post-Brexit' report just over a year ago now, the UK is in the midst of one of the most important and challenging constitutional reforms it has ever faced, with long-lasting implications for the operation and governance of the UK and the individual nations and regions of the UK. The UK will have to adapt its internal arrangements to ensure that a consequence of leaving the EU is not a greater centralisation of power in London. This agreement marks an important step in how we in the Assembly will scrutinise that process as it unfolds.

Before closing, I would like to express my thanks to the First Minister, the Counsel General and their officials for the positive way in which they have engaged with the development of this agreement. I'm sure that, if we continue in that vein, this agreement will bring benefits not only to the Assembly and Government but also to the citizens of Wales, the nation that we serve. Thank you.

The question for me is: how does this Assembly influence how our two Governments work together to ensure that the integrity of the devolved settlement is protected? And while I wasn't a member of this committee when the work was being done on this particular agreement, the work that I've done on the committee since then has coloured how I want to put my presentation to you together, so I hope you will bear with me in my slightly tortuous route to my conclusion.

It's an Act of the UK state that enables the retention of EU law within our state borders, and it's the same Act that permits the creation of secondary legislation, which makes that acquis function. Some of that secondary legislation, made by the UK Parliament, will often affect devolved competences. That secondary legislation can be about something as uncontroversial as replacing the name of an EU institution with that of a UK or Welsh body, or it can be as significant as giving Welsh Government powers and responsibilities that they've not had before. And, alongside that, we have a situation where both Governments are working together towards a range of agreements and concordats, such as the pan-UK frameworks, and much should be achieved by those formal inter-governmental structures, such as the JMC and the British-Irish Council and so on.

But the inevitable result of this work is that Welsh Ministers could acquire power and responsibility to themselves, or indeed the reverse and cede power and responsibility to UK Ministers, asking them on some occasions to legislate on behalf of Wales in devolved areas where expedient to do so. And that alone should make us sit up and take notice, because, while we are already familiar with the idea of LCMs for primary legislation, we're not so familiar with another Parliament making secondary legislation on our behalf and, on Brexit-related secondary legislation, there is an awful lot of it, and an awful lot of it is consented to on our behalf directly by Welsh Government.

Now this debate isn't strictly about secondary legislation, but it's a useful comparison with the situation that we are discussing, and that is this Assembly's role in scrutinising for our constituents the activities of Welsh Government in all its interactions with other Governments, but especially when those actions result in it gaining or losing powers by means other than the express permission of this Assembly, or where they result in decisions in devolved areas being taken by another Government, let alone another Parliament, without our direct scrutiny.

So, subject to the expected safeguards to protect confidentiality or engagement at short notice, it is entirely right that this Assembly recommended—or even demanded, it felt like to me—a protocol between ourselves and Welsh Government by which Welsh Government informs us in due time of inter-governmental meetings. That allows committees of this Assembly to call in Ministers in advance of those meetings to help inform them of this Assembly's preferred position on the subject in question before they attend such an inter-governmental meeting. Welsh Government then has to report back to committees, as we heard, with progress reports or details of any agreements reached or changes to existing arrangements, and that in itself allows Members here to scrutinise what Welsh Government has done—maybe perhaps a little bit too late in terms of changing what it might have done, but at least Welsh Government can be held to account for its choices on our behalf.

And that's why I started this contribution by talking about what looks like the unrelated matter of secondary legislation, because it's foreseeable in my view that some inter-governmental agreements—not all of them—will result in primary legislation made by the UK Parliament and scrutinised there. We need to be certain here that Welsh Ministers have taken appropriate steps before this to protect Wales's best interests before anything is drafted, especially if what will be drafted covers devolved matters. 

The subsequent LCM process gives Members here a level of scrutiny and influence on such UK law, and there have been reassuring noises of a Sewel nature from the UK Government about that. But, when it comes to the secondary legislation that will flow from that law, itself made on an England-and-Wales basis, our capacity to scrutinise it as we should want to scrutinise it will be sorely tested, and it's being sorely tested now, with secondary legislation under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

We spoke only a few weeks ago about how difficult it was for the Welsh Government to prepare sufficiently detailed explanatory memoranda, and we encountered the same issue with Standing Order 30 statements. While we recognise that the Welsh Government is under severe pressure to digest and summarise this, errors or incomplete information compromise our ability to have faith in their preliminary scrutiny of what comes their way from the UK.

So, the protocols for that don't seem to be working entirely satisfactorily, which is why the protocol between this Assembly and the Welsh Government, which provides for notice and reporting, and an upstream opportunity to influence the Welsh Government's negotiation with the UK, is so important, because, after washing through a legislative process, downstream, we don't have much chance for consistent scrutiny or influence, and that should worry us. Thank you.

I’m pleased to contribute to this debate as a member of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, and may I congratulate the Chair for an excellent summary of the situation, because this agreement is crucially important? This is an agreement between ourselves as the legislature and our Government here to ensure that we know what’s happening so that we can promote the scrutiny process.

With the background of Brexit, especially, as we’ve already heard—because what led to the development of this report was the ongoing Brexit process—there’s a natural tension. We have discussed it on many occasions—this tension between the possibility of losing powers from here to Westminster, but there’s also another tension, as Suzy Davies mentioned, of powers being subsumed from the legislature to the Government here. So, there is a risk in two ways of losing powers from the legislature to our own Government and to another Government at the other end of the M4.

So, that’s why this agreement is so crucially important, because we have seen powers lost. I’m not going to rehearse issues around the Wales Act 2017, but, of course, at the committee every Monday, as Suzy’s mentioned, we see a whole host of primary and secondary legislation coming before us because of Brexit.

Of course, there are time constraints and huge workload pressures on officials in this place, and, to be fair, in Westminster, to get everything in place in good time. But, of course, we also see that there is the potential at least, as Suzy has said, that we may lose powers. We have had a discussion this week on the use of the word ‘national’ in relation to the UK rather than Wales. I thought we’d been through all of that. In terms of legislation, we’re back to being considered a region. Well, that’s not what our national anthem says. We say, ‘Gwlad. Gwlad.', not ‘Region. Region’. Those things are important. People say that they’re only words, but every lawyer will tell you that it’s the words that count at the end of the day.

Of course, when Westminster does legislate on our behalf—we are always grateful to them for legislating on our behalf, particularly in areas that are already devolved to us and have been for over 20 years—we would also like to see that legislation being made bilingually, because we have an official language here called the Welsh language. There are a few examples that we’ve noted in the committee over the past few weeks where we see monolingually English legislation that will be implemented here in Wales.

People say, ‘Well, it’s about time constraints—you don’t need to go after the detail, Dai, stop making trouble’, and so on and so forth. But, that’s how inconsistencies happen. Of course, in using this excuse, 'Because it’s easier, of course, with all of the staff and energy in Westminster, for them to do everything on our behalf now, even in those areas that are already devolved to us'—. Well, there's a risk to that because we should be legislating in devolved areas for ourselves. There should be a Wales agriculture Bill, not relying on the UK Agriculture Bill. There should be a Wales fisheries Bill, not a UK Fisheries Bill.

We saw an LCM yesterday on animal welfare that we discussed just yesterday. Now, it would've been easy for us to make that legislation here in Wales because it was only two clauses. But we had no opportunity to scrutinise it in this place until it was a fait accompli, to use another language still. We have the capacity here, and there should be a requirement that we develop our own legislation in this place as we have those powers now, and we shouldn't use the fact that we are leaving the European Union and everything has to be done in a hurry, there's never enough time, and Westminster does everything on our behalf. But there are things that can be lost in that scenario.

We saw with the LCM on international healthcare arrangements that there's a very real possibility there, since Westminster changed its mind, that they're going to expand their powers in health in an area that has been devolved to this place for 20 years. That's not right. What was required was a simple transfer of functions. Westminster tried to add to their own powers until we in this place noticed that. So, we have to be vigilant, and this protocol is crucial in that regard. Thank you.

I wasn't going to speak in this debate because I clearly understand it's about principles, but I think it's important to understand that this is not a constitutional issue, it's actually an issue for the whole Assembly and various committees, and I think that's very important to recognise. I'm disappointed that perhaps we haven't got so many colleagues in the Chamber to actually understand that.

As Suzy Davies pointed out, the number of SIs that go through—. Now, last Monday, the common fisheries policy was an SI under Standing Order 30C, where the Welsh Government has ceded the decision to the UK Government for actually undertaking that work. When you read these SIs, you actually identify that, yes, technically, it replaces the union with the United Kingdom, but then it replaces a commission with the Secretary of State. So, actually, it's the Secretary of State that makes decisions, and very often, it also confers concurrent powers upon Ministers, which means that UK Ministers can actually take decisions on devolved areas as well. So, we need to have an understanding of what these actually mean for Wales.

I welcome this agreement between the Assembly and the Welsh Government because it is crucial that we have an opportunity before they go. And I will just give a caveat in here, when they get the agendas, because very often, when we've raised the issue, the Ministers don't get the agendas until a day before they go, and sometimes, when they get there. That's got to be unacceptable, and that's perhaps a way we, as an Assembly, can put the pressures upon our parliamentarian colleagues in Westminster to say, 'Get your act in order and get your Ministers to put these agendas in place,' because how can we hold them to account when they don't have the papers, because some other Parliament, another Government, is withholding those? But, when we do hold you to account, would you come back and tell us about it? But, we want to actually influence it; we want to actually hold you to account to say, 'Why are you doing this? What are you trying to achieve? And when you come back, did you achieve it? Why didn't you achieve it? What were the issues?' So, it is crucial that this Assembly has that opportunity, and this agreement puts a formal process in place for that to happen, and that's very much appreciated.

But what we have to also now try and do is pursue this further because we've been doing this, very often, under the auspices of Brexit. When we do leave—and I think we will leave the European Union—the whole structure within the UK is going to change. We need that recognition that the discussions our Government will have with the Westminster Government are going to be crucial for the policies here in Wales. We have frameworks we know that will be in place in agriculture. There may well be other frameworks in place, and we want to have our say and our influence as an Assembly on what's being said in those discussions. So, I welcome very much, Llywydd, this agreement, and I hope that we will ensure that it actually works for us, and we press the UK Government to actually give us sufficient time to undertake our scrutiny.

The Minister to contribute to the debate—Eluned Morgan.

Thank you very much, Llywydd, and I'm pleased to confirm that the Welsh Government does support the motion and am pleased to report that we have worked very closely with the committee to develop this agreement before us. Now, before making any cormorants about the agreement itself, I want to set this in a broader context—the challenges that face us as a result of Brexit and to say, once again, what the Welsh Government’s position is in terms of the way in which the relationship between Governments should change. Now, in some months we will be celebrating the twentieth anniversary of the first Plenary meeting of the National Assembly. The Governments and the legislatures that are devolved are now a stable and permanent part of the constitution of the UK. But, the fact that the UK is leaving the European Union leads to totally new challenges for the relationship between the countries and to the constitutional arrangements of the UK. We have to remember and consider that the systems in place were already creaking long before the vote to leave the EU. There’s no way for them to sustain the additional pressure that the Brexit process has placed upon them.

So, the Welsh Government has been in the vanguard of the calls for reform, and our calls have been echoed by the committee reports, both here and in the UK Parliament.

Now, we set out our position on these matters in ‘Brexit and Devolution’, which we published in the summer of 2017. ‘Brexit and Devolution’ argued for standing inter-governmental machinery capable of negotiating and reaching binding decisions on matters of common UK-wide interest. We recommended the establishment of a UK council of Ministers, for independent arbitration to resolve disputes, and for all of this machinery to be supported by a new independent secretariat.

The existing Joint Ministerial Committee, in its various manifestations, is a consultative body that has no decision-making responsibilities. Its operations have been unduly subject to the control of the UK Government rather than based on parity of participation, which is the principle that we’ve been looking for.

Now, when we published ‘Brexit and Devolution’, we recognised that some of our proposals would be challenging, particularly for the UK Government, and we’ve never professed to have all the answers. We’ve been clear that all four of the administrations of the United Kingdom need to work together to develop consensus about how the relations between the Governments of the United Kingdom should be conducted in the future. So, we welcome the agreement at JMC plenary in March 2018 that the Governments should jointly conduct a review of inter-governmental relations.

Now, at the latest JMC meeting on 19 December, the First Minister emphasised to the Prime Minister that the Welsh Government had hoped for more progress on the review by now. That said, we do recognise that whilst this work is of critical importance, it’s also very difficult. We need to achieve a meaningful consensus for substantive change between all four nations of the UK. Now, each of those Governments has their own political perspectives and their own distinctive takes, both on how Governments should work together and on the wider constitutional status of the UK. And you’ll appreciate, of course, that Ministers and officials across all administrations need space for confidential discussions around the review. But we, as a Government, will ensure that the Assembly and its committees are kept up to date with the review as far as is possible, whilst respecting that need for confidentiality. It’s our intention to provide a more formal update to Members as soon as we’re able.

The original instruction from JMC plenary was for a report on progress to be made to a JMC meeting in March this year. Now, I’m sure you won’t be surprised to hear that no date has been fixed for such a meeting. But I would hope that we’ll be in a position to provide an update when that meeting takes place.

Now, whilst progress on the formal review has been slower than we'd have liked, there are encouraging developments more widely. We’re achieving incremental change in terms of the willingness of Whitehall departments to formally engage with the devolved administrations in a meaningful way where there are strong interdependencies between reserved and devolved competence—where there's a force of circumstance, really, as a by-product of Brexit. There's increasing recognition, for example, that where international negotiations are likely to lead to a change in policy in areas that are within devolved competence, then it's essential to engage fully and properly with the devolved institutions before, during and at the end of such negotiations to prevent subsequent constitutional conflict.     

I think we need to be realistic here. If we try to insist that we must have a veto over international agreements—something that is not the case even in fully federal systems such as Australia and Canada—we will simply fail to achieve any progress. Rather, as a Government, we'll continue to argue forcefully for a meaningful role in negotiations and for undertakings that the UK Government will not normally attempt directly, or indirectly, to implement changes to legislation within devolved competence that we do not agree with, and for mechanisms to ensure that where we do not agree, Parliament is invited to consider fully our objections before authorising such an action.

Of particular relevance to our discussion today is the agreement by the Department for International Trade to the establishment of a ministerial forum on trade, on which I represent the Welsh Government. You'll be aware that this was a matter that was discussed with the external affairs committee on Monday this week. But the focus of this debate is the agreement that has been tabled by the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, which will set out the information that the Welsh Government will make available to the Assembly about the conduct of its relations with the other nations of the United Kingdom.

In essence, the agreement consists of two main elements. Firstly, it sets out how we will keep the Assembly updated on formal intergovernmental activity as it happens, so to speak, meaning that we will provide the Assembly with information about the participation of Welsh Ministers in informal intergovernmental structures. This covers discussions and agreements of various formats of the Joint Ministerial Committee—for example its plenary, its heads of Government format, the JMC for EU negotiations, the JMC (Europe) and the ministerial forum on the future relationship between the UK and the EU—but it also covers the British-Irish Council, and it will cover other standing or ad hoc multilateral and bilateral inter-ministerial forums of similar standing that currently exist, or may be established in the future. That would encapsulate the formal ministerial quadrilaterals that exist for finance and for agriculture, as well as new forums that are emerging across a number of portfolio areas.

Now, for these forums, the agreement requires us to provide one month's advance written notice to CLAC and to relevant subjects, where that's possible. We'll certainly meet that requirement where we can, but as other Members have noted today, we as a Government don't often receive that much notice of an agreed date for such forums ourselves. So, following the meeting, we'll provide a written summary of the issues discussed at the meeting within two weeks of that meeting taking place.

The second element of the agreement is for the production of an annual report. This will summarise the key outputs from activity subject to the provisions of the agreement, and provide commentary on broader intergovernmental relations work that is being undertaken that year.

The Welsh Government is committed to securing transparency in its relations with other Governments in the UK. We agree that providing the information noted in this agreement will assist the Assembly in its crucial role of scrutinising the work of Welsh Ministers with their counterparts across the UK. We welcome the fact that this agreement recognises and respects the need for confidential negotiations between Governments. We are committed to sharing as much information as is appropriate with the Assembly, but we must allow space for confidential and private discussion and negotiations, and I know that Members understand that. We believe that this agreement has succeeded in securing the right balance between the need for transparency, to assist the Assembly to carry out its scrutiny function, as well as Government responsibilities for its relations with other administrations within the UK, and we welcome the fact that we have recognised the practicalities that will lead to decisions on how and when we can share information. So, I'm pleased to say that the Government is supporting this motion today. Thank you. 

I call Mick Antoniw to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'm very grateful for the detailed contributions that have been made by the members of the committee and by Dai Rees, the Chair of EAAL, and also for the very detailed response from the Government.

I don't delude myself, and I think none of us do, that these constitutional and structural arrangements arouse enormous interest, either in members of the public or, quite often sometimes, when I look around the Chamber, Members of the Chamber as well. So, I can tell you that the eight minutes and 30 seconds I've got left to close this debate—I will not use all of it. I'll not subject you to it. I don't think I've ever knocked a door where a member of the public has come to the door and said to me, 'Can you tell me what the latest situation is with the intergovernmental institutional arrangements and the joint ministerial council, please?' But the very nature of these things is that they are important because they create the framework in which the power that we exercise in this Chamber on behalf of the people of Wales is actually held to account—the way in which we in this Assembly hold Government to account in an environment where we have seen considerable transfers of powers.

These are the very same issues that have led to the very important development of interparliamentary arrangements, where we meet on a regular basis with our common committees on justice, constitutional affairs—with Westminster, the House of Lords and with Scotland. We face exactly the same issues because, as we know, there has been a considerable transfer of powers—Henry VIII powers—powers that were often being exercised with very limited scrutiny. And I think everyone would mutually agree that that is not a healthy situation in a democratic Parliament, in a democratic society, but it is a consequence of what is happening around Brexit, and these frameworks have been created to maximise the opportunity that elected Members have to hold the exercise of those powers to account. And what has been very important within this process—and I give credit to the Government on this—is that there is a mutual recognition that we are in an environment where there has to be accountability, there has to be transparency to the maximum extent, and that is what this agreement seeks to achieve.

There are undoubtedly many challenges along the way, and I do not underestimate the challenges that Government faces within that. Our job as a committee and our job as an Assembly is to hold Government to account—the way Government exercises its powers—and there are some very important reasons why that must take place. For example, in the area, now, of international treaties, which I know other parliamentary bodies are looking at, we had recently, of course, the Scottish judgement in the continuity legislation issue that went to the Supreme Court, where clearly it is recognised that international treaties are reserved to the UK Government, but the implementation of those treaties in devolved areas are matters for the devolved Governments and for the bodies elected to undertake that. So, where Government now has to engage with—and we see this consistently now in Bills that are coming forward as a result of Brexit—. So, where Governments are having to engage in discussions and consultations over those periods, which will lead to binding agreements, effectively binding legislation on this Assembly, the only opportunity we will actually have is through agreements like this that enable us to actually have access to see what is being proposed, what proposals are being developed, to enable us to actually scrutinise that, to make input, and to actually give voice to the people of Wales through this Assembly in those processes.

So, it is about the accountability of the exercise of power, and this agreement is before the Assembly today to ensure that it is on record, that it is formally recognised for what it is and that that is the framework within which Government and this Assembly will operate over the coming very difficult months and, undoubtedly, years. Thank you, Deputy Llywydd.

Thank you. The proposal is to note the committee's report. Does any Member object? Therefore, the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

We now move on to item 8, which is the Plaid Cymru debate on building social housing in Wales, and I call on Leanne Wood to move the motion.

Diolch. I'm pleased to open this debate on a motion that should be non-controversial. I'm going to start by repeating something I said in the Conservative debate on housing a couple of months ago. Between 1997 and 2007, just 825 new units of social housing were built each year, and that only increases to 850 each year in the last 10 years. But the Public Policy Institute for Wales estimates that we need between 3,300 and 4,200 additional units of social housing every year—just 850 homes when we need over 4,000. The gap is absolutely staggering. Nobody disputed those figures then and I don't expect anyone to dispute those figures today. So, instead, my colleagues and I want to focus on why we haven't been able to meet an aspiration that apparently everybody wants.

First of all, I think we need some clarification on what exactly we're talking about. Too often, we've seen the term 'affordable housing' used interchangeably with 'social housing', hence the Welsh Government's claim of being on track for delivering 20,000 affordable homes. Currently, we're in the position where 'affordable' is defined within the context of technical advice note 2. This definition also includes homes owned through shared equity schemes, including Help to Buy. This means that, since the 2016 election when the target of 20,000 affordable homes was brought in, the 3,458 homes sold through Help to Buy since will be counted towards that target. Now, this is a particular issue when we consider that 1,390 of those homes—that's 40 per cent of those homes—were sold for over £200,000. There's clearly a misuse, therefore, of the term 'affordable'. How many first-time buyers can really save up and afford to buy a home at £200,000? So, that's why we've proposed to create a target for 20,000 new social housing homes in a Plaid Cymru term of Government, to separate social housing out from the private sector. We of course want to make private sector housing more affordable for both people renting and for those who want to buy, and our housing paper contains many ideas for doing just that. But today, I'm focusing on social housing in the proper sense of the term, to refer to homes owned by housing associations and local authorities. And we badly need more. 

The rise in homelessness over the past decade is something that has been noted in this Senedd on numerous occasions. We have, of course, debated the need for a housing first policy to ensure that everyone gets a home and that we can end rough-sleeping. And, of course, there's a comprehensive plan for doing that already written by Crisis. That plan is reliant upon building more social housing and the reality is, though, that austerity has hindered the sector's ability to build more social housing. Social security cuts, in particular the cumulative impact of housing benefit changes, have changed the business model of housing associations. They've faced reduced incomes from rent, which may have jeopardised investment in more homes. They've also had to face increased administration costs in chasing more arrears, and, of course, the substantial costs of rehousing people who've been impacted by the bedroom tax. In fact, housing associations put the cost of dealing with just the disabled people who are affected by the bedroom tax at some £40 million. No wonder we didn't have the investment in social housing that we needed.

But there is a wider impact of austerity on availability of housing as well, and that has made the planning of the required public services needed to serve new housing developments far more difficult. Let's imagine two proposals for development are given to a local community. The first is a properly planned housing estate with a mixture of social housing and private sector housing. It's accompanied by significant investment in transport, green spaces, and supported by a new school and a doctor's surgery. The second proposal is for an estate built by one of the large developers, with a small quota reserved for 'affordable housing' and a joke section 106; there are few green spaces, and the previous performance of the developer—which, of course, can't be regarded as a material matter in planning law—suggests that the estate may well end up being unfinished for years, parts of it a muddy building site with unadopted roads, and the existing public services in the community will simply have to cope, because there is no money to invest to accommodate the new community. Which of these proposals do you think will attract the support of the community—

Are you giving way?

—and which of these proposals will attract opposition? Did you want to say something?

Yes, thank you. Even if the 106 agreement is very good at the beginning, what you often or nearly always see is the developer coming back and saying, 'I'm not going to make enough money with this 106 agreement—can we change it? Can we reduce the number of houses that are affordable and can we not build these things, because we can't afford it, because our profit will probably be down to £75,000 per property?'

I agree, and that's exactly why I described these section 106 agreements as a complete joke. That's exactly why they are a joke. 

Our point is, as well, that austerity has meant that we've seen even more of the examples that I gave in the latter example there over the past decade than we have seen of the former example, with predictable results and an ever-increasing distrust between communities and local planners. The statistics on house building show that it hasn't delivered more social housing. Now, the current planning system and the limited finance available for local authorities is simply not delivering what we need. My colleagues will elaborate on this further, but it's quite clear that relying on affordable housing commitments, or on those joke section 106 agreements with housing developers, is not delivering for us. So, we have to take the shackles off housing associations and local authorities, and we have to let them borrow substantially more to create new housing.

Borrowing for the finance of new housing is one of the least risky forms of public sector debt, and it's preferable to having our pension funds invested in, say, for example, fossil fuels. But we have to also avoid the mistakes of the past, in creating ghettos of social housing that are separate from other forms of housing. So, we are proposing an overhaul of the development of the planning process. We currently have a process of allocating sites for development, and then a laissez-faire attitude towards who builds them, and having no consideration for the kinds of public services and infrastructure required to make communities sustainable and work correctly. I keep saying section 106 agreements are a joke, and most estates remain a mess for several years, with unadopted roads and unfinished work—a nightmare for the people living around them. This is an approach that often alienates communities from the process and builds up problems in the future, especially given the long period of austerity that we've had.

So, we propose a different approach. We propose a co-operative approach to planning in which developers, housing associations and local authorities should work collaboratively on new developments and the LDP process as a whole, with both suitable locations identified and the public services required to make communities work. There will be a target for any new housing developments to have at least 40 per cent social housing. Now, by that, we don't mean 'Stick the social housing on one side of the road and the private sector housing on the other'. We mean a genuinely mixed community, supported by good public services. It's an approach that is, I'm afraid, incompatible with austerity, but one compatible with meeting the actual housing needs of Wales, not just the needs of the developers.

First, can I welcome this debate? It's the second debate we've had on housing since Christmas. And can I just say how pleased I am to start talking about housing? Because I think it's one of the most important things. After food and drink, the next important thing for people's life is housing. So, I think it really is important that we get around to talking about this. Hopefully, the next debate will be on a Welsh Government house-building strategy, involving the building of large numbers of council houses.

Housing is the great challenge facing all of Britain, including Wales. The post-war period in terms of housing can be broken down into two periods. First, the period of 1945 to 1980—during that period, we saw a huge growth in council estates and the building of a large number of new estates in urban areas. We also saw the growth of owner occupation and the start of the building of large private estates, again predominantly in the larger urban areas.

Council housing has declined through the sale of a large number of houses and the failure to build new ones. There has also been a substantial growth in housing association properties, but not enough to make up for the decline in council-house building. For those people taking a deep interest in politics and elections, if you go and look at 'The British General Election of February 1974', the book by Butler and Kavanagh, you will see it looked at the number of houses that were social housing—or 'council housing' was the term they used then, because nearly all the housing was that—and there were a large number of constituencies where over half the housing was council housing, and, in Scotland, and you had constituencies where between 80 per cent and 90 per cent of the housing was council housing. It was the norm.

Council housing has declined—the sale of large numbers and the failure to build new ones. There has also been a substantial growth in housing association properties, but nowhere near enough to fill the gap of the decline in council house building. As a consequence of benefit changes, demand has increased for smaller-sized accommodation. Since 1980, we have seen almost a complete end to council house building, the growth of owner occupation, which now appears to have stalled, and the growth of housing associations into major landlords. For those people who remember back in the past, housing associations used to be small, local organisations providing housing. Now, one stretches from Newport down to Pembrokeshire, one stretches from Cardiff down to the edge of Wales, and one covers almost the whole of north Wales and mid Wales. 

We've seen a reduction in the average number of adults living in each property. There's been a large growth of single-person households and a huge reduction in family sizes. The sale of council housing had a serious effect on the housing market. It reduced the supply of council housing and increased demand for both housing association properties and for privately rented properties. That's gone into a vicious circle. There's money to be made in privately rented accommodation: people buy it, it pushes up house prices, it makes people less likely to be able to get accommodation.

There have been two periods in the twentieth century when housing supply did a reasonable job of meeting housing demand and need. The first was between the wars, when cities expanded horizontally into the suburban development of green fields and, assisted by Government incentives, builders could offer affordable home ownership to people on middle to low incomes. If we were to do the same, it would involve ending all planning rules. I don't think anybody in this room would want to see the end of all planning rules.

The second was the decades after the second world war, when publicly funded council housing accounted for roughly half of all homes built. What we've now got is a situation where we need to go back that—to building large numbers of council houses. Housing associations aren't going to meet the gap. When people talk about social housing, too often they're talking about housing associations. We need councils building houses. We've seen the beginning of it in places like Swansea. There has been some small-scale development of council housing, but nowhere near what was happening between 1945 and 1979. I don't think the equivalent of one year's development in Swansea has been built in the whole of Wales in any year since the last 10 years.

There are large obstacles to a renaissance of council-house building, including the obvious one of money. Claire Bennie, an architect and housing developer, formerly of the housing association Peabody, said that councils should be allowed to borrow more against the long-term value of their developments, and I fully agree with her. That's what we do. When you go to buy a house, you borrow against the long-term value of your house, and that's what a mortgage is. Why can't councils be allowed to do the same?

Unless we have large scale council-house building, we will not solve the housing crisis. House prices will go up. It's in the interest of developers not to build enough houses, because it keeps prices high. Housing associations can help in developing social housing, and I would like to see a role for housing associations in bringing empty properties back into use. But, really, there's only one answer: substantial building of council houses.

For many years now the accepted wisdom was that market housing built by developers would deliver the affordable housing needed to meet demand. Now, on these benches we want to challenge that, because, for all the promises made and targets set, delivery hasn't matched the demand. In fact delivery—as we've heard from Leanne, delivery of affordable housing hasn’t matched the numbers that have been granted permission over the past decade. Stats Wales report that local authorities have granted planning permission for 13,355 affordable houses, but only 6,746 were actually built—just over 50 per cent. In some authorities, the figure's even worse. In Wrexham, for example, just 16 per cent of those granted planning permission have been delivered.

Councils with diminishing resources are reliant on private developers delivering affordable housing targets. So, why are so few of these affordable houses being delivered? In some cases, as we've heard, there's no doubt developers try to wriggle out of affordable housing provision, typically 25 per cent on larger developments, by claiming they're not viable. They will claim, and are backed by planning inspectors, that a 15 to 20 per cent profit is what makes housing viable. I'm sure many other industries would love to be able to post a 15 to 20 per cent profit.

In other cases, the market housing just isn't built, and so much needed affordable housing also isn't built, leaving thousands of people stuck on housing waiting lists in overcrowded accommodation or among the hidden homeless. In a few cases, affordable housing turns out to have clauses requiring large deposits that make them then unaffordable for the very people they're designed for. It's clear from the statistics that I just quoted that the current preferred delivery mechanism for so-called affordable housing isn't working. Open-market housing isn't the way to deliver affordable housing.

It's also clear that relying on developers to lead on housing means that communities are often an afterthought in our planning process. Local development plans should be about community-led development, not developer-led communities. They should also be ensuring that the necessary community infrastructure, as Leanne said—whether it's roads, schools, health and social provision—is developed in tandem with any large-scale development, and not as an afterthought, if at all. Health boards aren’t even statutory consultees on planning matters, despite the huge impact new populations would clearly have on hard-pressed GP surgeries, on A&E departments and on hospital services. Again, without the right provision, building new homes in some areas can be disastrous. The limitations of the social housing grant and other financial pressures mean that housing associations are not delivering affordable housing as they once were.

One chink of light is that, for the first time in a generation, as we have heard, some councils in Wales are starting to build council houses again. Carmarthenshire, Swansea, Flintshire and Wrexham, among others, have started to replenish depleted housing stocks, but, after decades without any new builds, it's a painfully slow process, and not fully tackling the desperate need for housing in many of our communities. It also doesn't address the fact that half of our authorities no longer have any council housing, due to the policy of stock transfer undertaken over a decade ago. I wonder how those councils that transferred feel now that the capacity to build new houses is being made available for those that retained their housing stock. One underrated but important feature is that this is not only a building programme, but is also a buy-back programme, so that former council houses are bought back into council ownership.

In some areas there are limited funds to renovate housing. There are thousands of empty homes across Wales, many owned by people without the means to renovate so that they can be let or sold on. A small-scale scheme exists where councils provide loans of up to £50,000 to do this kind of work. The loan is repaid when the house is sold or let, so the pot is maintained, but this needs officers to push and liaise with house owners to get the work done, and, with limited resource, this kind of work is not happening quickly enough or at all.

So, it's clear there's more than one way to tackle the social housing crisis, but we need to scale up the available funding to ensure that initiatives deliver. I endorse the call today for greater investment in social housing, council housing, to meet demand in our communities and to redress the balance in our housing stock. The past decade has seen a dramatic rise in private rented housing, and in the worst cases these are little better than slum landlords letting out rooms for £90 to £100 a week. The lack of good-quality, affordable housing has allowed these types of landlords to profit from people's misery. A home isn't just a building. It provides a roof over people's heads. It provides security and safety. A secure home enables families to plan for the future, it reduces stress and reliance on health and social services. We need to see beyond the bricks and mortar and understand the wider impact of good-quality affordable housing in our country. 

I'm very pleased this debate is being held this afternoon and I thank Plaid Cymru for moving it, and I think we do need to state that social housing is an essential component of the housing supply we need. It has frequently in our history led great innovation, it's liberated people and given them homes fit to live in, and it is time we restated the value of the principle of social housing. I also welcome the scale that is indicated by Plaid Cymru in terms of what we will need in the future, because it's very close to our own projections and what we've called for in the 2020s.

We are building at the lowest rate, really, since the 1920s. We are well below—[Interruption.] I will give way in a moment. We are well below, perhaps even just barely over half, the historical trend. We have only just over a quarter of the number of homes that we built in the great housing surges of the 1950s and 1960s, so we do need to talk about scale and building many, many more social homes and homes in general. I'll give way. 

Thank you. I welcome your comments about scale, and you said that the figures that we are talking about are broadly in line with the figures that you've come up with. Can you clarify whether your figures are about affordable homes, or are we talking about social housing?

First of all, there's evidence out there, so these are not figures that I've plucked out of thin air, or that you have. I know that you've also been greatly influenced, as I was three years ago, by the report of Professor Holmans. And my broad assessment is that we need about 40 per cent non-market homes and 60 per cent market, which coincidentally seems to be what you're calling for—you said 20,000 social homes in a five-year term if Plaid Cymru is elected at the next election, and, by my calculation, that leaves 30,000 to be provided by the market, of which some of that will also be assisted buying by the various schemes. But I prefer to talk about market provision and non-market. Social is clearly the non-market element of that, but a 40:60 split does seem to me a reasonable estimate. And, as Mike indicated earlier, there have been times indeed when we've built more non-market homes than market. So, we need solutions; it's pointless getting hooked up on ideology. We need homes that people can afford, whether they're buying them or whether they are renting them. 

I think, perhaps, where I might differ from some of your emphasis, though I don't think this divides us at all, is I think the old model of just allowing councils to build vast estates—in fairness to you, you did say you didn't think that was an appropriate model and you want mixed tenure and probably smaller schemes. But I do think you need to look at housing associations, because they are the principal resource we have at the moment, but also remember there are many people now who will not get the best home or the home they deserve, the home that their family needs and the space their children will require. They will not get that, despite being, from a historical perspective, way above the threshold for social housing, because the market has driven up the price of housing so much that we now have people on really what, in previous generations, would be regarded as quite high incomes, and those people, I think, are going to need other models. Co-operative models are very important, I think, and are used internationally. Leanne talked about pension funds investing in this sort of provision, quite probably—larger apartments for family living, but rented long term so that you're not, every two or three years, worrying whether you'll still be able to stay in your home. So, we need lots and lots of approaches.

But the one thing I think is really important is that we move towards a consensus. We've been arguing for too long on this, and the Welsh Government doesn't have a great record in terms of house building—I should whisper this bit now and I hope my colleagues are not listening—but the UK Government hasn't had a great record either. I'd certainly say, since the financial crisis, in the UK, we've simply not been building enough houses, and we need to start to do that.

Can I just finish by saying that there are some failures in the market, without any question? The market, in general, has not given us all the answers we need, and there are some poor developers out there, but they're not all poor. This thought that all these new private estates are somehow a blot on the landscape, that they don't have good infrastructure, and that the planning authorities have not put in school provision: I mean, that is not typical of the type of development we get in the UK and in Wales under both Governments. We have a very tightly designed planning system and it does broadly deliver, but I do take the point that there have been cases where there's been really quite poor practice, and we certainly need more developers in there, SMEs using smaller sites, and more community sign-ups so that people realise that their own communities are going to benefit from people having access to decent housing. I thank you for indulging me, Deputy Presiding Officer. 

It's fine. Siân Gwenllian. 

Thank you very much. It is clear to us in Plaid Cymru that we need more social housing or council houses—whatever we call them, we know what we’re talking about. In my own area, there are 2,000 families on the waiting list in Gwynedd for social housing. My surgeries are full of people living in unacceptable conditions in private rented accommodation that is damp, too small or expensive to heat, leading to fuel poverty, or families come to me and they have to share homes with their parents or other relatives or friends. There are too many people in homes that are too small for their needs, and this in turn impacts their general well-being and the education of the children also suffers.

I’m going to focus on two aspects this afternoon. We have a planning system in Wales that does work to the benefit of major housing developers. Yes, they need to commit to building a few affordable homes under section 106 agreements and we’ve already heard about those and how developers can remove themselves from those commitments. But even if they stick to those commitments, we’re talking about only a handful of additional homes being built as a result of those agreements. We need a planning system in Wales that places local needs and the housing needs of local people at the heart of the policy. Plaid Cymru has recently adopted a comprehensive set of policies that would do just that—place the needs for construction of appropriate homes in appropriate places as a priority.

In Gwynedd, those who have the greatest need for housing are often on low wages and have uncertain working conditions. This is a huge barrier, and one that can’t be overcome with simple solutions, namely just by increasing the supply of housing substantially. The supply has to be of the right kind and the homes have to be in the right places.

Too many large expensive houses in some areas mean that local families are priced out of the market, and this, of course, has implications for the Welsh language in my own area as local young people have to move out. On the other hand, a shortage of the right kind of housing also means that local people are disadvantaged.

An increase in the number of second homes also prices local people out of the market in an increasing number of communities. In order to seek to address this problem, eight local authorities now charge a council tax premium on second homes. This became possible under the Housing (Wales) Act 2014. But, unfortunately, almost 800 of the owners of these second homes in Gwynedd alone have found a loophole where they can avoid paying any taxes to the public purse. They register their second homes as small businesses, and, as a result of the anomaly in the system, they don’t have to pay a penny in tax because they can get business rates relief. Now, I’ve described this as a scandal and I’ve been raising this issue with the Government for quite some time. I do understand that there is a review in the pipeline, and I would urge the Government to include in that review this loophole that I’ve just mentioned so that we can find a resolution to this problem.

Thank you. All it really needs is for the Government to abolish small business rates relief on houses. 

That’s one way of dealing with it, and since I’ve raised this issue, I’ve been surprised by the number of people who have been in touch with me and have proposed various solutions to the problem. You’ve mentioned one—there are other people who have other solutions. So, this is a problem that can be sorted out. What we need is desire in Government to actually tackle the problem. It’s the Government that should lead in finding a solution. To date, that desire hasn’t been particularly apparent to me, but I do very much hope that we can have some detailed discussions on what exactly can be done.

There is something wrong with a situation where 2,000 people are living in poor conditions whilst 800 of 5,000 owners of second homes in the same county are playing the system for their own benefit and avoiding paying council tax. That funding—a total of over £1 million per year—as well as the council house premium, which would bring additional millions, could be an important contribution towards building more appropriate housing for local people in Gwynedd.

Thank you. Can I now call the Minister for Housing and Local Government—Julie James?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I very much welcome this debate, despite throwing my papers all over the floor in an unseemly fashion, so I apologise for that. [Laughter.] Thank you, Vaughan.

We're absolutely committed, in the Welsh Government, to the provision of social housing by councils as well as by registered social landlords. We know there is an urgent need for additional homes for social rent across Wales. I'm not going to quibble with the figures. We know that there are a lot needed, and they are in the thousands and not the hundreds, so rather than argue about individual numbers it's definitely in the thousands, and we certainly want to acknowledge that. Just to be absolutely clear, providing additional social housing is a fundamental priority for this Government, and that's why I'm very happy to support Plaid Cymru's motion today.

I welcome contributions from all Members today. All of us—I have 'most of us' written here, but, actually, I'm happy to be able to say that all of us will share the aim of creating more social housing for rent. There are important questions of how we ensure the right funding, the right design and the right location, and I've certainly been very eager to listen to the contributions very carefully in today's debate to pick up all of the ideas and make sure that we can take them forward. I'm very happy to say that I haven't heard anything in today's debate that I'm not happy to run with, and I would very much welcome detailed discussions with all of you about how we can get some of these ideas to really run.

I have seen, and I know that everybody in the Chamber has seen for themselves, the impact a good-quality, safe and affordable place to live can have on someone, particularly someone who's potentially vulnerable or struggling with different challenges, but, actually, just on everyone—it's a fundamental need, and I think it was Mike Hedges who said that we need food, drink and a place to live, and that's absolutely right.

Social housing can provide not only quality homes but the support needed to ensure people can sustain a tenancy and thrive in it. It can positively impact on health, mental health and education, which is why, in Wales, we've never moved away from support for social housing, ever since the Assembly was in existence and, indeed, before that. This is why we've set a target for the delivery of affordable homes in the previous term of government, which we achieved, and we've extended the target to 20,000 homes in this term.

As Leanne Wood said, the 20,000 target does include schemes aimed at helping people into home ownership, principally the Help to Buy and Rent to Own schemes, but it also has a very large proportion of social rented homes in it. Leanne Wood might be surprised to find that I don't actually very much disagree with what she said. We have included Help to Buy because accessing home ownership has become very difficult to achieve for many in the last 15 to 20 years. David Melding talked about the market forces that have driven some of that, and we've had to respond to that.

But homes for social rent make up very much the largest proportion of the 20,000 target, and I'd be very keen to see that target extended now that we've got slightly different conditions in place. I'm confident we'll deliver that commitment in partnership with local authorities and registered social landlords, who have made a record investment of £1.7 billion in housing during this Assembly term, which is a significant sum that is having a huge impact in the delivery of social housing.

In 2017-18, over half of the new affordable homes built in Wales were delivered with capital grant from the Welsh Government. The vast majority of those were, in fact, for social rent, and we are convinced that that's the right priority. Homes for social rent also require a higher rate of public subsidy than other forms of affordable housing, but they're essential to meet the range of housing need across our communities, and that's clearly a consensual position in the Assembly, and I'm delighted that it is so.

Some housing can be made more affordable for some people by subsidising housing for sale, and, actually, our Help to Buy scheme is very different to the profiles you see in England. So, a large amount more of it is for first-time buyers—about 80 per cent, in fact. We deliberately have had a policy that allows people to get into houses that they want. The price of those houses is an interesting thing, and I don't actually fundamentally disagree with what Leanne Wood was saying about how we measure that. But what we actually need to to do is just build an awful lot more social housing. So, what we're really delighted to see is that, finally, the UK Government has come to its senses and has realised that having artificial caps on the amount of money that you can borrow to build housing is not a sensible thing to do. I think David Melding would agree with me that, actually, raising the cap in order to allow councils to borrow to invest in housing is a good thing. I think you more or less said that in your speech. Clearly, the UK Government has finally seen the light, if you like, on that.

So, we are looking to work really hard with our councils across Wales to build council houses at scale, and, where the council has externalised its housing stock, to assist, then, with helping their RSL with their prudential borrowing.

I'm very grateful to the Minister for taking an intervention. Would you agree with me that it's essential that these new builds are of high quality and that we did have, in the second half of the previous century, some very low-quality social housing built, very unpleasant to live in? I think that's also contributed to the stigma around renting, which I think we would all agree we need to lift. We need to be building social housing that's of such good quality that people are proud to live in them as lifetime homes.

Absolutely, and in doing so, we can remove a number of other issues. As I said, we can remove health problems, mental health problems, we can remove fuel poverty issues, debt issues and so on by building housing of the right standard. And frankly, we can contribute to not killing our own planet by building houses that leak heat out into the air for no reason and so on. So, there are a number of things that we can do with good-quality housing, and we need to step up to that plate. Now that the UK Government has seen fit to change some of the parameters by which we can produce the capital in order to do that, then we need to get on with doing that at pace and at scale. Hannah Blythyn and myself have been touring the councils, as is traditional for people who take over the local government portfolio, and in every council we've met so far, and in the WLGA, we've been greeted with huge enthusiasm across the political spectrum to get on with building social housing at pace and scale. So, it remains for us to get the right sets of rules in place around asset management and use of land and so on to enable that to happen.

I'm very pleased, Deputy Presiding Officer, to tell the Assembly that we're working very hard, for example, on changing the rules about using public land for social housing across the piece in Wales. Some of you may be familiar with a study in Cwm Taf health board that the First Minister commissioned when he was in a previous job—I can't remember which one; public services, I think—which utilises the Government GPS portal Lle to map out the public land across the health board area. We're really looking forward to pushing that out across Wales so that we can see what the availability of public land is to take away some of the capital cost of being able to put social housing—and other forms of tenure.

Various people around the Chamber today, Deputy Presiding Officer, have mentioned other forms of tenure, and we're very keen to see that. Forgive me; I can't remember which Assembly Member said this, but the whole point about this is to make a sustainable community. So, not to have ghettos of single-tenure areas but to have complete mixed tenures, sustainable communities, and mixed in as well. I think it was Leanne Wood who said, 'Not with a road dividing the middle of it but a mixed-in sustainable community'. And in that regard, we've got a number of other pieces of work going on. So, for example, we're spending £90 million on our innovative housing programme, looking at new ways of delivering homes. The £105 million integrated care fund is just beginning to support accommodation-led solutions to social care alongside housing and health programmes, and, of course, we’ve got the £134 million this year in our social housing grant programme. And, Deputy Presiding Officer, the thing that I want to emphasise by that is that they are not separate programmes—they are programmes designed to produce different kinds of housing, but there’s nothing to stop those being in a sustainable community together.

And we also have our innovative self-build programme. I was very struck by what Siân Gwenllian said about local people being driven out by second home ownership, and we’re very keen to ensure that authorities can look to build social housing in small plots in village settlement areas and so on, which would allow people to access social housing, and also ladder housing if you like—help on to the ladder to do that.

Just to paint a picture of the seriousness of the situation, it's estimated that a third of the houses sold in my constituency in the last year were sold as second homes. That has a clear and detrimental effect on the local housing market.

It does. Second homes can bring wealth with them as well, but we also need to ensure that local people can have decent homes to live in. I'm very keen to work with you on a number of the things that were raised today—I won't go through all of them or the Deputy Presiding Officer's seriously going to lose patience with me. But, clearly, what this debate has shown is that there are a large number of innovate things we could do to get our councils and our social landlords to start to deliver, at pace and at scale, the social housing that Wales very badly needs. Diolch.

Thank you. I call on Leanne Wood to reply to the debate.

Diolch i bawb. Thanks to everybody for their contributions, especially those supporting the premise of our argument. I’m particularly grateful to the Minister for being so open to so many of our suggestions. I also welcome the suggestion on using the business rates system to tackle the problem of second homes. It’s not rocket science, and it’s actually something that could be done straight away.

Now, as well as increasing social housing, we propose that four other sources of supply, which our housing paper proposed, should be used to help increase housing stock in the private and social sectors, which I hope proves that we’re not being ideological about this.

Firstly, in recognition of the demographic challenges our health and social care system will face, we propose creating a Scandinavian-style social care villages system that will both provide social care and help people to live independently in suitable accommodation. Again, financing this is a good use of borrowing powers and it will also stimulate the foundational economy.

Secondly, we want to encourage more co-operative models of housing that, in particular, could be used as intermediate housing or housing for specific groups of people as part of a housing first-type model.

Thirdly, we should be encouraging smaller self-build and eco home-style developments, and kick-start what is only going to become a growing industry in the future. Again, it’s worth comparing and contrasting the quality and standards of housing in eco villages with the poor practices that we’ve seen in some new-build estates that have been referenced here this afternoon.

Finally, we want a far greater effort at bringing empty properties back into use. It appears that the Welsh Government has stopped requiring local authorities to report on this, because the most recent figures are for 2016, but they show 26,500 empty properties, and that the trend is going up. Yet, despite having the powers to impose council tax premiums on empty homes, as a result of the 2014 housing Act, our written questions found that only nine out of the 22 local authorities intend to apply a premium on empty homes. In fact, our written questions also showed that 14 local authorities—more than half—intend to provide a council tax discount to empty homes.

Now, the observant among you may have noticed that those sums add up to 23 local authorities, which either means that the Welsh Government has supplied incorrect information to us, or that there’s a local authority somewhere that is both giving a discount on empty homes and charging a premium on empty homes, which does seem somewhat strange, though legally possible, I suppose, depending on how long a property is empty. But it does illustrate that these powers are not being used, and our information is that, sometimes, officers aren’t even aware that they’re able to impose a council tax premium.

So, clearly, there’s a communication problem here and, clearly, there's a delivery problem as well, given how various housing Ministers have pledged to tackle this problem of empty homes. This is for a policy that doesn't cost any money and could be done tomorrow, so if the Government fails to achieve that, how on earth can it be trusted to deliver expensive and transformative projects? 

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

We now move on to item 9, which is a debate on petition P-05-849, 'All men in Wales should have access through the NHS to the best possible diagnostic tests for prostate cancer'. I call on the Chair of the committee to move the motion—David Rowlands. 

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. This evening’s debate will focus on a petition submitted by Stuart Davies, who lives in the constituency of Clwyd South. It calls for all men in Wales to have access through the NHS to the best possible diagnostic tests for prostate cancer. The petition received 6,345 signatures and the Petitions Committee is grateful for the opportunity to bring this petition to the Assembly today, under the process whereby the committee considers the merits of holding a debate on a petition that receives more than 5,000 signatures.

It is worth noting here that prostate cancer is the most common cancer for men in Wales, with more than 2,500 men diagnosed in Wales every year. Mr. Davies’s petition calls for the latest prostate screening technology to be available to all men where there is a suspicion of prostate cancer. Specifically, the technology is the multiparametric MRI scan, or mpMRI. This combines up to three different types of scan in order to provide a clearer picture of the prostate gland. It is different to standard MRI scans, which are rarely clear enough to facilitate a confident diagnosis of prostate cancer at an early stage.

Up to now, men have typically needed to undergo a biopsy to diagnose prostate cancer. These are invasive and painful, and the potential side effects can include bleeding and infection. They may also miss up to one in five cancers of the prostate, because the precise location of the cancer is unknown when the biopsy is carried out. Alongside biopsy, the most commonly used tests for diagnosing prostate cancer include a blood test and physical examination of the prostate.

A study published in February 2017, known as PROMIS, found that using an mpMRI scan could reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies and improve the detection of clinically significant cancer. The petition is seeking access to mpMRI scans for all men in Wales as a priority, in order to improve diagnosis and reduce the number of men having to undergo biopsies. Prostate Cancer UK is also campaigning for increased access to mpMRI across the United Kingdom.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, NICE, is currently in process of revising their guidance in relation to the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer. This review includes an assessment of the latest evidence, including the PROMIS study. In December, NICE published new draft guidance for consultation. It includes a recommendation for mpMRI scans to be used as a first line investigation for people with suspected prostate cancer, as called for in the petition.

The guideline proposes that patients should still undergo a blood test initially, with an mpMRI used to better detect suspected clinically significant prostate cancer. NICE states that the scan can help clinicians understand the location of the cancer and target the biopsy directly, reducing the time taken to accurately identify the cancer and the need for multiple biopsies. Therefore, it is expected that increased use of mpMRI will prove cost effective by reducing the number of biopsies performed and the need for further treatment, because cancers are more likely to be detected and identified earlier. The final guideline is expected to be published at the end of April.

The petitioner and Prostate Cancer UK both argue that the current situation is inequitable. A number of areas already offer access to mpMRI scans. In Wales, Cwm Taf and Aneurin Bevan health boards routinely provide mpMRI scans for suspected prostate cancer. Another, Cardiff and Vale health board, offers pre-biopsy MRI scans, though not the full specification targeted by the campaign. This leaves patients in west, north and parts of south Wales currently unable to access the tests, whilst patients in Powys are generally referred elsewhere. In areas where the scans are not available, the petitioner states that he and other men with suspected prostate cancer have faced paying £900 to have one done privately. He has pointed out that a trial was previously carried out in Wrexham Maelor Hospital, but the scans are not currently available on the NHS in north Wales.

Across the UK, Prostate Cancer UK has found that only half of men with suspected prostate cancer are offered the highest standards of mpMRI scans before a biopsy. The new NICE guideline, if confirmed, should change this. However, the Petitions Committee has learned that there are likely to be a number of challenges to implementing this quickly in Wales. The most obvious challenge is access to the scanners themselves.  High-quality mpMRI scans rely on MRI scanners being configured in a specific way and, generally, being less than 10 years old. Existing demand on the scanners is another potential challenge due to high demand for their use existing across a wide range of conditions. A further potential barrier is the number of radiologists, especially those with the required training to accurately report the results of scans and to use them to conclusively rule out the presence of cancer in some patients.

These are challenges that health boards and the Welsh Government are likely to need to face when the final NICE guideline is published. The Minister has stated that he expects all health boards to consider new guidance and amend their pathways of care accordingly. He has also informed the committee that he expects there to be greater consistency in service provision after the NICE guideline has been updated.

We understand that several workshops have already taken place, led by the Wales urology board, to assess the changes that will be required and to help health boards to plan for them. The Minister has also stressed that health boards do not need to wait for the final guidance to determine what local changes are needed.

The petitioner stresses that time is of the essence and that any delay in this process could cause issues in diagnosing individual patients. He is calling on the Welsh Government to ensure that the new standards are implemented rapidly and for mpMRI scans to be available across Wales as early as possible. In the meantime the petitioner has argued that the Welsh Government should fund interim arrangements, under which the NHS would pay for patients to access private scans in order to ensure that all patients who would benefit from mpMRI technology can do so.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I am sure that other Members and the Minister will wish to comment on these issues further through the remainder of the debate this afternoon. Diolch yn fawr.

Wrexham Maelor Hospital's urology unit is one of 11 units across England and Wales that took part in the prostate MRI imaging study PROMIS trial to discover improved ways of diagnosing prostate cancer. The results showed that 27 per cent of men who had a negative mpMRI did not need a biopsy at all, but, crucially, 93 per cent of aggressive cancers were detected by using the mpMRI scan to guide the biopsy, compared with just 48 per cent where only a transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate—TRUS—biopsy was carried out. When I raised this in the Chamber last March, I quoted the North Wales community health council welcoming the health Minister's commitment to expect health boards to revise their diagnostic pathways to incorporate these scans, if recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, or NICE, in revised guidelines after April 2019, but also expressing concern that this would be too late and that patients in north Wales would continue to be left behind and that their discussions with urologists in north Wales suggested that we need to be developing the service then in preparation for NICE accreditation.

Noting that NICE guidance already stated that mpMRI scans should be considered for men with a negative transrectal ultrasound 10 to 12-core biopsy to determine whether another biopsy is needed, I referred to constituents in north Wales who met this criteria, but who then had to pay around £900 to fund these scans because they were not provided or funded by the health board in north Wales. Three of my constituents then wrote to the Minister confirming that they had had to pay and stating that they had watched this and seen him, quote, 'smirk and laugh at them'. After raising this again with the health Minister last April, they told me that his statement to the Senedd that service provision in the Welsh NHS is in line with NICE guidelines is patently not true, as you evidenced in your question.

Another patient told me that last March's announcement by NHS England that it was launching a one-stop service using MRI techniques to revolutionise prostate cancer treatment and slash the time taken for a diagnosis there was a game changer and patients across Wales should not be left behind. Last December, NICE issued new draft guidance recommending pre-biopsy mpMRI for suspected prostate cancer, with final guidance expected next month. In January, the health Minister wrote to Members stating that he had asked all health boards to work with the Welsh urology board to ensure that they have full implementation plans within one month of this. In the same letter, he stated that health boards had confirmed that, at present, they deliver care in line with current NICE guidance. North Wales patients subsequently reiterated that care was not delivered in line with current NICE guidance in their cases.

The north Wales community health council stated that the health board have consistently declined to produce proof that they did any scans for men with rising prostate specific antigen following a negative biopsy, and that they are co-ordinating refunds to all of their clients who did not receive scans in line with the 2014 guidance. They also state that their correspondence with the health Minister gives them no comfort that he will intervene if they make the same decision on the pre-biopsy mpMRI guidance.

This petition’s sponsor, Stuart Davies, states that interim arrangements should be put in place now so that men do not put their lives at risk; that although patients pay approximately £900, the cost to the NHS at Wrexham’s Spire hospital is only £365; and that men contacting the campaign say that they are either waiting for it to become free or are taking out loans to pay for their scan. Last December, I attended a meeting with Mr Davies, the health board and community health council, at which the health board apologised and offered to refund the money the men had paid for scans. However, only this week, a constituent received a letter from the health board stating that,

'although current clinical advice suggests that the use of full diagnostic mpMRI may be beneficial…this has not yet been supported by NICE'.

Noting, however, that NICE has now backed mpMRI scans as a cost-effective first-line investigation, Tenovus Cancer Care have called on the Welsh Government to ensure that mpMRI is available across Wales, stating that it is not available at Betsi Cadwaladr, Hywel Dda or Swansea bay, and not available at PROMIS standards in Cardiff and Vale. As Prostate Cancer UK states, mpMRI revolutionises prostate cancer diagnosis, so let's listen to the experts with lived experience. These men have been telling the truth from the very beginning.

When it comes to cancer, we do know that one of the most important elements to improve the chances of survival is ensuring an early diagnosis. Sometimes it’s easier said than done, but with prostate cancer specifically, there is a testing method that does simplify and therefore accelerates the process of providing a diagnosis, and that is the mpMRI scan. You can’t have a diagnosis of prostate cancer through a non-invasive test. The PSA test is available, but that only recognises whether you need further tests. The further tests include biopsies and they include a surgical method, which is undesirable for patients and should be avoided if possible. Other tests are not entirely reliable either. They can miss cancers—give the impression that patients are clear. That, of course, can lead to a patient ignoring symptoms and being untreated as a result. They can also suggest that the cancer is in the body when there is no cancer there, leading to treatment that can lead to lifelong complications.

The mpMRI scan does offer a much more promising pathway for accurate diagnosis. Very simply, it gives a clearer picture of what’s happening in the prostate. And the evidence that’s emerging—and I thank Tenovus specifically for one brief that I have—shows that mpMRI scans can be much more sensitive than other biopsies in recognising significant clinical cancers. So, it is much less likely to produce negative, fake results. However, it doesn’t remove the possibility of a false positive, so when the test does recognise the cancer, the patient does have to go through a biopsy. So, no, it’s not perfect, but NICE has supported the use of mpMRI as a significant improvement on the old system and has published guidance to that end.

The question, therefore, that we have before us is not about a petition calling for something where the evidence is not there yet to support it—we’re asking: why is there not regular or consistent access to tests that have been proven to be valuable under the appropriate circumstances?

The petition itself notes the limitations on who and where in Wales and in which health boards the testing can be accessed, where the tests are being fully utilised, and it's that lack of consistency that the petitioner found to be particularly unacceptable. And I would like to take this opportunity to thank Stuart Davies and those behind this petition on the work that they've done in bringing the issue to the Senedd. I know that, as a result of their campaign, they've been inundated with correspondence from other men who failed to find access to mpMRI scans on the NHS: men whose doctors weren't yet aware, perhaps, of the real benefits of this diagnostic tool; men who have paid to have the test privately as a result; and men who have been resigned to borrowing money in order to fund the scan, as it wasn't readily available to them on the NHS. And I'm grateful to Mr Davies for updating me on some of the contact that he's had from other men in all parts of Wales.

Now, some patients in the Betsi Cadwaladr university health board area have actually now been reimbursed for the private fees they paid for scans. They were paying it because they knew it was effective. They had the evidence that it worked. The evidence was pretty clear that this was an effective tool, which leads me to ask here now: why is it that the Welsh NHS, again, here, has been slow to adopt new technologies and treatments where the evidence was pretty clear, and, then, when the go-ahead had been given by NICE? The reason the Welsh Government introduced the new treatments fund was precisely because the Welsh NHS couldn't meet its legal obligations to ensure new treatments were made available within three months of NICE approval. So, that point has been conceded already, and we're currently in a situation where NICE has approved the technology for use in diagnosis but it's still not being done right across Wales, so 'why?' is the question.

So, to conclude, we know that access to diagnostic testing as a whole has been a problem for several years here in Wales. Welsh Government, in my mind, has been complacent on not pushing on that front. That's why we in Plaid Cymru have supported introducing tougher targets for diagnostic testing, which has been voted down, time and time again. So, this petition shouldn't be needed. We need a proactive NHS that's able to adopt best practice following a NICE ruling, and identify those new techniques and treatments that really work for patients in Wales, like mpMRI.

I would like to thank the Petitions Committee for bringing forward this debate and give particular thanks to the petitioner, Stuart Davies, for bringing the petition to the Assembly. Only yesterday, my husband had to attend Neath Port Talbot Hospital for an extremely painful biopsy on his prostate. So, this is a topic that is dear to my heart. The fact that my husband and hundreds of men like him could have a faster, less painful and less risky route to diagnosis but are being denied is unacceptable.

Multiparametric MRI has the potential to transform the prostate cancer pathway, but it is not available to all. Men are being forced to pay over £1,000 for an mpMRI scan because it is not available on the NHS in their part of Wales. My local health board doesn't offer this service. Had we lived 15 miles to the north-east, my husband would have had an mpMRI scan with dynamic contrast enhancement, which would have given his oncology team the best possible and most comprehensive detail about the health of the prostate. This would possibly have negated the need for the painful and invasive biopsy he underwent yesterday. It could have meant that he didn't have to undergo days, maybe a couple of weeks, of painful recovery. He might have avoided the need to live with the side effects of the powerful antibiotics he has been taking, and will continue to take, to stave off the threat of sepsis.

Over the border in England, the NHS has mandated the adoption of multiparametric MRI by 2020. We are making some progress in Wales, but it is slow due to a lack of trained radiologists. I welcome the moneys that the Welsh Government have put into improving MRI provision across Wales, as well as the establishment of the Welsh Imaging Academy. But this is not helping today. Welsh Government need to ensure that maximum utilisation of our MRI capacity is made. Where a health board cannot offer mpMRI with dynamic contrast enhancement, they should refer to other health boards or the private sector. Men should not be forced to find £1,000 to fund private MRI scans because they happen to live in a part of Wales that doesn't offer this revolutionary prostate cancer pathway. We are supposed to have a national health service, not seven regional health services. We have to end this postcode lottery today. We have to offer the best, the quickest and the most effective treatment pathway available today. I fully support this petition and the motion before us today, and I urge my colleagues to do likewise. Diolch yn fawr.

Can I say how much I value the petitioning process? In this Assembly, we've had a particularly strong Petitions Committee and really interesting petitions coming forward. I congratulate the way David outlined the case in very forceful terms. It is right that we discuss these issues that our constituents feel are particularly important and ask ourselves have they seen something in the current practice or pattern of service that really needs to be addressed.

What strikes me is that there can be something of a disconnect if we're not using the most up-to-date and readily available diagnostic techniques, and getting over, as Rhun said, the tricky barriers of false negatives, false positives, and the very uncomfortable, possibly painful, biopsy procedure. So, I think it's really important that we try to move and be consistent, especially when, in fairness to the Government, there's so much public campaigning out there to be aware of your body, to be aware of some of the changes that may be taking place, and then to access tests.

So, I think, in terms of our own public engagement, of saying why we are allowing certain approaches but not others, and especially when it's patchy, so that if you live in a certain part of Wales, you do get the latest MRI technology, but not in others, that we need to be very clear about that.

I do think that it's probably time for us to have some sort of assessment and statement on screening in general, because the public do get quite mixed messages, sometimes, about its efficacy and the role NICE has played. You're being urged to take care of yourself and be attentive to any change, but then there's not always the clarity, really, of what then should follow. It reminded me of the policy we have on bowel screening. Currently, test packs get sent to anyone between 50 and 74 that wants it, but once you hit 75, it just stops. A constituent asked me why, and I tried to find out, and it didn't seem very clear to me that there was an overwhelming reason why that is the case.

So, I do think that a more comprehensive view of screening—. And it's for other cancer conditions as well that the efficacy of screening is sometimes raised. With medical science advancing, the tools available to us are ever increasing. So, I do hope the Minister will be attentive to the concerns that have been raised, and will put the patient first: clear information, then quick diagnostic services that are as good and comfortable as possible. I think it's really, really important because, as we've heard, the earlier that these cancers are detected, the prognosis improves massively. So, again, I just think we should be very grateful to the gentleman that brought this petition in, and to the good work that the Petitions Committee is doing in insisting that we debate these issues in the Chamber. Thank you.

Thank you. Can I now call the Minister for Health and Social Services, Vaughan Gething?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I start by thanking the petitioner and the Petitions Committee for bringing this matter forward for debate this afternoon? At the outset, I want to acknowledge the impact of prostate cancer, both physically and emotionally, on men and their families. I also recognise that some of the diagnostic tests, as we've heard, such as biopsies, can be unpleasant and add to the worry and stress that men are already going through. I have received considerable correspondence from Members, patients, families and clinicians about the availability or otherwise of the test known as pre-biopsy mpMRI. Now, you've heard on a number of occasions during the debate today what that is, so I won't repeat the specifics about what multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging is, but it is, of course—this point has been made regularly—a less invasive diagnostic opportunity than the currently available and recommended standard diagnostic test. Now, given that the prospect of a less invasive and more accurate test is literally on the horizon—days away, and we expect NICE to confirm that—it's completely understandable that people want to see that procedure made available as quickly as possible across Wales.

I also understand completely why there is a concern about the current availability of the test between different health boards. The initial trials that have taken place, including here in Wales, including some within north and west Wales, have been positive, showing the effectiveness of mpMRI, and the public and clinicians are encouraged, and they want to see it rolled out, too. As we've heard, on the basis of the emerging evidence and the draft guidance issued by NICE in December last year, some health boards in Wales are starting to provide the test already. It is of course not unusual to trial new treatments in different parts of the health service, but I do understand why that gives rise to concerns from those parts of Wales where the test is not yet regularly available. But there is this point about, when we consider each potential advance in healthcare, what we do as a whole system, and in decision making, to consider the evidence for the best intervention and then to try to take a consistent national approach to delivering it once that evidence base is sound and accepted. So, NICE are committed to publishing their revised guidelines in April. Ahead of that, as we've heard—and I'm pleased that this has been acknowledged—I've directed NHS Wales, through the urology board, to work through and agree that clinical consensus. And you've seen, from the correspondence I've provided to the Petitions Committee and others, that's in preparation to implement the guidelines. We're not waiting; we're not doing nothing and waiting until some point in April when we expect finalised guidelines to be made available.

And it's crucial this urology board is not made up of civil servants, it's not made up of people that I am directing as to what they could or should do; the urology board is made up of clinical representatives from across health boards in Wales, and there is agreement as to how NHS Wales—not if, as to how NHS Wales—will transition from the current methods of diagnosis to one that includes the mpMRI test. But introducing a new element to the care pathway is never as simple a matter as it is sometimes presented. There will always be a number of areas to be addressed. Factors like the imaging capacity, like the workforce and training all need to be looked at, addressed and delivered. I have always been clear and stated on the record a number of times that if, as we all expect, NICE recommends pre-biopsy mpMRI, then I expect all health boards to amend their pathways accordingly.

The work being done by the Wales urology board is supporting our health service to be in a position to provide these tests consistently and equitably in line with the evidence. That will help us to deliver the improved experience and outcomes in care that we all want to see in every part of Wales. I am happy to underline the commitments I have already given to update Members in due course on progress and on the targets we have and timescales to make sure that service and that test that we expect to be recommended is available across the country. 

Thank you. Can I now call on David Rowlands to reply to the debate?

Diolch, Diprwy Lywydd. First of all, can I thank all the Members who have made a contribution to this debate? And if I can just go through a few points that some of them have made, Mark Isherwood pointed out the superior outcomes with mpMRI scans over normal MRI scans, and he said that there was a lack of data being provided by health boards, particularly in north Wales. 

Rhun ap Iorwerth pointed out the necessity of recognising cancer—as we all understand—as early as possible and many of the alternative tests to mpMRI are very inferior to the mpMRI scan itself. And he posed the question: why are the tests not routinely available? 

Caroline Jones gave personal evidence of the impact of the other invasive forms of testing for prostate cancer and the effects that it could have on a family. And she pointed out the differences and inconsistencies between areas in Wales, where one type of test is available and another is not. 

David Melding again questioned why we are not using state-of-the-art diagnosis wherever and whenever in Wales. And he asked about the methods and also questioned the disparity within regions. 

If I can come to the Minister and his acknowledgement of what's been going on, first of all, he did acknowledge the impact of prostate cancer, which we all understand. For men of my own age, it's one of those terrors that we face, I suppose, on a daily basis—that it could happen to just about any one of us. He also agreed that mpMRI is less invasive and, I think he acknowledged as well, is a superior way to biopsy. He talked of testing and creating a database that would confirm the effectiveness of new procedures, and we can all understand that that is the case, however I do believe that there is enough evidence out there to show that mpMRI is a far superior way of making a decision as to whether someone has prostate cancer, and I would urge the Minister to make sure that all our local health authorities do, as soon as possible, use mpMRI in their procedures. I do recognise that there is a problem with teaching up people to be able to properly use the diagnosis that the mpMRI may give, and that is a problem, and there may well be a delay in getting those people trained up and in place.

So, can I thank again Members for their contributions to the debate and to the petitioner, again, for bringing the petition forward? It remains for me to thank Stuart Davies and those who signed this petition for bringing this issue to the Assembly through the petitions process, and the Petitions Committee will consider the petition again in the light of contributions made during this afternoon's debate and, of course, the Minister's response to it. Diolch.

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

There are no items for voting this afternoon.

Therefore, we move to item 11, which is the short debate, and I call on John Griffiths to speak on the topic he's chosen. John.

Diolch, Diprwy Lywydd. I'm grateful for the opportunity today to celebrate the unique and historic Gwent levels. It is one of the largest areas of coastal and floodplain grazing in the UK, made up of a rich patchwork of different habitats and landscape running along the Severn estuary coastline, from Cardiff and Newport, past the second Severn crossing and beyond. A considerable area of the levels falls within the boundaries of Newport East—sites of special scientific interest and an area of natural beauty with greatly significant environmental, social, cultural and economic value for the south-east region and Wales as a whole.

This land and sea has been utilised by human kind at least since the Mesolithic era. Prehistoric Ice and Bronze Age footprints and artefacts surviving in the Severn estuary mud are still revealing clues about how this landscape has been used with the coming of every new tide. Indeed, the seascape is full of geological clues to its past and the era before human exploitation. The red cliffs rising out of the salt marshes at Black Rock are rich with the fossils of the plesiosaur and insects from when the area was transformed from a hot, arid desert to a warm tropical sea, approximately 200 million years ago.

Archaeologically, the intertidal mudflats have revealed the remains of Bronze Age settlement sites as evidenced by human footprints, lithic finds, butchered animal bone, brushwood trackways and round houses. Iron Age finds have been discovered at Goldcliff, with rectangular timber buildings, trackways, and fish traps on a shelf of fen peat.

Evidence of the area's maritime significance has also been uncovered. Archaeologists discovered fragments of a Bronze Age boat near Caldicot castle, dating from around 1,800 years BC, and the remains of fourth century Romano-Celtic Barland's Farm boat was discovered near Magor, remarkably intact and sharing some features with boats from south west Brittany, described by Julius Caesar in 56 BC.

These important finds, to name just a few, emphasise the noteworthy state of preservation of archaeological material in and around the levels. Historical accounts reveal the many human stories of the hard and physical struggle necessary to maintain this unique landscape over many centuries. Much of it was hand drained, using basic tools until as late as the 1960s. The character of local communities reflects the ancient connection between people and the Severn estuary. It's importance for maritime trade blossomed from the medieval period onwards, and particularly following the industrial revolution that transformed Cardiff into one of the biggest coal ports in the world. Communities at Goldcliff, Redwick, Rumney and Peterstone were serviced by the small, traditional landing places for cross-channel trades. Many locals will recall the skeletal traditional tidal baskets used for catching salmon. Remains of the supporting structure are still visible onshore at low tide. Today, the Black Rock fishermen are the last to use lave nets in Wales. The tradition has been passed down through the generations and now the fishermen are actively promoting the heritage of the fishery as a tourist attraction in their aim to keep the history and practice alive for future generations to enjoy. The area is truly a landscape handcrafted by the communities that have lived there since its reclamation from the estuary that started in Roman times, and these stories of people's connections with their environment should be celebrated.

The relationship between this low-lying area and the sea has not been without tragedy. The element of tension and jeopardy is demonstrated most starkly by the catastrophic flood of 1607. A tidal surge—some think tsunami—put large areas underwater on both sides of the Bristol Channel. It is estimated that 2,000 or more people were drowned, houses and villages swept away, an estimated 200 square miles of farmland inundated, and livestock destroyed, wrecking local economies. The coast of Devon and the Somerset levels as far inland as Glastonbury Tor, 14 miles from the coast, were said to have been affected. This disaster and numerous subsequent floods highlight the continued imperative for close and careful management of flood defences, water levels and the drainage system, but also serve as a reminder of why our local stories should never be forgotten. A visit to St Mary Magdalene's Church in Goldcliff or St Mary's Church in Nash will show plaques and wall markings recording the flood event and water heights.

And, of course, Dirprwy Lywydd, it isn't only the levels' historic value that should be celebrated. Its ecology is hugely significant, sustaining a great variety of wildlife. The ditches and reens provide a myriad of opportunities for different species, from the world's smallest flowering vascular plant and the king diving beetle to top predators like the grass snake, little egret and otter. A number of European and UK protected species have been confirmed to be present, including dormice, grass snake, some bat species, great crested newt and water vole. The charismatic water vole—a personal favourite of mine, as I am the Wildlife Trust water vole species champion—had become locally extinct, but are now numbered in the hundreds and increasing, thanks to a re-introduction and mink control programme managed by Gwent Wildlife Trust.

The RSPB reserve and visitor centre, created as habitat compensation for the loss involved in the Cardiff Bay barrage development, is a bird lover's paradise. It is the only place in Wales to see the magnificent cranes breeding for the first time in 400 years, and is also home to other Welsh rarities such as bearded tits, bitterns and harriers. The specific conditions created by the distinct water level and vegetation management regimes contribute to this rich environment. There are eight wetland sites of special scientific interest that are home to rare and vulnerable birds and diverse species with complex habitats.

It has the second largest tidal range in the world, with 15m recorded between the extreme high and low tides. It's a remarkable area with great value for Wales, its residents, local populations and potential visitors, especially those from nearby urban areas. It really does have a great deal to offer, but its story and landscape is subtle and, more often than not, undersold.

Given the environmental, social, cultural and economic value, it is heartening to see work under way to better recognise and celebrate this importance. Our planet, climate, environment, biodiversity and wildlife are under threat and imperilled, and, sadly, people have never been further away from the natural world in their daily lives as we are today. A strong human dimension is needed to create a greater sense of understanding and appreciation of these wetlands and this is where the Living Levels project, currently under way, has stepped to the fore. Their landscape partnership has come together to deliver a programme of work that will promote and reconnect people to the history, wildlife and wild beauty. It is worth some £4 million and heritage lottery funded, and led by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. The aim is to conserve and restore the important natural heritage features of the area, to develop a far stronger appreciation of the value of the landscape, and to inspire people to learn about and participate in its heritage. It involves the reintroduction of apple orchards, connecting with local schools, collaborations with Newport City Council to combat fly-tipping, and the popularity of cafes and eateries at Goldcliff and the RSPB wetlands centre. There is now a fresh opportunity for sustainable development and utilising the wonder of the levels.

We must, Dirprwy Lywydd, encourage more people to visit and enjoy what this special area has to offer. Walking, cycling, exploring and experiencing will enable a better understanding of why it should be cared for and preserved. It is an oasis of peace, tranquillity and calm, aiding well-being and health. Thankfully, the RSPB centre and the Gwent Wildlife Trust’s Magor marsh nature reserve welcome thousands of visitors every week, including very many school children undertaking activities and enjoying learning about nature.

Of course, these are challenging times, and the landscape faces dangers as well as offering opportunities. The proposed M4 relief road route across the levels is a major threat and would cause significant and long-lasting damage were it to go ahead. Whereas the Environment (Wales) Act 2016 and the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 together create an enabling framework for managing Wales’s natural resources more sustainably, collaboratively and at scale.

Major investment through the Wales coast path and national cycle network routes have raised the potential of the area to serve an increasing number of leisure-seeking residents and visitors from the city region and further afield. Greater appreciation and investment is imperative to ensure that the area, its wildlife, its history and the people it is inherently connected to are sustained for Wales and future generations. The landscape is iconic but fragile, and we must work together to build a more resilient future. Understanding the heritage, history and biodiversity of our communities will ensure we all take a sense of ownership over their conservation.

So, I’d like to encourage everyone to pay a visit to this very special place in south-east Wales. Whether it is seeing the wonder of a starling murmuration at Newport wetlands, observing the water voles at Magor marsh, taking part in one of the many interesting workshops run by the Living Levels project, or walking the full length of the sea wall at Goldcliff on the hunt for a prehistoric find, the best way to learn about this unique and wonderful part of Wales is to come along and enjoy it, and, in doing so, learn why the levels deserve to be protected and sustained for today and future generations.

Diolch yn fawr.

Diolch. Can I now call on the Deputy Minister for Culture, Sport  and Tourism to reply to the debate?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. 

May I say one thing about this process, because this is the first time I’ve had the privilege of responding to a short debate and, indeed, to participate in a short debate? When we were putting in place the Standing Orders of this place, many years ago, we did believe that the short debate was a very important thing, because it isn’t a debate, in essence, but an opportunity for a Member or Members to contribute on an issue that is of interest to them, which they feel should be aired publicly. And I can’t think of a better example, John, than using the short debate for the purpose that you’ve put for it this afternoon.

It’s important that we’re reminded, I think, that the landscape of Wales—and the landscape of everywhere in the world, but the landscape that we are legally responsible for in this place is what we're talking about this afternoon—the landscape of Wales is both notable and unique. The other element pertinent here is that when changes are made to landscapes for whatever reasons—and John has mentioned, and I will mention some historic events over a period of time and certain issues related to climate—but any change of that kind is often irreversible. It is incontrovertible. You cannot turn the clock back. That is the nature of creation and the nature of the world we live in.

This diversity of landscape does contribute to the quality of life, our quality of life, in a way that is immeasurable, if truth be told. As we have heard very clearly expressed by John in his introduction, there are thousands of years of the impact of the human race and people on this particular landscape. This landscape is notable in being a landscape that is very artificial, in one sense, because of human intervention, although some of that has been affected by nature and the weather, of course, and that gives it great historic significance and significance in terms of leisure, amenity and enjoyment.

It’s also important to bear in mind that the landscape is always a living landscape. It is not something that is set in stone at some point in the past; the landscape continues to develop. What’s struck me every time I walk the Gwent levels is that you have huge industrial buildings on the one hand and the scale of the Severn estuary—or Môr Hafren as we call it in Welsh—the huge scale of nature alongside the huge scale of man-made buildings. Having something as intensive in terms of its natural amenity in an industrial area is something very special to Wales and to visitors to Wales, because it does show how we can safeguard and maintain a notable, natural landscape despite seeing developments of all sorts happening on that landscape and impacting our environment.

John has talked a great deal about the historic circumstances, and these are of huge interest. I wouldn’t be the Minister representing Cadw in this place if I weren’t to mention the exciting archaeological finds that John himself referred to—the mesolithic fragments that are 8,000 years old, the Bronze Age ship that we heard about, the buildings and paths from the Iron Age, and everything that has survived from Roman and medieval times. I don’t think there is any other environment in Wales where you can read Welsh history from your surroundings just by looking around. You don't need a guidebook—you can have a guidebook, of course, or you could just take John's speech with you and my brief response as some guide for you as to what's around you—history speaks for itself in this particular environment.

One could argue that the Romans are chiefly responsible for this crucial structure, as I understand things at least, because of the land reclaimed from the seas with fields, some of which are used to this day. And every time the sea would flood the area then there was an attempt to recolonise that area, and we've heard about much of this already, and that certainly happened in the eleventh century. For me, it's hugely interesting in terms of the legal and conservation efforts to protect this area. I was very interested in the Monmouthshire court of sewers, for example, which dealt with the network of ditches and reens to ensure they were safeguarded. And despite the great flood that John referred to at the beginning of the sixteenth century, the area continued to be restored and the complex pattern of ditches and reens that exists there. I was familiar with this kind of thing in certain areas of Cardigan bay, such as the Dysynni valley, but there is nothing like that which is akin to the ditches and reens and trenches and the complex systems that sit alongside each other.

So, I would like to summarise by thanking everyone who has cared for this landscape and safeguarded it, and particularly the Living Levels Parternship. This programme reconnects people with the Gwent levels and is of assistance in providing a sustainable future for the area. I would particularly like to note the particular contribution of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds—I certainly should declare an interest as a member for many years of the RSPB. I'm very fond of the way in which the RSPB works in partnership, working closely with local communities. And the centre that they have on the Gwent levels compares very favourably indeed, in my view, with the centre on the banks of the River Conwy. The work that's done by the RSPB does highlight and draw attention to all sorts of wildlife, and I do have to take the opportunity to use the Welsh word for 'water vole': llygoden bengron y dŵr. That is one of the finest descriptions—you have the round head and the ears, and that's everything that one sees of this water vole when they do appear from the marshland and on river banks. The work done to safeguard and conserve these rare creatures is a crucial part of protecting the environment.

John referred briefly to some of the threats that can face an area such as this, as they face many other areas of conservation. It is clear that we must take great consideration of the environmental issues if we consider intervening in any way on this notable landscape. John will be entirely aware that the First Minister has received the report, which is almost 550 pages long, on the M4 project, and this will be given thorough consideration—I can say that on behalf of the First Minister. And the environmental issues will be taken fully into account, and certainly, that is a commitment that deserves to be restated.

But the living levels landscape project and the programme that they have on the Gwent levels is an excellent example of how collaboration is possible in order to safeguard the notable heritage of Wales. I would, finally, like to thank John for his own contribution in leading and developing the policy, which became the Historic Environment (Wales) Act 2016. This has put Wales in the vanguard in terms of safeguarding heritage in the UK and beyond, and I am very grateful to John for his contribution, and to repeat his call that we all visit the Gwent levels to search for the water vole. Thank you very much.

Diolch. That brings today's proceedings to a close. Thank you.