National Assembly for Wales

I call Members to order. 

The first item on our agenda this afternoon is questions to the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs, and the first question is from Joyce Watson.

Thank you. The European maritime and fisheries fund does not provide financial compensation. Under article 38 of the fund, fishers are able to apply for grants for small-scale investment in selective gear, including fishing pots. Only a small number of applications have been received to date. These are awaiting final approval.  

Okay. I thank you for that answer. But 90 per cent of fisheries in Wales are pots and, like all other forms of fishing gear, fishing pots can get lost at sea and they can continue to catch target and non-target species without any hope of being recovered, which is known as ghost fishing. Most fishing pots are currently made with plastic twine, and it's not biodegradable and it stays in the sea for thousands of years. Also, the majority of pots don't have escape hatches that would enable the catch to escape after a certain time if that pot was lost, and when fishing pots are reported as lost, my understanding is that the fishermen can apply for compensation.

Minister, would you consider implementing a condition that replacement pots that are paid for out of either Welsh Government or public fund money are both made from biodegradable material and that they have escape hatches so they have a lower impact on the marine ecosystem, and also consider introducing a tagging system that can enable the retrieval of those lost pots? 

As I said in my opening answer to you, we don't provide financial compensation from the fund, but we did set up a shellfish pot replacement grant back in 2013-14 after those winter storms. That was set up by Welsh Government to support fishermen to replace equipment that had been lost. No pots have been purchased under the EMF at present. Appropriate checks will be put in place to confirm the suitability of any replacements, but I think there has to be a focus on escape hatches. I think that's really important, and certainly we can look at other sustainability measures, rather than the material used in the construction of the gear. But obviously we've just gone out to consultation on 'Brexit and our seas', and I think this is something that we could look at in a future fisheries policy. 

I'm sure the Minister would agree with me it's important that financial support available for the Welsh fishing industry actually reaches Welsh fishermen. It's therefore crucial that any organisations that receive Welsh Government funding on behalf of the Welsh fishing industry, now or in the future, are transparent and clear in the way that they spend funds. In the circumstances, could the Minister tell us what measures she has put in place to ensure that taxpayers' money given to organisations is absolutely transparent? And can she tell us how does her department go about ensuring due diligence when funds are made available to such organisations? 

All funding in the way that you suggest is absolutely transparent, and I know that you have written to me about the Welsh Fishermen's Association in particular. I can certainly assure you that all the funding is transparent. The WFA are completely compliant with all the monitoring issues. I absolutely refute what was put on Twitter not long ago and I'm taking action around those allegations. There is very, very robust monitoring that takes place, and you only have to go to Companies House to see that all the information is there. 

Thank you. As set out in the nature recovery action plan, our national nature reserves are key to our suite of protected sites to deliver Welsh Government priorities for biodiversity. They are core to the resilience of ecological networks, safeguarding species and habitats, and providing huge benefits to our well-being in Wales.

Thank you, Minister, for that answer, and I note the keyword you said there—'core' to your policies. But yet many Members—I think all Members—might well have received this letter from retired former employees of Natural Resources Wales, the Countryside Council for Wales and other bodies who have an interest in this particular area, which highlights what they believe is the lack of confidence in Natural Resources Wales's management of our national nature reserves in Wales, and calls into question the future viability unless there's a change of direction. Do you share the concerns that these former senior retired employees of various nature organisations have highlighted? I believe the Minister was copied in on the letter. And if you do share those concerns, will you be taking these up directly with Natural Resources Wales, and have you any feedback that you can give us as Members that we can have confidence that Natural Resources Wales will engage with such criticism?

I was copied in to the correspondence, and I think yesterday I wrote back to the man who did the original letter. I did note the concerns; I wouldn't say I share them. However, when anybody writes to me with concerns of that nature, I always ask my officials to look into them on my behalf initially, so they will be discussing the points that he raised with NRW. And certainly, if there are any concerns that I think I need to address, I will raise it with the chair and chief executive of NRW at my regular monthly meetings. Obviously, NRW do manage our NNRs. I think, again, they're very transparent in how they approach the management of them. I also think they set out very clearly in their strategies how they can improve the management of them. So, I will be keeping a very close eye, and if I feel I need to take steps, I will do so.

Questions now from the party spokespeople. Plaid Cymru’s spokesperson, Llyr Gruffydd.

Thank you, Llywydd. Back on 7 November last year, Minister, when we heard the news that the Planning Inspectorate for England and Wales intended to scrap the role of the executive director for Wales, you agreed with me that it was about time for us to have an independent planning inspectorate for Wales. I think 'now is the time' were the words you used here in the Chamber. Since then, can you tell us what steps you’ve taken to deliver the Welsh Government’s intention of creating an independent inspectorate for Wales?

Well, obviously, I haven't had responsibility for planning since the new Government came in at the beginning of December. That now falls in the portfolio of Julie James.

Well, can you confirm therefore that that is the Government’s policy still? Because you were the Minister at the time, and I would hope that commitments that you made were ones that the Government would adhere to. So, I would like to hear that as an answer to that particular question.

Another area where Wales needs to have more influence and more of a grasp on its own future, in my view, is energy, and I would always call for the devolution of more powers. But the Institute of Welsh Affairs report was published recently on re-energising Wales, and, in my view, this provides a firm foundation for the development of an energy policy that is fit for purpose here in Wales. I particularly welcome the emphasis on community ownership as something that’s particularly positive, and I am aware that the Welsh Government says that, by 2020, you want new renewable projects to have an element of local ownership. But there is a demand here, in this report, for every scheme over 5 MW to have between 5 per cent and 33 per cent in public ownership. So, I would ask whether that is something that the Government would be willing to adopt. And, more broadly, of course, what other elements of this report appeal to you, and how are you going to ensure that elements of the report are delivered?

If I can just go to the first point, I'm not aware of any change in policy, but I will ask my colleague Julie James to write to you to give you that assurance.

In relation to renewable energies, Llyr Huws Gruffydd will be very aware of the targets that I set for renewable energy 12 months last December, and, clearly, community ownership plays a huge part in that. I am very pleased with the number of projects that have gone through the pipeline—if you pardon the pun—since I've been in portfolio. Clearly, if we want to reach our targets, community energy ownership has a massive element to play. And I've certainly been very keen that officials work with groups, because I think it's important that there is some hand holding—some communities need it more than others—but I think that advice should be there. I am aware of the IWA report, and I'm certainly looking at what we can pick out of it to assist us in reaching our targets.

Well, I would ask you to do more than just pick out certain elements; I would be eager to see this forming the foundation for an energy policy that is far more ambitious and radical than we’ve had from the Welsh Government to date. And, in that spirit, I would be eager for you as Minister to be leading from the front in trying to deliver much of what’s contained here. Because I am convinced there is a consensus across parties for us to go further than the Government has stated it’s willing to go at present. I also feel that this does provide a precedent for us to do that. So, in that spirit, would you be willing, as I say, to lead from the front by perhaps inviting the parties to come together to discuss energy policy in the context of this report, and the broader sector too, because we have seen reports such as this come and go? I’m aware of reports from the environment committee of the last Assembly, such as ‘A Smarter Energy Future for Wales’, which are gathering dust. I don’t want to see the IWA report suffering the same fate. So, the responsibility is on your shoulders as Minister now to ensure that much of what’s contained here is delivered, and I propose to you that we collaborate in order to move along those lines.

Well, I'm always very happy to collaborate. I don't have all the good ideas; no-one does. It's really important that we do work together, and, certainly, I have worked with you and your predecessor on this issue. I do think that we've shown leadership and I do think—. When I sat down with officials and other stakeholders to come forward with those targets, there was a little bit of eyebrow raising that we were being overly ambitious, but I think the most important thing about targets is that (1) they're reached and (2) they're realistic. You don't want to set targets that you're not going to achieve. But, of course, they're just targets; of course, we can exceed them.

We've now got over 67,000 renewable energy projects across Wales, which, again, I think is really showing how we are encouraging these projects. Again, we're providing funding and we're providing advice, but I'm very happy at any time to sit down with you and work out what we can do.

The Conservatives' spokesperson, Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Minister, you've brought forward the proposals for new regulations to reduce water pollution. Obviously, we all want to see a better environment and a cleaner environment. These new regulations are in effect a cut-and-paste of the nitrate vulnerable zones regulations, and they will be applied across the whole of Wales if they are implemented. What assessment have you made of the economic, environmental, social and cultural impacts through any regulatory impact assessment you might or might not have done to date?

We are currently undertaking a great deal of work in this area. I don't accept that they're just a cut-and-paste. You'll be aware of the detailed work I've done particularly with the farming unions and other stakeholders to come forward with a voluntary approach. I was very keen to have a voluntary approach in the first instance. Unfortunately, last year, we saw about a 200 per cent increase in agricultural pollution incidents, which I think is unacceptable.FootnoteLink I think the majority of farmers agree that it's unacceptable and that we have to do more. So, unfortunately, I had to come forward with plans to bring the new regulations. I'm still very keen to work with stakeholders and with the farming unions—the National Farmers Union, in particular. There are people from the NFU who I am continuing to work with to see what more we can do. But I think the number of major polluting incidents we saw is very damaging for our reputation and I think the majority of people would agree with that.

But what is concerning is that there was no regulatory impact assessment done before you brought these proposals forward, because surely that should be done to assess, as I put to you earlier, the economic, environmental, social and cultural impacts that these proposals could have. And it's deeply alarming that no impact assessment was undertaken, because this potentially could shut down many currently viable rural businesses that create employment opportunities and produce high-quality food. So, that is bitterly disappointing. How can you defend that position, Minister—that the  regulatory impact assessment was not done before you made the announcement?

As I say, a great deal of impact assessment had been done. We had extensive consultations. I was accused of not going out to consultation. It had gone out to consultation before I came into portfolio in 2016. I wanted to work to try and find a voluntary approach. That was absolutely my priority, but I could not just sit back and see the increase in the number of major polluting incidents. Every weekend, I was getting several e-mails, as were other Members, with photographs of these incidents. So, it's very important that we continue to work with stakeholders to try and find an approach forward. I did not want to bring in the regulations as strictly as we had to, but unfortunately, because of the significant increase in the number of incidents, I've had to do that.

Regrettably, this does seem to be regulation by e-mail, to be honest, with a press story, rather than a proper assessment, because, obviously, the Government, to its credit, had been working with the industry and had indicated that they'd reached a satisfactory accommodation with the industry on how a voluntary approach would be best suited to tackle these pollution incidences. I accept the point that we need to take action, and the industry itself accepts that point. But if you take it on a step further and you do actually implement these across country—and they are virtually a cut-and-paste of the NVZ regulations—when other parts of the United Kingdom, such as Northern Ireland, introduced similar measures 10 years ago—there was a comprehensive package of support to allow the industry to make that transition, of 60 per cent support from that particular administration in Northern Ireland—we've also got to make sure that the planning system works in unison and doesn't actually block these improvements. So, accepting that you will bring forward these regulations, how will you be seeking to make sure that the planning system works with the industry and the new regulations, and, importantly, that there is support there to make the transition that other parts of the United Kingdom have put forward to help their agricultural industries?

There's certainly not policy by e-mail. The point I was trying to make is that these pollution incidents are very visible, so to have photographs being sent to you—and I'm sure you have received them; I know the farming unions receive them and I see who is copied into the e-mails, so I know that a great number of people, probably, in the Chamber have seen them—. It is a very visible thing, and it is damaging, and particularly—you know, post Brexit, it's going to be even more damaging. And I think—. It's going to have an effect on the work we've got under way, for instance, on sustainable brand values for Welsh products, so it needs sorting and it needs sorting now.

In relation to support, I said right from the beginning that I would be happy to provide financial support. What I'm not happy to do is for people to bring their slurry pits up to the legal requirement. That should have been done anyway. But I accept that, if we bring these regulations in, we would have to provide some sort of financial support and I will certainly continue to look at what we will bring in. But, as I say, I am very keen to carry on working with stakeholders to see if we can have a voluntary approach alongside the regulatory reform.

UKIP spokesperson, Neil Hamilton.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llywydd. Last July, I raised with the Minister the subject of non-stun slaughter and in particular representations that had been made to her by the British Veterinary Association, to which she said that she'd had a discussion with them a couple of weeks ago and asked officials to look at the information they'd brought forward in detail. It's now nine months since those meetings took place. I wonder if the Minister could bring us up to date, and ask if she's reached any conclusions.

I had a meeting with the Food Standards Agency not too long ago—it may have been before Christmas—to discuss the recent slaughter method report that they'd carried out to identify what the current position was between the industry and providing consumers with information that they would need to make informed choices through voluntary arrangements. At the current time, the position is still the same: there are no red meat slaughterhouses undertaking non-stun slaughter in Wales.

I accept that point that the Minister's just made, but I recently had a disturbing experience of watching some film footage from a supposedly non-stun slaughterhouse in England, where there were horrific images of animals being maltreated—kicked, stabbed, taunted—before finally being slaughtered in a most barbaric way without stunning. Now, that was caught on CCTV, so we were able to find out about it. And, although we're told that there are no non-stun slaughterhouses in Wales, we don't have CCTV in all slaughterhouses and it is possible that such scenes could take place in Wales. Will the Minister now take steps to ensure that CCTV is installed in all slaughterhouses in Wales?

Well, obviously, you referred to a slaughterhouse in England. We've got some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world in Wales. We have very strict regulations. There are a number of controls in all our slaughterhouses; there's a vet present in every slaughterhouse. The majority— certainly all the large slaughterhouses in Wales—have got CCTV. I am looking and I have provided funding to some of the smaller ones that haven't that do wish to do so. I visited a small abattoir in the constituency of the Llywydd last summer to see for myself the standards, and I reiterate that we have some of the highest animal welfare standards in Wales. And I can assure you, with the other checks, you don't need CCTV to know that that's not happening in Wales.

I'm not making accusations against any operators of slaughterhouses in Wales, but I'm just saying that, as a precautionary measure, it would be wise to move towards a situation where we do have CCTV and there is, therefore, incontrovertible evidence if mistreatment of animals does take place, and that's an elementary precaution. The Minister frequently says to me when I'm asking her about global warming issues that she wants Wales to lead the world, even though nobody, really, is following. And although we may take the view that, currently in Wales, we don't have a problem with mistreatment of animals in slaughterhouses, it would be wise for us to compel and provide the means to comply with such a compulsion to slaughterhouses to provide a record of what goes on in those places, so that the public at large, which is very concerned about the animal welfare issues involved in non-stun slaughter, can be reassured that for the foreseeable future—indeed, forever—we will not develop and cannot develop such a problem in Wales.

As I say, there are very few slaughterhouses in Wales that don't have CCTV. I did make funding available. We're certainly looking to see if we should make it mandatory; that's something we are considering at the moment. The industry itself, I think, has really led in this area, and they do publish extensive guidance on good practice, on protecting animal welfare at the time of killing. That information is available online, so should any member of the public wish to see it, it is available online.

Diolch. As the Minister responsible for marine licensing, I am unable to comment on specific projects, as this may prejudice my role. The Welsh national marine plan will set out policy for the sustainable development of our seas, and it has been informed by a sustainability assessment.

Minister, following the disappointing announcement by the UK Government last year not to invest in the Swansea bay tidal lagoon, the firm behind the development have been working to look at different delivery models, as well as making changes to the proposal itself. Adding floating solar panels to the lagoon, for example, is estimated to increase the scheme's energy output from 572 GWh to around 770 GWh. Now, whilst the Welsh Government has previously been publicly supportive and was prepared to invest in the scheme, it has not made any comment recently. Will you outline to the Chamber what action you have been taking over recent months to ensure that this groundbreaking project can be delivered and that the benefits, both environmental and economic, can be delivered locally?

Thank you. You will be aware that the marine energy summit was held last January—I think in Swansea—and the First Minister, in opening that summit, highlighted the Government's support for the development of a sustainable marine energy sector here in Wales, and, certainly, there are emerging technologies that we need to look at. I know that following the summit the First Minister has written twice to the UK Government, to Greg Clark, highlighting the importance of the marine energy sector to the UK, and particularly to Wales, asking the UK to provide a very clear path to market for marine energy. I think the lack of a strategy in relation to tidal lagoons and tidal energy in the UK Government is clearly an obstacle. There will be a report for the Welsh Government coming from the summit, I think by the end of April, and certainly we'll be making that available to the public, and I think it's really important that we do look at these emerging technologies, particularly around marine energy in Wales. We're very supportive of the economic benefits of tidal lagoons, as you said, and the opportunities to grow a vibrant marine industry, and that's why I was very keen to have a national marine plan.

Well, I think we'd all be keen to hear any developments on the front of the Swansea bay tidal lagoon—genuinely interested to hear what Dai Lloyd had to say there. But one of the circles that remains difficult to square, of course, is the cost of the energy that's produced by the lagoon— potential lagoon—which is a material consideration at a time when Tata Steel, for example, is competing in a global environment, where the cost of energy in France and Germany, for example, is a fraction of that that they are having to spend here. Tata is looking to reduce its energy costs, as well as its environmental impact, by increasing the capacity of its own power generation, and cheaper energy for them, of course, means more money available to tackle the pollution they produce from a different angle. Would you be happy to press the point in Cabinet that there are environmental as well as economic reasons for seeing Tata's ambitions for their power plant realised? Thank you.

Yes. I don't think I need to press the point. I think, certainly, colleagues are aware of that, and myself and Ken Skates are, I think, going to do a joint visit to Tata around this very issue within the next couple of months.

I concur with everything Suzy Davies just said. But the question I want to ask is: we all appreciate that the tidal lagoon actually is a beneficial project and the issues it will bring and the benefits it will bring is something we all want to see. But as well as environmental benefits there are environmental challenges and one of them is obviously the impact upon fish. Now, I know that the fishing bodies in my area and the tidal lagoon themselves had two different fishing models that were quite different and quite a distance apart. What progress has been made by Natural Resources Wales on looking at those fishing models? Because, if it comes back to the fore, we don't want it held up as a consequence of this not having been addressed at this point in time.

No. Obviously, that work was ongoing when the Swansea bay tidal lagoon was being considered as a scheme by the UK Government. I'm not aware of what work is currently ongoing, but you're quite right: if another project came forward, we would need to know which model was providing the correct information. So, I would be happy to write to the Member to update him.FootnoteLink

Thank you. My statement on 12 March outlined the Welsh Government’s commitment to the forestry sector. We recently committed £2 million for a further round of the timber business investment scheme. The scheme provides capital funding for improvements that add value to forests for woodland management activities, timber harvesting and processing.  

Thank you, Minister, for that answer. One of the points that I did put to you in that statement that you made recently was this ability not to have windows in the bidding round for Glastir and have just an open period where people could, all year round, apply for support to plant new forestry. Have you given any consideration to this? Because it was an area that didn’t get touched on in response from your good self in that statement, and other parts of the United Kingdom have done this and it has been very effective in developing the forestry sector in those parts. So, could you give an indication today: are you minded to support such a lifting of the window application and just to have year-round applications?

It's certainly something I'm very happy to consider. I thought I had said that in the statement. Certainly, I'm very aware that we need to support the forestry sector in perhaps a more innovative way, and it's certainly something that I'd be happy to do. But we are having a new round of funding for Glastir wood restoration opening on Monday, and there'll be more details around the levels of funding being announced on 1 April. Also, there's going to be a new round of funding for Glastir woodland creation. So, we are committed to those two, but it's certainly something that I'd be very happy to look at.FootnoteLink 

Thank you. I am committed to ensuring there will be no regression in environmental standards as a result of Brexit. I want Wales to not only maintain our current standards, but build upon them. Last week, I launched our consultation on environmental principles and governance post Brexit, which will run until 9 June.

I think we very much welcome the work the Welsh Government is doing to make sure that we do have robust protections in place and in fact we enhance those protections after Brexit. But we note, as we speak today, that there are young people up in the gallery looking down on our proceedings, and, for them, some of the defence in protections for our natural environment will be the ability of the citizen to take on Governments—Welsh Government, UK Government and others. At the moment, we have that ability, as we've seen through organisations such as Client Earth, challenging not only the UK Government, but also Governments in Hungary and Italy and elsewhere, under European legislation. So, can we at this point, Minister, say categorically that there will still be the ability for citizens and citizens' organisations to challenge Governments when they do not live up to their environmental responsibilities?  

We can. I think there's been a little bit of misinformation. Clearly, when we do leave the EU, UK citizens will no longer have access to the citizens' complaint procedure, which enables the EU Commission, as you refer, to act on their behalf, including the ability to refer cases to the European Court of Justice. However, they can obviously take their complaints to bodies such as the public services ombudsman and the National Assembly itself, and they do already receive citizens' complaints. But I think it is really important that we don't have a dilution of our rights that currently flow from our membership of the EU. That's why we published our consultation on the environmental principles and governance post EU exit. What I'm doing is seeking views on what an oversight body should be able to do, and I think it's really important that people feed into that. So, I would encourage Members and their constituents to do that. I think we need to know whether a body should be able to conduct investigations, what information they would require if they did that, assess the validity of complaints, have the ability to act in appropriate cases, and also make recommendations arising from their findings. I think it's really important that we do ensure that there is no gap post EU exit.

Minister, we know that in England there'll be a 25-year environmental plan, and the draft environment Bill includes proposals for an office of environmental protection, to which, presumably, citizens would have the right—and it might be analogous to the Commission taking up the citizen's cause, which of course is why that form of very quick legal access is so effective. You've decided on a consultation, and I just wonder—but you have said you do not, at this stage, favour the UK Government's approach as regards England, and I just wonder if you do need to rethink this question of an enforcement body that is able to take up complaints brought to it by the citizen, not to give them advice as to how they then go to court. The citizen doesn't really have that capacity very easily, and many bodies have told us that this is what is crucial to the robustness of current EU regulations.

Obviously the consultation will feed into the future policy. I think it's also important to recognise that we have a different governance gap to England. So, we've got the Environment (Wales) Act 2016, we've got the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. I've had a few discussions with Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers around this issue, and certainly, if we think we need to have a look at it post consultation, I'll be very happy to do so. It is absolutely right that, as I said in my answer to Huw Irranca-Davies, we don't see that dilution, not just in our standards, but in our rights too.

Thank you. The nature recovery action plan is our national biodiversity strategy for land and sea, and sets out our commitment to biodiversity in Wales. Its six objectives support the UK marine strategy and our aims to achieve and maintain the good environmental status of our waters.

Minister, given that the forthcoming UK marine strategy consultation will show that the UK has not reached its 2020 target of good environmental status for the majority of the 14 descriptors, and none of the biodiversity-related descriptors, what action is Wales going to take to ensure that we are not in this position again in 2030?

Thank you. I remain fully committed to delivering the robust programme of measures that were published back in 2015 as they apply to Wales, to continue to work towards achieving and maintaining good environmental status. Wales is now recognised internationally as being ahead of the game through our legislative and policy approach. That focuses on building and enhancing resilient ecosystems.

We're taking a number of positive actions to achieve this. We support delivery of the UK marine strategy, as I said. We embed delivery for biodiversity and ecosystem resilience across portfolios, including through the national resources policy. We've obviously had our draft first national marine plan, which highlights that, too. We've got the marine protected area network management framework 2018-23, and the delivery of associated annual action plans, again, working with stakeholders to ensure our extensive network of MPAs are effectively managed, and that's really important and continues to contribute to the conservation, improvement and resilience of the marine area. We're also working with stakeholders to complete the network of MPAs in Welsh waters, and, as part of the ongoing assessing Welsh fishing activities project, we're developing management proposals for the fishing activities assessed as having the most potential to affect site features.

Minister, in 2017, the Marine Conservation Society produced a 'Great British Beach Clean' report. This report revealed that over 670 pieces of litter were collected over every 100m stretch of beaches in Wales, an increase of 11 per cent on the previous year. Litter from our beaches and in our seas is increasing. It is also threatening to entangle, suffocate and slowly kill our marine wildlife. Minister, what progress has been made in developing a strategy to prevent and reduce pollution of our marine environment in line with the requirement of United Kingdom marine strategy regulations in Wales?

Well, obviously, we all have a responsibility in relation to littering, not just of our beaches and seas, but our land as well. You'll be aware of the marine litter plan and strategy that we had back in, I think it was 2016, and clearly we are making progress. I think, also, the work that's been undertaken by my colleague Hannah Blythyn around reducing packaging is also very important.

Thank you. The Welsh Government is committed to maintaining and enhancing populations of Welsh species through the nature recovery action plan. We must continue our work to increase the resilience of our countryside in order to support the continued survival of our most threatened species.

Thank you. Well, curlew is listed as globally near threatened on the International Union for Conservation of Nature's red list of threatened species and is a red-listed bird of conservation concern in the UK. Minister, you may be aware that the 'State of Birds in Wales' report 2018 indicated that more than three quarters of the Welsh curlew population has disappeared over the last 25 years and will probably become extinct entirely as a regular breeding species within the Welsh landscape within 20 years without urgent conservation action. However, we learned last week that both collaborating-for-curlew bids for the Welsh Government's enabling natural resources and well-being in Wales grant by RSPB and British Trust for Ornithology were unsuccessful. Well, as the species champion in Wales for the curlew, I work closely with Gylfinir Cymru—the curlew Wales coalition—and I share their concern about the bird's future. What consideration, therefore, will the Welsh Government give to providing emergency support for curlew conservation measures so that we don't lose this species for good?

Thank you. I am aware that you are the species champion for the curlew and of the work that you do. Mark Isherwood may be aware of the Camlad valley project in Powys that was funded through our sustainable management scheme, and that's a farmer-led collaboration that is undertaking the restoration of traditional lowland wet grassland habitat. And that delivers a healthy and resilient diverse ecosystem to help ground-nesting birds, and the curlew is an indicator species for determining the success of that project. We've also got the enabling natural resources and well-being in Wales grants, and two of the applications that we've received are specifically related to conservation activity in relation to the curlew. Unfortunately, neither of them met the minimum threshold for funding at this stage, but I have asked officials to work with the applicants to see if there's anything further we can do to help them, because I do recognise that we need to take some really active work in this area.

Thank you. I recognise invasive non-native species continue to have an environmental, social and economic impact in Wales. I fully support a number of initiatives involving our partners designed to reduce the impact of these species and to control or eradicate them.

Can I thank you for that answer? Swansea has been described as the knotweed capital of Britain. And whilst we have other non-native species, such as Himalayan balsam, it is knotweed that is the big problem. Could the Minister give an update on the use of a natural predator that is being trialled on a number of sites, and also on the use of pesticides that are being developed at Swansea University?

Thank you. I am aware—we've exchanged a great deal of correspondence and also in this Chamber around this issue. The establishment of the psyllid has proved difficult due to overwintering pressures and also predation. We've had seven years of feed trials and there's no discernible evidence to suggest a negative impact on Japanese knotweed. So, the trials have been paused in Wales whilst the Centre for Agriculture and Biosciences International conduct further investigations on establishment.

In terms of pesticide use, researchers have concluded glyphosate is the only current systemic herbicide that is successful at treating knotweed and, again, the researchers state eradication in the short term is not possible, but control can be achieved if you use it for three years of the minimum amounts, as highlighted in their research.

Mike Hedges has mentioned the use of natural predators to remove species such as knotweed. Minister, if I can take a slightly different angle on this, both native and non-native species are, potentially, good environments for wildlife, a point that is made on the Bee Friendly Monmouthshire website. The Monmouthshire natural assets project is a collaboration between the Gwent Wildlife Trust and Monmouthshire County Council, offering advice and some grant money to maintain and enhance local wildlife sites like this and helping with environmental management. That's partially funded by the European agricultural fund for rural development. If and when we do leave the European Union, has your department given any thought to potential avenues that this fund can access to try and continue the fight against unwelcome non-native species and support wildlife across Wales?

Well, yes, the UK Government told us we wouldn't lose a penny if we left the EU, so we're holding them to that. But I think you make an important point: not all non-native species do pose a threat to our health, economy and environment, and I think it is really important that we focus our action on the invasive non-native species because, as you say, there are other areas that we need to promote biodiversity. 

Thank you. The reservoir management protocol between Natural Resources Wales, the Environment Agency and Hafren Dyfrdwy provides a detailed set of rules on management of water levels. There is a Vyrnwy and Clywedog liaison group that meets twice a year to discuss any issues and explain decisions relating to the management of the reservoir. 

Can I thank the Minister for her response? The Minister will, perhaps, recall that I asked the Trefnydd last week for a statement with regard to the management of dams across Wales, because there is concern of flooding downstream of the Clywedog reservoir and Lake Vyrnwy. Both dams have, at some points in recent weeks, been tipping over the top, and NRW states that this is a controlled and processed measure, but that doesn't, of course, allay the concerns of landowners downstream whose land is being significantly affected. I would be grateful if you could outline if you have had discussions with NRW in terms of the management of dams in Wales, particularly of Lake Vyrnwy and the Clywedog reservoir in terms of whether those management processes need to be updated. 

Thank you. I've certainly had discussions with Natural Resources Wales around Clywedog reservoir. I am aware that they've added a reservoir level gauge to the Clywedog reservoir so it makes it much easier for the public, for instance, to be able to monitor what's happening. I know it's available on their website. I know Hafren Dyfrdwy—I've also had discussions with them around dams and reservoirs—are planning to invest £7.1 million in reservoir and dam safety and maintenance across their region over the next—I think it's up to 2025. Clearly, as you say, the release of water from Clywedog reservoir is managed on a tripartite agreement between NRW, the Environment Agency and Hafren Dyfrdwy, and, as part of the management protocol, reservoir discharge releases have to be within a detailed set of rules and they're necessary to ensure there is no detrimental impact downstream. 

I am aware—. I've had correspondence from your constituents, which I know you, too, are aware of, and I did send them a detailed response back towards the end of last year, but I think it is really important that as much information as possible is given from these organisations to the public.

Thank you. Radioactive Waste Management held a series of consultation events on their site evaluation process for a geological disposal facility. There were eight events in England and two in Wales. The events in Wales were conducted by webinar. 

Well, the first of those public consultations was held in public, but, of course, some opposition was expressed to the idea of having a radioactive waste disposal site in Swansea, and then it was changed to be a webinar rather than the public meeting that was scheduled to happen in Llandudno. There are certain people in my constituency who have raised concerns that there is an attempt here by RWM to move towards being less open in their consultation.

Now, I do have concerns about many elements of the consultation by RWM. One of the things that concerns me greatly is that one landowner, or one business, even, can request to express an interest in starting a consultation on providing a geological disposal site for radioactive waste. I think that’s entirely unacceptable, particularly in a context where local authorities, in their entirety, have already said that they don’t wish to look at the possibilities in their own areas, as Anglesey council has done. Would you agree with me that if a council says, 'No facility in our area', that should be the end of it? And do you agree with me that councils in Wales should be expressing that clearly between now and the end of the consultation on 14 April, that we don't welcome geological disposal sites here in Wales? 

I certainly think if a council expresses this, absolutely it should be taken as read by RWM. I want to be very clear that Welsh Government has not identified any sites or communities in Wales where a geological disposal facility could be sited, nor will we seek to do so. Our policy is very clear: a GDF can only be built in Wales if there is a community willing to host it. 

I was horrified when I learned that Swansea, as we heard, was one of the areas that was up for consideration by this company, and like many others I've made my own feelings clear about that within the consultation. You repeated again today that this is very much a matter for local communities to decide, and I'm grateful for the confirmation we heard then, but does Welsh Government plan to make any submission to the consultation itself? And if not, for various reasons, would you just confirm that individual members of Government who just happen to be in Government, but who represent areas around Swansea, would be free in their capacity as Assembly Members to respond to any such consultation? 

I won't be submitting a response. However, I did meet with RWM to make sure that the points raised by Rhun ap Iorwerth were absolutely taken on board. I also felt because they changed the Swansea one to a webinar, that the Llandudno one should be a webinar. As a north Walian, I'm very alive to the view that north Walians want to be treated the same as south Walians, so I made that point to them. I'm not sure if they thought I was being a bit flippant, but I really thought that was very important, that everyone was treated the same.   

Thank you, Minister. 

The next item is questions to the Minister for Housing and Local Government. The first question is to be answered by the Deputy Minister, and the question is from Harry Mary Jones.

We are promoting the importance of diversity through our Diversity in Democracy initiative. An evaluation of the work undertaken to date will be available soon. A further phase of the project will then start later this year, and build on the earlier work in advance of the next local government elections.

I'm grateful to the Deputy Minister for her response. 

Minister, I've been looking at the legal equality statements in local authorities in Wales. I found that several—and I'm not going to do a naming and shaming here, because I think that would be very unfair, but I will write to the Minister with the specific concerns. I have found several that haven't been updated for quite a long time—and, again, I won't mention the number of years because that would enable them to be identified—and five who are consistently in their equality statements using language that doesn't reflect the Equality Act 2010, specifically where they're conflating sex discrimination with gender discrimination. This, of course, is of no advantage to sorting out discrimination between women and men, and it certainly isn't helpful to the trans community either for the language to be confused.

When I've raised these concerns directly with those local authorities, they tell me that they lack resources and that they lack the skills. Now, I'm not saying for a moment, Llywydd, that I accept that that is the case, but if I write to the Deputy Minister with my specific concerns, can I ask her to raise those with those local authorities, because it's absolutely vital that in their legally binding statements, they are complying with the law and using accurate language? And perhaps she can privately put them right on the allegation that there are not sufficient resources for them to comply with the legislation.   

I'm sure that the Minister and I would be more than happy to put them right with respect to the resources and what they need to be doing. So, if you want to write to me with regard to specific authorities and outline what the concerns are, because we know that it's incredibly important if we want our councils and communities to reflect the communities that they serve, that they are getting things right in practice as well as in policy. 

A really good question, and it is essential that accepting and promoting diversity is at the heart of local government in Wales. However, there is a major deterrent to this, and I do believe that our First Minister in his post as local government Cabinet Secretary tried addressing it: the fact that people who work for local authorities cannot stand to become county councillors. So, we have constituents who are teachers, school cooks, swimming instructors—there are many, many roles now within a local authority that preclude them from actually standing for our local authority. And to do so would mean them resigning from their work, you know—. [Interruption.] 

Carry on. Take no notice of others who are trying to make a sedentary comment.

Thank you. Now, in 2017, Mark Drakeford AM consulted on electoral reform in local government, and section 6 asked if any council staff below senior level should be able to stand for election to their own authority, and 61 per cent of respondents agreed that they should. So, given that the previous local government Minister Mark Drakeford actually set the ball rolling on this and, from my conversations with him, he was actually quite in favour, what discussions have been held recently on bringing forward some kind of positive legislation so that people from all walks of life, including local authorities and the various roles they hold, are not prevented from standing for local authorities?

I thank the Member for her question. I think you raise a very valid point about the contribution that people who work or have worked for the local authority have to make to local democracy in local government. The Member will be aware that we will be bringing forward the local government and elections (Wales) Bill later this year, and we hope in that to take action to address the anomaly that people who work in local government, in the roles that you list, aren't able to put themselves forward to serve their communities.

Thank you for the question. An increased supply of rented social housing is essential. We will meet our 20,000 affordable homes target, and the majority of these homes will be social housing for rent. I will go further and support councils to take advantage of the new conditions to build new council housing at scale and pace.

Minister, we both agree that we need much more social housing in Wales, but it isn't just the new homes that are important; it's the public services that surround the communities that we create, and austerity is posing severe problems for local authorities in doing that—so much so that many new facilities like playgrounds are only being built through section 106 agreements. This weekend, we've seen the flaws in such an approach with the news that a housing development in south London has excluded children from a social housing section of a development from the playground provided through construction of an impenetrable hedge. Amidst passing the buck of responsibility, the local authority has said that the much smaller space is fine because it meets the legal requirements of play areas. The developer said that social housing tenants don't pay maintenance so their children shouldn't use the larger playing area. How did we allow our political discourse around social housing to descend to such a pathetic level? Will you investigate whether something similar may be happening in Wales?

I completely share the Member's outrage at such behaviour. I'm confident that no such thing is happening in Wales, but I will redouble our efforts to make sure it doesn't. We recently changed 'Planning Policy Wales' to re-emphasise the need to create places, communities, sustainable communities, for the citizens of Wales, and that of course includes a sustainable set of housing and the facilities that go with it. So, we'll be looking to work with local authorities now that the UK Government's seen fit to come to its senses and take the cap off the housing revenue account. We'll be working with local authorities to investigate how they can use their new powers to their fullest extent to ensure that they build for sustainable communities of the future, in conjunction with our small and medium-sized enterprise builders, our registered social landlords and our place makers in general in our society.

Minister, I applaud you for talking about sustainable communities rather than just sustainable housing and affordable housing. I do agree with the point made by Leanne Wood, and she used a good example that we need to make sure that, yes, we do need new social housing, new affordable housing, but there needs to be sustainability around that. With that in mind, there is great pressure on local authorities in Wales, particularly rural authorities, to give permission to areas often outside of current local development plans, which aren't properly supported by either sustainable transport links or services. So, what are you doing in your ministerial position to make sure that, when applications are looked at by local authorities, they only go ahead if they do meet the criteria of the future generations legislation and provide that real sustainability, that real community spirit, which we need to be generating in villages and towns across Wales?

Yes. My predecessor in the planning portfolio, Lesley Griffiths, reissued 'Planning Policy Wales' towards the end of last year, and that's a complete rewrite of the document—it's not just an updating. That document goes out of its way to emphasise the importance of community building, placemaking, in the planning system and in any local authority's LDP. Local authorities should have an LDP in place that is robust, that sets out their housing need, and they ought to be able to hold fast to that inside their committees, so that if they have speculative development proposals made outside of the LDP, they're able to robustly withstand that. We don't have a full set of LDPs across the piece in Wales. We are encouraging local authorities to get their LDPs either in place where they don't have one, or reviewed and up-to-date where they have one in place but it isn't entirely up-to-date, precisely for the purpose that Nick Ramsay sets out, so that they can robustly defend decisions not to allow speculative development outside of the LDP process.

Questions from the party spokespeople. Conservative spokesperson, Mark Isherwood. 

Diolch, Llywydd. Well, as the Minister responsible for fire and rescue services in Wales, you've inherited the White Paper issued on the 'Reform of Fire and Rescue Authorities in Wales' last November, with the consultation period closing on 5 February. As the North Wales Fire and Rescue Service response states,

'Fire and rescue services are highly regarded. It goes without saying, therefore, that any proposals to change the way in which fire and rescue authorities are structured, funded or operate would be of significant importance, not only to the authorities themselves but also the many organisations, communities, groups and individuals who rely on the services provided by the authorities.'

How, therefore, do you respond to this statement?

'Given that the Welsh Government's case for change is predicated on a belief that the arrangements that have produced excellent results in the past will not be effective in future, there is remarkably little in the White Paper to substantiate that belief. There's nothing, for example, to indicate that current arrangements are beginning to cause standards to deteriorate or performance to wane, or that they're any less able to meet challenges, innovate or change than they were when they were established in 1996.'

We've gone out to consultation, as the Member rightly says. We've had a large number of responses back. We're looking carefully at those responses. It's a general consultation. Once we've been able to analyse the responses thoroughly, then I'll be able to come back to the Member and Members in general to say how we're going to take this forward, but I've met the fire chiefs and their chairs very recently and I've emphasised the fact that it's a full and genuine consultation. I'm very interested to see the analysis of the responses that they've put in, and, in the light of those responses, I'll be able to answer the Member about how we're taking this service forward.

Well, they also said that the proposed objective seeks, somewhat bizarrely, to preserve the current high standards of fire and rescue services by reforming the arrangements that have produced them. The White Paper lacks coherence in that it proposes solutions to problems that it accepts do not exist, and the White Paper speaks of a perception that fire and rescue authorities are unaccountable. Are you, therefore, at least sympathetic to this statement? 

'As for public accountability, we do not accept that fire and rescue authorities are unaccountable. Our meetings are open to the public and are now webcast so they can be watched remotely, spending and other plans are published annually, people have the facilities to make requests under freedom of information legislation, and the service goes out of its way to meet with representative groups and to take an active part in collaborations with other public voluntary and public sector organisations.'

And it goes on to financial information being accessible and so on. I appreciate that you can't prejudge your response to the consultation, but are you at least sympathetic to the concerns that are here being raised?

Everybody finds change difficult. We had a very good discussion, as I said, pre the consultation closure. I encouraged them all to put forward all of the points—some of which you're now making on their behalf. When we've analysed all the responses, I promised them another meeting before we go public with that and a chance to speak to me directly, all of the fire chiefs and their chairs, so that we can discuss together a way forward.

I think it's not a problem to want to review a service that's been in existence for a very long time and see whether there are things that can be improved. There are things that we're discussing with firefighters, you'll be aware, around widening their roles, since they have, indeed, been very successful in lowering the number of fires across Wales and we're very delighted with that. I also pay tribute to the hard work and dedication of all the firefighters of Wales and the work that they do. But it's a timely look at how they're organised and whether that's optimal. And, as I said, it's a genuine consultation and when we know the result we'll be happy to report back.

But, of course, it's not just the North Wales Fire and Rescue Service, because the South Wales Fire and Rescue Service consultation response stated that despite assertions to the contrary in the White Paper—clearly I think this will cause some offence across the nation of Wales—existing members of the fire and rescue authority do remain accountable to their home authorities, however in the manner in which they discharge their role, they're also accountable to the electorate through the annual reports they prepare.  

How, therefore, finally do you respond to the statement by the South Wales Fire and Rescue Service that they strongly support the wish to avoid any adverse changes to front-line operations or resources, and it's their opinion that this is not achievable through some of the solutions proposed? Budget mechanisms that allow final decisions to be taken outside of the authority legal entity could very likely cause potentially significant changes to front-line services, delivery and resources, to the detriment of the communities they serve, and raise interesting legal and liability implications should levels of funding prove insufficient or result in adverse consequences. 

So, clearly, this goes beyond just organisational proposals, but more deeply into financial considerations and potentially legal considerations. Again, how do you respond to the South Wales Fire and Rescue Service concerns, aligned to those with the other authorities across Wales? 

[Inaudible.]—firefighting service. There's a range of opinions that have been expressed back, and as soon as we've analysed all the opinions—I've had a further discussion, I promised the fire services, with them—and we're able to come to some conclusions, I'll be able to report back to the Member, who's done a fine job of reading some of the concerns out for the Senedd today.  

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Leanne Wood. 

Diolch, Llywydd. Minister, according to StatsWales, local authorities have granted planning permission for housing developments that should have resulted in the provision of 13,355 affordable houses, but only 6,746 have actually been built, which is just over 50 per cent of what we should have had. In some local authorities, the figure is even worse: in Wrexham, for example, just 16 per cent of the affordable homes promised within developments have been delivered. In some cases, what appears to have happened is that—[Inaudible.]—planning permission, have negotiated their affordable housing requirements down so that the development can end up being more profitable, and, in doing this, they threaten the local authority with going to the Planning Inspectorate, which, as we all know, is not based in Wales, if they don't get their own way. Given that we've lost almost 7,000 affordable homes that we should have had because of this, do you have confidence that the existing planning system is capable of helping you to achieve your objectives on housing? 

I think the Member raises a very important point, because the local authorities, who have, as we all know, suffered—this is their ninth year of austerity—have lost a number of skills from each individual local authority that enables them to withstand, for example, legal submissions by developers, particularly large developers across Wales, not so much with the small and medium-sized enterprise sector, and they are struggling to negotiate the right levels of social housing and other things, actually, out of their 106 and highways agreements and so on. We're very aware of that. We're in discussion with them about developing a pool of skilled resources to enable authorities to better withstand that kind of negotiation.

We're also, as I said, encouraging those who do not have a robust or very up-to-date local development plan in place to put one in place. I'll be looking at the national framework for Wales to make sure that we have a national framework properly constituted, within which the local authorities can sit more comfortably, which we have not yet done, but which we're developing. And I've recently discussed with the National Infrastructure Commission for Wales extending their remit to housing in order to be able to allow them to assist local authorities with the skills they need to do that. 

So, there are a number of steps that need to be taken. I recognise the danger that the Member outlined. We have had those discussions and I'm going to be continuing them over the next few months. 

Minister, I know you're not responsible for planning, but, obviously, it's crucial in terms of delivering— 

I am. 

You are. Okay, I'll carry on with my questioning, then, if that's the case.

It is arguable that at the moment the planning system is not delivering, and you must be prepared to make major reforms in planning now. Your responsibility is also local authorities. Now, we currently know that large developers can always threaten to appeal decisions to a planning inspectorate and claim their legal costs back, and that's a right, of course, that communities and local objectors don't have. Now, planning departments, as you said, have been cut, and, as a result, they increasingly rely on fees for their services as an income stream, and I think that's a clear conflict of interest. So, what support are you putting in place to stop local authorities being bullied by housing developers into watering down affordable housing, and other planning requirements, and stop the lacklustre section 106 agreements that, as we've seen in London, can actually entrench community divisions?

As I said, I do recognise the problem that the Member outlines, and we are working with authorities to put the skills back in where necessary, and actually to share scarce skills around local authorities in particular areas. You will know that we also encourage authorities to put strategic development plans in place, within which their LDP can sit, which gives them another level of defence against speculative housing developments and in negotiating some of the smaller developments.

But, actually, I want a complete cultural shift in local authorities. With the removal of the cap on the housing revenue account, they can now borrow in order to invest in social housing that they build themselves. So, it would not be looking for a developer to get an affordable development overall, with some social housing in it—they would be looking to compulsorily purchase the land, and build a sustainable community themselves, which neatly takes away the problem. However, they don't have all of the skills to do that either, so we're talking with them about sharing scarce skills, like compulsory purchase skills, for example, land assembly skills, strategic planning skills—all of the skills that go with reconstituting a building programme, or working in partnership with their local small and medium firms, to make sure that they become sustainable, and don't have this terrible problem, as the Member will be aware. A small firm has to invest a lot of money upfront in the planning system and might have a gap for its workforce, struggles to retain the skills and so on.

So, we're looking to do things on a number of fronts. First of all, to encourage the authorities to actually build the houses themselves, in sustainable developments that they put special planning briefs out for; to work in conjunction with local building firms, so that they can smooth over the cashflow, to have the building accounts, and so on, that many colleagues have spoken about over the years; and, thirdly, to put in place a strategic plan, across a number of authorities, that identifies those housing sites, so that the land value uplift from that goes back to the local authority and not into the developer's pocket.

It's not clear to me whether there's a difference between those local authorities that have stock transferred their housing and those that have kept it in-house. But I'll come back to that at another point in time.

One of the achievements of this institution—and credit to the Deputy Llywydd here—has been the Domestic Fire Safety (Wales) Measure 2011, which requires new residential properties to, basically, not be death traps. Now, that was a Measure that large housing developers opposed, because they feared that it would increase the cost. And the former director of Redrow Homes, Steve Morgan, was extremely critical of that, and other regulations on housing, saying that it made developers not want to build in Wales. Of course, Grenfell made it clear who is on the right side of that debate, didn't it? There's no doubt in my mind that we have to be switching from the poor-quality housing of old to new homes with the highest environmental and building standards. So, will you give us an assurance today that you will undertake a whole-Government review of planning legislation and regulations, to ensure that we have a housing sector that is amongst the best in the world, for building and environmental standards, and one where developers meet their obligations to the community, unlike the system we've got now?

Yes, I share her ambition for a system that produces that. I don't think we need a full comprehensive review; we have a large number of reviews ongoing, actually. We have the affordable homes review—I met with the chair only yesterday morning; my time sense is not very good, it might have been this morning—certainly very recently. I had a very good conversation with her around what we're expecting her to come back with with her review. I've met with the decarbonisation working group, which my colleague Lesley has also met with, to talk about some of the problems with retrofitting our current housing stock, which is a real issue for decarbonising—bringing those up to standard; about the continuation of the Welsh housing quality standard into its second phase, to raise the standard of carbon outputs, energy efficiency, utility and so on in the existing housing stock. We're at about 91 per cent of housing that meets the current Welsh housing quality standard at the moment, so we're nearly at the point where we'll be able to say that we've reached the first stage of that.

There are a number of other things. We are looking to raise the bar for what kind of houses we are saying in 'Planning Policy Wales' ought to be permissible to build, around space requirements and around insulation requirements. I personally have a big bee in my bonnet, as you'll know from a previous portfolio, about making sure that builders cable estates to ensure that they can receive high-quality broadband, even if they can't get the thing connected, so that it doesn't have to be retrofitted, and there are a number of other things that councils around Wales want to put in place of that sort that are just standard in the building requirements of any development that comes forward. And on top of that, we have several pieces of work going on around stalled sites and planning problems, where we're looking to smooth the path of small and medium enterprises across Wales, so that they don't have the cash flips that they get when they encounter difficulties in planning and so on. So, there are a number of things we're doing with the Development Bank for Wales, and the stalled sites fund and so on, to afford a cash supply to local builders who want to do the right thing, so that we can encourage the local workforce to build the houses that their own community needs, rather than the big builders coming in and building the kind of one-size-fits-all homes that I personally do not think are what we need for our communities.

UKIP spokesperson, Gareth Bennett.

Diolch, Llywydd. Minister, I raised the issue recently of the large amount of taxpayers' money that's being wasted in the long-running Caerphilly County Borough Council offices saga. The response I got from the First Minister was that it was largely a matter for the council itself, which is often the response we get when we raise local government issues here in the Chamber, although oversight of local government in Wales is clearly part of your remit, Minister, which is why we're all here doing local government Minister's questions today.

Now, since I tasked the First Minister with this issue, it has emerged that the figure wasted on the Caerphilly saga is not £4 million, which is the figure I quoted. Freedom of information requests have revealed that the figure is actually more than £6 million. And yet, the chief executive of the council is still taking home £130,000 a year for doing nothing, which is exactly what he has been doing for the past six years. Minister, do you now have any accurate estimate of when this whole sorry saga will actually be resolved?

I understand from my recent meeting with Caerphilly leader and chief executive that they expect a report of the designated independent person to come in some time during April. So, I can pass on the information that that's what they expect. However, the First Minister is entirely right: employment matters are entirely a matter for the council and we're not in a position to have any input into that.

Well, thank you for giving me a timeline, which is useful. Although I accept the point you just made, could I also point out that this is an issue that touches on the sometimes excessive pay of senior council officials on many councils in Wales—many of which are Labour controlled? Can I bring to your attention the fact that two councillors in Torfaen have resigned from the Labour group because they were highlighting possible cuts that could be made—they said—to the excessive amount that they were alleging Torfaen council was spending on corporate management. Torfaen is spending almost £3 million a year on corporate management, which is almost double what is being spent on the same thing in neighbouring Newport. Minister, is there a case that, with council services under threat from austerity, as you keep telling us, your Welsh Government should now be investigating whether councils in Wales are spending excessive amounts on the top tier of officer pay?

The Workforce Partnership Council has addressed this issue in the round for local authorities and the First Minister gave an undertaking that, once the processes in Caerphilly have finished, we will undertake a review of disciplinary action for the top tiers of local authority officers. I don't think it's at all right to compare two local authorities in the way that you have, because a large number of other issues will have come to bear in how a local authority structures its corporate core: what services it delivers and why something may or may not cost more than at another local authority. 

The truth is that most local authorities are really struggling with austerity. They've had their budgets either flatlined or cut for the last nine years. We know that all local authorities are really struggling to deliver much-valued and welcome local services and most of them are doing a fine job in making very bad decisions in the sense that there are no good decisions when you're cutting services that people rely on.

[Inaudible.]—the economic reality of austerity, which you described in the first part of your answer, but it may be true that excessive pay at the top of an organisation may mean that people at the lower levels are not being paid enough. And we do know, from an investigation carried out in 2017 by BBC Wales, that most councils in Wales are paying some of their staff less than the real living wage. Do you not think, Minister, that it is time that you looked at the top-tier pay of local authorities in Wales to see if we can get these councils to pay less to their fat cats and more to the workers at the bottom of their pay scales?

As the First Minister said in answer to the question—and I agree with him entirely—I agree that there should be a multiplier. It's usually 20 between the lowest paid and the highest paid in any organisation. The workforce partnership council, which the Deputy Minister is going to be chairing later on this year, in its new reconfigured form, will be taking account of the pay and conditions of staff right across the public sector, and no doubt the workforce partnership council will have something to say about the multipliers that should be in effect.

Question 3 [OAQ53669] is withdrawn. Question 4, Jenny Rathbone.

We're very much in favour of looking to see whether we can make security of tenure much more of a reality here in Wales, and we will be working hard with the sector to see whether we can repeal or modify section 21, as it's called, of the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016 in order to give people better security of tenure.

Thank you. Minister, obviously this affects nearly 0.5 million people. Obviously, quite a lot of them are young, single people who don't seem to have a problem moving around at short notice, but the people who are really affected by this lack of any secure tenancy are people with families, which means that if they have a child in school—being evicted for no reason whatsoever; they could be model tenants—means that the child has to move school, in all likelihood. And equally, vulnerable people who require support from within the community to avoid social isolation are in a similar position.

So, if and when we are in a position to actually make the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016 go live, how is the section 173 replacing section 21 actually going to make any real difference to that security that people should be able to feel in privately rented homes? Because whilst it's possible for them to simply argue in the courts that they're being evicted because the landlord doesn't want to repair or otherwise make safe the dwelling that they're renting, that is not sufficient in itself. It opens it to racism and all sorts of other prejudice that could result from this very weak landlord-tenant relationship.

Yes. I don't disagree at all with the proposition that Jenny Rathbone puts forward, and I absolutely agree good-quality housing is a springboard from which children and families could create secure and successful futures. It's a human right to have a secure home that you can rely on and that you can build a future on, and I couldn't agree more. All of the evidence suggests that children who live in insecure rented accommodation are twice as likely to suffer from mental health problems than those in the owner-occupied sector, for example, and children who move frequently, as she said, are obviously much more likely to suffer from those kinds of problems.

We are looking to implement the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016 to improve the clarity and consistency of housing law. As she said, there is a section in there that specifically prohibits the use of a no-fault eviction, where it's a retaliation eviction for something a tenant has tried to enforce. But I agree with her that that's not sufficient, and the Government would very much like to legislate to strengthen that. There are a number of problems with that, not least that that Act is not yet in force. It's not in force for two reasons: one is that there's one more set of regulations that we need to consult on to make sure that the Act can be implemented; and the second rather more prosaic reason is that the Ministry of Justice is updating its computer system, and we are in discussion with them about the timing of that because, without that, we can't implemented it as it is. The complexity for getting the contracts, the tenancy arrangements and all the rest of it are too much without the computer system. So, we're in discussion about whether we should pay to have the system upgraded in advance of the update or whether the update will take place in good time for us to be able to implement the Act. And that's an ongoing discussion that I'm happy to keep Members updated on.

We do need the other regulations to be put in place. We don't want a situation where we would basically be implementing an Act and then immediately amending it so that everybody has to cope with two sets of changes. So, I'd like to be able to put the change to what's now section 21, which would be section 178—173, sorry; the Member's got a better memory for it than I have—in place, so that when it's commenced, it commences with the new provisions in place. So, there are a number of practical and prosaic issues there, but, on the principle, I have no problem at all, and officials are working very hard to see what needs to be done to put that into place.

Mohammad Asghar.

Thank you, Madam Presiding Officer. Minister, the leader of Caerphilly council said recently—

My mistake, sorry; that's my mistake. David Melding was meant to be called on that question. You were too keen, Mohammad, and I was wrong. David Melding.

I am grateful to you, Presiding Officer. In England, they're looking at this as well, and you know that there's a proposal to increase the minimum tenancy period from six months to three years. However, the 1988 reform was designed to bring more properties onto the market, because at that stage there was, one could argue, quite severe over-regulation and the supply of properties to rent was very much affected. So, we need to look at this carefully, but I think the default position shouldn't be at something like six months. I think that's where we've got a problem, and it should be set higher. We need to consult widely with the sector. And, for some people, having a short tenancy is what they want, but that's a bit crowded now and we need more variety in the market, but there will have to be assurances on both sides when we look at longer tenancies, because they bring some risk, obviously, for very reputable landlords, as well.

Yes. I think the Member is absolutely right. I mean, there are a number of complexities here around why the sector is as it is, but there's no doubt at all that sudden eviction for no apparent reason is a real scourge. We know that it happens and we know that many landlords would never dream of doing such a thing, but we do know that it happens, so we need to get the regulation to be proportionate—he's right. We need to get the length of tenancies right. I think Jenny Rathbone particularly mentioned the difference between young, single people who have mobile careers and families and so on. So, we need to get to a situation where we've implemented our own Act that addresses some of those issues, and that we implement it in the light of changes that reflect changing policy and real circumstances across the UK, and that we do so in a way that both doesn't put off landlords from offering their property for rent, but also does allow the security of tenure that allows people to have the stable and secure accommodation that they want. 

In particular, we're looking to have landlords co-operate with us and come on board with schemes that would allow the private rented sector to participate in, effectively, a social rent so that they have a guaranteed rental income from one of the registered social landlords or a local housing authority by which they give over their property for a lengthier period of time for an arrangement that guarantees the level of rent, and so on. So, we are looking at a range of resources here, but I do think that most people would agree that being able to be evicted for no reason at all just at the drop of a hat is something that we need to address.

Certainly. the Welsh Government is committed to protecting local government and the services they provide. Local government in all areas of Wales have received the best possible settlement, with the 1 per cent reduction announced at the 2018-19 final budget turning into a 0.2 per cent increase this year.

Minister, due to Tory austerity, Torfaen council has had no option but to increase council tax this year in order to protect vital services, namely social care and education. I'm very proud that, in Torfaen, we have a Labour council that is prepared to take those decisions to protect our local services. The leader of UKIP knows nothing about the financial pressures facing the local authority in Torfaen, and I'm sure that you would agree with me, Minister, that all the low-hanging fruit is now gone in local authorities and they are facing a genuine struggle to survive.

Last week, the leader of Torfaen told the Children, Young People and Education Committee that he had protected education as he believes that it is a key preventative service. I very much agree with that view. Do you agree with that view, Minister? And, given the very hard-hitting evidence that the committee has received about the funding pressures in schools, what steps will you take to ensure that education is prioritised in the next budget round?

Yes. I absolutely welcome the prioritisation that Torfaen and, indeed, many other authorities are giving to education and social services in what is indeed a very difficult settlement for most local authorities. We recognise the challenges for authorities and the difficult choices they're making, as I said earlier, on the savings and changing services, and the decisions they're having to make on council tax in order to balance the budget. As I said, in between the indicative settlement and the actual settlement, we managed to increase the funding for local government to reflect some of the specific priorities that they have stressed to us around education and social services. We certainly do welcome that priority. But there is no doubt that austerity is biting deep into local services, and very difficult choices have to be made across all councils.

Minister, the leader of Caerphilly council said recently that the authority was at the end of its tether after receiving a real-terms cut in its funding. As a result, residents of Caerphilly have seen their council tax bill increase by nearly 7 per cent, combined with a £14 million cut in council services. These cuts to services include Pontllanfraith leisure centre, which could close by the end of June this year, in spite of fierce opposition from the local community. That is the area where Neil Kinnock's [Inaudible.] are still there. Does the Minister accept that her poor local government settlement will have a serious and detrimental effect on the Welsh Government's strategies for the health, education and well-being of people living in Caerphilly, please?

Local authorities will receive £4.2 billion of general funding to spend on services in 2019-20, and core funding will increase by 0.2 per cent on a like-for-like basis compared to 2018-19. In line with our programme for government commitment to provide funding for a settlement floor, the settlement includes £3.5 million fully funded by the Welsh Government to ensure that no authority has to manage with a reduction of more than 0.3 per cent in its aggregate external finance next year.

We have done the very best we can to put an umbrella over our local authorities and their services from the incredibly cruel austerity programme implemented by the Conservative Government that Mohammad Asghar supports and presumably voted for. The idea that you can separate out a decision to continue with an austerity programme for nine years from the destruction of local services in your local authority is quite extraordinary, and you really need to look to see what the unintended consequences of your own policies are on the services that you're talking about before you look anywhere else, because there is absolutely no doubt that, as Lynne Neagle just said, there is no low-hanging fruit here. We are cutting into the bone of services that local people, as he has rightly said, really, really value, and they don't want those services closed. The only way of stopping that happening is to reverse the very cruel austerity programme that your Government has been implementing.

We continue to give careful consideration, including seeking further legal clarification on aspects of the case, to how the environmental impact assessment within the planning system applies to the plant built by Biomass UK No. 2 Ltd. We will issue a decision as soon as possible.

Regrettably, Minister, that will give me a clear indication—and those watching from Barry—that I will not get much insight into the situation the Government finds itself in at the moment, other than that it is still seeking legal advice, some 13 months after you yourself, in this Chamber, gave a commitment that you were minded to request an environmental impact assessment. Given that you will not go much further on offering a date for when you might be in a position to give that opinion, can you give us an understanding, then, of the legal advice that you are commissioning that is supporting your decision making? Is it outside legal expert advice that you are commissioning, or is it the internal legal expertise that you have within Welsh Government? Because, I am dumbfounded, like many people in Barry, as to why this process is still, 13 months on, unresolved.

I thank the Member for his question on this issue. As he is aware, the case raises complex issues about how the EIA applies to applications to amend planning conditions, which are taking some time to work through. Details of any Welsh Government instruction for legal advice, including whether legal advice is sought or given in relation to any matter, is protected by legal professional privilege.

The Barry incinerator is a travesty. It's just not a good idea at all. Barry is a lovely place to live. It's got a beautiful coastline. People want to live there, and people from all over the world go to Barry because it's such a great place. So, why on earth would you want to stick a huge incinerator on the waterfront, bring in rubbish from all over and burn it on the Barry coastline? Do you agree with me that this ridiculous scheme should be scrapped?

Llywydd, given the ongoing legal process, it's not appropriate for me to comment or add a further comment to the answers already given today.

With pleasure. Through Digital Communities Wales and the many other actions in our digital inclusion framework and delivery plan, we are supporting more people to gain maximum benefit from the life-changing opportunities digital technologies can offer.

Thank you, Minister, for that answer. I'm sure you will agree with me that access to digital connectivity is a great way of ensuring that people across the country can access various social media platforms, including a range of online apps. Would the Minister agree with me that the roll-out is also important in ensuring that people can access online mental health services? We know the importance of developments in online services for those who aren't able to speak out face to face or over the phone, for example. There's been some great work in this area done by students from Coleg Cambria as part of their Welsh baccalaureate. They created an app for the charity Mind—the great charity called Mind—that will benefit individuals with mental health issues, such as myself. Do you agree with that?

I certainly do. Digital inclusion can have a significant impact on people's health outcomes by helping them take control of their health and care, or helping to reduce feelings of loneliness and isolation. It can give them a medium through which they can communicate with others in the most comfortable way and access online services and resources to support their mental health in what can be a very beneficial and helpful way. I didn't know about the app. I'm very pleased to hear about it, and I'm sure that it will have a very good effect for those people who are using it.

We must also, as he said, be mindful of the risks and dangers and the responsibility that we all bear to ensure that people are not exposed to online experiences that can have severely detrimental effects on mental health. Through Digital Communities Wales we are providing a vital co-ordination role in communities, to help people with their motivation, access and skills, to be able to improve their lives through digital technology. The programme works with mental health charities to improve the digital skills of people experiencing mental health issues and to give them the resilience and techniques to withstand some of the experiences that we know can happen, while also accessing the online services that we know can be very helpful.

We want to ensure that our citizens have the basic digital skills needed to be able to make those informed choices, and that's why the training includes tips on how to stay safe, as I say. I'm very pleased that we've just announced the awarding of the contract for health services and for digital inclusion across Wales. That programme will be able to assist people who find themselves both in hospital and in other care settings to access digital services online, and to give them the skills they need to develop that.   

As we move to a digital society—a fully digital society—I am concerned about those areas of Wales where, of course, we don't have comparable digital infrastructure in place for people to use, of course. But, on top of that, there is the issue of digital literacy, which is particularly high in areas where there are relatively higher populations of those who are older in age. So, it has been almost three years, I think, now since the Welsh Government published its digital inclusion plan. I wonder if you could outline what you're doing to support people to embrace new technology.

Yes. As I said, we've got a new £6 million, three-year digital inclusion and health programme, which will work to improve the digital capabilities of citizens and health and social care staff, allowing more people to become more active participants in their own health and well-being, which will start in July of this year. We've also put £250,000 into the translation of Learn My Way, which is an online basic digital skills platform, to make the content bilingual, so it can be promoted widely across all of the communities of Wales, to assist people who are first-language Welsh or Welsh by choice to be able to access digital skills in that way.

Since April 2015, Digital Communities Wales supported an estimated 140,000 individuals to engage with their technology, and we've also trained 2,600 young digital heroes, where young people from schools, colleges and youth organisations volunteer to support older people to engage with digital technology. If the Member hasn't seen one of those programmes in action, I'm sure we could find one in his constituency to have a look at, because I can't even talk about it without smiling. It really was a great programme—to watch a youngster helping somebody older to access the technology and bring it to life for them, really, in a really good way.

He will know that I no longer have the responsibility for the broadband programme, so I can no longer exchange pleasantries with him across the Chamber about the widgety things. But my colleague Lee Waters recently made a statement on the mobile action plan and is, I know, continuing my programme of meeting with communities across Wales to ensure that we get them the broadband connectivity that they need to participate as soon as possible.

Finally, question 8—Darren Millar.

I must apologise.

I've caught him out.

You did indeed catch me out.

Therefore, question 9—Llyr Gruffydd.

With thanks to the Llywydd and to Darren Millar for the opportunity to ask the question.

Yes, thank you for the question. This Government is committed to ensuring everyone has a decent place to call home. We are investing in tackling homelessness, including through the development of Housing First in Wales, and are committed to increasing and protecting our social housing stock.

Thank you for that response. Of course, in light of the Housing (Wales) Act 2014, there is a duty on local authorities for everyone who finds themselves homeless—that they are given temporary accommodation whilst the council finds them a home. That is something to be welcomed. But, as a result, the cost of providing temporary accommodation in Denbighshire, for example, has increased from £151,000 four years ago to £558,000 this year. In Wrexham, it’s up from £330,000 to over £600,000. In Gwynedd, it’s gone from £354,000 to over £700,000. So, may I ask what steps you are taking to ensure that local authorities are funded sufficiently in order to ensure that everyone who needs temporary accommodation gets what they need?

Yes, it's an interesting consequence of the Act, which has been very successful in preventing homelessness, that we are seeing some of the rises that the Member outlines, and we are working hard with local authorities to ensure that people don't stay in expensive temporary accommodation for any length of time at all and to move them on into secure, long-term accommodation as fast as possible, which also has the added benefit of being cheaper for them and for the council or registered social landlord who's providing it. So, we're working on a programme of that, very much.

I already spoke, in an earlier answer to Leanne Wood, about the housing supply and our ambitious plan to get the housing supply to be sufficient. In the end, that's the only answer, because, in the end, unless we can increase the housing supply to match the social need—and, actually, I would say social demand—for houses for social rent we will always have the problem of people continuing to look for accommodation in what is after all a system of rationing, the allocations process. So, my ambition would be to get to a point where you aren't in a system of rationing, and, if you want to live in social rented housing, you can rock up to your local housing authority and say, 'I would like a house for social rent, please'. Certainly, when I grew up, that was the case.

So, we need to increase our housing supply dramatically. We need to build at pace and at scale, and in the meantime we need to work with our housing and RSL people right across Wales to ensure that they have the best route back into secure accommodation that they can manage, both to manage the costs and, actually, to manage the experience of the individuals who have found themselves, unfortunately, homeless.

Thank you, Minister. 

The next item is the Stage 4 debate on the Renting Homes (Fees etc.) (Wales) Bill and I call on the Minister for Housing and Local Government to move the motion—Julie James.

Diolch, Llywydd. I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the Assembly that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Renting Homes (Fees etc.) (Wales) Bill, has given her consent to this Bill.

Llywydd, I move the motion.

I am pleased to open this debate on the Renting Homes (Fees, etc.) (Wales) Bill following the completion of Stage 3 last week. As Members will know, the Bill was introduced by the Minister for Finance and Trefnydd in her former role as Minister for Housing and Regeneration, and I would like to pay tribute to her leadership, commitment and openness to ideas in seeking to improve the experiences of tenants across Wales by steering the Bill through Stages 1 and 2 of the Assembly's scrutiny. The Bill has key aims of making renting reasonable, affordable and transparent. It does this by restricting in particular the significant upfront costs tenants can face when moving into or between homes.

Many of our constituents, and too often those on low incomes, have been at the sharp end of letting fees. The Bill rebalances the relationship between tenant, agent and landlord, removing any doubt about what costs need to be budgeted for when renting. The reforms brought about by the Bill will help improve the reputation of the sector, which has become increasingly important in recent years.

The Bill's development was informed by the almost 700 responses we received to our consultation with stakeholders, which gave us a robust evidence base for bringing forward the legislation, and I am grateful to all those who contributed. As always, the scrutiny process has helped sharpen our initial proposals, and I would like to pay tribute to the work of the members and officials of the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee in leading this work. I also wish to acknowledge the efforts of stakeholder groups representing the interests of tenants, agents and landlords to this process, who either gave evidence in writing or in person.

As with most Bills, both the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee and Finance Committee have examined its provisions thoroughly as they apply to their interests. I am grateful for their work in this area.

Last week, Members provided thoughtful and considered responses to the Stage 3 Plenary debate on the Bill. There has been and remains a cross-party consensus on the need to legislate, and I am grateful that last week's discussion reinforced that view. The reports prepared by the committees have been valuable in helping us identify aspects of the Bill that were improved by amendments made at Stages 2 and 3. There has been a particular interest in the arrangements we have made to enforce the Bill, which have been strengthened further since the Bill was introduced by increasing the level of fixed penalties and also the extension of enforcement powers to the landlord and agent licensing authority, currently Rent Smart Wales.

The Bill also now restricts the issuing of no-fault eviction notices, and ensures that utilities payments are permitted payments. I'm grateful to David Melding and Leanne Wood for the collegiate way in which they have worked with us on these matters. We have listened to arguments about the treatment of payments required when a contract holder defaults against the terms of their contract. As a result, the Bill now includes a regulation-making power that will restrict the use of default payments by setting a prescribed limit on them.

I know there is considerable interest in commencing the Bill as soon as possible so that tenants can begin to benefit from no longer having to pay letting fees. Leanne Wood argued most passionately on behalf of students who wish to see fees banned in time for the start of the new academic year this autumn. That is my wish as well. Subject to the passage of the Bill through this final stage and subject to Royal Assent being granted, I intend for the Act to be commenced by the autumn. At that point, we will have in place an Act making renting more attractive, an Act that will reduce the up-front costs of renting to a minimum, and an Act that has robust restrictions and enforcement arrangements in place to further address the behaviour of rogue agents and landlords. 

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd.

I'm very pleased to speak at the final stage of this important piece of legislation today. As I said at the outset, at Stage 1, this Bill is just one step in the effort to build a housing market that is fit for the future. It is indeed unfair that tenants across the country should be stung by unexpected and unreasonable costs, and that is why I'm happy that we will be banning those fees, alongside other measures to make renting fairer and more transparent.

For us in the Welsh Conservatives, the most important aspect of this Bill was the need to balance and protect the rights of both landlords and tenants. That's been very much behind my approach in drafting amendments at Stages 2 and 3, and I'm very glad that some of my amendments have passed in one way or another. This includes, firstly, an amendment that gives Rent Smart Wales the ability to issue fixed-penalty notices—this amendment that I brought forward at Stage 2, but  which then the Government amended and brought forward themselves at Stage 3—and, second, my amendment that prevents the landlord from issuing a possession notice to the tenant when a prohibited payment has been issued and has subsequently not been repaid. This was passed at Stage 3 last week, following close co-operation with the Minister and her team, and I thank the Minister for working with me in that manner. There were other amendments, Llywydd, that I thought would have strengthened the Bill that have not been adopted, but I am happy to settle for the three quarters of a loaf in this instance.

For all those landlords and tenants who are co-operating in a harmonious way, I say to them today that they have nothing to fear from this legislation. This will help them in the long run, because, alongside other pieces of legislation that have strengthened this area that have been passed in this Assembly, we will weed out those who are undertaking unscrupulous practices and we will strengthen thereby the market, and especially make it more conducive for responsible landlords and agents. And I think it's a crucial part of what we're doing.

Over the last decade, the private rented sector has grown both in absolute numbers and in proportionality, mostly at the expense of owner occupation. If the trend continues, the private rented sector will become the second most prevalent accommodation type after home ownership. It is anticipated to reach 20 per cent of total housing stock by 2020, just next year. It is a market that is here to stay.

It is important that we got this legislation right because the sector is becoming increasingly important in meeting housing need, and we have been in the fortuitous position, in respect of trial and error and learning from others, that both the Scottish Government and the UK Government have taken this legislation forward before us, and this is something that I've tried to reflect in my approach and in my scrutiny. In fairness, also I think the Government has been quite aware of that as well. 

In conclusion, Llywydd, I'm content that this Bill strengthens the rights of all those involved in the sector and helps rebuild the trust between landlord and tenant. I urge all Members to support this legislation at its final stage today.

Leanne Wood.

No, thanks.

The Minister to respond. 

Do you wish to—?

In accordance with Standing Order 26.50C, a recorded vote must be taken on Stage 4 motions. So, I defer voting on this motion until voting time.

The next item is item 4, the Partnership Arrangements and Population Assessments (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Wales) Regulations 2019, and I call on the Deputy Minister for Health and Social Services to move the motion—Julie Morgan.

Diolch, Llywydd. The regulations before you relate to Part 9 of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 concerning regional partnership boards. They were subject to an eight-week consultation, which closed on 26 October, to which there were 44 responses. This was supplemented by wider stakeholder engagement. Subject to approval, these regulations will come into force on 1 April.

These regulations amend the Partnership Arrangements (Wales) Regulations 2015, the partnership regulations, and the Care and Support (Partnership Arrangements for Population Assessments) (Wales) Regulations 2015, the population assessments regulations. These amendment regulations amend both of these regulations in accordance with the name and boundary changes made to Cwm Taf University Health Board and Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board by the Local Health Boards (Area Change) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Wales) Order 2019.

The amendment regulations clarify in the partnership regulations that regional partnership boards must establish a single regional pooled fund in relation to care home places for older people. They also require each partner to provide sufficient contributions to the fund to meet their anticipated costs for care home places for older people. Other requirements in relation to pooled funds in the partnership regulations remain unchanged. 

Reflecting the consultation outcomes, the amendment regulations add requirements for housing and education representatives on regional partnership boards in order to strengthen partnership working in the regions. The regulations also clarify that regional partnership board annual reports must be produced by 30 June each year, rather than 1 April. These regulations clarify expectations around and strengthen integration of health and social care, and I ask Members to support them. 

I have no speakers. I assume the Deputy Minister doesn't want to respond to herself. [Laughter.] So the question is—

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? No. The motion is therefore agreed. Thank you.

The next item is the topical question, to be answered by the Trefnydd. Andrew R.T. Davies.

I'm responding to the question this afternoon in place of the First Minister, who is in London for meetings relating to Brexit. 

We note today's judgment from the High Court, which provides clarity on what has been a complex process. We will now consider the next steps in relation to the investigation in the light of today's judgment. 

Thank you for that concise answer, Minister, and I fully understand why you're responding to this question as opposed to the First Minister. 

I would also like to put my apologies to Carl Sargeant and Jack Sargeant's family because obviously this Chamber did not get the answers that they required and the family felt that they had to go to court to get this judgment today. This is a damning judgment, to say the least. It says an unlawful act was undertaken—that's the judgment. It highlights three areas in particular. It says the Permanent Secretary did not have a free hand when setting up this inquiry, despite statement after statement, and I refer just to one on 18 September, where the then First Minister said

'I've not interfered with the protocol at all.'

That's on the record, that is, and there are many other statements like that. 

The second conclusion of the judgment today says the Permanent Secretary did not carry out the preparations for the inquiry separately from the First Minister's office, despite the former First Minister clearly saying that it was an arm's-length inquiry that was undertaken by the Permanent Secretary and neither his office nor himself had any input into it at all. 

And the third and final point is that the then First Minister still had control over the process; indeed, he effectively had the last say and control on the final form of the operational protocol. That is a damning judgment by any measure. I want to know exactly how the Welsh Government is going to take forward its response. I appreciate it's only a few hours old, this judgment, but we need a clear understanding of how we're going to get your response to this judgment. We need to understand what engagement you're going to have with the Sargeant family in particular, to make sure that there can be a resolution of these items so that the inquiry can proceed, and that it doesn't have to proceed through the courts, and the Government get dragged through the courts again. And thirdly, I want to see what action is going to be taken to make sure that there is clear separation between the Government and the independence of the civil service, because importantly here, the Permanent Secretary is the guardian of that independence, and this judgment clearly indicates that there has been a compromise of that independence. And I believe you can give us some assurance today on how you're going to respond to us, but we need that timeline so that this isn't just left on the shelf. As I said, this is a damning judgment, and the family deserve far better from us an institution and you as a Government.   

Thank you very much for raising these issues this afternoon, and giving us the opportunity to discuss in the first instance the judgment that has been made. We thank the court for providing us with the clarity that we have now on what's been a very complex process. Clearly, we will be discussing and considering the next steps in light of today's judgment, but I do want to say at the very start that it has been, clearly, a very distressing time for everybody involved and, of course, no-one more so than the family of Carl Sargeant. 

In terms of the next steps, we'll be considering the report, and I have put a copy in the library along with the summary for Members to be able to see for themselves. The main issues do relate to the process around some of the aspects of the operational protocol, in particular, rather than the decisions themselves. So, the chair, Paul Bowen QC, does remain in place, and the next steps will be informed, obviously, by engagement with all interested parties, including the Sargeant family.  

The Trefnydd has said that the Government thanks the court for the clarity that it's now offering, but that statement—to me, at least—seems a little unclear, so can she say unequivocally whether the Government accepts the findings of the court in full, and therefore is waiving any right to appeal that it has? And if you could also clarify, because in the decision it refers to submissions now being sought from counsel in the case as to the next steps, as to the precise nature of the relief being ordered. Who is going to be instructing the counsel in that case? Is it the former First Minister or is it the current First Minister?

Now, Lord Justice Haddon-Cave and Mr Justice Swift made clear, as we've just heard from Andrew R.T. Davies, in their ruling the former First Minister breached his promise of independence in a number of regards: in giving the Permanent Secretary a prior remit, unpublished, in private, on 9 November, and that the operating protocol that the Trefnydd referred to was shaped and finalised by the former First Minister in consultation with his counsel. Can the Trefnydd say if any members of the current Government were aware that a prior remit had been given to the Permanent Secretary, and that the former First Minister continued to influence the operating protocol of the inquiry, which the court has concluded was in direct contradiction of the press statement made by the Government on 10 November? If the answer to this question is that others were aware, can she say when they became aware and under what circumstances?

Now, in relation to the four aspects of the operational protocol that the former First Minister insisted upon against the wishes of the Sargeant family, unlawfully given the professed independence of the inquiry, does the Government intend to accede to any or all of the Sargeant family's requests for changes in the way the inquiry is conducted, or, conversely, does the Government intend to plough on regardless in the way the former First Minister directed? Does the Trefnydd accept that a finding by the High Court that the Welsh Government acted unlawfully in a matter that, understandably, given the tragic nature of these events, has generated huge public interest is a very serious blow indeed to the reputation of the Government for honesty and integrity? If so, will she commit to embracing a new commitment to transparency in this case? In particular, is she willing and able to tell us how much financial support has been provided to the former First Minister and former special advisers in the various legal actions that have been brought in relation to this case? 

And finally, can we please ask for the leak inquiry, referred to in the judgment, the publication of which was opposed by the defendants in this action, finally to be made public?

Well, Presiding Officer, there are many aspects of the questions that the leader of Plaid Cymru has raised with me this afternoon that I'm simply not in a position to answer because this is the first involvement that I've had with this particular issue, given the fact that I now have the Trefnydd role—I had no involvement in it previously. So, many of the aspects that you have described, I'm just simply not in a position to answer today. Obviously, Welsh Government will want to keep Members up to date on developments in the most appropriate way, and we will update Members as and when appropriate in terms of the next steps.

Clearly, we've only had the judgment today, so we'll need to take some time in terms of digesting that judgment and determining the way forward on that, but we will obviously do so in an open and transparent way.

In terms of costs, the court has awarded standard costs against the Welsh Government in relation to this particular legal proceeding, and we're not in a position to give a figure on what those might be at this very early stage, given that the judgment was handed down this morning. But you do have my commitment to ensure that Assembly Members are updated as and when appropriate, giving them as much information as we possibly can, but we have only had the judgment today.

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I should probably place on record that I was clearly a member of the Government when these matters were discussed by members of the Government. Can I say that I'm grateful to Andrew R.T. Davies for bringing this matter to the attention of the National Assembly this afternoon? This is clearly something that we do need to address and to address very, very urgently. I discussed the potential of an independent inquiry with the then First Minister the day after we lost Carl, and certainly we felt at the time that this was something that would be resolved very quickly. It's taken far, far too long to reach a resolution on this matter, and it is something where I now believe that we need to ensure that the family have the knowledge that they seek and that they are given the closure that they require. We all have a responsibility, in whatever part of this Chamber we sit and whatever role we've played both in Government and as Members of this place, to bring the truth of what happened into the open.

I do agree with Adam Price that it probably is now time that the leak inquiry was published, and published in full, to enable people to understand the background, and also I believe, potentially, given the history of this, that we may wish to learn a lesson from the House of Commons today and that this place may need to take control of this process if the Government is unable to do so.

Will the Government consider bringing a motion to this place with the terms of the inquiry, with the form of operation of the inquiry, so that all of us may be satisfied and satisfied in public that this inquiry is the open and transparent process that the family were promised, that this inquiry will operate in a way that searches for the truth and doesn't operate with either favour or fear for anyone and ensures that we are able, collectively, to ensure that the truth is brought out, that people understand what happened to our friend and understand why that happened.

I think, given the judgment today, it is time now for the Government either to take responsibility for resolving this and doing so very, very urgently or it is time for this place to do that for the Government. 

In the first instance, I think the important thing will be to study the judgment that we have before us today, and, as I say, we've made it available for Members in the library in order to ensure that all Members are able to study it too. But certainly the next steps will involve discussion with the family in the first instance in terms of determining the best way forward. We'll clearly do so in a way that updates Members as fully as possible. We are in a position to say very little more today, Presiding Officer, as we have only received the judgment today, so we'll need to study it and determine what the next steps might involve.

I thank the Trefnydd.

The next item is the 90-second statements, and the first statement is from Dawn Bowden.

Diolch, Llywydd. Last week, my colleague Vikki Howells made a statement to mark the thirty-fifth anniversary of the start of the 1984 miners' strike. But there is one aspect of that long, bitter industrial dispute that I believe deserves our further attention. I refer, of course, to the way in which the dispute politicised and radicalised women through the Women Against Pit Closures movement. That movement empowered so many women to act and to take on public roles in what had traditionally been male-dominated activities. It took them out of the kitchen and into the front line of politics.

During the strike, previously non-political women emerged as leaders, speakers, fundraisers, organisers and key supporters of that dispute. For most, life would never be the same, and many became political figures in their own right, like Sian James, who went on to become the MP for Swansea East. In her book, 'Is it Still Raining in Aberfan?', the journalist Melanie Doel records the thoughts of one of those women, Maureen Hughes. She conveyed what a striking miner at Merthyr Vale colliery had said to her. He said,

'You were the woman on the picket line—you’ll never know how much that boosted morale just seeing you there supporting us'.

So, as we remember the thirty-fifth anniversary of the start of the miners' strike, let's also remember the Women Against Pit Closures. They were, and are, remarkable women and we should never forget their contribution to the working-class history of our country. 

Thank you. Nick Ramsay.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Cyclone Idai was the worst storm ever to strike the southern region of Africa, affecting Malawi, Mozambique and Zimbabwe, leaving behind a trail of destruction and broken lives. The storm has created an inland ocean in Mozambique the size of Luxembourg. It has killed 700 people and affected around 3 million more. That's almost the same as the population of Wales. Houses, roads and bridges have been ripped apart and agricultural land is completely submerged.

Humanitarian charities have heard accounts of children dying as they fell from trees they had climbed to escape the flooding. Others fell because of hunger as they had been cut off for three days. There have been many reports of bodies floating in the floodwater. In Zimbabwe alone, over 300 people have lost their lives with at least 16,000 households displaced. Government Ministers say that the number of missing people will be much higher than earlier feared. 

My constituents David and Martha Holman, from the charity Love Zimbabwe, will be travelling to the country on 8 April to provide much needed support. They've already collected many essential items to take with them and distribute to those in affected areas and are appealing for more.

The Disasters Emergency Committee has also launched an appeal to support aid efforts. Charities are working to support the relief effort delivering emergency shelter kits; food, such as pulses and maize; water purification tablets; and urgent health assistance. I'm sure this Assembly will wish to pledge its support to the people of this troubled part of the world at this time. Anyone wishing to give their support can do so by visiting the website at www.dec.org.uk

Leanne Wood.

Last week, the Rhondda artist, Elwyn Thomas, sadly passed away. Elwyn, who was born in Tylorstown, was a well-loved artist in the Rhondda, known for his acrylic paintings, which depicted in main street vistas familiar to anyone who has lived or spent time in the Rhondda Fach. Many of his paintings were simply named after the streets and communities he depicted, but the occasional painting strayed from his format and gave you a bit more of a hint about the subject matter. 'Back lane chat', 'Rhondda courting couple', 'Rhondda gossips' are such examples. 

It's said that he only seriously took up painting in 1987, following his retirement as a teacher. He'd been head of art at Ferndale Grammar School, where he'd passed on his love and passion for art to the hundreds of pupils that passed through the school during his tenure. The outpouring of warm tributes to him from former pupils since his death is a testament to the mark he left in education in this part of the Rhondda.

I understand that there are plans at the Giles Gallery in Pontyclun, which is an exclusive outlet for original work by Thomas, to exhibit some previously unseen work, along with some of his more famous pieces, as part of a tribute. So, I would urge anyone with an interest in art to go along and check these paintings out in real life to fully appreciate the skill that Thomas had, as well as his unique eye for capturing and reflecting Rhondda life back at us. 

It has been said that Thomas simply painted what he saw through his window, but he did it with such warmth and with such skill. Elwyn Thomas has left us with a marvellous chronicle of Rhondda life, and I for one am very grateful to him for that.

Thank you.

Item 7 on our agenda this afternoon is a Member debate under Standing Order 11.21, and I call on Andrew R.T. Davies to move the motion.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. And I formally move the motion this afternoon.

I'm sure I speak for many of my fellow contributors in today's debate that it is with some mixed feeling that we bring this motion forward, particularly in the aftermath of Wales's outstanding Grand Slam victory just some 10 days ago. I think the celebrations have just about died down across the nation, following a fantastic win against Ireland, a result that was capped off by an excellent tournament for Warren Gatland, his support staff, and of course the boys in red.

As Members will be aware, along with farming, rugby is one of my great passions—a love of the game that is shared by thousands upon thousands across Wales. And it is really with those supporters in mind—the real lifeblood and backbone of the sport in Wales—that we today debate the future of the professional structure, and the ramifications this will, of course, have for the grass-roots game, from the fields of Cowbridge Rugby Football Club to the RGC in north Wales, and indeed our very own rugby team here in the National Assembly for Wales, which I am always at pains to keep promoting and which goes from strength to strength.

Before exploring some of the detail, first and foremost it would be right to acknowledge the statement and clarification two weeks ago from the professional rugby board that there will be no merger of the Welsh rugby regions next season. Quite rightly, there has also been an apology from the Welsh Rugby Union to the team and the supporters for the disruption Project Reset caused during the six nations, which at one point risked distracting the team from doing the job in hand, and could have put the Grand Slam in jeopardy. Thankfully, their professionalism and the quality of both the rugby players and individuals shone through while the changes to the regional structures were imminent. One suspects that this has been put on the back burner, rather than just dismissed entirely.

Of course, the governance of the game in Wales is completely in the hands of the Welsh Rugby Union and its regional partners, and that is quite right and proper. But fans have been left punch drunk by the recent developments—the second time in just two decades that the professional game in Wales could have been subject to dramatic overhaul. From the grass roots, right up to international level, there has been widespread and grave concern over the proposals that were put forward by Project Reset. The fallout has been explosive. We've had resignations from regional club boards, and whilst the ceasefire might be in place for 2019-20, fans are braced for what comes next. The professional rugby board in Wales, which oversees the professional regional structure remains, and I quote,

'united in its pursuit of what is best',

and has reaffirmed that it,

'will not be deterred from the pursuit of a solution to ensure the long-term sustainability of the professional game in Wales.'

For now, the four-region model seems to be in place. But with the desire to expand the professional game to north Wales, the threat to one of the regions currently involved in the Pro14 competition remains. From my personal perspective, both as a supporter and as an Assembly Member, I have no opposition to the potential of a north Wales team. Indeed, I believe promoting our national game to all four corners of the country should be encouraged. However, the handling of the potential restructuring has to be handled delicately and sensitively, with a wide appreciation of the potential ramifications.

Because there's far more at stake than just 15 players turning out on a Saturday for a respective region at Liberty Stadium, Parc y Scarlets, Arms Park, Rodney Parade, or indeed Colwyn Bay. Rugby is vitally important to so many people in Wales, and the benefits it delivers are not simply restricted to 80 minutes on the field of play. The game delivers numerous economic benefits that cannot be understated, particularly in a country where sustained economic prosperity and development have been difficult to achieve at times. And it is on this particular point that I would like to learn more from the Minister this afternoon as to what the Welsh Government has done regarding the benefits that the game, and the regional game, have had for the national economy, and what modelling, if any, has been undertaken to examine its true reach.

I am also intrigued to know how the Government plans to support the game moving forward, and how this sits in the economic strategy, perhaps even utilising our success on the international stage to promote our country overseas, and how the potential sits as part of the Government's newly created international relations department.

Undoubtedly, the game has a special place in the fabric of communities across our nation, and the potential ramifications of Project Reset will have a huge knock-on effect on the vast and wide-ranging communities and grass-roots services that regions provide around Wales. In this Chamber only a few weeks ago, both Dai Rees and Mike Hedges, and others, eloquently illustrated the reach and delivery of community services by the Ospreys in their respective regions and constituencies. And this is clearly something we discount at our peril. I'd be intrigued to hear from the Minister on this potential impact, particularly as the social fabric of Wales is often linked to the well-being and strength of the national game. These regions are built on the long history of successful club rugby in their respective communities and on one of these, the great impact of simply just a few games played in south-west Wales and the loss of those games is far greater.

The financial structure and challenges currently facing rugby in Wales are there for all to see—sadly, only too harshly reflected in the failure of Welsh regions to make it through to this season's knock-out stages of premier European competition, the Champions Cup. At present, we simply do not have the resources to compete with some of our counterparts in England and France. We have to be clever, nimble and creative with what we've got to play with.

We're doing that very well on the international stage. Some might say that we're punching above our weight. But we know now what we need to do to translate that into success on a regional footing. Delivering success and other preparatory elements at the regional level is vital for the long-term health of the game in Wales, but there must also be an acceptance and acknowledgment from the powers that be that this needs to be, and much more emotive indeed, far more difficult than simply arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic or pressing a button and sending a quick press release out.

For any more monumental changes to be accepted in the Welsh rugby fraternity, the WRU, regions, clubs and partners involved will need to ensure that they take the fans with them. The strength of the game in Wales is built upon the hard work of volunteers at amateur clubs up and down the country—from players to groundsmen to bar staff. They are the grass roots; they will be the first port of call for the next generation of Alun Wyn Joneses or Dan Biggars coming through the ranks. We really can't afford to alienate those individuals by delivering another ham-fisted reorganisation of the game in Wales. For me, that’s where the Welsh Government and indeed Assembly Members can play a part.

I'm always slightly reticent to see politicians getting involved in sport, but I really do think that we can't underestimate the importance that rugby plays here in Wales to our economy, and our communities and our people. The Welsh Government plays an active role in supporting the community game and it is vital that there is a coherent and strong message from them moving forward, to see what they can do to help the professional game develop in the years to come. And that is why the Welsh Government should work with the Welsh Rugby Union and regional club partners to protect rugby in Wales and develop a sustainable long-term model for the game at a regional and grass-roots level.

Whilst respecting the governing body’s role to be the guardian of the great game, it is vital that the Welsh Government appreciates its own role in protecting our national sport and this is ever such a gentle reminder that their actions do have national implications. It simply isn't good enough for any of us to shrug our shoulders and watch from the side lines. Communities and people across the country depend on us and, indeed, the game of rugby, and engagement with those communities is going to be vital. We can't be naive and put our heads in the sand. Change is coming, but we need to ensure that this change is well thought out and communicated properly to the thousands of rugby fans across the country.

On the international stage, we're going from strength to strength, and I'm sure that everyone in this Chamber would wish the team well in the up-and-coming Rugby World Cup, but the long-term health and future of the game in Wales is very much on the line. We are at a significant crossroads in Welsh rugby and the next course of action will set in train a series of events that will determine the success of the game at all levels, from international to grass roots. Undoubtedly, tough decisions will be needed, but it is imperative that lessons are learned from the recent handling of Project Reset.

Future proposals and changes must be communicated properly and allow for proper engagement, both with clubs and supporters. However unpopular they might be with some, and let’s be honest, in life, you can't always please everyone, if they are communicated properly, we might ensure that we negate any devastating long-term damage to the fabric of our communities. Without the fans, the game is nothing. As Assembly Members, we must be their voice when appropriate. As a rugby community in Wales, we must ensure that fans are taken on this journey, otherwise we risk the heartbeat of the game being ripped out for good.

Can I declare an interest, first of all, as an Ospreys season-ticket holder and can I commend Andrew R.T. for his opening pronouncements? And I'm also a member of Dunvant RFC as well. 

Now, back in the day, I played rugby for many years, though bafflingly overlooked by selectors. I've never understood why. [Laughter.] And my sons have played for Waunarlwydd and Dunvant through all the year groups, from under 11, under 12, under 13, under 14—so it goes up to youth. And the village rugby club plays the role of youth club. Dozens of children, girls and boys, playing regularly, twice, three times a week, as well as training. And, obviously, this doesn't just apply to rugby. It also applies—certainly in the Swansea area—to football, cricket, athletics and swimming. So much more. There's an army out there of volunteers who sustain all this activity. So, yes, it really is in the soil, is rugby.

Now, there was a surreal point at one stage a week last Saturday when Wales had just won the rugby Grand Slam—again, as Andrew mentioned—then Scotland had recovered miraculously from 31-nil, down, to England to lead 38-31, and, also, at the same time, Swansea City were leading Premier League Champions, Manchester City, two-nil in the FA Cup, and I thought, 'Duw, the capacity of sport to inspire, to turn things on their head, to reach a higher level, never ceases to amaze.' Yes, at that point, it really was surreal, almost a religious experience, really, until I realised that Jesus was playing up-front for Man City—Gabriel Jesus, that is—and normal service was restored, unfairly in the Swans' case. 

Now, in strongly supporting this motion, I shall make a few points as an unashamed Ospreys fan, and, as we would say as Ospreys fans, the only true region. We went through the pain of uniting Swansea and Neath rugby clubs—the most ferocious and bitter of local rivals—over 16 years ago. Some still bear the scars of that. And Ospreylia corresponds to my electoral region of South Wales West, so I would be a fan. And, plainly, the Ospreys have been the most successful rugby region, having won the Pro12 and Pro14 on four occasions. That's the best record of all regions, including the Irish ones, and supplying, notably, obviously, 13 out of the 15 Welsh players for Wales as they beat England at Twickenham in 2008 in Warren Gatland's first game in charge. And as fans down the years, we have thrilled to the talents of Shane Williams, Dan Biggar, Tommy Bowe, Mike Phillips, James Hook, Alun Wyn Jones, Adam Jones,  Duncan Jones, Justin Tipuric, Adam Beard, George North, Owen Watkin—I could go on, but I see the clock is ticking. And Alun Wyn Jones, as a true legend, is about to be given the freedom of Swansea—totally deservedly so.

Now, clearly, the issue is money, and the financial challenges mean that the Ospreys cannot afford to have two international level 15s in their squad. So, let's talk about a bit of reorganisation and a bit of marketing, I would say. Obviously, Saracens and the top English clubs can have two international-level 15s so that when the internationals are on, they're not weakened at all. But when the internationals are on, our regions are weakened. So, let's reorganise the Pro14 season so that games do not clash with the internationals. Let's market the Pro14 properly. There's very swish marketing of the premiership in England. We deserve that in Wales. It is the game of the people. It is our national game—New Zealand and Wales share that accolade. Attracting more money to the game in Wales, obviously, is the huge challenge, but we are in a strong position. We are, after all—. Wales are the Grand Slam champions—I may have mentioned that already—potential world champions, and so the challenge for the WRU, Welsh Government, and all partners is to make sure that we can get the marketing and the financial structures sustainably in place. I'm pleased that the merger is off because ditching your best region was never a clever idea and was met with absolute astonishment and bewilderment in Swansea. Support the motion. Diolch yn fawr.

It's always difficult when you come third to speak on one of these debates. Can I just say I agree with everything Andrew R.T. Davies and Dai Lloyd have said? That's a good place to start.

Can I talk about three positives of Welsh rugby? We've got a very successful national team and a very well-supported national team. The Millennium Stadium can sell out for all internationals, even if the autumn international tickets sometimes need to be bundled in order to sell them all. There's huge enthusiasm and participation in mini and junior rugby. My local club, Morriston, has junior teams at under 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and mini rugby teams at 10, nine, eight, seven and rugby tots. You'd think that there'll be 11 teams in 11 years' time. I tell you now, they'll be struggling to get two.

The final success is women's rugby that has grown both in international attendance—4,113 for Wales versus England—and in the number of women’s teams playing. Another team in my constituency, Bonymaen, have an outstanding women's rugby team.

Now, looking at the first problem facing Welsh rugby, using publicly available figures, the Dragons' average crowd was 5,083 in 2015-16 and fell to 4,700 in 2017-18. The Blues' went from 5,942 to a slight increase of 6,193. The Ospreys' fell from 8,486 to 6,849, but still more than the other two. And Scarlets' have gone from 7,290 to 9,256. The average attendance at two regions is going down; not one region has an average attendance above 10,000. The English rugby premiership is averaging over 12,000. Bordeaux averages over 23,900, Leinster averages over 15,500. Seventy-four and a half thousand turned up at the Millennium, and over a million watched Wales beat Ireland—as David Lloyd I think might've mentioned once—for Wales to win the Grand Slam. And then, only just over 8,000 turned up the following week to watch the Ospreys versus the Dragons.

I asked someone who said they were a rugby fan who they supported, they replied, 'Wales'. When I asked them who else they supported, the question they found absolutely bemusing and said, 'Well, just Wales, of course.' I was trying to get across the point that if you had that conversation with a football fan—if I asked a football fan in Swansea, 'Who do you support?', they'd name the team—hopefully Swansea City—and then they'd say, 'Wales'. They seem to associate with both their club and the country. Far too many people who describe themselves as rugby fans solely associate themselves with the country.

Again, according to published sources, the top 14 clubs in France have a tv deal worth £76 million per season. English rugby has a deal worth £38 million per season, and Welsh rugby is part of a £14 million per year contract. It's easy to see where the problems lie. So, regional rugby suffers from low attendance, relatively poor tv income and is trying to compete with France and England for the best Welsh players. Are the regions in the right places? The Blues, Ospreys and Dragons are in the three largest population centres, whilst the Scarlets cover mid and west Wales and, theoretically, north Wales. Where else could you put them?

Scotland has reduced to two teams. We could have a west Wales team and an east Wales team. What regional rugby has taught us is that merging two teams does not produce an attendance anywhere near the sum of the teams being merged. It's considered a takeover by the fans of one of the teams and they find something else to do on a weekend rather than watch live rugby.

What traditionally would have been done would have been to build a new stadium, a new playing surface, and everything would be wonderful—'We'll get more people there.' Well, the Ospreys and Scarlets have relatively new stadiums and they have good playing surfaces. The only way at the moment to generate more income in Welsh rugby currently is to play more internationals. That's why we played the fourth autumn international when everybody else only plays three. We need the money.

The second problem with Welsh rugby is, firstly, how few teams below the first division have second a team. Does any club below the first division run a third team? And the number of players who stop playing between the ages of 16 and 19—. What the Welsh Government can do is limited. What we can do is to go out and support our local teams. Last Saturday, I saw Glais versus Penlan alongside 52 other people—possibly the two worst teams playing in Welsh rugby. Glais started the match with -9 points; they're now up to -5. And Penlan started with -1. But we need to get people out there watching rugby. The Welsh Rugby Union and others, including ourselves, need to get across the point that rugby is not internationals, it's not winning the Grand Slam, it's not the autumn internationals—it's those games that are played every Saturday. Football's got it across to people. People turn out to watch football every Saturday; people don't with rugby. And Dai Lloyd is, unusually, an Ospreys season-ticket holder—Swansea City has very many more season-ticket holders.

Can I just finish on this point? We have to declare what we are: I'm a season-ticket holder at both Morriston Town and at Bonymaen.

Thank you. Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Thank you very much. I’m going to speak about rugby as the game of the whole of Wales. And as everyone else has done, I will declare a series of interests. As one who is going to speak of rugby as a pan-Wales game, I will declare that I was born in the south Wales Valleys and brought up in Merionethshire and on Anglesey. I will also declare that I am a youth coach and a volunteer at Llangefni Rugby Club. I will also declare that I am a flanker for the Assembly rugby team, fresh from our victories over the House of Commons and the House of Lords and the Scottish Parliament.

Yes, rugby is a game that permeates every community in Wales, including this community, our parliamentary community. And I’ll take a swipe at Dai Lloyd here, I think—on occasion, we can be guilty of putting up false walls in Welsh sport. I am not one who likes to question which is our national sport; I happen to be a great rugby supporter as well as being a great supporter of football. I was excited just as much by seeing Wales beat Slovakia last Sunday at the beginning of our European campaign as I was seeing Wales winning the Grand Slam this year.

I also believe that we are guilty of perpetuating this perception, somehow, that rugby, although it is seen as a national game on one level, is also seen as a game that isn’t perhaps as relevant to north Wales. Well, I can tell you that I have had a very fulfilling life in rugby as a north Walian. We have stars that we’re very proud of in George North, who is playing for Wales at the moment, and Robin McBryde, who is a key part of the coaching team. I remember Stuart Roy from my own school winning his international cap, and Iwan Jones too. And I was excited to see Rhun Williams playing superbly as a fullback. As a child, I played for Menai Bridge and for Bangor. I reached the final of the Gwynedd Cup with Ysgol David Hughes. Unlike Dai, I know why the selectors didn’t choose me,  because I wasn’t particularly good—[Laughter.] But I did enjoy playing rugby.

At our club in Llangefni, we have teams and a six, seven, eight, nine and 10, all the way through to under-15s, and a youth team and a first team and a second team. We play across north Wales, from Pwllheli, Blaenau Ffestiniog, Caernarfon, Bangor, Bethesda, Colwyn Bay, Llandudno, Rhyl, Denbigh, Mold, Shotton, Wrexham—that is, it is a game that permeates the whole of north Wales.

Let us bear in mind that part of this plan that caused such discord and so many arguments a few weeks ago was to bring professional rugby to north Wales. I’m not going to be drawn into argument as to whether there should be a merger of the Scarlets and the Ospreys, or any other teams. In my own area, there are many people—. I would say that there are more Ospreys shirts then there are Scarlets shirts, as it happens in my own area, but what Mike Hedges said says it all, doesn't i?

‘Theoretically, the Scarlets is the region covering the north’.

So, it isn’t good enough. And whilst I realise that there are financial limitations on our game in Wales, particularly compared with England and France, for example, if we are serious about making the game a national game, then we must ensure that it’s a professional game at a national level too. And the response of north Wales to the Wales under-20 games in Colwyn Bay is proof of the appetite that there is to see rugby at the highest level in north Wales. Llyr.

Thank you for allowing me to make a short comment. I think it’s worth reminding people also that rugby has always been a national game, because for those who perhaps don’t know, Bangor rugby club was one of the founding members of what is the Wales Rugby Union back in 1881—one of the 11 clubs. So, north Wales has always had a prominent role in national rugby.

Yes, that’s entirely true, and the plaque is still on the wall in Bangor rugby club marking that.

A little over 10 years ago, the WRU made a mistake in relation to rugby in north Wales. I know because I was a great supporter of Llangefni Rugby Club at that time, which won promotion to the second division of the national league. And the WRU’s decision was not to promote them, but to demote them to the new division four in north Wales, and that had a huge impact on rugby, certainly in Llangefni, where many people decided to stop playing and lost some of their love for the game. We’ve moved a long way from that point. The WRU did respond positively to the backlash at that point, and Rygbi Gogledd Cymru was established, and now we are in a position where we are looking forward to take the next step.

I delight in seeing the young boys that I train being selected for youth teams in north Wales. There were a dozen of them, almost, playing in games earlier this week. Getting a professional team, creating those idols for them in their own region, would be a major step forward, and I look forward to seeing this conversation continue, and I hope that the end point will be to bring professional rugby to north Wales, taking nothing away from the excellent professional teams we already have in the south.

Thank you. Can I now call on the Deputy Minister for Culture, Sport and Tourism, Dafydd Elis-Thomas?

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. This has been a debate that is beneficial for the Assembly as a whole, because it demonstrates that we can discuss a motion that has been signed by Members of all parties, and there will also be a free vote on the motion, with the exception, of course, that members of the Government will abstain—not because we disagree necessarily with anything that is contained within the motion as tabled, but because we don't feel that it's appropriate to call for the Government to work with the WRU in relation to the development of clubs and partnerships at a regional level without being clear in our understanding of what that wording means. Because, as I sought to explain clearly a fortnight ago, when I sought to respond to questions when they were first posed by Andrew R.T. Davies, Dai Lloyd, Mike Hedges—and I’m also grateful to Rhun ap Iorwerth for his contribution today, and to all of you for your contributions to this debate—I don't believe that a Government can instruct a body that is independent in its constitution, that is voluntary in nature and that is culturally crucial, in terms of how that body should behave.

I want to make a comparison, which might be unexpected to some of you. I remember being on the other side of the discussion in terms of the relationship between the National Eisteddfod and the Welsh Government, many years ago. Although I did see that it was important that the Government was able to invest in developments, particularly infrastructure development, to support culture, I don’t believe that it’s the role of Government to invest directly or to seek to collaborate directly with the national rugby team, any local rugby team, or indeed with cultural festivals such as those that we have the length and breadth of Wales.

There’s been a strong emphasis on rugby as a national sport here in Wales, but the changes that we have seen in the game emanate from its growth as a global sport, and an important part of that, in my view, was that seven-a-side rugby became part of the Olympic Games and it created an interest in nations that traditionally hadn't played the game in the past, and the fact that we are reaching a position where there are 20 nations competing in the world cup demonstrates how international rugby has grown. And that, of course, is a challenge to societies and communities that have followed rugby traditionally, but also to the professional administration of rugby and to the decisions that have to be taken as a result of these changes.

The successes of Wales in the five nations championship, in the six nations championship from the 2000s onwards, winning five championships, four grand slams and the seven-a-side rugby cup, all of these successes, and our ability to attract coaches of global renown such as Warren Gatland—this all demonstrates the success of the game, as does the development of the women’s team and the success that they had in the six nations with an excellent win against Ireland.

This all demonstrates how rugby is central to our culture. But that’s not the argument. We demonstrated our stance as an Assembly and as a Senedd and as a Government very clearly in this building last week, where we can celebrate the success of our national team. And our support and our assistance to rugby permeates through all provision. We are supportive of the development of all sorts of rugby at local levels. For example, last week, I was at the very special competition arranged by the WRU with schools and pupils with learning difficulties. There were 300 young people, led by Sport Caerphilly, who were participating in that festival of rugby. And I had an opportunity too to be at the recent launch—within the last week in fact—of the seven-a-side rugby competition where the WRU is working with the Urdd.

The funding that we provide through Sport Wales, in partnership with them, of over £850,000 per annum to the WRU is a sign of the support that we are providing. And this is getting a response. I was very pleased with the clear description that we heard from Rhun ap Iorwerth of rugby as a national sport and a game that is played on all levels within our communities. The figures do demonstrate that: 41 per cent, according to the schools sports survey, have played rugby at least once in any given location over the past year, and that’s an increase of 8 per cent over the last three years since the last survey was conducted. The Hub schools rugby programme of the WRU is growing, and 89 schools are participating in that scheme, and hundreds of boys and girls are playing regularly. Therefore, in that context we see the efforts by the WRU to re-establish our regions.

Now, I’m not going to make any comment on those events. Any comments I have made have been made in private and I don’t intend to make them as a Minister any more than I did a fortnight ago. But the Welsh Government has taken a professional interest, as we should do as a Government, through our officials and through our informal discussions, in what the WRU has been seeking to do. But we are not going to come to a position where we inform the WRU, any more than we would inform any other body, how to organise their own activities. Therefore, I do hope that those comments demonstrate clearly that we do have an understanding of the role of Government in relation to the development of rugby, but that this does not mean that we are seeking to instruct any of our sporting bodies, any more than our cultural bodies, that we are trying to intervene in the way that they conduct their business.

If I may make one appeal in conclusion, I think it is important that the discussion on the future of the Welsh rugby teams and the regional rugby system happens in a spirit that is similar to the discussion that we have had today. I don’t want—and I think Rhun and Andrew R.T. emphasised this, as did Mike Hedges, in their various contributions—. We don’t want to see parochialism and regional negativism, or an area-against-area approach emerging in this discussion. What we want to see is to demonstrate the same kind of spirit that was so apparent in Cardiff in our success at the end of this year’s six nations, and that that spirit too can enlighten people’s views across all levels of rugby in Wales.

Diolch. I call on Huw Irranca-Davies to reply to the debate.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'm delighted to sum up with a few comments here on the debate we've just heard and first of all to welcome the fact that this debate has been called and we've had so many contributions. I, like many Assembly Members, have been in many touchline discussions with mums and dads, players, coaches and others over the last few weeks and months about the future of regional rugby, and I think it's a good opportunity, I have to say, for some of those views to be aired now in the Senedd. And that's what we've heard here today. I thought at one point, Dirprwy Lywydd, it was going to be entirely an Ospreys-led debate, but thank goodness we then had interventions from north Wales and other areas as well, otherwise it would indeed have been parochial, as the Minister said.

But I thank Andrew R.T. Davies for opening this debate. He used those words there about having a clever, nimble and creative solution for regional rugby. That does actually reflect some discussions I've been having today with some very good clubs at grass-roots level who've come through difficult times but have put themselves on a good footing: a very good structure at national level with the WRU, but a real fragility and issues around sustainability at the regional level. I think the Minister's closing remarks there about not being parochial in this are the ones we need to listen to, which is: can we look at what is good for the game for supporting that regional basis in Wales, right across Wales? But also, as many Members have rightly pointed out, that regional basis, if we get it right, also sustains huge impact within community outreach, support for clubs within that region and so on. So, we do need to get this right.

I think most Members remarked in their comments that they were glad to see that Project Reset has been temporarily shelved. This gives us an opportunity—this gives the WRU, professional players, associations, the players themselves, but also the fans, I think—to get involved now in looking at what the structure going forward could be. Ultimately, these are commercial and business decisions, of course, at a regional level, but, as was remarked there by Andrew R.T. Davies in his opening remarks, the importance of this, which has come through consistently here, is about taking the fans with them. That of course includes my own region, with the Ospreys, but all the regions, and of course it includes those regions where there is great potential as well, including in north Wales. I think this opportunity now of taking a temporary pause and having a really good look at what is in the best interests of all of Wales in terms of regional rugby, but taking the fans with you, is critical. And I think that's the thing that caused some consternation for supporters, whether they were lifetime debenture holders of Bonymaen or Bethesda or, as I am, president of Maesteg Rugby Football Club, and so on—all of us concerned about the speed and in some ways the chaotic nature of day after day announcements around Project Reset. At least now things can be calm and go forward with some consideration.

Dai Lloyd—again an Ospreys season ticket holder, and a Dunvant club regular as well—mentioned very much the role, that the club does act very much as a youth club, in effect, as well, as so many of our grass-roots rugby clubs do, indeed. He remarked on the fact, in terms of the Ospreys-Scarlets merger—in his words, ditching your best region was never a clever idea. Mike absolutely turned to the successes that are currently there, and we do have many—as others have remarked, it is our women's rugby that is going from strength to strength, and we need to make sure that that is not only at a national and regional level, but also at that club level as well—and junior rugby success as well in participation, but also in the success on the field as well. But he did point out the challenge that we have—those low crowds in regional rugby, particularly in Wales, compared to what is happening in France and England and Ireland and elsewhere. Something is going wrong in terms of the audience's willingness to attend and stand on the touchline and support these clubs. That is different from being on tv. Mike, I'll happily give way.

Of the 20 best-supported rugby teams in Europe, Wales has got none.

Well, absolutely, and there's something quite chilling within that as well. What has happened to that—and in comparison with football, where they've clearly got it right, as Mike said earlier on? What have we got wrong in our regional rugby set-up that people are not going to watch it there, to stand alongside the pitch, in good stadia with good facilities—but they're not going to watch it, they're not taking their families? So, that is something that the regional clubs now and the WRU need to look at.

Rhun rightly reminded us, with some great history of his own, that rugby is an all-Wales game and that it permeates north Wales, and I think everybody who's been involved in this debate recognises that, actually, one of the areas of great potential now is indeed in north Wales. And not simply in north-west Wales, but north-east Wales as well, right across that whole area. So, I think this opportunity of pause and reflection is how can we do that without actually ripping up the successes elsewhere the region, and build sustainability into the game there and bring forward a whole new raft of star players for our national team as well. But he stressed as well, again, as many have, that grass roots are important. But building on the success of Rygbi Gogledd Cymru, I think we can see the platform there that there is to take things forward.

I can see I've exhausted my time. I simply want to put one other remark to the Minister, understanding that the Welsh Government—it's not their job to step in here and organise this and come up with some master plan, but I think, actually, taking that professional interest and having those discussions about the importance domestically, but also globally of the game of rugby, to brand Wales—.

And my final comment, if I can abuse my position of closing up is: Minister, please, will the Welsh Government take a keen interest in six nations being on free-to-air? There are things that we know the value of, the price of, and then things that we know the cost of. And if you look at the tragic tale of the England cricket board selling the rights to Sky in 2004, at big money that they reinvested in their game, and over 10 years the number of adults players in cricket dropped by 20 per cent when it went behind the paywall. There were 6.6 million people who watched live coverage of the six nations Wales against England match—6,580,000 of those were watching it on tv. So, let's not put it behind a paywall. Let's keep the excitement going on in Welsh rugby and let's give the sustainability to regional rugby that it needs.

Thank you. The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] You object. Therefore we'll have this vote in voting time.

Item 8 is the Welsh Conservatives' debate on local government funding, and I call on Mark Isherwood to move the motion.

Diolch. Our motion today recognises the important role played by local authorities in delivering public services across Wales. It also acknowledges the funding challenges currently faced by Welsh local authorities.

From their obsolete local government funding formula to their botched local government reforms, successive Welsh Labour Governments have left councils having to balance the books under sustained pressure. Nine out of 22 Welsh local authorities receive an increase under the Welsh Government’s settlement for 2019-20. However, with the exception of Denbighshire, which now receives a flat settlement, all north Wales councils are to receive a cut, with the largest cuts in Flintshire, Conwy and Anglesey, alongside Monmouthshire and Powys.

Rural councils and north Wales councils have therefore lost out, while Labour-led councils in south Wales, such as Cardiff, with total usable reserves in April 2018 of £109.6 million, and Merthyr Tydfil are this year’s biggest winners, with uplifts of 0.9 per cent and 0.8 per cent respectively. This leaves the average household in Wales with a £1,591 council tax bill, nearly £100 higher than the current financial year.

Only two out of 22 local authorities, Rhondda Cynon Taf and Neath Port Talbot, have not broken the informal 5 per cent increase cap on council tax rises set by the Welsh Government—

Will you take an intervention?

—but they're in receipt of some of the most generous financial settlements. Joyce, yes.

I thank you for taking the intervention, but I would just like to point out that you know full well that it's not the Welsh Government that sets this formula, but it's an agreed formula by the Welsh Local Government Association, and I think it's important that we set the record straight before we go any further.

I will be addressing that in the rest of my speech.

Rhondda Cynon Taf, with reserves of £152.1 million, is also receiving a 0.8 per cent rise; Newport, with reserves of £102.3 million, a 0.6 per cent rise; Swansea, with reserves of £95.1 million, a 0.5 per cent rise. However, councils with the largest cuts of -0.3 per cent include Flintshire, with reserves of £49.4 million, Conwy with just £22.7 million, and Anglesey with £24.1 million.

The Welsh Government tells us that its local government funding formula is heavily influenced by deprivation indicators. However, Anglesey and Conwy are amongst five Welsh local authorities where 30 per cent or more of employees are paid less than the voluntary living wage, and prosperity levels per head in Anglesey are the lowest in Wales at just under half of those in Cardiff, yet council tax payers in Anglesey and Conwy are facing 9.1 per cent increases, compared to just 5.8 per cent in Cardiff and 4.5 per cent in Rhondda Cynon Taf.

Our motion notes that Welsh council tax payers currently pay a higher proportion of their income on council tax than in England or Scotland. It also regrets that the level of council tax in Wales has trebled since the formation of the National Assembly for Wales in 1999, and that the level of council tax in Wales has risen at a faster rate than in England and Scotland.

In 1998, the average Welsh Band D council tax payer had to pay £495. This has risen to £1,591 in 2019. In other words, council tax in Wales has risen by an astonishing 221 per cent since the UK Labour Government took control of Wales in 1997, a far greater leap than that of England, up 153 per cent, and Scotland, up 57 per cent. And whilst both the UK Conservative Government and the Scottish Government enabled council tax to be frozen in the years up to 2017, the Welsh Labour Government spent elsewhere the £94 million in consequentials it received to help hard-pressed council tax payers.

The Welsh Government defends this by stating that average band D council tax levels in Wales are still lower than in England, whilst dodging the reality that council tax payers in Wales spend the largest proportion of their wages on council tax in Britain, that they have faced the biggest increases, and that this is a false comparison because it starts from a historic baseline when average band D council tax levels in Wales were, by definition, significantly below those in England.

Welsh Labour Government Ministers have long compared funding between England and Wales, claiming that councils there are worse off. However, as local government funding policy has diverged significantly since devolution, including direct funding for schools and business rates retention in England, it is completely impossible to make this comparison. Their default position is always to blame everything on the UK Government and to conveniently forget that the funding floor agreed by the UK Conservative Government means that the Welsh Government now benefits from the certainty that the funding it receives for devolved services won’t fall below 115 per cent of the figure per head in England. Currently, for every £1 per head spent by the UK Conservative Government in England on matters devolved to Wales, £1.20 is given to Wales. Meanwhile, the Welsh Labour Government has continually made bad deals with, for example, Kancoat and the Circuit of Wales, costing Welsh taxpayers millions. It is the Welsh Government who should be answering for their disgraceful funding decisions.

Interestingly, the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition—Jeremy Corbyn’s own cheerleaders-in-chief—also stated last October that 

'no Labour-led council has insufficient reserves that it could not use to generate the resources for a no cuts budget for 2019-20.'

I'm simply quoting; if you question that, perhaps you may wish to speak to your colleagues or comrades.

Local authorities are sitting on £800 million in useable reserves, and their elected representatives need to be held accountable in saying how that is spent. The issue is not that they have sufficient resources to cover big projects, but that some councils are increasing their levels of reserves while expecting council tax payers to cover inflation-busting council tax rises.

As I have detailed, south Wales Labour-run councils are the real winners of the final local government settlement. Anglesey county council’s finance chief warned that if the council didn't put more cash into reserves, the authority could go the same way as Northamptonshire, which was unable to balance its books and became effectively insolvent last year.

Another of the biggest losers, Labour-led Flintshire County Council, has imposed an 8.1 per cent council tax increase, taking the total increase, including police, fire and rescue authority and community council precepts, to 8.75 per cent. They launched a campaign last November, #BackTheAsk, which highlighted cross-party frustration about the funding they receive from the Welsh Labour Government. The campaign specifically asked for a fair share of funds from Welsh Government, highlighting that Flintshire is one of the lowest funded councils per head of population. This had been unanimously agreed by all parties on the council.

In December, before the final budget was passed, and after the announcement of extra funding from the Welsh Government, Flintshire estimated that it still faced a £3.2 million funding gap, stating that it is unreasonable for councils to be put in this position, and a cross-party group of Flintshire councillors subsequently travelled here to lobby for fairer funding last month. Even in Flintshire, however, opposition members had moved an alternative budget using additional contingency reserves to keep council tax increases to 5.5 per cent, arguing that the Labour leadership had taken the political decision to make a point about local authority underfunding.

Given everything I've detailed, our motion calls on the Welsh Government to commission an independent review of the Welsh local government funding formula. In a letter to the First Minister, Powys County Council joined calls for a fairer funding formula, stating that

'It is time that the funding formula underwent a comprehensive review and that rural authorities like Powys had a fair deal. We are not asking for special treatment but for fair play...The financial and social environment facing local government has changed beyond all recognition since the funding formula was introduced. It is time that formula was changed to reflect the world we live in today.'

The Welsh Government's amendment to this motion asked us to recognise that the funding formula for Welsh local authorities is reviewed annually through a partnership between Welsh local government and Welsh Government. However, as the Welsh Local Government Association has previously stated, their finance distribution sub-group has limited influence on the formula, stating in 2016 that, 'the distribution sub-group produces a report. It's usually a report of what the group has covered on its work programme. It's usually a small part of the formula. The distribution sub-group only deals with a few tweaks and changes annually. We, the WLGA, ended up agreeing to that as an association. That's not an agreement that the whole formula is right; it's just an agreement that we've delivered on the sub-group's work programme.'

Although the independent commission on local government finance Wales report in 2016 recommended that the existing revenue support grant formula be frozen and an independent grants commission be established to oversee the development and future operation of a new grant distribution formula, this has not happened. The Welsh Government's review of local government finance only mentions development of the settlement formula, rather than a full-scale review, stating that the formula has become more complex since its inception, and there is merit in exploring the scope for simplification and changes to aid transparency and operation. As I've evidenced, however, the need for urgent action goes much further than these carefully crafted, empty words, and instead of hiding behind local government, a responsible Welsh Government would be taking the lead.

I have selected the six amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will be deselected. And I call on the Minister for Housing and Local Government to move amendment 1 formally, tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans. 

Formally. 

Thank you. Can I call on Dai Lloyd to move amendments 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth? Dai. 

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I’m very pleased to take part in this debate on local government. As you’ve already mentioned, I do move the amendments in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth.

As a former county councillor in Swansea for several years, as were others in this Chamber, I understand very well the financial challenges facing our counties. Having said that, I’m surprised that the Conservatives want to discuss these financial challenges, because it’s their austerity policies coming down the M4 from London that have caused the financial cuts. Our counties are in need of genuine partnership and support to achieve the Government’s aims, and it’s also true to say that this Labour Welsh Government in the Senedd hasn’t always prioritised the funding of local government either. And with the relationship between the Government here and the leaders of our councils at times potentially challenging, who can forget the accusation of Oliver Twist from Alun Davies, the Minister at the time, and that led to a number of similar comparisons from the Dickensian world.

Now, 22 authorities came into existence in 1996 under the Conservative plan, and, of course, the Assembly came into existence in 1999, and we’ve never had the sensible and mature discussion of the expectations of those two different layers of government in this place. How can we collaborate? The Assembly was the new baby, and the councils were also relatively new. We never had that mature discussion to decide who should do what and how we could collaborate better to improve the lives of the people of Wales. So, we have a Senedd. What activities should be done on a national basis? What activities should be left to the regions? And what activities should be undertaken locally? As well as how we should pay for this locally. Council tax and business rates are not fair by any stretch of the imagination, and they can stymie innovation. But, as I've said several times in the Senedd over the years, Wales hasn't been funded sufficiently under Barnett, as it was for years, or under the funding floor as it is now. Wales isn't funded sufficiently, and that was true even before the cruel and destructive policy of austerity from the Conservatives came into existence. Please support our amendments. Thank you.

Are rural local authorities consistently dealt a raw deal when it comes to the block grant from the Welsh Government? The answer to that is 'yes'. I listened to Dai Lloyd's contribution. The UK Government has provided an extra £550 million in this next financial year, but that extra funding has not been passed on, certainly not to rural councils across mid and north Wales.

My own local authority area of Powys has had the poorest or joint poorest budget settlement in nine out of the last 10 years. That's £100 million being taken out of their budget, and that is, of course, an unsustainable situation that has inevitably affected the delivery of essential local services. As Mark Isherwood, my colleague, has already pointed out, we see Cardiff council get an increase but rural authorities across mid and north Wales having decreases. Yes, Mike Hedges.

Would you accept that Powys has far more per head than Cardiff does?

Well, Mike, I'll come onto that in my contribution. Mike, you intervene on me every year on this annual debate, saying—

The same thing.

—saying the same thing, which I'll come onto. And Rhondda Cynon Taf, of course, as well, stockpiling £152 million of usable reserves. Others, like Powys County Council, my own local authority area, are having to balance their books after years of cuts to their budget. So, does the funding formula need to change? Yes, it absolutely does. And the most significant change in that funding formula in my view is that the change needs to take into account a significant population change in the age of its older population.

The Office for National Statistics' prediction for Powys is that there'll be a 7 per cent fall between 2014 and 2039. This, by the way, is the largest predicted fall amongst all 22 local authority areas. But, during the same period, Powys's older population, those over 75, is going to increase from 11 per cent as it is now to 23 per cent in 2039. So, by 2039, the ONS is predicting that a quarter of the population of Powys will be over 75 years of age, and that is a rate that is significantly greater than the national average is predicted to be in 2039. Why is that? It's attributed mainly to people wanting to retire to Powys. Why? Because it's a beautiful part of the country—it's the most beautiful county in the UK. People want to retire to the area. But in some years after their retirement to the area, there's a consequence, of course, of that ageing population. I don't think I need to go into too much detail on that: the reasons are obvious. [Interruption.] Well, if Joyce Watson wants me to go into that, there is a cost to social services. We all know that the biggest cost to a local authority is its social services budget, and if they've got an older population there's going to be a significant increase to the social services budget that's required. The funding formula does not take that into account and that's exactly why we're asking for an independent review of the funding formula to take place.

Age Cymru provided a very good briefing to me earlier this week, highlighting the importance of community facilities and free public transport in providing the opportunities for social interaction to tackle loneliness and promote health and well-being for older people to remain active and retain their independence. And, of course, this is all the more important in rural areas. If you're running services in very rural areas, it's always going to cost significantly more for that to take place, and that cost—. I give the example of when Joyce Watson was talking about Welshpool library the other week. That library's being downgraded because of the poor financial settlement that Powys County Council receives from the block grant from Welsh Government, and that's a consequence of the unfair formula. 

No, it's not. It's a consequence of your actions on the council. 

What I wanted to say: just a couple of weeks ago, the leader of Powys County Council wrote an open letter to the First Minister to change the way that county councils are funded and to give rural authorities a much fairer deal. Unfortunately, I've not got time to read an extract from that, which I would have liked to have done.

What a shame.

It is a shame. Joyce Watson represents Mid and West Wales. You should be fighting for Powys, not giving in, and I'm shocked Joyce Watson isn't standing up for the people of Powys, who she is supposed to represent.

You've named me three times now, so you can take an intervention. 

I fully appreciate your frustration—

You've named me three times now. You can take an intervention. 

I'm not giving an intervention, Joyce.

You've named me three times, you should take an intervention. Three times you've named me.

Well, I don't think he is. 

Am I permitted to give an intervention?

You can, briefly.

I just think that you need to accept that we can only spend the money we've got, and I want to know how many times you've sent letters to the Conservative-run Government that's deprived this Government of the money to give to local authorities. That's the answer I would like from you.

Right. Russell George. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, for allowing that. Joyce Watson is completely missing the point here. The UK Government is giving extra funding to the Welsh Government; the Welsh Government is reducing its funding for Powys County Council, and Joyce Watson wants to defend that. Well, that is absolutely shocking for someone who should be defending her own constituency area. 

Lynne Neagle. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I would like to be able to welcome today's debate from the Welsh Conservatives because I do think that local government is facing its toughest period since devolution in 1999, but it would be to ignore the elephant in the room to thank the Tories for the opportunity to talk about this because it is their austerity agenda, that political choice to starve services of funding, that has led to the situation we find ourselves in today. Nowhere is that duplicity more obvious than in the final point of the Tory motion, calling for a review of the local government funding formula, as though a review of the formula might suddenly increase the quantum available to councils in Wales. It will not. As though the formula isn't under constant review between Welsh Government and the Welsh Local Government Association. It is. As though any independent review would ever recommend moving money away from poorer communities to more affluent, Tory-run councils. How could it possibly?

Even a cursory glance at the reforms that have been introduced by the UK Government over the last eight years will show that the poorest areas of Wales have been hit hardest by those changes. Relative child poverty in Wales is estimated to increase substantially with reforms pushing an extra 50,000 children into poverty by the time they're fully implemented: your party. The latest analysis shows the changes since 2010 have a disproportionately negative impact on the incomes of several protected groups, including disabled people, certain ethnic groups, women, and particularly negative impacts on intersectional groups who experience multiple disadvantage. It simply follows that any local government funding review would have to take that into account.

In contrast, the issues that the Tories often cite about challenges to the councils they run and seek to run, rurality and travel time, for example, have not changed and will not change—[Interruption.]

Will you give way?

—and are, anyway, already factored into the formula as it exists today. I give way.

Thanks for giving way. I don't disagree with you, and we wouldn't disagree with you, that any review of the funding formula would have to take all those factors into account, and maybe in some areas it would be decided that amounts of money going to seats like yours, it's right that that should happen, but at the same time we believe that issues such as sparsity in rural areas like Russ George and I represent should also be taken into account, and that isn't happening at the moment.

Nick, I'm very familiar with the local government formula, actually, and sparsity is already taken into account, so that is a non-starter. I don't think any Labour AMs or Welsh Labour Government would have anything to fear from a review of how funding is allocated, but it is simply not where the problem currently resides. The problem resides in 11 Downing Street; that is where Wales's £1 billion shortfall was decided, and it is where funding for England's councils has been flayed to the bone. Next year, 168 councils in England will receive no central Government funding at all, and by 2025, the Local Government Association estimates that an £8 billion funding gap will exist for councils in England. What does that mean? It means job losses, wholesale privatisation, library closures and, even now, the prospect of shorter school days. If that is the Tory vision for local government in Wales, then at least be honest about it.

In Wales, the Welsh Government and councils are working hard and working together to keep services sustainable. I welcomed the move to allocate additional resources to councils in the final budget, fulfilling the promise that they would be first in the queue for any extra money. But that has merely moved the financial choices from the impossible to the unpalatable. The pressures remain, and that is why we need a really honest debate about local government and finance, not one based on the false prospectus before us today. There needs to be more recognition of the difficult, brave and often innovative choices that are being made at local level to minimise the inevitable cuts and tax increases. The idea that local councillors relish the opportunity to increase council tax to keep our schools open for a full day is simply beyond the pale.

Politics is a dog-eat-dog world, but we should never criticise a council of any colour that decides to prioritise education and social services, because there is a consensus in this Assembly, and in the country, that they should be priorities for councils across Wales. I am proud that this is happening in Torfaen under a Labour council, and that education is being recognised as their most important preventative service. I pay tribute to Councillor Anthony Hunt, Labour leader of Torfaen council, to all the Labour councillors in Torfaen, and, indeed, to all the councils across Wales who work so hard to protect public services against the onslaught of Tory cuts. Education and social care are national priorities and they are local priorities. We should have the courage to support those making the difficult choices, not further demean our political system by pretending that you can cut budgets, cut taxes and keep services. It is a cheap political lie to say that you can do that.

We need to change the terms of the debate about local government if we really want to improve the services closest to those we represent. We need a positive discussion about enabling innovation, financial planning and support for leadership at all levels of local government, but above all, we need an end to Tory austerity, and today's motion does nothing to further that agenda.

Look, I wonder if we can just start with the obvious here, which is that no Government likes cutting local authority funding and no council likes putting up council tax. I think what is less obvious, despite some of the assertions made in this Chamber, is why this is happening and why the difficult task of local government funding reform, when that might begin, because it's just too easy to try and shut down the debate, as we heard in earlier questions and some of the representations today, by pointing the finger at the UK Government. If that's all you're going to say in replying to this debate, Minister, we may as well all go home now, because constituents are also looking as to where the decisions about how spending on services nationally and within their communities are prioritised. And that's the work that is done in this Chamber and in chambers in our council areas.

Whatever budget decisions are made in London, the funding floor ensures that this Government has more to spend on those services per head than they do in England, and that is a figure that was agreed with the current Labour First Minister. Your predecessor, Minister, said that blaming the Tories is not a strategy for the future and blaming austerity and carrying on business as usual is short sighted. The former Labour leader of one of the councils in my region says pretty much the same: 'The easy and lazy option when it comes to local government is to blame austerity and the Tories. It too often ignores other factors such as poor decision making when it comes to both budgets and service delivery. The writing was on the wall for most authorities even before 2008, which of course was the date of the crash and when we still had a Labour Government at Westminster.'

I think they have a point. It goes back to what Lynne Neagle was saying about looking at this afresh. But I don't think that point is universally accurate. Some of our local authorities have had no room for manoeuvre for many years—no space to make poor decisions—but not all of them. The fact that they've been broadly the same councils that do relatively well and relatively poorly over this period of years I think is now strikingly apparent. And if the reason that those councils that do relatively well—and I'm saying 'relatively'—is primarily due to waiting for deprivation, then I think it's fair to ask why those council areas are still so deprived and still have quite high levels of useable reserves. Other councils have had to deal with their challenges with considerably less per capita funding and reserves.

Now, yes, of course I realise that the needs of every council area are different, but this disparity between them is now clearly unfair, and I think it's been brought about by the application of a formula built on out-of-date irrelevant data over a number of years. If this formula were fair and the difficulty is due wholly to the UK Government shrinking the size of the overall pot, you would expect council taxes across Wales to rise at broadly the same rate. That's clearly not the case and the differences are too stark to be explained away by local conditions or just poor budgeting. Powys, as we've heard, is having to raise its council tax by twice as much as Neath Port Talbot, and that is not marginal. Neath Port Talbot has had the fourth highest rise and Powys the hardest cut, so it would be easy to draw, this year, something of an obvious conclusion. But Pembrokeshire, which is charging 10 per cent—almost as much as last year—actually had a rise, albeit the most modest, but I'm using these two examples to speak to the financial starvation of particular councils over many years, not just recently, going back as far as 2008—

Will you take an intervention, Suzy?

Yes.

Thank you. I'm glad that you've taken an intervention and I'm glad that you've used the case of Pembrokeshire, because what Pembrokeshire have done over the years—and I used to be a Pembrokeshire county councillor—is use the claim of the lowest council tax in Wales, no rise just before elections, as an excuse and a reason to get re-elected. But what you need to look at underneath those headlines is: are they the highest charging authority for the services they provide by not actually increasing their council tax and putting the burden on everybody but on the people who need the services? That's what you need to do.

Well, I think you might've just made one of the points for me, Joyce, which is actually the point that was raised by the former Labour leader of a different council earlier about some councils making poor decisions about how they budget, and now they're taking the opportunity to punish their own residents by doing this. But my overall point was to say that things have been changing over a period of years and certain councils over that period of years have done relatively better than other councils.

Now, Minister, I do think you have some questions to ask those councils with the highest useable reserves—genuinely, now—as well as a history of poor decision making and wasteful behaviour. Maybe Pembrokeshire is exactly one of those. But now, it's all councils that are speaking of financial starvation, and of course councillors in my own region are voting against rises of 6 per cent and 6.6 per cent, because those Labour councils have not had to do this before. They've suffered least from cuts over the years, but even they have now reached a tipping point, and not least by the whole slate of underfunded legislative responsibilities that have been placed on them by this Government.

Now, unlike Torfaen, the Labour leader in Bridgend says he cannot protect social services and schools, and I could easily point to cases where they've wasted money in lost legal cases, poor land deals, contracts going wrong, but even so, they still need to fund, this year, schools and social services. And their planned savings needed to do that are high and medium risk, which, as we all know, is audit speak for undeliverable. Minister, it'll be your greatest achievement if you and the Welsh Local Government Association—and we heard they're not happy with this formula—can get this out of the box marked 'too difficult' and face up to the inevitable outrage you're going to get from the losers. There are losers now, and the process by which they lose can no longer claim to be fair.

I welcome this opportunity to discuss local government. In fact, I welcome any opportunity to discuss local government and I wish we had more of these debates on local government. I might not agree with what's been said by Mark Isherwood, Suzy Davies and Russell George, but I think it's important we get this debate and discussion taking place in front of everybody.

Can I say, first of all, that this is taking place against a background of Tory austerity—a political policy, not an economic one? But what actually happens here? The percentage of the Welsh budget spent on health has increased year on year. As local government was the other large budget funded by the Welsh Government, it has gone down. But when you consider some of the services covered by local government—education, social services, highways, refuse collection, trading standards, food hygiene, pollution, sports facilities, homelessness and planning—it is easy to see how important local government and local services are. I stopped at 10, I could've kept on going, but I don't think anybody would have liked to have listened for five minutes to a list of what local government does.

As the funding that local government gets from the Welsh Government, under the catchy title of 'aggregate external funding', goes down, two things happen: council services reduce, with council tax and charges increasing. There is a widely held belief by many council tax payers that their council tax pays for the services provided by the council. What has happened in recent years is that council tax has increased while services have reduced, and council tax payers have had a variety of reactions, varying between angry and confused. This is because council tax pays for less than a quarter of the total council services, with the rest being funded by the rate support grant and the councils' share of the universal business rates. I'm sure the Conservatives would like to apologise for the decision taken by the Conservative Government in the past, where they centralised and nationalised the business rate, because local authorities should be able to set their own local business rates. Now, it's all set centrally, and that has an effect.

On business rates—

Can I make an intervention?

Please.

Would you also accept that people don't understand either that because council tax is a smaller proportion of the amount that is spent locally—say it's, I don't know, 15 or 20 per cent, whatever it might be—a 1 per cent reduction in the RSG going to a local authority will actually result in a disproportionate increase in that council tax of 5 to 10 per cent?

I'd make it more 4 to 5 per cent, but, yes, I agree with your general premise. 

Some council areas are net contributors to the national business rates, most notably Cardiff, which pays in roughly twice as much as it gets back. Just looking at Swansea in terms of income, the rate support grant reached a stage where it's paying less than 60 per cent, on its way down to 50 per cent, of the money that the council spends. National non-domestic rates: about 20 per cent. And council tax: about 25 per cent. But 65 per cent of the money goes on education and social services, and can I point out—I can't remember to which speaker earlier—about social services being the biggest charge on local government? Certainly, in Swansea's case, education is substantially the biggest expenditure.

Thank you, Mike. I always listen very carefully to your contributions on local government. With regard to social services, it is that biggest fund, as part of the budget, but I made the point in my contribution: if you've got an increasingly elderly population, such as Powys—it'll have 25 per cent of its population over 75 by 2040—surely you know the significant extra costs of delivering local services with an older population. The funding formula doesn't address that. Do you think it should address that?

Not only do I think it should, I thought it did. I think that part of the formula was percentage of population above a certain age, percentage of population at school age, so I think it does. I think that, really, councils protect social services and education, and one of the saddest things about local government is that most local authorities are getting very much the same. Swansea used to be really good at providing leisure services and cultural services. Rhondda Cynon Taf used to be very, very good at preschool services. But everybody's getting the same because everybody's under the same pressure and it's becoming much of a muchness in terms of services being provided.

The rate support grant used to be what was called a support for those that have a low council tax and, previously, low national non-domestic rates. The lower the local tax income, then the higher the national support, so that local authorities reached what their standard spending assessment said they ought to spend. It is not serendipity that Monmouth, which has the highest number of band D and higher properties, has the lowest Welsh Government support, whilst Blaenau Gwent, with the lowest number of band D and higher properties, has the highest. For the record, Monmouth council is Conservative-controlled, and Blaenau Gwent is independent-controlled, and just to correct something earlier, Merthyr is also independent-controlled.

What I would like to see happen is the following: I think we need an examination into local government funding. Health has the Nuffield study. If anybody had what they really needed—that Nuffield study was brilliant, because they said how much money they needed, year on year. Local government needs the equivalent of a Nuffield study to say how much it needs.

On the formula, minor changes—as Nick Ramsay just said—can have a huge effect. When I was a member of the distribution sub-group, we moved the highways from 52 per cent population and 48 per cent road to 50 per cent each. A minor change. This moved hundreds of thousands of pounds from Cardiff, Swansea and Newport to Powys, Pembrokeshire and Gwynedd.

Two immediate decisions that could help local Government would be: let local authorities set all charges—some are currently set by the Welsh Government—and give the funding for regional consortia to schools and let them decide whether they wish to pay into those regional consortia or not. From my understanding of the schools in Swansea, they would not be paying in.

Local government in Wales is facing a funding crisis. The final settlement for the coming financial year delivers a real-term cut in local government funding compared to last year. The Welsh Local Government Association estimated that local authorities needed an increase of some £260 million just to stand still in providing local services. However, the Welsh Government chose to turn a deaf ear to the WLGA's pleas. Make no mistake: it is a conscious policy decision by this Welsh Government to cut local government funding to the bone. When faced with the inevitable consequences of their decisions, Ministers fall back on tired old excuses of blaming Westminster for their ills and their deeds. As a matter of fact, I've been sick of listening in this Chamber on this side for the last year plus that every time—[Interruption.] Wait a minute, Joyce. What is is—[Interruption.] Why are you blaming London when you've got the money?

They conveniently forget that the funding floor agreement means that Wales benefits from the certainty that the funding that is received for devolved services will not fall below 115 per cent per head of the figure in England. At present, for every £1 per head spent in England on issues devolved to Wales, £1.20 is given to the Welsh Government. Wales is benefiting from £0.5 billion over the next two years due to measures announced by the Chancellor in the 2018 budget. So, the argument that Wales has been starved of funding does not match reality.

As a result, council tax payers in Wales are bearing the brunt of Welsh Government decisions to starve councils of the resources that they need. This is nothing new. Since 1997, council tax has trebled under Welsh Labour. Band D council tax in England has risen by 153 per cent in the last 20 years. In Scotland, the rise is 57 per cent. But in Wales, band D council tax payers now pay a swingeing 221 per cent more. Under the 2019 and 2020 funding settlement, no local authority in Wales will see their core funding rise enough to cover inflation. The leader of Torfaen council said, and this is a quote:

'councils have been left with a large shortfall for next financial year, as funding is not rising in line with the pressures faced by services like social care.'

Quote closed. [Interruption.] No. So, hard-pressed families, often in the poorest areas, have to dig even deeper to meet the inflation-busting demands.

I thank you so much for giving way, and I know you were in full steam there. Does he see any read across at all to the complaint that we make about the stranglehold that UK Government funding has on Wales with what's happening in England? English councils are screaming about the austerity measures on them, where £16 billion of core funding has been pulled away from local government in England by the UK Government since 2010. Can you see any common strand going on here?

I have already given the figures to you, and you have the power. You have complete control of local government. Austerity measures, as I have been saying earlier—. Actually, this cut was while you left no money in the Treasury when you took over the Government. Basically—[Interruption.] Wait a minute. The Government only cut a penny in the pound, one penny in the pound, to give you—. And you are saying 'austerity' because you're wasting money. Your Government—. Local government—who controls local government? The Labour Party. You imagine: Monmouth and Blaenau Gwent. Think about those authorities. Blaenau Gwent's services to the people and Monmouth. Monmouth's reserves are still below what Monmouth got—their reserves in the banks. Why are they sitting on heaps of money? Why don't they give the public services there?

Caerphilly council is increasing by 7 per cent; Merthyr Tydfil, Monmouthshire, Newport, Torfaen by nearly 6 per cent; and Blaenau Gwent by just under 5 per cent. I just told you: think about the reserves and the service they are giving. That is one of the poorest councils in the whole of the United Kingdom. Excessive council tax rises have had a devastating impact on Welsh households. The citizens advice bureaux have labelled council tax as our biggest debt problem in Wales. Local authorities have tried to ensure as much money as possible is directed to front-line services by cutting out waste and unnecessary bureaucracy, but, with statutory services such as schools and social care taking the major part of spending, local authorities have had to look at other services to bear the brunt of cuts. Deputy Presiding Officer, libraries, school crossing patrols, free car parking and leisure centres are among the services that have faced cuts in Wales, drawing widespread public opposition.

Deputy Presiding Officer, Labour has failed local government in Wales for the last 20 years. I call on the National Assembly to support our motion and deliver a better, fairer local government settlement in Wales. Thank you.

Can I call on the Minister for Housing and Local Government, Julie James?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. In opening this debate, Mark Isherwood, as usual, took absolutely no responsibility whatsoever for the political choice of austerity perpetrated on Wales by the UK Tory Government. Every successive Tory speaker did exactly the same thing all the way through. I'm really sorry that you're so bored by the conversation on austerity that you cannot see the suffering that that policy has visited on the people of Wales and the councils who deliver its hard-pressed services. Lynne Neagle, on the other hand, provided a very realistic analysis of what the actual purpose of what we're here to discuss actually is. [Interruption.] You started the debate on that point. I sat and listened carefully to what you had to say, and that's what you said, by and large.

Local government services have an impact on all of our lives. They provide the schools for our children and the care for our vulnerable neighbours. They create the civilised spaces where we can live and work and be sociable. Of course, we recognise the challenge that local government currently faces. We set our draft budget against one of the longest periods of sustained austerity in living memory. The UK Government has consistently and persistently cut funding for public services, following an ideological commitment to reducing the role of government in our lives. We now face the consequences of those decisions. This decision has a real impact on our budget. Against that backdrop, we have continued to protect local government as best we can from the effects of that austerity.

In 2019-20 local authorities will receive £4.2 billion from the Welsh Government in core revenue funding and non-domestic rates to spend on delivering key services. This equates to an increase of 0.2 per cent on a like-for-like basis compared to the current year. In line with our programme for government commitment to provide funding for the settlement floor, the settlement includes a £3.5 million fully funded Welsh Government amount to ensure that no authority has to manage with a deduction of more than 0.3 per cent in its aggregate external finance next year. Of course this is not enough to maintain the level of local service provision that we would all wish to see, but we have prioritised local government. Our commitments to NHS spending in Wales are well known and understood; once those are met, we have given the highest priority to local government.

In the last budget round, when the UK Government made more money available between the draft and final budget, we allocated extra money to local government as part of turning a £43 million decrease in funding for local government into a £10 million increase. We have recognised in our funding decisions the specific areas where local government has said it has the most pressure, such as social services, education and teachers' pay. Outside of the local government settlement, over £900 million of grant funding is also provided in support of local authority services in 2019-20. We've invested £30 million through the health and local government partnership boards, where health and local government work together. Earlier this month we also announced additional funding above the Barnett consequential roof received from the UK Government to enable local authorities to meet the additional costs of the UK Government's pension changes for teachers and firefighters.

We worked hard to offer local government the best settlement possible, but we recognise that the settlement is a real-terms cut in core funding when authorities face real pressures from things such as ageing populations, pay awards and other inflationary pressures. This has indeed meant some hard choices for our councils. In setting their budgets, councils will have been taking account of all available sources of funding, efficiency plans, income generation and management of reserves, as well as local priorities and pressures around local delivery of services.

I join Rhun ap Iorwerth in seeking to delete point 4 in the motion. This is not an accurate reflection of the position on council tax. In fact, council tax levels for band E properties in Wales are, on average, lower than those in England, which is what the Government amendment seeks to clarify. Councils will be engaging local people in decisions about how local resources are spent and what services are provided. Hard choices are inevitable. I want to pay tribute to the councillors who engage in these difficult decisions and work hard to improve the services that authorities deliver.

Unlike in England, we continue to provide authorities in Wales with the flexibility to set their own budgets and council tax levels to help manage the financial challenges they face—flexibilities that have not been available to their counterparts in England. We do not require authorities to conduct costly local referenda, nor is the funding raised through council tax ring-fenced for specific purposes.

Unlike in England, we have maintained a national system for council tax support for those least able to pay. We have continued to maintain full entitlements for council tax support under our council tax reduction scheme. We are again providing £244 million for our council tax reduction scheme in the local government settlement. This ensures almost 300,000 vulnerable and low-income households in Wales are protected from any increase in their council tax liability, contrary to what was said on the opposite benches. Of these, 220,000 will continue to pay no council tax at all. We are making progress on making council tax fairer. My colleague, the Minister for Finance and Trefnydd, issued a written statement to provide an update last week.

I also support the principle of Rhun ap Iorwerth's amendment, calling for longer term funding settlements to support longer term planning. We recognise and are sympathetic to the calls from our public sector partners for budgeting over a longer period whenever possible in order to support forward financial planning, and our ambition is always to publish plans for longer than 12 months. However, this must be balanced with our ability to provide realistic and sensible planning assumptions in light of the continuing fiscal uncertainty, ongoing pursuit of austerity by the UK Government, and the considerable uncertainty surrounding the shape and nature of the shambolic Brexit negotiations currently being undertaken by the UK Government. The Welsh Government does not have a funding settlement from the UK Government beyond 2019-20 for revenue and 2020-21 for capital, which is why I, reluctantly, have to oppose amendment number 3, although I support the principle entirely.

I do not support the call for an independent review of the funding formula. The funding formula is reviewed annually through a partnership between Welsh local government and Welsh Government. The underlying rationale for the distribution formula is straightforward. It uses indicators of relative need, which are not influenced by local choices. These include demographic factors, deprivation indicators and sparsity. Where the data for these indicators change then so does the distribution. Each year, we renew and test the significance of existing and newly proposed indicators.

I've said many times, and I'll say it again, that, if there is anyone in local government or in this Assembly or in the wider world who has well-argued proposals for new or different indicators of spending need, then I will ask that this is considered in our continuous review of the distribution formula alongside local government, with whom I have a very good working relationship. I take some comfort in the fact, however, that urban areas continue to feel the formula favours the rural and vice versa, that southern areas feel the north is favoured and vice versa, and that poor areas feel the affluent benefit and vice versa, because, actually, local government and this Government have agreed, in partnership, what that formula looks like, and some of the people that you mentioned sat beside me in the distribution formula working group only a few weeks ago. And my colleague the Minister for Finance and Trefnydd also attended, and we had a very good meeting, where there was certainly a consensus.

I take no comfort from the sale of misinformation and misunderstanding that surrounds this formula. We have a responsibility to explain how it works, and so does every Assembly Member, every council leader and chief executive. Deputy Presiding Officer, I would like to state at this point that we will offer technical briefings on the exact nature of the formula, its weighting and how it works, to every Assembly Member, either individually or in groups or in any way that would most benefit you. I think we share a responsibility to understand the formula and make it work, and we can't pass it over to some independent panel. 

Deputy Presiding Officer, I feel very strongly that local government should be supported in terms of austerity. I feel that we need to be realistic about the cuts in the grant to this Government of £800 million equivalent a year. We have done our very best to protect local government. They have worked very well with me in my time as Minister, and I pay tribute to their continued perseverance to deliver services in the face of this continued austerity. Diolch.

Thank you. Can I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to reply to the debate?

Thank you. And, before bringing this debate to a close, I would like to thank colleagues across the Chamber for actually contributing to this very timely debate. After all, it is now when our constituents and hard-working families and pensioners will be receiving those hefty council tax bills. Now, local government underpins the delivery of our very vital public services, and is really in close contact with the people that we are also elected to represent. Now, while new data has become available from StatsWales and the Wales Audit Office, the issues that we've heard today are all too familiar. They say local government funding requires a comprehensive overhaul. As concluded by the auditor general:

'it is important that councils do not add unnecessarily to the burden placed on council-tax payers, by raising more income through council tax than is necessary to deliver council services'.

Most crucially, where councils hold significant reserves—and they say this—it is essential that these figures are reflected in their own budgets. 

Now, Dai Lloyd and several other AM colleagues blamed austerity, and that is very much an overused word in this Chamber, because, thanks to the UK Government's managed clearance of its inherited deficit—and it was inherited, you cannot deny that—it can now start repaying UK debt and increasing the spend on public services. And we cannot deny the fact that, for every £1 provided to England, £1.20 comes to Wales. So, this really isn't about whether the money's in the pot; it's how that money is then spent. 

It has been touched upon that, where councils hold significant reserves, it does seem unfair to many of my constituents, when they say, 'Well, they are holding over £100 million, why have they had a 1 per cent increase when my local authority is holding pennies compared to that and they've seen -0.3 per cent?' And when that's all calculated back into council tax increases—you know, we have an older demographic; it is so unfair and it is so wrong. But I have got to be honest with you, you are the first Minister in eight years—I think I have had five local government Cabinet Secretaries; you are the first Minister, Julie, that has acknowledged that we are concerned about the formula and that you are going to provide a technical briefing and that we are able to participate in how we feel that those indicators ought to be addressed. So, actually, I'm quite heartened, and, if it's taken our debate to do that, then that's good news. 

Now, as commonly cited, the regional variation in reserves between councils is quite shocking. Rhondda Cynon Taf: £152 million. Now, I raised it with your predecessor as to why those roll-over amounts were not being challenged. It was the same local authorities holding pennies and the same local authorities holding vast millions, and I really do think that you—. And I would ask you, please, to have a different approach and look across the board as to who is holding on, who is squirrelling away that money and then also receiving very good settlement figures. This was highlighted by Flintshire County Council's #BackTheAsk campaign, urging the Welsh Government to alleviate their financial crisis. 

Now, let's go on to education funding, because Suzy Davies is quite correct to raise the issue that there's some disguise going on there. When funding goes through to local government and then is not passed to our schools, that's even more of a scandal that's going on here in Wales. Education providers, local authorities and even the unions are up in arms about this. It is unfathomable and completely unjustified that £450 million of school funding does not even reach the classroom. So, again, you ought to be working more closely, perhaps, with the education Minister about how we get that money into those schools, because right now I've got teachers having to buy books, pens and other materials to use in their schools. 

The thing is here, we have got an issue in Wales. We have got the funding coming into Wales. The local government formula needs to be looked at, and I think that you do have an appetite to look at that, Minister. Also, though, I think you need to look, in next year's budget, at the settlement given to local authorities. All I ask for, all we ask for on these benches: let's have some equity, let's have some true equality when it comes to the spend and the distribution of the settlement across our local authorities in Wales. Thank you.

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

We now move on to item 9 on the agenda, which is the UKIP debate on the European Union, and I call on David Rowlands to move the motion.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. For almost two years, we've endured the prophecies of a cataclysmic impact on the UK economy should we leave the EU in a 'no deal' scenario—such adverse consequences promulgated by both socialist parties of this Assembly and much of which is sheer negative speculation. We in UKIP concede there may be some short-term negative impacts on our economy, but almost all economic experts predict this to be only short term. However, in this debate, UKIP wishes to concentrate more on the political implications of us remaining in the EU. 

Remaining in the EU is, of course, the ultimate objective of both the Labour Party, Plaid Cymru and the Conservatives, and in the former, at least, an indisputable desire to frustrate the will of an overwhelming number of their Labour voters. Perhaps we should note here that the people of Sunderland, despite the overt threats to the future of the Nissan plant, steadfastly remain in favour of leaving the EU. This appears to be true for all the regions that voted leave, including those here in Wales. This can only point to one thing: the desire to leave Europe goes far beyond economic benefits, or otherwise. It is about the people's desire to regain control of all our institutions, particularly the power of our parliaments, our judiciary, our borders, our fishing grounds and a host of other areas that have been ceded to Brussels.  

Will the Member give way? 

Of course. 

Look, your motion actually says that you are against handing powers from national parliaments to unelected institutions, but the policy that you've just adopted is about taking power from this national Parliament and giving it to Westminster, half of which are unelected members. So, the real nationalism that is at the heart of your motion is actually made clear. It's British nationalism. 

I'm sure that the AM is misreading what we're saying. We're saying that we'll give a vote on that to the people. 

Contrary to the idea propagated by many in this Chamber, the people were very well aware of what they were voting for in the referendum. It seems that most in this Chamber wish to forget that a comprehensive brochure was sent to every household in Wales and the UK outlining the pros and cons of being in the UK, and because it came from a pro-remain Tory Government, there were far more pros outlined than cons. Are those in this Chamber who proffer the argument that the people did not understand what they were voting for inferring they were unable to read or understand that document?

In case anyone wishes to argue otherwise, the huge difficulties we now supposedly face in leaving the EU are almost entirely manufactured by the appalling way in which the Tories, headed by Theresa May, have handled the Brexit process. Almost everyone I speak to, including remainers, believe that the so-called negotiations under May have been a carefully constructed charade. And polls show that 90 per cent of the people say there's been a total capitulation, leading to a complete humiliation of the peoples of the UK. 

We have heard ad infinitum the so-called consequences of us leaving the EU, but what will be the consequences of us remaining in the EU? Perhaps we should examine some of those consequences. First, if we remain in the EU, we shall remain wedded to the common agricultural policy, a regime that has been environmentally disastrous and has reduced most British farmers to a begging-bowl existence, or sometimes financial ruin. It is true that it has had the effect of making some farmers in the south-east of England virtual millionaires. Despite promises for some 30 years, there have been no significant changes to the EU's farming policy or, indeed, the common fishing policy. 

If we remain, our rich fishing grounds will continue to be exploited by foreign vessels, to the detriment of our fishermen and the British people, with a loss to the UK economy of some £900 million. The power of the Westminster Parliament and, by implication, the devolved administrations, including this Assembly, will continue to be diluted. European courts will continue to have supremacy over our courts. We will ultimately be part of a European army under the command of Brussels. The Franco-German grand reform is a plan—. 

Excuse me, will you give way on that—

Yes.

—ridiculous remark? [Laughter.] Do you not understand that we're currently members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which is based in Brussels, and that by being part of NATO we've pooled our sovereignty with some of our friends around the world to guarantee our safety, our security and our democracy? We've enhanced our sovereignty by being part of NATO, not diminished it.   

The great difference with that, of course, is that under NATO we still have control of our own forces. Under this proposed European army, we will not have control of our own forces—[Interruption.] No, I've listened to you. Thank you, very much.

The Franco-German grand reform is a plan to put in place a joint budget, Parliament and finance Minister for the eurozone. Should we remain in the EU, we will almost certainly be forced to join the eurozone at some point in the near future. Our economy will then be effectively run by the German Bundesbank. Our contributions to the EU are set to rise by at least £1 billion year on year, with the added prospect of us paying even more if our economy prospers, as was the case when Cameron was forced to pay over an extra £1.7 billion in 2014, of which France received £0.7 billion and which it is said they used to keep their public sector employees in jobs. This whilst we are forced to cut our front-line public employees to the bone.

Plaid Cymru, and Labour, if 'no deal' is taken off the table, clamour for a second referendum. Well, perhaps we ought to point out that there were 84,000 more Brexiteers in Wales than there were remainers; a stark contrast to the 6,700 majority that secured the establishment of this Assembly, yet both parties are content to accept the legitimacy of the Assembly referendum, whilst denying the European one. Again, it should be noted that 16 out of the 22 local authorities in Wales voted to leave. Anything other than leaving the European institutions in their entirety will be a direct denial of what the people of Wales voted for. Again, Labour and Plaid Cymru clamour for what they call 'a people's vote'. Who do they think voted the last time? Some clandestine subspecies? I firmly believe that however you seek to clothe it, however you seek to disguise it, your efforts to deny the people of Wales their democratic vote to leave the EU will ultimately cost you at the ballot box.

I have selected the three amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will be deselected. If amendment 2 is agreed, amendment 3 will be deselected. So, can I call on Darren Millar to move amendment 1 tabled in his own name?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I want to thank the UKIP group, or what's left of it, for bringing this timely debate forward today, and of course it is timely because we would have been leaving the European Union on Friday. That's what MPs have previously voted for in agreeing to trigger article 50. That's what the public voted for in the 2017 general election, with 36 of Wales's 40 MPs elected on a manifesto promise to deliver Brexit. And, of course, that is what Wales voted for back in 2016, as we've quite rightly already heard.

The problem is that many politicians in both Westminster and here in the National Assembly believe that they know better than the people who elect them. They don't respect the result of the referendum or the reasons why so many individuals voted to leave the EU. And they're now perpetuating that anger and resentment against an out-of-touch political establishment by trying to overturn the verdict of the biggest democratic exercise in Wales in a generation.

So, we will not be supporting the Plaid Cymru amendment, which calls for a return and a rerun of the referendum in a people's vote. This would be a complete betrayal of voters across Wales, including Plaid voters in many Plaid Cymru areas, all of whom voted to leave, especially Carmarthenshire, Ynys Môn, Rhondda and many parts of the south Wales Valleys. We'll be opposing also—

Will you take an intervention?

I'll happily take the intervention, yes.

Thank you for taking the intervention, but can you not understand that in the case of Ynys Môn, for example, it's pretty much exactly 50:50? Things can change from one day to the other, almost, and to suggest that we are ignoring what was said and what the result was of that referendum—what on earth have we been doing for the past three years other than trying to find ways of making it work? And we as a party that doesn't want to leave the European Union have put forward all sorts of ways of looking after Wales's interests and mitigating the damaging effects of Brexit.

I appreciate that it's an inconvenient truth that your constituency voted to leave the EU but that is the case.

We will also be opposing the flip-flop amendment from the Welsh Government. Jeremy Corbyn, of course, was lukewarm about staying in the EU and has since taken the bizarre position of pledging to deliver Brexit but consistently voting against the only deal that has been on the floor of the House of Commons to deliver it. And, at the same time, of course, he's been stringing along many of his own MPs, who want a clear commitment to start all over again with another referendum. His protégé in this National Assembly, the First Minister, has also been all over the place on Brexit. One minute he's favoured a general election, one minute he's proposed revised deals, but now we're told—and I quote—that he's, 'Very near favouring a second people's vote.' We saw that Owen Smith, the Pontypridd MP, said that he and a lot of other people are considering quitting Labour over its own Brexit shambles. Of course, he was sacked from the Labour frontbench for advocating a second referendum and breaking collective responsibility, unlike two Members of the current Welsh Government's Cabinet, who have also broken collective responsibility—[Interruption.] Yes.

I'm glad you're talking about quitting, because I'll just remind you that the Tory Government have lost three Ministers just this week. So, let's get real here. But I want to put a quote out here:

'The free trade agreement that we will have to do with the European Union should be one of the easiest in human history.'

Liam Fox, 2017.

'Post #Brexit a UK-German deal would include free access for their cars and industrial goods, in exchange for a deal on everything else'.

David Davis.

And I could go on, because it's absolutely a load of lies.

I took a very long intervention there, Deputy Presiding Officer. But I will say this: at least Conservatives have the decency, when they disagree with their Government, to resign from the Government, unlike Members of the Welsh Government.

You either accept the decision of the people or you don't, and, if you don't, you should have the courage to say so, but, of course, the First Minister's not prepared to say so, which is why he's been trying to tread this very fine line, because he wants to try and follow the position of his boss, Jeremy Corbyn.

Now, our amendment to this motion, which I move, is very clear and simple. We respect the result of the referendum and we urge the Welsh Government to work with the UK Government as we leave the European Union. Today, MPs, a number of whom are determined to overturn Brexit, will be taking part in a series of indicative votes to try to determine a way forward, but it is absolutely clear that the quickest and most orderly departure from the EU would be to accept the compromise deal that has been agreed between the Prime Minister and EU leaders, and I very much hope that MPs who are committed to respecting the democratic result of the referendum will not hold out in the hope of what they regard to be a perfect Brexit deal. Instead, we need some pragmatism, and that's why I'm urging everybody to support this sensible compromise that the Prime Minister has developed with the EU, which I believe does deliver on the people's vote of 2016. A failure to support that deal could mean significant delays to Brexit; it could require us to take part in the EU elections, which are coming up in May; or even put Brexit at risk for years to come. But, of course, if we back the Prime Minister's compromise deal, the UK could be out of the EU in a matter of weeks, and that would deliver on the Brexit that the people of Wales voted for.

I call on the Minister for International Relations and Welsh Language to move formally amendment 2, tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans. 

Formally. 

I call on Adam Price to move amendment 3, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Adam Price. 

Diolch, Llywydd. There's a temptation, as our fate is being decided tonight in that other Parliament by a series of pink slips—there's a redundancy metaphor there that I could develop—[Laughter.]—for us to hold our breath, but even as Westminster collapses into cacophony, we need to struggle even further to make our voices heard.

Sixty years ago, a former Conservative Prime Minister referred to the wind of change sweeping through another continent. Brexit, if it happens, will be a wind of change between us and the continent, but let's be clear about one thing: it will be a destructive one. In Westminster, over two and a half years, it has raged like a maelstrom, it has defenestrated our political institutions and it's eaten away at the very foundations of our democracy. Westminster itself has become a spinning weathervane, facing all ways at once, and at the heart of the vortex is a vacuum where once there was a Government. Now, Brexit has already done deep damage to our democratic culture, to civility, to tolerance, and that damage will not be undone easily or quickly, whatever happens. We should have no illusions about that. It's done damage because of one simple fact: the main proponents of Brexit lied to us. There is an honest case to be made to end the relationship between ourselves and the European Union. It's not, in my view, a particularly strong or compelling one, which is why it's not the one that was made. I give way in regret—[Inaudible.] 

Hasn't the damage been done by those on the losing side of that referendum who have refused to accept the result and will not implement it?

Look, the point is this, okay? The case that was put in front of the people was a cynical act of moral deception, right? You lied; you lied to people, and that's been made clear. I'm not going to take—

On a point of order, Llywydd. 

I'm not going to take—

It was not a personal reference.

Well, he waved his hand in my direction and said 'you'.

Carry on, Adam Price.

I was using the collective.

And calm down, Mark Reckless.

Look, it's because of that deception that we now have an imperative to be honest with people about the consequences of the choices that are being made tonight. I can see why the shadow trade Secretary this morning said that Labour was not a remain party; that Labour would not support the revoke amendments, et cetera, but now is not the time to be politically expedient or to be equivocal. We have to make our choice and our voices clear. I'm not going to say anything more about UKIP. I'm glad there are cordon sanitaires now opened up between us. So, look, let's not talk about them.

As far as the Conservative Party—your amendment, like your politics, is empty. I mean, 'Keep calm and carry on' may be a nice poster, but it's not a political strategy when you're facing a brick wall or a cliff edge.

The most disappointing amendment, I have to say, yet again, is the Government's. Like a whole host of Welsh Government statements we've had, it's more significant for what it doesn't say. It omits to mention the idea—the central idea, surely—of a confirmatory referendum or a people's vote. That fails to recognise, in our view, that the key dividing line on this key issue of our times is no longer, actually, between a soft or a hard Brexit; the debate has moved on. It's between Brexit and no Brexit. The Government amendment says that

'whatever the outcome of the current negotiations, the United Kingdom should seek to maintain the closest possible economic, social and environmental links between the UK and the other 27 states which make up the EU.'

I wholeheartedly agree with that. But surely the closest possible relationship is to remain within the EU, and if you believe that, then say it.

Our amendment is an honest attempt to rectify this omission. As Westminster conducts its own indicative votes, we need to indicate here, tonight, that we are ready to do our part. It's not enough for us to call on the UK Government to make preparations for a people's vote; we have a responsibility too. We need to prepare—to prepare the argument—so let's pass the amendment in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth and meet this week, as leaders in our respective parties, across party and build the campaign for the referendum and also start to plan to win that campaign. What greater contrast to the series of divisions that we'll see at Westminster tonight than to strike a note of unity here in Wales?

If I think back over the last three years of this debate, I have to say, I don't believe that this has enhanced our democracy or our democratic traditions, either in Wales or across the United Kingdom. We've seen people who claim to be campaigning for the restoration of a sovereignty that I, frankly, don't believe ever existed, then attacking the fundamental structures and architecture of that sovereignty. Judges are no longer the independent arm of a judiciary, they are enemies of the people because they happen to disagree with UKIP and with Brexiteers. Parliament and MPs are abused, and I see this in my own home, how MPs are systematically abused for standing up in the House of Commons and saying what they believe. What greater tenet is there in any democratic tradition that an elected Member can stand in a Chamber and speak their mind without being abused and without receiving threats? There's a 77-year-old lady—let me finish this point—who launched a petition last week. She is now receiving protection because of the death threats she has received. How does that enhance and strengthen our democratic traditions? I'll give way.

I utterly condemn those sorts of appalling behaviours, much of which we see on social media before our very eyes, but do you accept that much of that is also being targeted at those who wish to leave the EU and are supporters of Brexit in precisely the same way? That is also not acceptable and I'm sure you'd want to join me in condemning that also.

I condemn all sorts. I condemn it without qualification. But I also say to the Member for Clwyd West that the language he uses—. In his own contribution this afternoon, he's talked about an out-of-touch political establishment and used the word 'betrayal'. Now, that, to me, is not the hallmark of a democrat who recognises and values points of view with which they disagree.

Let me say this: clearly, I believe that our sovereignty is enhanced by membership of the European Union and not diminished. I have confidence in the United Kingdom, I have confidence in the people of Britain and the people of Wales. I believe that we have the ability to shape the world around us. I believe that we have the ability to influence the world around us. When a UK Minister goes to New York to speak at the United Nations, I don't believe that in some way we're being undermined as a country or a people or a culture; I believe that what we're doing is participating in world affairs and I'm proud that we do it.

When I attended meetings of the Council of Ministers to represent Wales, whether it was agriculture, whether it was fisheries, whether it was general affairs councils, I didn't believe for one moment—and it didn't happen—that we were being told what to do; that we were being given our instructions. We joined together with our closest friends and neighbours in order to do the best thing for all of our peoples. And what we did there was to change the way that international diplomacy and international affairs have been conducted on the continent of Europe, but elsewhere in the world. We've demonstrated that a continent can rise from the ashes and slaughter of war to build something different, to build something for the future.

When we were in Brussels a few weeks ago, speaking to the New Zealand ambassador there, he was talking about how they wanted to export some of their values through the world—he talked about sustainability. That is what the European Union has done; it has done it across the world and it has done it here as well. I believe that the debate over Brexit has done as much damage to our democracy as the expenses scandal did a decade ago. It has undermined trust in people, it has undermined trust in the institutions and it has undermined trust in the process. And that has largely been done by those people who've used the sort of language that I believe is unacceptable. I read a tweet from Mark Reckless the other week. It said:

'We won, you lost. If you block Brexit and democracy you will reap what you sow.'

Will the Member give way?

I will give way, because I'm sure the Member wants the opportunity to apologise for that and to withdraw it.

The Member, when we had that debate, attacked me and shouted at me that I was a visitor. I've lived in this country for over three years, and I was attacked by you, as a visitor. In this debate, I've been attacked as a liar, and nothing is done about it. That is not democracy and that is not how a Parliament should operate.

I don't think this tweet was meant for me on that occasion and I notice that you haven't apologised for it.

But that is the language that leads to threats to my partner; it's what leads to police officers in my home, protecting my family, and it is your language that's doing that. And by doing so, you undermine our democracy and you should be deeply, deeply ashamed of yourself.

Calling me a visitor. Will you apologise for that?

And when you tell me to shut up and to sit down, what you're doing is undermining the democracy—[Interruption.] I won't give way again, I'm fed up of you. Let me say this: when the Member tells me to sit down and shut up, what he does, of course, is to undermine the democracy in this Chamber as well. And let me say this: we won't allow you to do it. We will not allow you to do it. This democracy in this place is something that I've fought for all my adult life—

You've just insulted me by calling me a visitor and then you won't apologise.

Can we stop shouting? The microphone is not hearing anybody's comments other than the person who is on his feet.

Point of order.

There is no point of order—[Interruption.] Just because you are—[Interruption.] Just because you shout at me, it doesn't mean that I will accept any of the points you are making. Will you now calm down, Mark Reckless? Alun Davies.

Thank you very much. I would say that our democracy demands a number of things. It certainly demands the honesty and transparency that Adam Price described, but it also demands respect for other people's points of view, and that is a fundamental part and tenet of our democracy. It's also a recognition that nobody owns our democracy; we all do. But there's also a recognition that democracy didn't end in June 2016, and there is no such thing as a settled will of the people. It is up to us to invent and to reinvent our institutions and our constitution as we ourselves determine, and that's why I support a people's vote. It's why I support a final say for the people on the agreement—whatever agreement is finally reached—because we cannot here overturn a referendum, and neither should we try, although the Conservatives have tried, of course, on numerous occasions, to overturn the devolution referenda. What we have to do is to go back to the people.

We have to go back to the people and argue our case. We have to go back to the people and demonstrate that the points made by David Rowlands in opening this debate are largely erroneous and wholly wrong, both in fact, in substance and in interpretation. By doing that, I hope that we will do two things—and I'll finish on this point, Presiding Officer. We will certainly start to return the humanity to the debate in Wales and the United Kingdom; we will certainly begin to rebuild our democracy and the trust in the institutions that some people claim to want to strengthen. But we will do more than that. I hope what we will do is to start rebuilding a society that I would be proud to call home, a society where my son will grow up, not pointing at people and screaming at them, not threatening them because we disagree with them—

You're pointing at me as you're saying that. Can you please draw your conclusions?

It's an oratorical device; I'm sorry, Presiding Officer. 

I believe that that will return the sovereignty of the people and the sovereignty of our communities, and that is a sovereignty of which we can all be proud.

I wonder if Alun Davies would have supported a people's vote if the referendum result had gone the other way. But it didn't go the other way. Eighty-five per cent of votes cast in the 2017 UK general election were for parties that committed to abide by the referendum result and implement Brexit in their manifestos. It is therefore more than regrettable that many in this place have devoted all their energies since to promoting worst-case scenarios rather than respecting the people.

UK-EU negotiations have followed a staged process, which was known and understood from the outset, but some choose to misrepresent this as time wasted. Many of the same people have used what was agreed long before the Prime Minister's withdrawal agreement as an excuse for opposing it now. The Irish border issue is important, but the legal text is clear that both parties want to avoid the use of the backstop and that article 50 cannot establish a permanent relationship. The EU themselves have made it very clear that they do not want a post-Brexit UK to remain in extended customs union and single market membership.

However, the real deal negotiated by the Prime Minister and her team, which required agreement with 27 others, is about very much more than this. As the Prime Minister stated, this deal delivers on the result of the referendum, taking back control of our money, borders and laws, while protecting jobs and national security. Although you wouldn't know it from the sensationalist debate about and coverage of the EU withdrawal agreement and political declaration, the Prime Minister's Brexit deal includes a range of safeguards, including agreed arrangements that will let data continue to flow freely; trade arrangements for gas and electricity; strong rules to keep trade fair so that neither the UK nor EU can unfairly subsidise their industries against the other; a comprehensive air transport agreement and comparable access for freight operators, buses and coaches; agreed arrangements so we can continue to take part in EU programmes like Horizon and Erasmus; a co-operation agreement with Euratom, covering all the key areas where we want to collaborate; and continuing visa-free travel to the EU for holidays and business trips. Well, I've heard politicians telling the public, with apparent sincerity, that none of that was in the withdrawal deal currently being considered.

At least Plaid Cymru, as co-authors of the joint January 2017 Welsh Government and Plaid Cymru White Paper, 'Securing Wales' Future', are honest about their intention to, yes, betray the result of the EU referendum, despite Wales voting to leave the EU. In contrast, Labour Ministers and backbenchers—or, most of them—claim to respect the outcome of the referendum while promoting what amounts to Brexit in name only. Although some 60 per cent of UK Labour constituencies voted to leave, including 59 per cent to leave in Wrexham and 56 per cent in Flintshire, the Labour First Minister has repeatedly advocated the plan detailed in the joint Labour-Plaid Cymru White Paper for continued UK membership of the EU customs union and single market. This would mean no control of our borders, our trade and our laws, and a never-ending UK financial contribution to EU coffers. In other words: yes, a total betrayal by a Welsh establishment determined to thwart Brexit, which treats the people with arrogant contempt. I'll take one intervention.

I'm grateful to the Member for the intervention. He may not know but the Prime Minister has indicated that she's going to resign if the deal goes through—the first time in history that a leader has said that, if they get the backing of their party, they will resign, rather than the other way around. But I have to put this to him, and I'll be brief, Llywydd: in 1997, we had a referendum on devolution. The people of Wales voted to establish an Assembly, and yet, the Conservative whip at Westminster was to oppose the result of the referendum and oppose the establishment of the Assembly. How does he reconcile the Conservative view then with what he's advocating now?

Fortunately, we saw the error of our ways and changed our policy on that, and it's not been our policy now for 13 years. So, yes, nice look into the past.

However, mirroring Mr Corbyn's terminology, the First Minister has now slipped in the meaningless term 'a customs union' instead of 'the customs union', knowing full well that the Prime Minister is committed to a customs arrangement, and that whatever terminology we use for this, it is currently irrelevant in terms of the withdrawal deal.

It is technically correct for Labour and Plaid Cymru to keep stating that the withdrawal agreement does not guarantee that the UK would stay in a customs union. That's only because the withdrawal agreement is not designed to address our future trade relationship with the EU. Although the withdrawal agreement says the EU and the UK have a common objective of a close future relationship that would build on a single customs territory, this is for negotiation during the transition period agreed as part of the Prime Minister's deal.

In the real world, the UK reclaimed No. 1 position in the world's soft power league table last year. When people voted to leave the EU, they were voting for control. This is not about a soft Brexit or a hard Brexit but an open Brexit—one that ensures that the UK is still turned outwards and more engaged with the world than ever before. It remains overwhelmingly in the interests of both the UK and the EU to agree a friendly free trade deal and custom arrangements. If we can just get it right, then we can end up with a deep and special relationship with the EU—a strong European Union, buttressed by and supporting a strong and global UK, and still trading and co-operating closely with each other too. I just regret that so many people have put so much time and effort in seeking to frustrate that.

In this Chamber yesterday, the Welsh Government spent a considerable amount of time bringing forward legislative amendments readying the statute book for Brexit: regulations on everything from potatoes to tax, plant health to accounting, social care to rural affairs—you name it. And whilst these votes did not take long, I know that the preparatory work will have done. It will have taken days of painstaking and expensive work for lawyers, officials, Ministers, committees and translators. These regulations are just a tiny fraction of the work that is going on inside and outside of Government. Just consider the millions of working hours spent on Brexit in Whitehall, and for what? So we can lawfully ready ourselves for economic carnage.

I don't dispute that the Government needs to do this work, but I am simply horrified by the colossal waste of time, energy and resources we have already poured down the drain named Brexit. When it comes to the stormy waters we find ourselves in, I want to see more energy being put into keeping the economic ship afloat rather than preparing for it to sink. Because it isn't just costing the Government and taxpayers money, time and resources. Airbus recently said they'd already spent tens of millions preparing for a 'no deal' Brexit—that is tens of millions that should have been spent here in Wales on research and development, apprenticeships and new equipment. Little wonder that the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress have now told the Prime Minister that this country is facing a national emergency. They said,

'We cannot overstate the gravity of this crisis for firms and working people'.

And what has been Theresa May's response to this emergency? Firstly, to make one of the most shameful speeches ever made by a Prime Minister in this country, blaming Parliament and, by extension, individual MPs for betraying the public—a grotesque smear in a country that just three years ago lost a Member of Parliament to a political assassination.

You made reference in your remarks there to the CBI. Of course, they're supporting the Prime Minister's withdrawal deal. Will you also accept their advice in respect of their support for the Prime Minister's withdrawal deal?

My position's been very clear, Darren—I want a people's vote, and I notice you haven't bothered defending Theresa May today.

Even after stinging criticism from all sides there was no attempt to reach out and compromise. Like something out of a Bertie Wooster novel, the Prime Minister then invited a bewildering bunch of posh white men to her country retreat in a bid to sort the whole thing out. That the assembled ranks then decided to refer to themselves as 'grand wizards', a title associated with the Ku Klux Klan, tells you absolutely everything you need to know about where some of the key architects of Brexit are on the political and intellectual spectrum. It takes something for the Tories to keep pace with a UKIP party now fully associated with Tommy Robinson, but this week they've managed it.

And what of UKIP? The motion we have before us today simply shows the complete lack of responsibility they have for the lies we were all told in the 2016 referendum. There's nothing new here—no proposed solutions to today's crisis. Just tired, reheated rhetoric about a European superstate. If you could turn the tiny, soggy, Leave Means Leave march into an opposition day motion, then this is what it would look like.

The terrible state of this grubby Brexiteer campaign could not have been put into any sharper relief than by the 1 million-plus 'Put it to the People' march in London on Saturday—1 million people, whose determination was matched by their dignity showed that where Westminster is failing, the public is not. I was incredibly proud to be there, marching alongside London's mayor, Sadiq Khan, and members from all political parties and people from all walks of life. Much is made of the age divide and class divide between remain and Brexit voters in 2016, but everyone was represented on that march. It was positive, it was vibrant, it was forward-looking—exactly the kind of Wales and Britain we should all want in the future. Add this to the unprecedented public petition to revoke article 50, which at the latest count looks ready to go beyond 6 million signatories, and it simply cannot be said that the country just wants us to get on and to get out of the EU. Things have changed, the mood has changed, people's views have changed. At the time of the EU referendum, UKIP had seven Members in this Assembly. They now have three. That is indicative of a movement that has collapsed, a moment in time that has gone, an idea that had no basis in reality.

Brexit is a dangerous fantasy that has thankfully been exposed at the eleventh hour. It is time to afford the public the same right we exercise in this Chamber every week—the right to change our minds. It is time to put it to the people.

I call on the Minister for International Relations and the Welsh Language, Eluned Morgan.

Llywydd, thank you to UKIP for the opportunity to respond to this debate. What's interesting about the motion before us today is that, rather than discussing the disorder surrounding Brexit at the moment, the motion focuses on history and basic principles of the European Union, and that gives me an opportunity to contradict the inconsistencies, the untruths and the misleading by UKIP about the European Union, which has led to the current systematic failure in our political system since the 2016 referendum. And I want to turn to each of the points addressed in the motion in turn.

It will give me great pleasure in this debate to highlight the contradictions, the half-truths, the misrepresentations that UKIP has constantly told about the EU and that are contained in this resolution. 

Let me start by looking at the fear that UKIP expressed about an ever-closer union in their resolution. Now, I think it's worth reminding ourselves that the European Union was forged following the disaster of the second world war, and a close union is in fact a commitment to peaceful co-existence, co-operation and co-determination. A bit more of that is what we should be looking for in our society at the moment. And the EU has been fantastically successful at constructing a Europe that is characterised by peaceful, if sometimes argumentative, co-operation rather than war and destruction. And it's no coincidence that the EU became a beacon of hope for the countries of central and eastern Europe, who suffered for so long under Russian dictators. And their principal aspiration after the fall of the Berlin wall was to join the organisation.

And can I also point out that far from being some sort of continental conspiracy foisted upon an unwilling and proud Britannia, the initiative for creating the organisation that grew to become the European Union drew inspiration from our own wartime leader, Winston Churchill? Churchill is regarded as one of the 11 founding fathers of the European Union. He, of course, was the founder of the United Europe Movement, and in 1946 he said,

'We must build a kind of United States of Europe…The structure of the United States of Europe, if well and truly built, will be such as to make the material strength of a single state less important…If at first all the States of Europe are not willing or able to join the Union, we must nevertheless proceed to assemble and combine those who will and those who can.'

Will the Minister give way on that point?

Yes.

Would she also accept that in that same speech Churchill said that Britain should not be part of that?

What he did in that speech was to make it clear that he was willing to work with the members of the Commonwealth, and I'm more than happy to make it clear that he said that they can't commit this country to entering the European Union without the agreement of other members of the British Commonwealth. And he said,

'no time must be lost in discussing the question with the Dominions and seeking to convince them that their interests as well as ours lie in a United Europe.'

That's why he didn't make that commitment at that point. He made it later, and that was the reason he didn't make it then. And I think it's scandalous that UKIP commandeered Churchill's image to support their malicious campaign of disinformation in the run-up to the referendum almost three years ago.

Now, moving to the second point, I think it's untrue that the EU is somehow surreptitiously taking power away from member states without their consent. Under the Single European Act in 1986, the vast majority of decisions were made by unanimity. And any substantive changes to the treaties still require unanimity. But who was the architect to that move towards majority voting? None other than that second Brexiteer icon, Margaret Thatcher. And while it's true that qualified majority voting has expanded over the last 30 years, only a minority of the decisions made by the EU Council of Ministers are made other than by unanimity. And far from evidence of an unstoppable trend, there have been no further expansions in that area subject to majority voting since the Lisbon treaty in 2007. And, of course, it's simply not true to say that all power is concentrated in the hands of unelected institutions—I should know, I was there for 15 years as a Member of the European Parliament—and while the Council of Ministers also consists of Ministers each with their own accountability to their own legislatures. And as such, the Council of Ministers is no more undemocratic than the upper house of the German Parliament, the Bundesrat, which represents the Länder or the states in a constitution, which, again, was drawn up by the British in the wake of world war two.

And whilst it's true that the Commission is appointed, not directly elected, it's completely bizarre to see it as a relentless force, always moving in one direction. Of course, on the contrary, successive Commissions have reflected the dominant political culture of member states at different times, from the progressive, from Jacques Delors, to the much more laissez-faire approach of Jean-Claude Juncker. And if there is, indeed, a danger, as the fourth point of the motion puts it, that the UK will remain in the European Union despite the referendum result, the fault for this lies firstly with the approach of the Prime Minister—initially egged on by UKIP and the Brexiteers to simply ignore the views and the interests of the 48 per cent, and they didn't even attempt to work on a cross-party basis—and secondly with those who sold a false prospectus to the people by claiming our negotiations with the EU would be the easiest in history. Well, that's gone really well, hasn't it?

As for the view that remaining in the EU exposes us to ever closer integration against our will, of course the truth is somewhat different. If we leave, then it's true that there will be a change in the balance of power within the EU, and in some areas, for example military co-operation and closer regulation in the financial institutions, there are likely to be changes that the UK would have blocked or, at least, been uncomfortable with. But, as is becoming increasingly clear, unless we keep in close economic alignment with the EU, as huge swathes of our economy, above all our manufacturing base, depend on an integrated supply chain with the European Union and they are likely, then, to become uncompetitive. And keeping in close alignment with the EU means in practice accepting a large part of its regulatory systems, since, as we have seen in the negotiations to date, a market of 450 million has far more leverage than that of 65 million people. And it's a crowing irony in this Brexit debacle that, by leaving the EU, we'll have less control rather than more over the environment in which our businesses organise themselves. 

So, in conclusion, the motion is wholly misleading, wholly wrong-headed and it's no surprise that all three other parties in the Assembly have made amendments that start 'Delete all'. 

Now, it's also, I think, worth pointing out that Theresa May—. It's all very well her offering to stand down without a firm date—so we're not much further on, because we knew she was going before the next general election—but changing the leader won't change the substance of the debate. 

Now, in turning to the other amendments, it’s worth saying about the Conservatives that they are just like the party in Westminster, because they have nothing new to add.

Of course, in terms of Plaid Cymru, whilst the path that they propose is one that we as a Government can support—and I hope that they’ve noted that Labour has confirmed today that they will support a public vote as one of the options—it is worth highlighting that perhaps today isn’t the day to limit the possible options as the Commons tries to find a way of achieving wider support.

Llywydd, let me end by quoting Alexandre Dumas from The Three Musketeers, who might have been writing about our own slightly less dashing UKIP three musketeers with their fanatical obsession with fighting shadows and keeping the tarnished faith of the pure Brexit: