National Assembly for Wales

I call Members to order.

The first item on our agenda this afternoon is questions to the Minister for Economy and Transport, and the first question is from Alun Davies.

Yes, of course. Transport links are vital to our economy, and we are committed to ensuring a modern and integrated transport system with improved links to key services across the whole of Wales, including, of course, Blaenau Gwent.

I'm grateful to the Minister for that answer. The Minister will be aware of the record-breaking investment we are seeing in the health service for Blaenau Gwent and the whole of south-east Wales. He will be aware of the £350 million investment in the new Grange University Hospital serving Blaenau Gwent and other parts of south-east Wales. He'll also be aware that, as we deliver these world-class services, we need to ensure that people have strong, robust and reliable transport services to enable them to access the new hospital and the services that it delivers. Can he reassure me and people in Blaenau Gwent this afternoon that the Welsh Government is working collectively—himself as the transport Minister, working with the health Minister, and others—to ensure that, when this new hospital is opened, we will be able to access those services, that there will be the transport links in place, and that we will be able to enjoy the benefits of world-class healthcare, brought to us by this Welsh Labour Government?

Alun Davies makes an incredibly important point—that social infrastructure and transport infrastructure, and the services provided by the NHS, education, and services provided through transport providers, are integrated and planned together. And I am aware of the concern that the local Member has outlined this afternoon. I am already in discussions with the health Minister concerning public transport links to the Grange hospital. And I would also urge the local authority to ensure that it uses the bus services support grant, in addition to its own revenue support grant, wisely, to assist people in getting to and from non-emergency appointments. I'm also pleased to be able to say that we'll be testing innovative forms of integrated responsive bus travel in the Valleys, and the trial will very much focus on non-emergency patient transport.

Minister, I just heard your reply to Alun Davies's question, and it is very encouraging. One of the biggest concerns raised by the people living in the Valleys' communities of my region is the provision or frequency of bus services in their areas. Flexible and accessible community transport services can play an important role in helping people to reach key services, especially when their needs are not met by public transport. Minister, what plan does the Welsh Government have to increase transport support for community transport services, through the bus services support grant to local authorities? Thank you.

Well, Mohammad Asghar raises an incredibly important point about the value of community transport, particularly in rural areas. And we're very clear with local authorities, when we issue the bus services support grant, that a degree of that grant should be retained and utilised to support community transport. Mohammad Asghar will also be aware of the package of reforms that we've been consulting on, and the proposals for legislation, and, alongside this, the various trials that are to commence across Wales looking at demand-responsive transport. And it's my view that demand-responsive transport, working in tandem with community transport services, could offer solutions across the length and breadth of Wales that, to date, have not been deployed. But it will require those radical reforms that are outlined in the White Paper.

Cabinet Minister, is it not true that one cannot speak about transport links to Blaenau Gwent without discussing the rail link of the Ebbw Vale line into Newport? I know that the Member for Blaenau Gwent has dismissed this as unimportant for his constituents, but I see it as a vital part of the overall connectivity of the region. Could the Cabinet Minister, therefore, update us on any progress being made with regard to this link? After all, the people of Blaenau Gwent and the surrounding area have been waiting close to 10 years to see this put in place.

Can I thank the Member for the question and say that I am acutely aware of the tension that exists across various communities insofar as rail links are concerned on the Ebbw line? And that's why we are committed to taking forward plans to introduce four trains per hour as soon as we possibly can do on the Ebbw Vale line. And it's something that I've been working very closely with the local Member, Alun Davies, on for some time. But I can tell the Member today that we are committed to introduce an hourly service between Ebbw Vale town and Newport from 2021. I'm also pleased to say that brand-new trains will be introduced on the services through Blaenau Gwent during 2022, and this will provide, obviously, increased capacity and level boarding. Those brand-new trains, Llywydd, will provide a massive increase in capacity for passengers, with a total capacity of 425. That compares to today's 292. 

Yes, of course. As well as commitments made through the new rail franchise and the development of integrated transport interchanges, we are working with the Secretary of State for Wales to push for additional services to west Wales and investment from UK Government in the rail infrastructure that will, in turn, lead to additional capacity, faster journey times, and, of course, new stations.

Minister, I've raised the issue of Milford Haven train station in my constituency on several occasions with successive Welsh Governments over the years. Now, this train station is being used by an ever-increasing number of cruise ship visitors and tourists each year, and although improvements have been promised in recent years, it's currently deteriorating and in a very poor state of repair. Given its strategic importance to Pembrokeshire and, indeed, to west Wales, what plans does the Government have to help to improve Milford Haven train station in the future?

Paul Davies makes the valuable point that train stations often form the gateway of many communities, particularly tourist destinations, and therefore must be appealing in the way that they are presented and must have modern services contained within them. Of course, investment in rail infrastructure is a responsibility of UK Government, but as a result of the negotiations that took place during the procurement exercise for the new Wales and borders franchise, we were able to agree to a £200 million investment in stations across the network. That £200 million over the next 15 years compares very favourably to the £600,000 that was spent in total by the previous franchise holder in the last 15 years, and that £200 million will go a long way to reintroducing business opportunities into many stations that have rooms that are locked up and closed off. It will enhance the visitor economy through making train stations more appealing, more desirable places in which to invest, and we're also looking, where and whenever possible, alongside Visit Wales, to utilise train stations to promote rural economies and the visitor economy of Wales, and I can assure the Member that the stations that are contained within his area will benefit from investment, and that Milford Haven station will, of course, be a beneficiary of the £200 million that will be invested in stations. 

Minister, last month I raised with you the issue of frequency of services stopping at request stops like Kidwelly station. I wonder if you've had an opportunity yet to raise some of those questions with the provider. There's also an issue about, where request stops are available, how easy it is for passengers to make that request and how aware passengers are of how to do that. So, can I press you again to have further conversations with Transport for Wales? I'm sure their intentions here are good, but we won't persuade people to use those public transport services unless we make it as easy as possible for them to do so, and the representations that I'm receiving from constituents along that line, particularly where you have got the request stop issue, is that it isn't always easy, that you don't always get the guard coming through quickly enough to be able to make that request, or you may not even know that that's how you can make the request. So, is there something further that we can do with Transport for Wales to make that easier?

I'd like to thank Helen Mary Jones for the question, and I'd agree with her that we should be working very closely with Transport for Wales to ensure that all passengers are aware of how to request stops. In addition, we will liaise with community rail partnerships—we're investing more money in those partnerships in this rail franchise period—and we'll also work with station adoption groups as well to ensure that all relevant authorities and passenger groups are aware of how to go about ensuring that they can stop at requested stations

Minister, the Tories actually promised to deliver electrification to Swansea, which would definitely have improved services further west than Swansea. Now, we all know they reneged on that promise and as such, services west of Cardiff will not have UK Government support for any infrastructure work and modernisation. Now, that gives the wider impression that anything west of Cardiff is also not open for business and not interested in investors from the UK Government. When the new Prime Minister is elected, whoever that may be, will you therefore make a commitment to actually seek to get them to do another u-turn and actually honour their commitment so that we can see electrification to Swansea, which then improves the links to the west, but also perhaps we ask them to make sure that they also follow Welsh Labour's calls that Wales is open for business to all investors?

I thank David Rees for his question and I agree with his points. Obviously Wales has been short-changed for some time now and I'll continue to press for fair funding from UK Government, and I'd ask for the support of all Assembly Members in this regard.

I don't think we need to wait until there is a new Prime Minister to demand that we have responsibilities and funding for rail infrastructure devolved, because Keith Williams is carrying out a root-and-branch review of Britain's railways right now and that provides an opportunity to reform the railway system and services across the UK and create a fully integrated public transport network that Wales needs. Our expectation is for the Williams review to set out a very clear pathway for further devolution for Wales, and, as I say, I'd be very grateful for the support of Assembly Members in our call for that.

Questions now from party spokespeople. The Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Bethan Sayed.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. Given that Wales is currently facing potentially turbulent economic times, as we discussed only yesterday, with the potential closure of Ford, we believe here that we should do as much as possible to diversify the Welsh economy—for example, developing infrastructure so that, as a country, we can offer our businesses the ability to take advantage of emerging global markets. Can the Minister outline what the Welsh Government is doing to diversify the Welsh economy under his leadership?

Yes, of course. This is an incredibly important matter to consider as we approach EU exit date. It's absolutely essential that we look at whether we need to turn the dial on the actions contained within the Welsh Government's economic action plan, specifically with regard to decarbonisation and futureproofing businesses. In many respects, Wales has a diverse economy compared to the UK, where manufacturing is at a very, very low level indeed and where there is a very heavy reliance on the service sector, particularly in certain geographical parts of the UK. It's my belief that, given the investment we've made over many years since devolution, the economy is in a strong position. 

We will go on ensuring that we grow small and micro-sized firms so that we encourage the growth of medium-sized firms, and that, wherever possible, we encourage businesses to embrace modern technology and modern ways of working. But our actions in the economic action plan were specifically designed to deal with the challenges of the automation industry 4.0 and Brexit. They are there; we are dealing with them. We are delivering on those actions and, as a consequence, we do now have an unemployment rate that is at, or around, record low levels.

Thank you very much for that answer, and I recognise the work on decarbonisation, but I wanted to focus on digital, and I think that Wales is unprepared for, potentially, the next industrial revolution. We led the last one, but we are still lagging behind in this regard. Just to give you an example, there are large sections of society that even struggle to get 3G coverage as opposed to coverage in any other shape or form. And, of course, these are many rural areas, but agri-tech is stopped in its tracks by virtue of the fact that they don't even have that basic coverage.

So, we already have a lot of this infrastructure in Wales. The investment packages exist through the city deals, and the UK Government's £200 million rural fibre fund. So, we think that Transport for Wales, believe it or not, can act as an enabler for the creation of interconnected, international 5G fibre and space technologies infrastructure for Wales, and the cost of a national digital infrastructure could be in the region of £110 million, with the potential for half of this being covered by the UK Government's rural fibre fund.

So, this isn't just about the digital infrastructure in and of itself; it's about positioning Wales at the forefront of new industries. So, what steps are you taking in relation to digital infrastructure to facilitate the development of new industries, which, at the moment, are lagging purely because that isn't in existence?

When we were developing the economic action plan, we looked at how best we could drive innovation across Wales in order to drive up productivity rates. And we found that, in similar-sized countries with an economy similar to Wales, it's the diffusion of innovation rather than the development of new innovation that will enable an economy to advance. Therefore, we designed specifically the calls to action around the need for businesses to embrace digitisation. And it's through the prism of the calls to action that businesses now draw down funding. In addition to this, there is, of course, a digital exploitation endeavour that is being led by my deputy, Lee Waters, and I think the Member makes a really valuable point about the potential role of Transport for Wales as well. We've already tasked Transport for Wales to look at how it can encourage the market, the private sector, to deploy electric charging points across Wales, utilising the public asset of railway stations. And I think, moving forward, as we transfer more functions to Transport for Wales, we'll be able to look at them working in even more innovative spaces.

I think I should point out as well, though, that in terms of digital infrastructure and the exploitation of it, the north Wales growth deal—I know the Member mentioned growth deals and city deals as a vehicle for this purpose—has as its priority intervention a major digital programme, and I think that should be welcomed. 

Yes, thank you, and we are welcoming of that. I think the next steps are going to be vital, and there's no doubt about that. For us, I think, in Wales, and its partners, we will be able to deliver sectoral opportunities in health, autonomous vehicles, as you've mentioned, with electric vehicles, but not only that but hydrogen, as was mentioned yesterday, big data, artificial intelligence, manufacturing and aerospace. I think they're all part of the reason why the digital landscape needs to be enhanced upon.

According to the UK Government's research, the impact of 5G is estimated at £198 billion per annum by 2030, with a 10-year gross domestic product impact of £173 billion between 2020 and 2030. So, we must have an ambition to take a portion of that, and it's been suggested that Wales aims for a 10 per cent share of this, which would mean an uplift in GDP of £17.3 billion from 2020 to 2030. Will the Minister commit to working on a cross-party basis to pool together resources so that we can come up with new ideas in all of the areas that I mentioned earlier in my question, so that we can achieve these aims for Wales together? Because I think what's important is that we jump upon the opportunity to enhance upon the wealth of our nation with the skills that they have, but putting the infrastructure in place to allow them to do that.  

I'd like to welcome Bethan Jenkins's offer and say, yes, that is something that I'd like to proceed with. We certainly have no monopoly on good ideas, and I think it's important that we do recognise that Members across this Chamber have innovative ideas, energy and determination to influence Government policy for the better. So, I would like to take forward that offer. And I'd also say, as the Member has highlighted, that digital transcends all of those traditional sectors; it's part and parcel of all of the traditional sectors that we were prioritising until we developed the digital action plan, and we took digital and we made that a key enabler that crosses over all of the work that we do in terms of supporting business growth.   

Conservatives spokesperson, Russell George. 

Diolch, Presiding Officer. Minister, can I ask how confident you are that this new commission that you have established to look at the M4 relief road will come to a conclusion in the space of just six months, after, of course, spending £140 million on the project over the last six years? Given that the public inquiry has already looked at 28 different alternatives, what is there new to consider and how confident are you that this new commission's recommendations won't simply be put in the bin by the First Minister if it doesn't conform with his view? 

Can I thank Russell George for his questions? I have every confidence in the commission looking at this important subject matter, and developing not just the proposals that are put forward potentially into a combination, a package, of interventions, but also in looking at potential new innovations and interventions that were not considered back in 2010 to 2014, when the black route emerged as the favoured option. There were, of course, more than 20 alternatives recommended to the planning inspector, but, in addition to that, the Welsh Government had considered 200 or so solutions back in 2010 to 2014. We're in the process of providing technical briefings to the chair of the commission. We're also in the process of identifying and appointing additional commission members. They'll have support from Welsh Government in scrutinising all of the traffic modelling, all of the data that exists, and I do have confidence in them reporting back in six months with strong recommendations that this Government will be able to take forward.

I recognise that the figure attached to the development cost of the proposed black route is significant, but it does represent something in the order of just 6 per cent of the overall project cost that was estimated, and that, as I've said in this Chamber, compares very favourably to other projects. You only need to look at development costs of projects such as HS2 to appreciate that you cannot deliver a major infrastructure project in the western world without incurring significant development costs.

Thank you for your answer, Minister. In many ways, it demonstrates how much time and resource the Government has spent on looking at alternative routes already, which is the basis, really, of my question.

Turning to the public inquiry itself, obviously, Members and I have had time to digest the public inquiry report. In his statement, the First Minister said that he would not have gone ahead with the Government's own proposals, even if he felt they were affordable, on the grounds of impact on the environment. So, if I can just explore that for a moment: the Welsh Government's own evidence, provided by Natural Resources Wales and advocated by your own Welsh Government barristers said that the scheme would be carbon neutral over time and compatible with the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. The inspector agreed with your, the Welsh Government's, own opinion and said it was sound and also agreed that the proposed extensive mitigation for the impact on the Gwent levels, developed alongside NRW, could certainly be considered as taking reasonable steps to comply with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Now, the point I would make here, Minister, is that if you now disagree with your own Welsh Government proposals, do you believe that the legislation contained within the Environment (Wales) Act 2016 and the well-being of future generations Act is sufficient? And how does this decision throw into doubt other transport schemes in Wales, such as the Deeside corridor scheme and, of course, other areas where there needs to be much improvement, along the A40, the A55 and the A470? Does this decision by the First Minister represent a fundamental change to Welsh Government transport policy on environmental grounds?

No. The First Minister was very clear in stressing that this project is absolutely unique in terms of the scale and in terms of the impact on the site of special scientific interest and that, therefore, it had to be considered in its own right. The First Minister was also very clear when he said that he disagreed with the inspector in terms of where the bar should be laid on environmental consequences of infrastructure, and it's his belief in terms of mitigation that you cannot mitigate the loss of, for example, an SSSI and attempt to then develop a similar environment elsewhere, and that there is a big difference between mitigation and compensation. Since we presented I think a very compelling case, of course, there's been a declaration of climate emergency, a greater understanding and appreciation that we need to act now, that we need to be more responsive and responsible and, therefore, the bar has been raised. Whilst I don't think that the legislation that the Member has pointed to requires amending, I do think it necessitates a very careful consideration within Government of how we take forward, not just transport infrastructure but all infrastructure—social infrastructure, for example, hospitals, schools—to guarantee that the development of buildings, roads and rail systems do not have an adverse impact on the environment, if it's at all possible to avoid it.

The Member, I think, rightly identifies a number of schemes that many might fear will be lost as a consequence of this being seen as having set a precedent. That is not the case. All of those programmes will go ahead. Indeed, we are proceeding with consultations on improvements to the A483 this month, work on the Flintshire corridor, the A494/A55, will be proceeding this summer with further modelling and Welsh transport appraisal guidance work and further consultations and meetings with local stakeholders. Other road projects across the length and breadth of Wales are still in the pipeline to be delivered. This does not shift our position on those.

Well, you mentioned that the bar has been raised and you mentioned the climate emergency that the Welsh Government has declared in the meantime. That does, of course, bring me back to my question again about the need for changes in legislation. I appreciate the answer that you have given, but it's difficult to understand how a change in those circumstances cannot affect future schemes, and I appreciate the answers you've given.

Now, section 6 of the report of the public inquiry notes that the M4 is the most strategically important road in Wales and is the primary route in and out of the country for the movement of goods, and that capacity constraints are currently imposing costs on economic activity. Now, the inspector also agreed with the Welsh Government's own economic appraisal of the scheme, showing that it would provide good value for money, which shows a cost benefit ratio of 2:1. Now, the economic impact of not proceeding has also been estimated as being £134 million a year to Cardiff and £44 million a year to Newport. Incidentally, the same cost as the public inquiry. Now, given, of course, the uncertainty by recent announcements at Tata Steel and Ford, amongst others, do you not agree with the inspector that the economic impact of further delays for a relief road will strangle the Welsh economy? And, finally, if the First Minister was the decision maker, as he says he was, not you, nor this Assembly, what input did you have into that final decision?

The decision was just for the First Minister, and as the promoter of the scheme I could take no part in that. As the First Minister has said, the issue of affordability of major infrastructure projects was discussed at Cabinet, and that helped to inform the First Minister's decision, but insofar as that decision actually being taken, that was something specifically and solely for the First Minister.

I think Russell George makes a very valuable point that doing nothing would have a major impact—a pretty devastating impact on the south Wales economy, and that's why we have to ensure that the recommendations that the commission comes forward with are implemented at speed with sufficient resource, and, in turn, that's why we said that we will utilise part of the money that would have been attributed to the M4 relief road, that original envelope, for, first and foremost, interventions in and around Newport, in order to reduce congestion to an acceptable level.

Brexit Party spokesperson, David Rowlands. 

Diolch, Llywydd. Can I return to the theme of rail transport, Minister? Since the announcement of the new rail franchise, there has been a great deal of discussion about the announcements to the schedules and stock of the core Valleys lines, and, indeed, you've just given us some very welcome news about the proposed announcements to the Ebbw Vale line. But could the Minister give us some indication of any such announcements to the rail services serving Pontypool and Cwmbran?

I think it might be beneficial if I was to update all Members on all services across Wales and the acquisition of additional rolling stock in the delivery of new rolling stock, rather than specifying certain services and certain lines, but I'd very gladly do that.

I thank you, Minister, for that, but, obviously, it is of concern to us in south-east Wales. This is a prime railway line that leads into Cardiff, as you know, and into Newport. So, can you give us some idea about the proposed announcements to the rolling stock on that line? After all, the metro gives South Wales East very little in the way of structural commitment. So, let's lump that into the structural commitment with regard to South Wales East. Could you give us some—?

Well, I can assure the Member that all trains on the network, including those in the metro area, will be replaced, and that there are new trains, many of which will be built in Wales, that will be up to today's modern standards in terms of disabled access. We're also determined, where possible, to increase capacity on railway lines right now, and that's why we've been able to introduce additional rolling stock onto the core Valleys lines in recent months. We're also looking at how we can improve capacity elsewhere across Wales. So, I can assure the Member that we are doing everything we can to identify where rolling stock can be introduced, albeit on a temporary basis, to alleviate congestion whilst those brand-new trains are being constructed.

Yes. Last month, I published our updated national transport finance plan, and that sets out our priorities over the next two years. As these projects are dependent on funding being available and, where necessary, obtaining statutory consents, the planned programme of improvements will be kept under constant review.

Thank you, Minister, for that. We now know, obviously, that one of the commitments that was in your manifesto, the M4 relief road, will not proceed, which is to much regret, I have to say, and real anger over the weekend. I appreciate your deputy is from a sedentary position heckling; if he wants to take the question, I'll happily direct the question to him. But it'd be better if you actually listened, Deputy Minister; you might learn something. You might learn something about keeping commitments.

Carry on with the question and no heckling from Ministers, Deputy Minister.

It is unfortunate that manifesto commitment was broken, but what you have done, Minister, is obviously commit that there will be improvements put in place to make some short-term gains. A lot of people have been anxious why these short-term gains weren't achieved in the shorter period of time when the inquiry was meeting, for example, or when the Government was deliberating over this matter, when a considerable amount of time was lost, I would suggest.

What assurance can you give to people who are disappointed that this decision hasn't been taken in a positive way that these short-term gains will actually alleviate the congestion around Newport, which, as we know, is the entry and exit point for two thirds of the goods in and out of Wales that are so important to our economy?

It's not unusual for commitments made by parties and governments to change over time, and often they are changed as a consequence of an evaluation of value for money for those interventions that are promised. The electrification—I don't want to be political, but I must say that the question about the electrification of the south Wales line and the cancellation of that programme was put down to the value for money for that particular project, and the argument made by the Department for Transport that, actually, new technology could offer the same improvements and the same time savings as overhead electrification. So, it's not unusual for manifesto pledges to change over time as new technology and as fuller consideration of value for money is made.

In terms of the M4 around Newport, our proposal was the black route—that was what we were pursuing and promoting. However, now that the decision has been made not to proceed with that particular solution, we are examining all short-term measures that are available to alleviate congestion. I'm pleased that we are able to introduce additional patrol services and breakdown recovery services. These will not come without cost; these are expensive services, but they are tried and tested. They were deployed first on the A55 as part of the A55 resilience programme, and they are proven to work. That's why I was able to say last week, when the decision was made by the First Minister, that we would be able to deploy that particular solution with immediate effect.

In terms of transport infrastructure, one issue that's important in my constituency at the moment is that the Welsh Government should be doing as much as it can to extend the rail system. Can you give me an assurance that you will support me in my bid to Network Rail to invest in putting in place the railway bridge in Glanhwfa Road, Llangefni after it was struck by a lorry last year?

Yes, of course. Any network improvements, any improvements to rail infrastructure that can be made in Wales will have this Welsh Government's support, and I'd support the Member's endeavours in this regard. It does concern me how little investment has been made in the Wales route network and in our stations and in the services that have operated in Wales. But this is something that we're determined to see resolved; that's why we've made a very powerful submission to the Williams review and why I hope that Keith Williams will be making the case for devolution of responsibility for infrastructure, and for fair funding over it, so that we directly can intervene in those sorts of problems that the Member for Ynys Môn has identified today.

Yes. Can I thank the Member for his question? Transport for Wales is reviewing how bus services could be delivered in the future to ensure that urban and rural communities across Wales benefit from a modern, integrated public transport service. This work will support proposals being taken as a result of the 'Improving public transport' White Paper that has recently been consulted on.

I thank the Minister for his answer, and obviously it is important that we get that White Paper going as fast as we can so that we can get some further action on our bus services across south-west Wales, because it is buses mainly that deliver most of the public transport in that area, rather than trains.

Last Friday, I met with Andrew Sherrington, the managing director of First Cymru, and following that meeting members across the region had a letter from him identifying the fact that, no matter what happened on the sale of First Cymru, he would be looking to ensure that services are maintained and continue to a high standard. But, there are still problems. He confirmed that where there are buses that are not commercially viable, they will be at risk, because clearly it is a commercial system without public support.

Two examples of those are obviously in the Afan valley—I've raised this with you many times—where buses in the Afan valley are every other hour in Glyncorrwg and in Blaengwynfi, which means that if you have a 9.30 a.m. appointment in the hospital, you have to catch the 7.30 a.m. bus in the morning from Glyncorrwg to be able to attend that, and who knows what time you'll get back home? It is important, therefore, that those bus services in the Afan valley and other Valleys areas in South Wales West are actually supported to ensure that people who don't have cars, who do rely upon public transport, are able to use them on a more frequent basis than they currently can. One every two hours is not sufficient for people to actually carry on their daily lives. They can't get to work efficiently, on time, they can't get home on time and they can't go to appointments on time. Will you therefore look at working with the sector to ensure that buses, when there are non-viable commercial routes, are supported through public funding to ensure that people who need those services can actually access them?

The Member makes a number of important points. In many parts of Wales, it's not just that people can't get to where they wish to go on time, they can't get to places at all by bus service operations because they don't exist, or people can't afford them. I've said in this Chamber before that there's one part of Wales, the north-east, the Mersey Dee Alliance area—and this data was presented by Growth Track 360—where I think it's astonishing that 20 per cent of people can't get to job interviews in that area because they don't have access to appropriate and affordable bus services. That has to be addressed, and it will be addressed through reforms and through legislation. The system is broken. It's not fit for purpose.

Dai Rees points to the very significant role that bus services play in society. They carry 100 million passengers a year—that's more than three times as many passengers as our rail network carries. So, they're hugely important in terms of ensuring that people can get to and from work and to and from services, but also, importantly, in terms of ensuring that people remain social and connected to other human beings. In our attempt to address social isolation, the role of public transport will be incredibly important. 

With specific regard to First Cymru, they have assured us that it will be business as usual for its bus network, but we will be keeping a very close eye on the implications for bus services of First Group's proposals for reorganising its business, including any potential sale of its bus arm.

Llywydd, we're already allocating annually £25 million to local authorities as part of the bus services support grant. And I really must stress that this money should not be used to supplement local authorities' revenue support grant spending on non-commercially viable services; it should be used in addition to. It's absolutely vital that local authorities take careful consideration of the impact that the removal of their own subsidies would have on vulnerable people.

I can say today, Llywydd—I'm very pleased to be able to tell Members—that I've allocated £2.5 million to undertake network reviews in specific areas of Wales, and this work will identify potential improvements in services alongside the investment infrastructure that is required for new interchanges, new bus stops and so forth. Llywydd, we're going to use this funding to plan for future investment, and Transport for Wales has been commissioned to lead on this work and will look to target areas in south-west Wales. I can assure Members that I'll be making a statement before summer recess that will provide more detail about this work, as well as four pilot schemes that are going to be taking place across Wales.

Thank you for those remarks just then, I thought they were very useful, and I'm also looking forward to the White Paper. In the meantime though, in 2016 you announced a five-point plan to support bus routes, offering all bus companies in Wales assistance through Business Wales and Finance Wales, and, at the same time, you called upon—as you've done again today—local authorities to make every effort to protect the funding for bus services.

You may be aware that Bridgend county borough councillors have recently called in a decision by their cabinet to stop subsidising public transport, full stop. Bearing in mind you've got additional moneys, they must have had some of that, and you were expecting it to be used additionally to their own bus subsidies, it doesn't sound like even that's getting to the bus companies in this case. I wonder if you could tell me whether you know whether bus operators in the Bridgend area knew about the offer of Business Wales and Finance Wales help and whether, in fact, the local authority knew about that as well, because they could have encouraged operators to take up that offer, thereby avoiding what is a very, very harsh cabinet decision.

I can assure the Member that we've held a series of bus summits and local authorities from across Wales have been invited and encouraged to attend those summits. We've been working with partners such as Business Wales and the Development Bank of Wales to ensure that bus operators have the support necessary to see them through what is a very difficult transition period, as we move to a new, more sustainable base for operating bus services. I won't dictate to local authorities how they should use their RSG, particularly given that austerity is continuing, but I would make that case again for local authorities to be very careful when they consider what services to remove as a consequence of difficult budget decisions. Bus services for many people in this country are absolutely vital.

We are continuing to provide full support. Four all-day staff sessions have been held, the most recent being on 3 June. Feedback from the company and from staff has been very positive. They are being proactive in engaging across all options, including staff with professions considering setting up their own businesses.

Thank you very much. May I say thanks for the letter from the Minister on 5 June in reply to an e-mail from me on 9 May regarding support for the economy of north Anglesey? There is a reference there to the taskforce that has been established following the announcement from Rehau. Yesterday, in the context of the announcement about the Ford factory, we heard the Minister say that he would want to go further than the taskforce model because of the size of the threat there in Bridgend, and I agree with that, certainly. I would argue that the Rehau announcement on top of the negative announcements recently regarding the economy of northern Anglesey is also especially serious, considering the population and the rural element and so forth. So, I would welcome a promise to look at going further than the taskforce model in the case of north Anglesey as well, and to look at special investments in developing the economy there.

I would like to respond to a comment by the Minister on that, but also, on the specific question of what will happen to the Rehau site, I'd like to hear a word of support for the idea that the site would be left as a legacy to the local economy in order to ensure that what was an important economic hub can continue in the future.

Can I address that point first and say that we are continuing to discuss with Rehau what future plans there may be for the site? It is an incredibly important site, and if it cannot be used for other employers or manufacturers as a key location, then we wish to ensure that it is used for alternative use and that we get agreement from the company to use it in a way that serves the interests of not just the people who have been employed there, but also the wider community.

With regard to the place-based intervention in Bridgend, I took this decision to expand on the normal working practice when decisions of this nature are taken because of the huge financial contribution that Ford makes to the surrounding community—a £3.3 billion contribution per decade. The scale of that investment, of that amount of resource being lost, means that many businesses—many, many businesses—will have their futures hanging in the balance, and therefore a place-based approach is absolutely vital, alongside the other taskforce operations. I would happily speak with the Isle of Anglesey council about introducing a specific place-based focus in the work of the taskforce. I think it is absolutely essential—and I've said this to the local authority serving Bridgend, that it's absolutely essential that the local authority comes forward with proposals for both stimulating the local economy, the community economy, and also for ensuring that it is stabilised through the difficult period of jobs being lost. It can't just be left to Welsh Government. We have to work in collaboration and in partnership across all Governments if we are to get the best outcomes for the people we all serve.

When I questioned you at the end of January, after Rehau's initial announcement that they may be closing the site in Amlwch, you replied that you were looking at diversifying to other products within the group that could be diverted temporarily or permanently to the site, or indeed third parties. You also said that this would require a degree of investment, which was what Welsh Government was specifically working on with the company at that point. When the chief executive of Rehau announced the closure on 23 April, it said: 'Careful consideration at board level' had been given to

'proposed alternatives put forward by employees', 

but they would be not sufficient to secure the long-term future of the facility. Putting all that together—the reference to your talking to third parties, your then declaration that you were considering investment, and the proposals by employees themselves—what consideration is being given to bringing all those factors together as this moves forward?

I do regret that the company chose not to diversify, because I'd restate the position that we took earlier in the year, that we were ready and willing and enthusiastic about supporting the business. The decision has now been made, and we are keen, through the taskforce, through the regional economic development unit, led by the chief regional officer, Gwenllian Roberts, to examine all alternative options for employment of the people who are going to be affected and alternative uses for the site. We're working—. I should say we are working very well with the company in identifying alternative opportunities. Trying to find alternative major employers in a semi-rural area is very difficult, and therefore it requires additional attention to be given to the potential of supporting workers in starting up their own businesses, and that's why Business Wales are playing an integral part in the support that's given to them.

Yes, of course. A thriving rural economy is fundamental to help sustain viable communities and to provide quality employment opportunities. Our current programmes are delivering wide-ranging support to encourage economic development and prosperity, including through Business Wales, ICT and transport improvements, as well as the support provided through the rural development plan.

Thank you, Minister. One such business is the Welsh Hawking Centre within my region—an attraction that's been on Barry's Five Mile Lane for the last 40 years. It's been recently reported that the business may be in danger of closing, after visitor numbers have halved in the last year. According to Jamie Munro, who runs the centre, this has largely been caused by the works ongoing on the A4226, which have resulted in a reduction in the footfall dramatically. I think anyone who knows the area will realise how impacted the business has been—that part of the road in particular, and the partial closure of it that has been required so that the improvements can be made. It's a niche business. It's been very, very successful in the past—extremely popular. It provides excellent educational facilities as well, and is an attraction we can be proud of. I just wonder, when these major works go ahead, whether there's a better way for the Welsh Government and the local council to work through the impact it may have for a short period on businesses. But these businesses don't necessarily have the resilience to take a bad year or two, especially in terms of visitor attractions.

I thank David Melding for his question. I'll ensure that we deploy officials from the regional unit to the business to assist in any way we can. I think that we need to, first of all, appreciate whether the halving of visitor numbers can be attributed solely to just one factor and, if so, even though it may be at a late stage, how we may be able to alleviate the impacts that roadworks are having. Of course, we issue notices. We engage directly through our transport department wherever and whenever possible with businesses. I think that this particular example is relatively unique in terms of the halving of visitors or, if you like, customers. So, I think it's going to be essential that my officials work speedily with the company to address the challenge that they face.  

Minister, small businesses in rural communities in north Wales play an important role in the economic development in the region. A regular issue brought to me from small and medium-sized businesses is the movement of online payments and transactions—that the internet connection isn't sufficient. Can you reassure my constituents that Welsh Government will prioritise the internet and broadband in any economic development plans for north Wales?

Yes, I can. I mentioned earlier, in response to Bethan's questions, that the north Wales growth deal has a digital project at the heart of the vision for developing a stronger and more resilient economy in the north. I'm confident that, through the course of the challenge sessions that are to come, we will be able to ensure that that particular programme does reach all businesses across Wales and addresses the challenges that the Member has just identified.

Yes, of course. I published a written statement on 5 June outlining our next steps for the M4 corridor around Newport.

You also published a manifesto that said:

'We will deliver a relief road for the M4'.

Is it not the case that this commission and any proposals that it comes out with, which may relieve congestion at the margin, will be a very small impact compared to what was promised in your manifesto?

There's an irony here in that I was the person who wrote the manifesto that proposed the black route and, of course, Mark Reckless was a member of a political party that was responsible for writing a manifesto pledge opposing the black route. Look, I stand by the proposal that we made. However, I do recognise that times have changed since the black route was conceived. It's only responsible for Governments to accept—when times change, when new challenges are presented, to respond accordingly and to act in a nimble way, and that's precisely what we've done.

But I can assure all Members that we recognise that this challenge has to be addressed; 'do nothing' is simply not an option. The question for us is whether we are able to respond, packaging some of the alternatives in a way that will reduce or eliminate congestion—but also, at the same time, do so with less cost to the public purse. I believe that we can achieve a reduction in congestion on the M4 through Newport in a way that offers value for money and minimises cost to the public purse. Now, the commission's work has already begun. I have had an incredibly constructive discussion with Lord Burns about the work that's been undertaken to date by the Welsh Government, and how he and his commission will take it forward. 

And, finally, question 8—Llyr Gruffydd.

Yes, of course. The UK Government is responsible for funding rail infrastructure in Wales, as we are all aware, and it is an unfortunate fact that we must rely on it to provide an equitable investment programme. We continue to press the case for devolution so that we can develop a Welsh network, catering for the journeys that people need to make.

Well, thank you for your answer. I was quite struck by the letter that you shared with Assembly Members—the letter that you sent to David Lidington on 22 May—where you highlight under-investment in Welsh rail infrastructure. You say in the letter that there is a history of sustained and chronic under-investment in the Welsh network when compared with England, based on an approach that prioritises UK Government objectives, using a system that systematically favours investment in London and the south-east of England. So, that's highlighting once again, isn't it, how poorly Wales is being treated by the UK Government. We are clearly not getting our fair share. Indeed, Plaid Cymru has always said that the UK is an unequal union of nations. Having read your letter, I presume that you now agree with Plaid Cymru.   

The problem is that—and we're addressing it here in Wales, and I hope that the UK Government will follow suit—. The problem is that, through the Treasury Green Book, decisions are often made in a way that benefits those areas of the UK that are already intensely urbanised and where there is already a high concentration of people who are high earners. And, of course, south-east London is the obvious case in point. What we're doing in Wales, and it forms part of the economic action plan, is developing a regional approach to rebalance the Welsh economy. And, just as I've set up the regional economic development units and appointed the chief regional officers, before recess, I will be presenting an oral statement to the Chamber concerning the publication of regional indicative budgets to ensure that, when we talk about fair funding, we don't just talk about fair funding for Wales, we talk about fair funding for the constituent parts of Wales. And I think that's something that Members across this Chamber recognise is absolutely essential if we are to drive prosperity across all communities, rather than just have it concentrated in the most urban areas.

Thank you to the Minister.

The next questions, therefore, to the Counsel General and Brexit Minister in respect of his Brexit Minister responsibilities. And the first question is from David Rees.

We said in 'Brexit and Devolution' that the JMC structures are not adequate for the new challenges we face as we leave the EU. We published 'Brexit and Devolution' two years ago, and our view remains unchanged.

Thank you for that answer, Minister. What you've just then highlighted has been echoed around this Chamber by Members and by various committees of this Assembly. Clearly, the JMC is not working. It is very much dependent upon individuals within Westminster as to how they see it, and whether they want to see it work or not. There is no formal structure. There is no stature underpinning it.

There was a JMC review, which was initiated by Westminster, but that's going over 12 months ago now, and we're still waiting for that outcome. Surely, it's time for us, with other nations in the UK, to actually start saying to UK Government, 'This structure must change. It must be underpinned by statute. We need to have a structure which treats each nation equally, each Government equally, within these discussions' and therefore it's underpinned to ensure that no one individual may decide whether it's a good thing or a bad thing. 

Well, I think the Member hits the nail on the head with his supplementary question, and I share his disappointment. It's now coming up to 15 months, actually, since the review of inter-governmental relations was commissioned. And the truth is that it's certainly not in the interest of Wales, but it's actually not in the interest of any part of the UK for the JMC structures to continue trying to bear the weight that is now placed upon them by Brexit in particular. I should say that the truth is that the First Minister has required more progress to happen than has happened. So, we are very disappointed with the level of—lack of progress, rather. The truth is there are—the constitutional ambitions, if I can put it like that, of the different Governments involved are different. There is no political leadership in Northern Ireland at the moment, and there has been the effort put into 'no deal' preparations. Official-level working has been good, but it's absolutely the case that not sufficient progress has been made. I would say that we've seen very little progress. I'm hoping to meet David Lidington later this week, and I'll be making the point to him that I'm concerned that there is no real commitment on the part of the United Kingdom Government to progress this.

He mentioned the principle of parity of participation in his question, which is absolutely fundamental to this. We've also talked about a mechanism for resolving disputes that introduces an independent element, so that, as his question implies, it isn't simply a matter for one part of the UK to determine the outcome. 

On the question of statutory underpinning, I think that could be usefully explored. I'm not sure myself that it is the panacea—what we need is robust structures. If it's also underpinned by statute, then that would be an advantage, but I think the key thing is to have in place structures that, frankly, work. I will also say that the format of the JMC, which is able, ultimately, to resolve this is the one between First Ministers and the Prime Minister. So, obviously, in light of the fact that the Conservative leadership is contested at the moment, that clearly is going to delay the point at which that format of the JMC is going to be able to meet to address this. But the next format of the JMC, on which I represent the Government, is intending to look at this point, at our instigation.

It is crucially important, I think, that the JMC structure is strengthened for the future, and I also feel that we should reform the committee, and place it on a statutory level, to ensure that the Welsh voice is clearly heard in any future discussions. I think that, in response to the Member for Aberavon, you said that you don't favour placing the JMC on a statutory level. Could you explain why that's the case? Because I do believe that that's the way forward.

I thank the Member for the question, and for the opportunity to respond to that specific point. It's not a matter of not favouring that—that would certainly be an advantage. What I'm saying is that that isn't a panacea for having a system that truly supports our work here in Wales and across the UK.

I continue to have regular discussions with the UK Government on a number of Brexit-related issues. I met the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union most recently in Cardiff on 16 May, and a meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee on EU negotiations is scheduled for the end of this month.

Counsel General, thank you for that answer. There is a growing fear that the national health service is going to become the sacrificial lamb on the altar of a 'no deal' Brexit. When Donald Trump said that the NHS would be a service that would be part of a UK-US trade deal, when Theresa May stood next to him and refused to deny that, when the US have refused to change their negotiating objectives, which include all services as part of a deal, where we have a situation where international trade deals that could override and implement measures in devolved areas without the consent of this place, when the health Minister wrote a year or so ago to Theresa May asking for assurances and guarantees about the protection of the NHS, which she refused to give, and in a situation where we have a potential new Tory First Minister in support of privatisation of the national health service and a supine trade deal with the US, what steps is the Welsh Government taking to protect the national health service from a 'no deal' Brexit?

I thank the Member for that question. I too also saw the press conference to which he refers in his question, and it made the blood run cold to hear the NHS being talked about as an asset for commercial sale in that way. I will be absolutely clear: the Welsh NHS is a public service and, under the Welsh Government, will remain so. The Minister for international relations, Eluned Morgan, has made absolutely clear to her counterpart, Liam Fox, the international trade Secretary, that the devolution settlement must be respected in relation to trade deals, and that would include trade deals of the sort the Member is referring to. And it must respect the fact that the Welsh Government is determined to make sure the NHS is preserved as a public service here in Wales. There is absolutely no prospect of us allowing the Welsh NHS to be part of any negotiation. But I think the Member is right to highlight this issue, which I think shines a light on the consequences of the kind of trade policy that the UK Government might seek to pursue in a 'no deal' Brexit scenario.

In relation to the NHS more generally, we are of course working with the NHS in Wales in relation to robustness and resilience to face the challenges that would be faced in the context of any kind of Brexit, but particularly a 'no deal' Brexit. Some of that is around medicine supply, medical devices—as the Member will know—and around workforce planning, which, as we discussed in the Chamber yesterday in our migration debate, could seriously come under pressure in the context of the UK Government's new migration policies.

The most recent Brexit discussion with the UK Government has of course been around the First Minister's use, or non-use, of a Foreign Office car in Brussels today. However, on the NHS issue, it is not commercially traded. Surely, when something is a public service, it is not something that is part of a trade deal in the way that is suggested. Of course, if you have public procurement, you will want to procure cheaply and effectively and get good value, and if you enter into a contract with an overseas provider, it is quite reasonable that that contract should be respected and that should be insured either through the British courts or through investor dispute resolution. Is that not all that we're talking about here?

I have absolutely no confidence in the commitment of the Brexit Party to the NHS. The leader of the party has been absolutely categorical that he does not believe in a publicly funded NHS and believes in an insurance system. So, the Member will have to forgive me if I take that with a pinch of salt. [Interruption.]

Alun Davies.

I'm grateful to you, Presiding Officer. Minister, you, like me, will have seen the rather astonishing press reports this morning that the First Minister has not been provided with diplomatic support during his visit in Brussels. Now, like yourself and myself—we've both enjoyed the support of the diplomatic service of the United Kingdom, and I remember negotiating and discussing with David Lidington and William Hague and others how that can be strengthened. Whilst Ministers here are not Ministers of the United Kingdom Government, they are United Kingdom Ministers, and in Brussels, we are part of the United Kingdom ministerial team, and we have agreements with the United Kingdom Government that we do enjoy the support of the United Kingdom Representation to the European Union and of the foreign office. I would place on record my gratitude to UKRep and to civil servants in the foreign office for the excellent support that I received, both within the European Union and elsewhere, whilst travelling as a representative of the Welsh Government. Will you then take up this issue with David Lidington when you meet him later this week, and say to him that we expect all our Ministers to be treated with the respect that the electoral mandate gives them, and that we are here to represent the Government here and the people of Wales, and we are not expected to ask permission from any member of the UK Government as to how we do that?

I thank the Member for his question. As he indicates in it, our relationship with the UK Representation to the EU is very good, so we were particularly puzzled and disappointed, if I can put it like that, by the unprecedented decision that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office appear to have taken. I should say, as context, that we have been provided as a Welsh Government with high-quality support by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on every previous occasion when Ministers have visited Brussels, as he himself in the question indicates. I can confirm that the FCO informed the Government that they'd only provide support while the First Minister was in Brussels today, including access to the car pool service, if we gave assurances that the First Minister would not undermine UK Government policy. We made it clear that the First Minister and Welsh Ministers take seriously, in their capacity as Ministers of the United Kingdom, their duties to the United Kingdom when abroad on official business, but that is not out of deference to the UK Government and it certainly isn't in consideration of getting access to car services. So, we refused to give any assurance that would fetter or inhibit the entitlement of the First Minister to speak up for Wales's national interest. Ultimately, as it happened, car facilities were then offered, but the First Minister is travelling using public transport throughout his visit to Brussels today. 

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

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Will the Minister make a statement on the Welsh Government's strategy for its discussions with the European Commission today? 

At the moment, we are anticipating the change of Commission personnel in future. The First Minister is today in Brussels planning to meet with a number of our partners there, including Michel Barnier. 

Thank you for that answer. I have to say I do find it astonishing that Welsh Labour Ministers seem to be more interested in chauffeur-driven cars than they do in the real issue of the day. I am sure that the Welsh Government would not want to allow its resources to be used to support activities that undermine its policy objectives either, and I think Ministers frankly should grow up and listen up to the people of Wales who voted to leave the EU in 2016. You didn't refer in your answer then to the negotiating strategy that the First Minister may or may not be employing in Brussels today. But will you tell us whether he will be reiterating the will of the people of Wales, who voted to leave the EU in 2016, and if not, why not?

I think that's a curious question from the Member. I had finished my answer to the previous question by saying that the First Minister was using public transport in Brussels today, which seems to me to indicate a complete lack of interest in the use of Government cars. So, I think he should reflect on the fact that the First Minister is in Brussels dealing with matters of substance rather than matters of presentation and headlines as his question suggests. The First Minister will be describing what is in the best interests of Wales and the position of the Welsh Government on behalf of the people of Wales in his discussions in Europe, as he does at every other opportunity.

Isn't the reality, Minister, that you're still playing politics with Brexit? There was a clear manifesto commitment from the Labour Party in 2017 to deliver Brexit and it's quite clear now to the people of Wales that Labour cannot be trusted to deliver on that particular manifesto commitment. Now, you've already done a u-turn in terms of your position on a second referendum, and you've said that there needs to be an option to remain on a ballot paper in a future referendum. But the reality is, of course, that the one thing that the people of Wales didn't vote for is any kind or version of 'remain'. You keep going on about kinds or versions of 'leave', but one thing that the people of Wales did not endorse—and absolutely did not endorse—was any kind of remaining in the European Union. How can you justify ignoring the outcome of the 2016 referendum, which rejected 'remain' on the ballot paper, and what guarantees can you give to the people of Wales that if there is a second referendum—and I very much hope that there will not be—that you won't ignore that one either?

There are very few things, If I may say, that I admire about the Conservative Party, but his ability to chastise me for playing politics with a straight face, having asked the two questions he's just asked, is really quite admirable in its own way.

On the question of a referendum, I do not recall at any point hearing anybody advocate for a 'no deal' Brexit in 2016. Quite the opposite—everybody was telling us how straightforward it would be, how people would be falling over to reach terms with us. The Prime Minister, Theresa May, has completely failed to live up to those promises made.

We are now facing a situation where there is absolutely no mandate for a 'no deal' Brexit, which seems to be where the Conservative Party is careering us towards with the stampede of support like panicked bisons from the Conservative benches in Parliament towards Boris Johnson, who could joyfully be taking us towards a 'no deal' Brexit. In that situation, there is only one way that we can prevent the damage that that would cause to Wales and that is by putting the question back to the people, which is fundamentally a democratic principle. 

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Delyth Jewell.

Diolch, Llywydd. Minister, Donald Trump has said that he'd want the NHS to be on the table in any future UK-US trade deal negotiations. He later rowed back on this, but the fact that his ambassador to the UK, Woody Johnson, has also said the same thing indicates clearly what US priorities will be if and when trade negotiations begin. 

The Welsh Government's international relations Minister has said that there is no prospect whatsoever of the Welsh NHS being sold off in this way and the health Minister said that the Welsh NHS would not be up for sale. And you've spoken today already in answer to Mick Antoniw about workforce planning and the need to work with the NHS.

While I applaud your passion in favour of keeping NHS services publicly run and free at the point of need, can you explain to me exactly—and I would press you on this—what steps Welsh Government could take to prevent the Welsh NHS from being sold off if the Westminster Government were to trade it away during negotiations with the US?

We have mechanisms in place to ensure that decisions on devolved areas remain our responsibility through the inter-governmental agreement. In relation to discussions relating to the trade negotiations, there are official-level discussions under way in order to give Wales a level of protection in advance of those discussions.

Thank you for your answer, Minister. You speak about mechanisms and discussions without much detail there, but I think that's probably because the fact of the matter is there will be very little Welsh Government could do to protect the NHS if the Westminster Government decided to sell it off. 

Plaid Cymru would obviously support you if, as the international relations Minister said on Monday, you would wish to take the Westminster Government to court on this. But the fact of the matter is that international trade is a reserved matter and powers over public procurement that could have been used to protect some aspects of our health services were given away as part of the inter-governmental agreement that you've referred to.

I'm sure you've been following the Conservative leadership contest with the same mix of horror and disbelief as I have. We've had candidates admitting to crimes that usually lead to jail sentences, candidates wanting to roll back human rights, and, most frightening of all, the candidate considered to be the favourite in the race, Boris Johnson, indicating clearly his intention to plough ahead on a disastrous path towards a 'no deal' Brexit.

Minister, were the next UK Prime Minister to decide to leave the EU without a deal and were they able to find a way to bypass Parliament, through prorogation perhaps, what steps could Welsh Government take to fully mitigate the disastrous consequences for Wales? These may be hypotheticals, but they are worryingly conceivable.

The Member persists in this view that powers were given away in the inter-governmental agreement. I'll invite her, when she asks me her next question, to specify one of those powers, because I've heard none specified in this Chamber, despite the persistence with that line of argument. In fact, each successive report that comes out from the UK Government indicates that it does not intend to use the section 12 powers, which would freeze the competence of this Assembly. I'd invite her perhaps to specify any of the powers she thinks have been given away as a consequence of that inter-governmental agreement. 

She is right, of course, that international relations are a matter reserved to the UK Parliament, but she will also know that recently the Supreme Court, in the case in relation to the Scottish continuity Bill, was absolutely clear that domestic implementation of those agreements is a matter that is devolved and it's devolved to this place. I give the assurance that we will not implement a mechanism that enables the NHS to be put up for sale. But she's right to say that that indicates the state of mind and the intentions of certainly the American President. The failure of Theresa May as Prime Minister to challenge that, I thought, was extraordinary, in the press conference that David Rees referred to earlier. 

She invites me to tell her that I feel it's possible to fully mitigate the consequences on Wales of a 'no deal' Brexit. I will be crystal clear with her—I do not believe it is possible to fully mitigate, with any level of preparation, either in the short term or the long term, the disastrous consequences for Wales of a 'no deal' Brexit. 

Thank you, Minister, and thank you for turning the scrutiny back on me there, but, as we have made clear in debates in the past in this Chamber, public procurement powers were given away as part of the inter-governmental agreement, and I'd welcome further discussion with you on that. 

But, coming back to the question, now we know, and as you've just recognised, there's very little that we could do to mitigate the disastrous impact of a 'no deal' Brexit, to mitigate that on Wales, and we would be powerless, essentially, to defend ourselves. The disrespect shown to Wales by Westminster over the past few years is actually beyond belief. They've taken powers from us, they've refused to let Welsh Ministers see draft plans for replacement schemes for European funding. You told us yesterday, Minister, that they refused to listen to your concerns over plans for immigration, and also that we've had very little input—well, no input at all—into plans for the shared prosperity fund. 

The probable future Prime Minister intends to wipe over £400 million from the Welsh budget by giving a tax cut to the very richest in society. And today, as we've already heard, they've refused to allow the First Minister of Wales access to a ministerial car for his visit to Brussels because he refused to agree to sell Welsh interests down the river—an absolutely outrageous break of protocol, unprecedented, as you said, and a disgraceful act of disrespect towards our country.

Minister, this can't go on. We've got to stand up for ourselves and the interests of the people we're duty bound to represent. Will you therefore agree to consider establishing a Welsh constitutional convention to carefully consider the constitutional options available for Wales, including independence? A constitutional convention is something the former First Minister Carwyn Jones called for at a UK level, but it didn't happen, despite tireless efforts over many years on his part. So, we must now do it for ourselves.

We need to know what options are available to us in Wales as the UK constitutional crisis deepens and we need leverage to protect ourselves against a hostile Westminster Government. Our NHS is in danger, our economy stands on the brink of a 'no deal' catastrophe. We must defend our citizens. Will you therefore consider adopting this course of action?

We take every opportunity to stand up for the interests of the people of Wales in any engagement we have with any part of the UK, including most directly the UK Government. We will all, as Ministers, continue to do that. We take every possible opportunity to describe and to fight for the interests of the people of Wales. On the last supplementary, in relation to the question of preparations, I should say that the fact that I don't believe it is possible to fully mitigate the consequences of a 'no deal' Brexit does not mean that, as a responsible Government, we should not and do not take measured and proportionate preparations in order to anticipate the worst impact, and seek to do what we can to deal with them. We are, as I know that she's aware, taking a significant suite of steps across all portfolios in order to do that. Indeed, in the last few weeks, we've taken stock of what further steps we might be able to take with the prospect of a deferred exit date into the autumn. It remains important for us to do that, not withstanding our view that the damage ultimately can't be fully mitigated, to say the least.

She makes the point about independence. Of course, we know that our colleagues in the Scottish Government advocate for that position there. The difference there is they stood on a manifesto arguing the case for independence and won, and therefore have claimed the entitlement to bring forward that legislation. That isn't the case here in Wales.  

Welsh ports are a critical international gateway and source of high-quality jobs. This could easily be preserved if we remain in the single market and the customs union. Facing the risk of a catastrophic 'no deal', we are working closely with local partners to mitigate the damage to our ports.

Thank you very much for that. As you know, there are a fair few ports in my region, and one of the opportunities for Wales if we leave the EU could be the development of free ports, as they would allow for goods to be imported to parts of Wales, stored or manufactured into finished products, and then exported, all without taxes and tariffs. Of course, we have free ports in the UK already. Last year, the economy Minister said he'd asked Haven Waterway enterprise zone to look at creating a free port. However, in February this year you told Adam Price that it's difficult to see how free ports or free zones could exist within a customs union. Now, your Government's now confirmed that it will campaign to stay within the EU. So, does that mean that the development of free ports in Wales is off the table? 

We recognise the potential benefits of free ports generally, but there are practical challenges, which is what I was referring to in my earlier response, I think, which is around loss of tax revenue, displacement, sustainability, and so on. Decisions on free ports and customs arrangements more generally, obviously, are in the hands of the UK Government. From our point of view, the economic interest of our ports and of our economy at large is best protected by remaining part of a customs union, and if that comes at the cost of being able to develop particular free port discussions, then I think that is a price worth paying in the overall picture in terms of the overall impact on our economy.  

Quite simply, the port of Holyhead in my constituency is one of the major ports between the UK and the EU. Would the Minister agree with me that a Brexit of any kind is bound to pose significant challenges to the port but that leaving without a deal would certainly lead to the loss of trade through that port?

I thank the Member for the question. I was in Holyhead recently, discussing this question with the people in the port there. They have plans, of course, for all sorts of Brexit scenarios. As a Government, we have been preparing, as the Member will know, back-up plans, contingency plans, regarding the impact on transport of any form of exit, and specifically of leaving without a deal. We cannot rely on infrastructure schemes in Dublin and Rosslare in terms of timing that to ensure that transport will be able to move easily post Brexit, if we leave the EU. So, it's important that we have contingency plans for that, but the core of the Member's question is whether any kind of Brexit is better, and the answer, of course, is 'no'.

Counsel General, news yesterday highlighted that the EU Commission is in fact working on a plan to use IT solutions to help goods cross the Irish border after Brexit. Similar plans have been put into place by the French Government in Calais. Indeed, as far as back as 2016, the EU Parliament itself compiled a report that showed how a smart border can be used between the EU and the UK. What assessments has the Welsh Government done on IT solutions, and could you publish any such preparation, if we have any?

Our view is that the sort of IT solutions that the Member is describing in her question are essentially long-term solutions to this. Of course, we know that there are IT activities under way to seek to ameliorate some of the consequences of a Brexit of any sort. Those are matters that are obviously, as she will be aware, driven principally by HMRC, which is reserved to the UK Government. But the prospect that that is a solution to the level of disruption that could easily be caused by a Brexit of any sort, and in particular a 'no deal 'Brexit, I think is something of a fantasy.

The current EU structural funds programmes are investing £206 million to support a total of 159,000 apprenticeships across Wales between 2015 and 2023. This is part of the overall investment of £861 million that the EU programmes are making in skills and in employability in Wales.

During yesterday's debate on the shared prosperity fund, Nick Ramsay said that there are unanswered questions about the future of the shared prosperity fund, which led me once again to question why on earth he's a Tory. He surely too nice and intelligent for that kind of activity. [Laughter.] I think the future—[Interruption.] Well, let me get to the question. The future of the structural funds has a huge impact for skills and development and training in my constituency. In Caerphilly town, ACT Training have benefited from European social fund support, which delivers Government apprenticeship, traineeship and Jobs Growth Wales programmes. In Ystrad Mynach, Educ8 benefited from the same and, of course, Coleg y Cymoedd have built into their work ESF-funded programmes too. So, would you agree with me—and perhaps with Nick Ramsay—that the shared prosperity fund needs to be clearly directed towards these programmes and that the UK Government needs to make a commitment on that fund and that that direction needs to be put towards particularly those kinds of educational programmes too?

Well, I thank the Member for his supplementary question, which I think illustrates, doesn't it, in a very real way, in his constituency, the beneficial impact that EU programmes have had in the lives of individual constituents and that, sometimes, the debates we have around EU programmes are at a level of generality, and he's brought that down to the connection with individual communities and constituencies. I absolutely would echo the sentiment in his question that it is absolutely vital for the UK Government now to provide those concrete assurances, which will enable us to continue to make use of those funds here in Wales, to make use of them differently perhaps—align them better with our priorities here—and to deliver on the ground the sorts of advantages those funds have delivered over many, many years. It's incumbent now on the UK Government to put us in Wales in that position. Those decisions should be taken by the Welsh Government, as they have been, and the funds should be made available to the fullest extent that they are currently available. We are, as the Assembly in passing its motion yesterday made clear, very concerned that the UK Government is dealing with an issue of such vital importance to Wales in a way that is apparently so disrespectful of the devolution boundary. I know that he will join me in calling on the UK Government to reflect on that and under, perhaps, a new Prime Minister to change course, to make real the commitments that we will have not a penny less and not a power taken away.

The Minister will know that the youth opportunity index consistently shows that young people growing up in deprived areas have the least access to opportunities. The index ranks each local authority in Wales by levels of educational attainment and employment outcomes for young people, including a range of measures from GCSE performance to participation in higher education and apprenticeships. We also know that one of the best economic levers that Government has is to improve the level of skills training and availability of things like apprenticeships. This has been the consistent policy of the UK and the Welsh Government, in fairness. In any new structure, whatever we call it, the UK prosperity fund or whatever, it's going to be important that parts of the United Kingdom that need particular assistance receive that above and beyond their current block grant. Now, that would properly emulate what currently happens in the EU, where certain areas get vast levels of assistance, and that's basically transferred from the wealthier parts of the European Union. That's what we want, and we can only have that if it's constructed on a UK basis, and, of course, it's got to be informed by the priorities at the level of subsidiarity where this operates, and it would be for the Welsh Government held accountable to this place that would be the key level in Wales. But it is a partnership, and we need to start to reach out and offer solutions to our colleagues in Westminster as well about how we want to see this constructed. It shouldn't be a zero-sum game, where one side wins out over the other.

The Member started referring to the benefits that young people have received as a consequence of some of this support, and he's absolutely right to do that. A number of the EU-funded programmes have specifically been targeted on getting young people into employment, improving their skills, and so it's hardly a surprise, is it, that younger people can see more clearly, perhaps, some of the benefits of continued participation in EU programmes than, perhaps, other parts of society?

He talks about providing solutions to the question of how the shared prosperity fund can be designed. I wish there had been an opportunity to do that. The truth of the matter is, when I spoke with the Secretary of State for Wales, I specifically offered the support of the Welsh Government in designing a consultation that would work for Wales and would reflect the principles that we feel are echoed in all parts of Welsh society, economy and public services, and that has not been taken up. It is absolutely essential that we here, as the Welsh Government, are able to design a system that best supports the young people that he refers to in his question across Wales, particularly in disadvantaged communities. And until we get the realisation of those commitments by the UK Government, we're not going to be in a position to do that.

I have pressed the UK Government Ministers to prepare for a second referendum in meetings with both the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. I have not so far discussed with them or other stakeholders what the question or questions might be.

Can I thank the Counsel General for that reply? In the course of the last three years, he's moved from a position of saying that he respected the result of the referendum now to giving a full-throated clarion call to reversing it. Can I suggest to him, therefore, the sort of question he would like to see on the ballot paper is, 'Do you want to remain in the EU or do you want to stay in the EU?', and that this would be fully consistent with the views of Mr Juncker, expressed in 2015, that there can be no democratic choice against the European treaties, and what he said at the time of the French referendum on the Lisbon treaty that, 'If it's a "yes", on we go, if it's a "no", we continue'—the EU is fundamentally an anti-democratic body that has no interest in the views of the people, and it's a disgrace that the Labour Party, which likes to thinks of itself as the party of the people, is going along with the Euro elite when the majority of its own members voted against it?

Well, I do regret that the Member chooses to take such a facile approach to such an important question. It's absolutely the case that there's no mandate for the sort of 'no deal' Brexit that he advocates, and that is now what we are careering headlong towards. In that situation, as I said to Darren Millar earlier, it is fundamentally irresponsible not to put the question back to the people. He will well know that the position that I have advocated here on behalf of the Government was an attempt to see if we could find a form of Brexit reflecting the principles agreed with Plaid Cymru in 'Securing Wales' Future'. Because of the intransigence of the Conservative Party in Parliament, that has been impossible, and it's clear the country's divided on the question of how we resolve this matter, and in those circumstances, a referendum is the means of resolving that question.

Yes. Significant work has been undertaken across health and social care to prepare for a 'no deal' Brexit. A review of the sector’s preparedness has recently been undertaken, which provided considerable assurance about preparations. Work will continue to ensure preparatory measures are as robust as possible.

Thank you. According to the 'Managing Brexit/EU withdrawal in health and social care in Wales' document produced by the NHS Confederation for all health and social care professionals in Wales, health boards and trusts have been working to ensure robust plans are in place to manage any public health scenario. It is noted, however, that existing systems have been tested and have led to the finding that they are robust enough to withstand 'no deal'-related disturbances. This is positive news, of course. However, I would be grateful if you could provide an update on your workings with the pharmaceutical sector and UK Government so to help ensure that there is not a medicine shortage should we leave without a deal in October.

I thank the Member for that question. I recently met with Public Health Wales to discuss, in particular, the impact of Brexit. The review that we have been undertaking proposed a small number of actions that we're taking forward, including clinical input into decision making around some of the steps that would flow from a Brexit scenario, improving the robustness of some of the procurement that we have in relation to stock that is usually purchased by health boards, other than that which is held centrally by NHS Wales's shared services, and also maintaining, or improving, the awareness of various stakeholders in the health sector of the processes that we've already put in place to manage circumstances where certain supplies might come under pressure.

She will know that we have purchased warehouse capacity in south Wales to maintain stocks of medical supplies, which continues, and we work with the UK Government to maintain the arrangements currently in place in relation to the buffer for medical supplies. Our advice to people in Wales and to health boards and to practitioners is that they should not be stockpiling and they should not be seeking or issuing longer prescriptions than otherwise would be the case.

Finally, question 7—Siân Gwenllian.

Thank you for that question. Most recently, I provided an update in my response to the Plaid Cymru debate last week. By supporting the motion on a confirmatory European Union referendum, we made our policy position clear.

On this side, of course, we welcome this new position from your Government, but as well as words, what we need now is action. Will your Government, therefore, work with my party in order to put pressure on the Welsh Government to hold a people's vote and to work with us to plan on how to do so? When I did ask this before the European elections, I had quite a lukewarm response, if I'm right. I hope you can be more positive today.

I recall that in my response last time I said that I was very happy to collaborate on this issue, and that's still the case. I would be happy to have discussions as to how best we can do that. From our perspective as a party, I'll be travelling to London later this week to discuss this question with the Labour Party in Westminster, to bring pressure to bear on them as to how they can take specific steps to bring this question of a referendum before Parliament in Westminster.

Thank you, Counsel General. Point of order—David Rees.

Diolch, Llywydd. I ask this point of order because whilst the Brexit Minister was answering a question to her party leader, the Brexit Party Member for north Wales shouted from a sedentary position, quite clearly, because I'm on the opposite side of the Chamber, and I could hear it, 'You liar'. Now, that is unacceptable behaviour or language for any Member in this Chamber. Whilst there may be differences of opinions, calling someone a liar is something completely different and unacceptable in this behaviour. I therefore ask you to consider this position and ask for a withdrawal of that statement and an apology to the Member.

Thank you for the point of order and for giving me advance notice of it, and allowing me to reflect on the accusation that was made by a Brexit Party Member today, but also, last week, a similar accusation using the same term by a Plaid Cymru Member against a Brexit Party Member. In general, too many of you are too keen to be disrespectful to other Members in this place, and I don't want to be spending all my time policing the use of language by Members in this place. I want to listen to the quality of your debate. But, obviously, an accusation of 'liar' is not acceptable by one Member to another Member and will need to stop. Given last week's incident and this week's incident, I'm now going to consider this a 1-1 draw. And I am going to say that it's the end of the game, and accusations of 'liar' and disrespectful language is not going to be tolerated further. I want you all to reflect on that in all your contributions, both from a sedentary position and when you're on your feet. And I thank David Rees for giving me the opportunity to make that clear from today.

We will now move on to the topical questions—[Interruption.] I need no support from one of the Members at the back, and he knows who he is. The topical questions—and the first topical question is by Mick Antoniw.

Thank you for that question. The financial settlement for 2015 was agreed between the UK Government and the BBC, and that included bringing an end to the funding for the concession for those over 75 years of age, without any consultation or any scrutiny by the UK Parliament or this Parliament or the devolved administrations. The decision will impact on the most vulnerable and isolated people in our society.

I thank you for that answer, Minister. For many older people, free tv licences are absolutely vital. Tv often offers companionship and an escape from loneliness, it provides entertainment and access to information, and for many, it is their window on the world. Now, the UK Government knows this, which is why they have passed the buck to the BBC to do their dirty work for them. Would the Minister agree that this is a shameful, a mean and a despicable way to treat our senior citizens—the generation that has given so much service to our country? And does he join me in calling on all the Tory party leadership candidates to pledge to provide the BBC with the funding needed so that all of those over the age of 75 years can continue to receive this benefit?

I must say that I do agree with the Member's comments, and that the pressure that has been placed on the BBC and the position that the BBC has been placed in is entirely unacceptable. Indeed, I would go further and say that it is disrespectful of the stable relationship and the established relationship that has existed in the UK between public broadcasters such as the BBC and Governments of all hues.

Broadcasting is not devolved, and the BBC operates independently of Government. It's not the role of the Welsh Government, therefore, to tell the BBC to continue to reform or to scrap the concession, but I do think that it's crucial that we do tell the UK Government that we do not believe that the way that they have operated is just in any way whatsoever. And I would agree particularly that it's important for people, wherever they live in the UK, to be able, in terms of their democratic rights, to receive information on issues of the day and local news, and this is particularly important, of course, for us here in Wales.

Minister, I think your colleague Lord Hall, who is the chairman of the BBC—I would be grateful if you let him know what the people of Wales, especially the over-75s—. I know it's a totally different legal entity, the BBC, but the people in my region over the age of 75—they're living singly, some with medical conditions, no relations living with them, and they're living in the areas that certainly need help, and this was a minor help—[Interruption.] Can you listen, please? This is a little help to them while they're of the age after 75, which is an age when people need it. Some are war veterans; some of those served, worked and helped this nation tremendously, not within the United Kingdom—all over the world. So, we need to help them out. Some have a medical condition. So, Minister—[Interruption.] No, no. Minister—I am talking to the Minister because he's got to speak to his colleague Lord Hall, who is the chairman of the BBC. Please let this gentleman know what the—[Interruption.]

Actually, this was given as an incentive by the Conservative Party. Why don't you understand? It was not given by Labour; this facility was given by the Tory Party. [Interruption.] Listen. 

So, I would like, Minister, to speak—[Interruption.] Let me speak, please. Presiding Officer, there is something very strange in this Chamber. I would like to give a message that we are all as one on this position, at this stage we are all together, and we're not talking—. I'm not saying a different thing to what the BBC has said. I am trying to work it out. We would like to help the people over the age of 75 to have the same facility carry on forever. Thank you.

I thought I had explained the situation clearly at the outset. Neither I nor anyone else here has the locus to express a view on what the BBC should do, but what has happened here, as I tried to explain, is that the financial settlement was agreed between the Conservative Government of the UK and the BBC. That wasn't a decision that provided an opportunity for any of us in this place or in any House of the UK Parliament to express a view on.

Therefore, my emphasis would be to say this: we should prepare carefully a robust case to support the reform of the licence and try and bring the licence back to its actual value as it was when the BBC received adequate funding for the services it provided, because the impossible situation that the BBC has found itself in and been placed in, as you will know from the statements made by the BBC at the time, and I refer to the note received from BBC Cymru Wales on 10 June, namely, that the BBC had been placed in a position where they were threatening to cut back on a range of services—BBC Two, BBC Four, BBC News, the BBC's channel in Scotland, Radio 5 Live and 5 Live Sports Extra, which are the two radio stations that I enjoy most, and many other radio stations. Now, that is an impossible situation where the BBC isn't sufficiently funded to provide the range of services that is currently available. But it was a decision taken by the UK Government, and the BBC, I assume, had to agree because they couldn't receive any additional funding.

Further to what's already been said, the decision taken by the UK Government to transfer the burden for providing free licences for people over 75 was entirely cynical. The upshot of this was to place the responsibility on the BBC to implement a commitment made by the Tories in their own manifesto. The BBC was then in the very difficult position of having to choose to cut back on the free licences or to cut services and jobs.

I sympathise entirely with everyone who opposed the decision, particularly those people who will be affected by the unreasonable actions of the Conservative Government. My concern is that pensioners who are not wealthy will find themselves shouldering an additional burden that is entirely unfair. The reason for this is that those who receive pension credits will continue to receive free licences, but only 60 per cent of those qualified for pension credit actually claim it at the moment. This will mean that 40 per cent of those who would qualify for pension credit but don't receive it will face having to pay £154 per annum to receive an entirely necessary service in order to keep isolation and loneliness away from the door.

I ask the Minister what steps he and his Government could take, perhaps in collaboration with the BBC, in order to increase the percentage of people who claim pension credit. I accept that this is non-devolved, but are there any steps that you could take in terms of a campaign to raise awareness of the rights of older people, for example, as the BBC has mentioned that they might do in order to prevent pensioners from being hit by an unfair financial burden? Will you put pressure on the Westminster Government to make a u-turn and provide this subsidy themselves once again?

I agree with the spirit behind those comments and I welcome them, but talking plainly here, I don't think that my job as one of the Ministers of Wales is to lobby Westminster. My job is to show their hypocrisy, and to say that their behaviour is completely unacceptable and unjust to older people in Wales and in the rest of the United Kingdom. The way that they have accepted and used—[Interruption.] Excuse me. I don't think that you may—[Interruption.] Thank you.

Therefore, I'm of the opinion that the way that they have used the benefits system, namely credits in general, as a way of restoring some sort of means test—something that we've criticised in this place in the past—as a way of proving that older people deserve being able to receive a broadcasting service without having to pay for a licence fee in addition, and then, in doing so, they have undermined the freedom that was available for general broadcasting and have emphasised that there's some sort of new relationship being established between the benefits system and deserving a broadcasting service. I think that that also is an issue that we need to reveal and oppose clearly.

Would the Minister agree with me that this decision is a complete breach of faith by the BBC? On its own website on 6 July 2015, referring to a deal the BBC had made with the Government in the run-up to the renewal of the BBC charter in 2017, it said that the BBC would,

'cover the cost of providing free television licences for over-75s',

in return for the licence fee rising in line with inflation, which it has done. Therefore, it's the BBC's decision that here is to be criticised.

Would he also agree with me that funding an organisation like the BBC by means of a poll tax on owners of television sets is an absurd way of going about things in the twenty-first century? It might have been allright at the time the BBC was founded, when it was the only channel, or indeed up to the 1950s when it was one of only two. But now that there is such a multiplicity of forms of entertainment that are available, it is a ridiculous way for people to fund an organisation that they may not have any interest in watching. I, for one, have no interest in contributing towards Gary Lineker's £1.8 million-a-year pay packet from the BBC for talking balls rather than kicking them.

I'm not sure if I'm to take those questions as a serious contribution on this issue, because I thought I'd made it entirely clear at the very outset that this was a discussion between the BBC at a corporate level, the board of the BBC centrally, and the UK Government, and therefore that we, and certainly I, as Minister with an overview of broadcasting, didn't have any opportunity to express a view on this issue. That's why we have made entirely apparent, in the comments that we have made on the consultation, our opposition to what has been put forward.

Therefore, I have to emphasise that, as far as I am concerned, what we are calling for is that we encourage the UK Government and the BBC to seek to introduce a seamless mechanism as soon as possible, rather than an option of a means test being implemented, as is happening at the moment.

Thank you very much, Deputy Minister. The next topical question this afternoon is a question by Andrew R.T. Davies, to be answered by the Minister for Economy and Transport. Andrew R.T. Davies.

Yes, of course. Our intention would be to use APD to secure optimal growth for both the airport and for Wales, working with the other levers available to us. Ultimately, this means giving serious consideration to reducing APD rates. Any proposed changes to APD would be impact assessed and, of course, subject to full consultation with businesses and, importantly, the public.

Thank you for that answer, Minister. I am a little concerned by your pronouncements over the last couple of days where you said that APD, if transferred, could go up, in light of the former First Minister's comments, in particular on long haul, where he said,

'yes we start from the position of looking to get rid of it, certainly not to increase it.'

You, yourself, are on record as saying that if APD was transferred and lowered, potentially an extra 0.5 million passengers could use Cardiff Airport. I'm unaware of a consumer tax that, if it's raised, actually incentivises people to use it. So, can you clarify your comments, and in particular some of the remarks of the finance Secretary, that, given some of the pronouncements that have been made by the Welsh Government over the last couple of weeks, actually instead of decreasing APD if it was to be transferred, you as a Government might well be looking to increase it to meet your environmental goals?

No, I don't believe that I have suggested that it could be increased. I think I said that any consideration of varying APD would have to be set against the environmental impact, and we'd have to vary APD in line also with our obligations and requirements under the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. We've always been clear in saying that we would use APD to make Cardiff Airport and Wales more competitive.

Now, I believe—based on emerging technology and the way that the aerospace industry is going and the new fuel systems that are being adopted by aircraft carriers—that we would be able to increase passenger numbers utilising APD and potentially reducing it or abolishing it in a way that would have a net carbon benefit for the environment. I think that that would have to be tested, of course, against a thorough environmental impact assessment, but in no way have I said that I would be raising—or that the Government would be raising—APD. Quite the opposite. Our position is still that our preference would be for the removal or reduction of APD.  

It can be a bit frustrating sitting on these benches. I very much welcome the report from the Welsh Affairs Select Committee. We're pleased that the argument and that opinions from politicians and other political parties are catching up with us, whether it’s on the devolution of policing, or the pop tax, or now air passenger duty. It can be frustrating waiting for others to come on board with our ideas, but we are there.

I was looking back at a vote in 2014, when Jonathan Edwards was talking in a debate on the Finance Bill. All Conservative Members of Parliament voted against the devolution of air passenger duty. None of the Labour Members turned up for that one. But, we are where we are today. My question, quite simply, to the Minister is how will he now use this report as an additional lever in order to try to get the UK Government to change its mind.

Well, I think that, first and foremost, the UK Government need to respond speedily to this report. As the Chair of the committee himself said, he doesn't always favour the devolution of powers, but he recognises how important this could be in helping Cardiff Airport and Wales become far more competitive. There are, of course, two questions. On whether to devolve it, in all fairness to politicians on all sides, I think that many politicians have had a consistent, long-held view about whether to devolve it. Some have opposed it. Some have been in favour of it. But, I think that all Members have held their positions for quite some time and, in all generality, Dirprwy Lywydd, Members have been consistent in their approach.

The second question is what to do with it. We've always been clear that we wish to use it as an additional tool to make Cardiff Airport more competitive, to drive up passenger numbers, to reduce the number of car journeys that are undertaken—in our view, unnecessarily—from the catchment area of Cardiff Airport to airports such as Gatwick, such as Bristol. And, if you can take cars and other vehicles, and particularly freight, off the motorway network, you are in turn reducing carbon emissions. And, as I said in answer to Andrew R.T. Davies, technological changes are occurring at great pace within the aerospace industry. We are at the forefront of supporting Airbus in capturing the wing of tomorrow, in developing new composite materials, because energy efficiency, fuel efficiency, is the name of the game, in terms of how to become competitive in the aerospace sector. And, of course, just recently, Virgin Atlantic operated a flight from Orlando to Gatwick using, incredibly, waste carbon dioxide from a steelworks. That demonstrates how the sector, how aircraft transport, is becoming far more responsive to environmental concerns. 

Is the Minister suggesting the devolution of APD as an alternative to the M4 relief road? I'm not sure it would be on the same scale in terms of impact on congestion. I wonder, though, could he clarify, because he's used this word 'varying APD', and I think Andrew R.T. Davies has, entirely understandably, considered that might reflect a change of policy from the previous First Minister saying 'reducing', since varying may mean either increasing or reducing. The Minister has also said that he wants to consider this decision in light of environmental impact assessments, and I've heard some people—at least from a sedentary position on the Plaid side—suggesting that APD might need to go up in order to reduce the climate change impact. 

Can I also just ask for clarity on the legal situation here? You said just now that the well-being of future generations Act requires these environmental impact assessments. If so, why wasn't this realised or at least spoken about previously? And why didn't he take the opportunity of the 2017 York—sorry, the York Aviation report was 2014, but the Northpoint study in 2017 that his Government commissioned, that looked into quite a lot of these issues around where traffic was going to go? Why didn't that also consider the environmental impact? You also mentioned just now that it could lead to an increase of up to 500,000 passengers from Cardiff Airport. The York Aviation report said it might reduce Bristol by a million, and even his own Northpoint report said it might reduce Bristol by 600,000. So, why that discrepancy?

Well, I think, first of all, the Northpoint Aviation report, which was peer-reviewed, Dirprwy Llywydd, presented evidence that showed there'd be reduced carbon impacts as a result of shorter road journeys to Cardiff Airport if APD was devolved and the rates were subsequently reduced. And that's why we've always held the position that our preference would be to reduce or abolish APD. That position has not changed. But it is only right and proper and responsible to ensure that a decision on whether to vary downward, in this case, APD, is acceptable for businesses and the people through a consultation, and is in line not just with—and I think the Member may be conflating two pieces of legislation—not just with the well-being of future generations Act, but also, crucially, with the environment Act as well. 

But, as I've said, it's my view, based on the evidence that's been presented, that reducing or abolishing APD, and therefore attracting more passengers to Cardiff Airport away from more distant airports, would lead to carbon reduction on the whole. 

Thank you. The third topical question this afternoon, again to be answered by the Minister for Economy and Transport. Jayne Bryant.  

This is clearly deeply disappointing news for its workforce. Our thoughts are with those dedicated and loyal employees and their families at this incredibly difficult time. Once appointed, we will seek to work with the administrator to do all that we can do to minimise the impact on the local community and the wider economy. 

Thank you, Minister. Minister, this has been devastating news, which came out of the blue. It's a blow for Newport, the surrounding area, but especially for the workers and their families. Two hundred and eighty workers turned up for work on Monday morning to find out that they had lost their jobs. They describe being told that they'd lost their jobs as 'gutting', 'shocked' and 'a slap in the face'. They had no warning. Worryingly, as the local Member, who had visited Quinn's on a number of occasions, I was not informed of any difficulties. Similarly, Unite the union was given no prior notice. The facility at Newport was the most advanced of its kind in Europe. The radiators designed and made in Newport boasted the lowest environmental impact of any radiators on the market. Quinn Radiators were the only major manufacturer to produce all their radiators in the UK, and they also sourced their steel from Port Talbot.

I'm grateful for the Minister's quick intervention in setting up today's special meeting with Careers Wales, the Department for Work and Pensions, Citizens Advice bureaux, and potential employers. I visited this morning, and it was clear to see the very human stories behind these job losses. This is a dedicated, hard-working workforce; they're loyal and skilled, and they will be an asset to any company. And this is evident to me by the local employers who have contacted me, informing me of vacancies.

Minister, I hope you can offer your reassurances that ongoing support will be offered in the coming days and weeks, and that Welsh Government will do all it can to make sure these workers get the backing that they deserve.

Can I thank Jayne Bryant for her topical question, and also thank her for her speedy response to this issue when it emerged? Immediate contact was established, and I know that Jayne Bryant has been incredibly supportive of those people who have been affected by this decision. And I would echo her comments about the way individuals at the company were informed: it was quite appalling that they turned up at the gate to be met by men in grey suits—as it's been described—to be told that their jobs were gone. That is no way to treat a workforce, a dedicated workforce. We will, I can assure the Member, give all the support possible to affected workers. I'm pleased to say that the taskforce that's been established will meet tomorrow. It will have representatives of a number of organisations able to offer advice and assistance to those affected. It will include, of course, officials from Welsh Government, it will include individual professionals from Jobcentre Plus, from Careers Wales, from Newport council, and also from the Citizens Advice bureaux. This is going to be a difficult period for those affected by the announcement, but we will support those people and their families and their community all we can.

Minister, the announcement of 280 job losses at Quinn Radiators has come as a severe blow to this highly skilled, hard-working, and loyal workforce in Newport. It is also concerning to hear that the company received £3 million in loan support from the Welsh Government as recently as 2016. Can we have your assurance, Minister, that you will give every assistance in finding a buyer for this company, or to provide training opportunities for the workforce to find other employment? And what action do you intend to take to secure the return of the money lent in this case to this company? Thank you.

Can I thank Mohammad Asghar for his questions, and begin by saying we make no apology for supporting a dynamic business, an innovative business? And, when my predecessor announced the support of Welsh Government for this company, she rightly identified that this was one of the most advanced companies in that particular business sector, as Jayne Bryant has today repeated. And the fact is that cheaper imports, of a lower quality, not so advanced—in the way that Jayne Bryant has outlined—have led to the company's demise. That is deeply regrettable, because the products were of the highest quality. Yes, the business was secured for Wales through a loan, and we have already recovered approximately £0.5 million of that loan. Of course, every effort will be made to recoup it, and officials will be working closely with the administrator. And we've already met as well with the Development Bank of Wales to discuss how to minimise the potential shortfall. But it's as a result of our investment in businesses in Wales that we have a record number of business births, a record number of businesses in existence, and record low unemployment and economic inactivity. This is desperately, desperately bad news for those workers affected. But it's as a result of the Welsh Government's dynamic means of working that I can say, with confidence, that we will be able to find those people alternative work in the area.

I was deeply saddened to hear the news on Monday that 280 workers in my region faced redundancy as a consequence of Quinn Radiators going into administration. As has been said, they were loyal, hard-working people, who gave the company years of exemplary service. My heart goes out to all of them and their families. I'd like to know, Minister, whether you were aware of the difficulties the company was facing. As has been said, one of the most horrible aspects of what has happened to them was how late in the day they found out. There was one interview with a man on the BBC who had taken out a £6,000 debt that morning. If workers such as he had been more informed, they could have taken that into account when planning for the future.

I'm aware, again, as has been said, that an event was held this morning to offer support to the former workers. Could you please tell us how well attended that was and what plans are in place to make contact with those who were not able to attend?

I'd also like to know how you'll ensure that everyone is made fully aware of the support that is available through the ReAct scheme, for example. Will you be offering support for them in terms of gaining access to lost pay and making claims for redundancy payouts? Could you also commit to investing the money that you will hopefully recover from the loan provided to the company in job creation in the area and upskiling workers who will need to find alternative employment?

And finally, Minister, I'd like to reiterate the call made by Adam Price and Bethan Sayed for an audit to be held of current major employers in Wales so that Welsh Government can take a preventative attitude towards job sustainability by having a clear idea of where problems are likely to develop so that they can act decisively in order to protect jobs rather than reacting when they're lost.

Well, can I thank the Member for her questions? I share her anger at what has happened, but I can assure the Member that we've actually been carrying out a risk register process for quite some time. Obviously, we are not in a position—. And we would not wish to publish an audit or risk register of employers in Wales, because, of course, any companies that are identified as being in a vulnerable or fragile position, if that was to be made public, their position would only worsen and in all probability lead to collapse. So, where we have the ability to draw down intelligence, and that intelligence is based on a partnership of information being shared with us, we are able to assess whether a business is in trouble and then we are able to make proactive advances to that business. 

In the case of Quinn Radiators, we became aware of difficulties late last week. We were unable to share that information due to the fact that administrators had to be appointed and the workforce had to be informed as well. But the fact of the matter is, as Jayne Bryant said, she was never informed of any difficulties; Unite the union were never informed of any difficulties. As far as I'm aware, the local authority was never informed of difficulties, nor was the workforce. This came out of the blue for the workforce and for all stakeholders and partners in government at all levels. And, again, I would reiterate what I said about how shameful it was that people were informed of the decision at the gates as they turned up to begin a day's work. 

I don't have the details of attendance at the event that the Member refers to, which took place today. However, I can assure the Member that the taskforce will be meeting tomorrow. The taskforce will have direct access to all those affected by the decision. The assistance that will be offered will include the tried and tested React programme, and I've also insisted that financial advisers should be on hand to be able to assist individuals who have made recent investments along the lines of the individual that the Member has identified today. As I said, this is going to be an incredibly difficult period for those affected, but we will offer all of the support that is available to them.

It is always extremely regrettable when we see a large employer go into administration and we are all aware of the distress and uncertainty this brings to the employees and their families. I'm sure that the sympathy of this whole Chamber goes out to those families at this very distressing time. But, as has been said, what was so distressing about this closure is the way it was carried out. For employees to turn up at the factory to be told that their factory was to be closed is quite unacceptable behaviour, and particularly as this company was in receipt of Welsh Government funds. I was going to say that they should have, at least out of courtesy, informed you, but you say that they did, but at a very, very late stage. Can we have your assurance that there will be full financial scrutiny of this company and the way they operated over the last few months so that we can be assured that it was run in a proper manner?

Yes, I can assure the Member of that and, as with other Members, I share David Rowlands's anger at the behaviour that was demonstrated earlier this week by individuals who I'm sure must feel quite ashamed of themselves. But can I just say, Dirprwy Lywydd, that the vast majority of businesses and employers in Wales are responsible employers, are compassionate employers, work with Welsh Government, with local authorities, with other Government agencies? The behaviour and actions that were taken by just a small number of people at Quinn Radiators do not reflect on the Welsh economy as a whole. We have, as a Welsh Government, an incredibly strong partnership with the private sector and with all our social partners, and as we roll out and intensify our actions through the economic action plan, we will develop stronger ways of working that lead to a fair work nation. We will work with businesses and with business representative groups to ensure that we support companies in future proofing themselves and that we support workers in ensuring that they have dignity in work and that they go to work looking forward to a day's work. 

Thank you very much, Minister. 

Item 4 on the agenda this afternoon is the 90-second statements. The first up this week is Jayne Bryant.  

Last night I had the pleasure of hosting an event in the Senedd to mark Carers Week and to highlight the incredibly vital and often underappreciated work of carers. According to most recent estimates by Carers Wales, there are up to 400,000 in Wales, providing 96 per cent of care in our country.

As a society, we will always rely on unpaid carers, usually family members or loved ones. Carers Week is an opportunity to say 'thank you'—a time to recognise all the unpaid carers across every part of Wales who carry out their roles with dedication and humility. They are an often silent workforce whose contribution to our society is regularly overlooked. Unpaid carers hold families together, ensure people can remain at home, easing the strain on our health service and social services. They underpin our NHS and social care system, and there is no doubt that we could not do without them.

Responsibility lies with us to help carers care. The impact the role can have on both physical and mental health can be debilitating and long lasting. Nobody should be in a position where they’re sacrificing their own health just so they can look after a loved one. More must be done to support them. If their health fails, it often puts the cared for in a crisis situation. Unpaid carers deserve respite, they deserve recognition—not that they’re seeking it—and they deserve our unwavering support.

I want to highlight the work of the Calon Lân Society in Swansea. The sixteenth of March 2020 is the hundredth anniversary of Daniel James, who was was better known as Gwyrosydd, the writer of one of, if not the favourite Welsh hymn, 'Calon Lân'. Daniel James came from Treboeth in Swansea. His father died when he was young. He became a puddler at Morriston ironworks, and then worked at Landore tinplate works.

The recently formed Calon Lân Society are intending to hold a number of events and projects culminating in the publication of the complete poetical works of Daniel James and their translations into English. Also, on the centenary of his death on 16 March, it is intended to have a mass singing of 'Calon Lân' in iconic locations in Wales and worldwide, hopefully including the Senedd.

Other projects include a memorial stone in the grounds of the King's Head public house where he wrote a number of hymns and poems, commemorative stained glass windows in the six local schools to Treboeth, poems and pints, which I'm sure best exemplifies him, and concerts to be held at Ysgol Gyfun Bryntawe and at capel Caersalem. 

I thank the Calon Lân Society for what they are doing to commemorate the life of a working-class Welsh poet and hymnwriter from Treboeth in Swansea. 

Last week, those in the Muslim community of Wales and the wider world took part in Ramadan and the festival Eid that followed it. Many in our communities and politicians here went to visit mosques and shared in that experience. And this will go a long way, I believe, in developing mutual understanding and respect of one another. Learning about different faiths and cultures can empower us and allow us to become better people.

Ramadan is the ninth month of the Islamic calendar, and it is a period of time for fasting, prayer, reflection and community. It is one of the five pillars of Islam. I took part in fasting for the first time this year with my husband and his family, who are over from India. It's a very individual experience, often allowing people to feel purified, and individuals may be given spiritual rewards for embracing it. It makes people assess their lives and how they live them, and it also is a sociable thing, with communities breaking their fast together, to eat together, to share experiences together. Eid, as many of you will know here today, is the festival of breaking that particular fast. It's the start of the lunar month and varies dependent on when the new moon is sighted by various religious authorities, and that's why you won't be able to put the date in stone in your calendars.

Again, people are required to give money to the poor or the needy before they partake in an Eid prayer. And that makes them think about other people as opposed to always thinking about themselves in this individualistic society that we live in—that's often a very good thing—it makes them care for others, and it is a time of celebration. Ultimately, it's vital that we learn about other faiths and cultures and respect one another and other people's faiths and cultures. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Thank you.

The next item on the agenda is motions to elect Members to committees, and in accordance with Standing Orders 12.24 and 12.40, I propose that the motions to elect those Members to those committees are grouped for debate and for voting. I call on a member of the Business Committee to move, formally, the motions—Caroline Jones.

Formally move.

Formally. Thank you. No debate? [Objection.] I haven't got that far. It's all right. The proposal is to agree the motion, but I heard an 'object' there, so I defer voting under this item until voting time, where it will require a two-thirds majority of Members voting to vote in favour to be passed. 

Item 5 on the agenda this afternoon is a debate on the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee report, 'Physical Activity of Children and Young People', and I call on the Chair of the committee to move the motion—Dai Lloyd.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. I am pleased to take part in this very important debate today on the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee’s report on physical activity of children and young people.

In Wales we are facing a national crisis in terms of our children and young people’s health. A higher proportion of children in Wales are overweight or obese, and report unhealthy lifestyle behaviours, compared to other UK nations. We know that active children are more likely to become active adults. Yet evidence from the University of Southampton notes that levels of physical activity and sedentariness among children in Wales are some of the poorest globally.

As part of this inquiry, we took a wide range of evidence. In addition to the usual formal evidence gathering carried out in committee meetings, we visited Bassaleg School to hear the views of pupils and teachers; held focus group discussions with stakeholders; and conducted a webchat with young people between the ages of 11 and 21 about their levels of activity and the barriers they face or have faced in becoming active. I would like to thank everyone who contributed to this work.

We have made 20 recommendations in this report, which, if implemented, would be a big step forward in driving the change and improvements that are needed to reverse this worrying trend. Our report covers a wide range of issues, across a number of ministerial portfolios, and I will try to cover as many of these as possible in the time available to me.

We heard compelling evidence that fundamental motor skills need to be taught at an early age. There is a misconception that all the skills will develop naturally in childhood, and that is just not the case. We heard evidence that, like many other academic skills, fundamental motor skills need developmentally appropriate instruction and opportunities to practice skills in enriched learning environments. Children who are delayed in fundamental motor skills are less likely to be physically active both now and in the future.

We heard about successful kinaesthetic instruction for pre-schoolers—SKIP—an evidence based programme of professional development that has been used to train teachers, teaching assistants and parents about the importance of early movement for child development. Dr Nalda Wainwright, director of the Welsh Institute for Physical Literacy, told us, and I quote, 

'we train the teachers to understand how children move through those stages. They do it in literacy and numeracy, but nobody's taught them that in a physical context. There's been such a misconception in the world of academia around motor development—suggesting children learn that by themselves through play. But that's like chucking a bag of letters in the room and saying, "Play with it enough and you'll learn to read"'.

We therefore recommended—recommendation 5—that the Welsh Government takes further action in the new curriculum to ensure that every child in Wales is enabled to develop the essential fundamental motor skills required at an early age in school, and ensure that current gaps in the foundation phase related to these skills are fully addressed. We would support investment for programmes such as SKIP Cymru to be rolled out across the country to ensure that every school in Wales is able to adequately support children to learn these skills. While the Welsh Government appears to accept this recommendation, this isn't really reflected in the response, which talks about the foundation phase and existing resources delivering the requirements and notes that they might develop a case study on the SKIP Cymru programme. In response to this statement, Dr Nalda Wainwright told us, and I quote,

'It is extremely disappointing that in Wales, where we have the highest childhood obesity in Europe and a third of children living in poverty, Welsh Government feels an appropriate response to the recommendations of the report is to quote the Foundation Phase curriculum, which published research shows does not develop the necessary motor skills. They also suggest that resources with no evidence base are a pedagogical model for physical education. By ignoring the evidence Welsh Government are in danger of failing the young children and families of Wales in particular in areas of deprivation where they are faced with a growing crisis of inactivity, poor motor development and rising obesity.'

It is clear to us that physical activity is not given enough priority in schools, and this must change. The new curriculum offers a great opportunity to redress the balance and give physical activity the attention and priority it deserves. We are very concerned to hear that the majority of schools are not meeting the recommended 120 minutes a week for physical education, and that reductions in the time allocated to physical education in both primary and secondary schools are commonplace due to curriculum pressures. We agree with stakeholders that the recommended 120 minutes a week should be a statutory requirement, making it clear that this is a minimum target, and more activity should be encouraged if possible. Therefore, we are hugely disappointed that the Welsh Government rejected this recommendation, given the evidence that it's not happening in the vast majority of schools in Wales.

We also agree that, to elevate the status and priority given to physical activity in schools, it must be inspected by Estyn, both to monitor compliance that the 120 minutes is being adhered to and also to assess the quality of physical education experience. Again, while on the face of it recommendation 9—that the Welsh Government gives physical education a greater priority in the new curriculum and makes this priority clear to Estyn—has been accepted, the accompanying narrative just sets out what Estyn currently does, whereas the recommendation calls for new action, for physical activity to be given greater priority in Estyn's inspection regime. Therefore it does not appear that the recommendation has actually been accepted. I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on this.

We heard about the importance of providing an appropriate choice of activities and involving pupils in the development of the physical activity and sports on offer in their schools. This was supported in our discussions with pupils at Bassaleg School, who told us that the school had a well-rounded approach, and being given an option was important, particularly for those who did not want to take part in formal exercise. I therefore welcome the Welsh Government's acceptance of recommendation 7, to ensure that all secondary schools regularly consult pupils on the choice and range of physical activities available to them and ensure their views are taken into account.

We looked at the differences in boys and girls' attitudes to physical activity. The 2018 school sport survey shows that 50 per cent of boys are taking part in sport three or more times a week in comparison to 46 per cent of girls. In terms of attitudes towards sports, enjoyment of school-based PE in primary schools is similar between the sexes—75 per cent for boys versus 71 per cent for girls—but the picture changes at secondary level. Here, while 64 per cent of boys enjoy PE, only 45 per cent of girls report doing so.

The reasons put forward by witnesses for this difference include lack of female sporting role models, peer pressure and low self-esteem. Evidence from Women in Sport states that girls are much more likely to be self-conscious, and by the time they are 14 to 16 years old, around one in three girls, or 36 per cent, are unhappy with their body image.

Many witnesses highlighted the need to move away from defining sports as male or female. We heard that gender stereotypes start to form at a very early age, with girls being brought up to believe they are not as good at sport as boys. Laura Matthews from Women in Sport told us that this can be very subtle, with phrases like 'You throw like a girl' that very much make girls aware from an early age that they're not as good as boys. And having that kind of thought in your mind really will put girls off from wanting to get involved in sport.

We also heard about the lack of female sporting role models in the media and a lack of coverage of women's sport. According to research carried out by Women in Sport, women's sport makes up 7 per cent of all sports media coverage in the UK. While we acknowledge that there have been improvements, there is still some work to do in this area. We therefore welcome the Welsh Government’s commitment, in response to recommendation 14, that it will work with Sport Wales to support the further development of campaigns such as Our Squad and #WatchHerGo, to encourage wider participation in sports by girls. 

To conclude the opening comments, physical inactivity is a national problem that affects us all. We need effective public health interventions to help to address the issues. However, we can't just rely on public bodies and schools; parents also have an important role to play in influencing their children's physical activity. We welcome the Welsh Government's recognition in the 'Healthy Weight: Healthy Wales' consultation of the need to focus on family orientated approaches, and we urge them to take this forward in the final strategy, with ambitious targets and effective monitoring to ensure tangible outcomes. Because if we don't start taking urgent action now to change attitudes towards physical activity, we are storing up problems for generations to come. Thank you very much.

Of course, our Chair in his own inimitable style has breezed through the entire report, touched on every recommendation, but nonetheless, Minister, I do think that it is really important that I rehearse again some of the points that he's made because we do have the highest rates of obesity, and unhealthy children usually grow up to be pretty unhealthy adults. It's a deeply concerning statistic and it means that as adults more people will have difficulty in getting appropriate employment. It's very hard to do some of the jobs that we have to do if you've got bad backs, if you're way too heavy to do that job that you need to do. More of us, especially those from severely disadvantaged backgrounds, are more likely to die up to 10 years earlier; that's 10 years of a glorious life that you could have had that you haven't got because of things like diabetes, heart and stroke and some cancers, just to name a few. 

And, of course, this whole report wasn't just about being heavy. Our general levels of fitness are vital if we are to enjoy not only a physically long and happy life, but a mentally long and happy life. I would remind Members that we should not underestimate the benefits of physical activity for our mental health. We're all only too aware that today's children and young adolescents are putting up with societal pressures that we did not have to put up with. There are horrendous things going on via the internet, bullying in schools, there's just a whole raft of things, let alone the pressure of performing, of examinations and of trying to move forward as people. If you're fit and you have that release, and you have those serotonin levels flowing through your body, you are so much more able to deal with some of the vicissitudes that come towards your way.     

Being healthy and active is something we can aspire to, but like all aspirations it's grounded in habit, in knowledge, in confidence and experience. So, we should start at the beginning, and that's why I was so pleased to be part of the committee report into physical activity among children and young people, because I believe we must act now to ensure that future generations take being active, being normal—walking, cycling, dancing, playing sport—. My goodness me, it doesn't have to be doing whatever minutes it is of football and rugby, and I'm not going to say which because I'm going to get it wrong, I know I will. We must ensure also that these children know when they grow up that smoking and drugs and eating too much and drinking too much is not actually the way to have that fit and healthy lifestyle.

We need to start with education, and that's why I'm so pleased to see the Minister for Education present, because a lot of this does come back down into the people who can most influence our children at that young age, and that is parents and that is teachers, and they are the keys and we need to use those keys. And this is why we made such a clear recommendation about the hours of physical activity being mandatory in schools, and we came to the 120 minutes as a basic requirement, having listened to a lot of expert witnesses. The Ministers present will know that I have raised this issue of the fact that we are dropping our numbers and dropping our numbers and dropping our numbers, and I have real concern about it.

So, dear reader, if you read our report, it does look like great news that the Government's accepted recommendations 5 and 7, but I'm not convinced, because in 5 we want that further action. Dai's talked a lot about the development of fundamental skills, motor skills, in young children. Yes, you know, the Government does wax lyrical about the foundation phase, and I am a great supporter of the foundation phase, but the Wales Institute for Physical Literacy is very clear: they've gone back to the research, they've gone back to the evidence and it is not evidenced. Their research shows that pupils are not developing those skills, and we need them to because they are the vital building blocks for healthy people. And I think that this response is blasé and it is assumptive.

With regard to recommendation 7, I have met many schoolchildren who've never been asked what they would like to do for physical sports. It's just taken that if you're a boy, you do rugby or football, and if you're a girl, like my daughter was told, 'You can just run around the football pitch while the boys are having fun in the middle playing a game.' That's great; that really turned her on to sport for the rest of her life. So, if you're going to truly engage with girls and young women and kids who live very disadvantaged lives, with carers, with children in rural environments who cannot get back in to play sport at the end of the day, you've got to really ask them and really listen to them. And I think that there are some good schools, and we visited a few, who do it; most schools don't, and that has to change.

Finally, I want to address the wholesale rejection of recommendation 8. There is only one area of learning and experience in the new curriculum, and our entire education system is going through a huge shake. It's got to bed down over a new curriculum; there are significant changes to methodology and practice; and while the teachers are working flat out to absorb this, while the Government's monitoring and reviewing, our children are not becoming physically active enough to benefit their lives and to benefit our fiscal life going ahead, because we know about the pressure. Our obesity, our health and our mental well-being crises will not improve until we tackle this issue, and I think that this report was a good step forward.

I'd like to start by commending the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee for what I think is a really interesting piece of work. I followed this inquiry closely, and I want to focus on a couple of recommendations today. This is an issue that is really close to my heart. It's close to my heart as a parent, it's close to my heart as a former teacher and also as a former play scheme worker, and as someone who has campaigned around improving opportunities for children and young people's physical activity since I was elected.

Moreover, I'm keen to see a whole-Government approach to this issue, which I hope I can explore in my contribution today, starting with recommendations 3 and 4, which recommend a family orientated approach and which call for Sport Wales and Public Health Wales to develop an appropriate programme. I think this is really important, offering a means by which improving the health of children and young people could serve as a catalyst for well-being in the whole family. I know that, in the Welsh Government response, there's a reference to the Wales physical activity partnership, which could improve physical activity levels. I'd also like to see feed-in from initiatives such as the Valleys taskforce with regard to the Valleys regional park concept as well. In areas like mine, this could be a really low-cost accessible way of getting people out and about, enjoying the non-urban environments that are quite literally on people's doorsteps.

I've spoken before—I think it was in my very first short debate back in 2016—about what is called a 'nature deficit disorder'. This is based on research showing that just 13 per cent of Welsh children considered themselves to have a close connection to the natural world. I think that's staggering. It's a lower figure than Scotland, Northern Ireland or, indeed, even London. Similarly, as an industrial history devotee, I think there are opportunities here linked to our industrial heritage. I've mentioned in this Chamber before previously my passion for the Abernant tunnel, which links Cwmbach in my constituency with Merthyr Tydfil. If reopened, that could be a real draw as an active travel route, and I know that there are many other similar schemes that could have the same positive effects.

Recommendation 11 is another really useful tool. Allowing wider access to school facilities, especially newly renovated ones under twenty-first century schools, just makes common sense. I'm pleased that recently I was able to work with RCT council to meet requests from a local community for children to be able to play on a brand-new MUGA—that's a multi-use games area, for those who are not in the know—at a primary school in Cwmbach. It just makes sense that we should open up these areas outside of school hours for the community to benefit from.

I'd like to go beyond this and flag up also my previous proposal for an inclusive play Bill. This would have ensured play opportunities meet the needs of all children and young people in the community, and I think it's important that this remains a priority.

Disability Sport Wales, in their evidence, which is cited throughout the report, powerfully made the case for really digging down and integrating inclusivity into governmental responses. In a similar vein, I hope to be meeting with the Deputy Minister for health in the very near future to discuss inclusive play and I look forward to hearing how work on various responses is progressing.

Recommendation 16, on the pupil development grant, is also, I think, very important too. Based on Public Health Wales figures, one in four 11 to 16-year-olds in the Cwm Taf area are obese, as are nearly 15 per cent of four to five-year-olds. These are the highest figures in Wales, and they are simply not acceptable. When there are clear links between deprivation and obesity, it is so important that we use levers like the PDG to try and make amends to this issue.

I accept the Welsh Government response that there are already some good examples of this out there, but I'd like to see more work on this point. Similarly, I'd like to see progress on the possibility of bringing in a soft drinks levy—recommendation 20. We know, in Wales, sugar intake is three times higher than the recommended value for teenagers aged 11 to 16, and with this week being Diabetes Week, there could be clear benefits here.

To close, I’d just like to reflect on recommendation 19, which relates to section 106 and accessible recreational facilities with new housing developments. Persimmon recently built a shiny new estate in my constituency, and their glossy brochure showed a play area at the heart of the estate. Five years later, there is no play area, only a dumping ground for the developer, and each school holiday I get residents asking me about when that play area's going to be opened, only to be met with further obfuscation and delay. This is an issue that we touched on recently in the economy committee, in our investigation into local house builders. There's definitely a reluctance from local authorities to take on open spaces now as a consequence of austerity, and I think this is something that we need to look at in the future. 

I'd like to extend my thanks, as others have already said, to everybody who participated in this very important piece of work by our committee. I came, of course, to this work towards the end—I joined the committee towards the end of the process—and it has been quite a revelation to look back and read through some of the evidence in preparing for responding to the draft committee report. As others have said—and I won't detain the Chamber's time in repeating it—this is an incredibly serious issue. The long-term impact on children of being unfit and overweight when they're really small is lifelong, and I think we should have cognisance of the comments made by Dame Tanni Grey-Thompson today about how, if we don't deal with these issues now, we are building up problems for the future, both for those individual children, but also for all of us as a society.

Of course, as Dai Lloyd has said, it's very positive on one level that the Welsh Government has accepted so many of the committee's recommendations. But, however, as Dai has already said, too much of that acceptance seems to be, 'It's perfectly all right because we're already doing it.' Well, having looked back at the evidence that the committee received, this is simply not the case, and I would urge Welsh Ministers to give the committee the respect and understanding that we would not be recommending that you do things that you're already doing. We might congratulate you, we might say how grateful we are to you for that, but we wouldn't ask you to do things that you're already doing.

I want to say a few words quickly about three specific recommendations, Deputy Presiding Officer. Now, the Welsh Government's response to recommendation 5, which is about the skills of teachers in the early years and the importance of children developing those fundamental motion skills, the evidence is very clear: the Government response says that perhaps we can do some more case studies. Well, we've already done that work; you don't need to do it for us. There are established methods of improving practitioners' skills in this area, and the evidence, as Dai has already said, is clear that at the moment the skills are not there. I mean, I've trained as a teacher and people taught me a lot about child development when it came to literacy and a lot about child development when it came to numeracy, but the expectation was that child development in terms of their physical development would just come through play. We know that that isn't true.

So, we have an acceptance of a recommendation here, but it's an acceptance that just tells us it's all right, it's happening anyway. Well, it isn't all right and it isn't happening anyway. Now, the Welsh Government have rejected two of the committee's recommendations, and, in some ways, of course that's the Government's absolute right to do that. And I want to talk briefly about recommendation 6 and then recommendation 8.

So, recommendation 6 speaks about asking the Government to consider introducing a programme of investment to improve physical activity facilities in existing schools. Now, all of us will have visited schools in our own constituencies and regions where, for example, the space that is used for physical activity indoors is also the space that's used for meals, is also very often a space that's used for overspill classrooms—this is particularly true in primary schools. Now, the Welsh Government's response to that recommendation—and, of course, we know this as a committee— says this is a matter for local authorities. Well, of course it's a matter for local authorities, but the committee's evidence was clear that local authorities are not making that necessary investment in those schools outside the twenty-first century schools programme, and that's precisely why we've asked the Government to do something about it. Now, of course the Government's pot isn't full, of course we know that there's a lot of pressure, but surely this is absolutely crucial. And I would urge the Government to look again at their rejection of that recommendation. If local authorities could, or were willing, to put that right, they would've done it already, and they either can't or they haven't.

And to turn again, then, to recommendation 8 and the Government's refusal to accept the need to legislate for 120 minutes of physical activity as a minimum, now, I do understand what the Government has said in terms of the new curriculum, by its very nature, being less prescriptive, and, as a former teacher myself, I absolutely welcome that. But I've read the Government's response in great detail, and it really isn't clear to me how anything that they're proposing to do is going to make the difference that is needed. We know that physical activities get squeezed. In the early years, as I've said, there may not be the skills in the teaching and support workforce; there may not be the physical space. With older pupils, there will be that pressure of exams. Now, again, hopefully the new curriculum will lift some of that, but there's that pressure of exams and there's that pupil reluctance, particularly in the case of girls and young women.

I am just not convinced, and I don't think anybody else who's read the evidence would be convinced, that the Government's approach is going to prevent this. So, if the route is not to legislate for 120 minutes, we need to have another way of making sure that that activity time is somehow protected, and I'd be grateful to hear more from the Government today about how they propose to do that.

To close, Deputy Presiding Officer, there can be nothing more important than our children's physical health; the whole of their future depends on it, their ability to learn academically, their ability to grow into exactly the kind of citizens that the new curriculum describes us wanting to create. What we cannot have around this very important agenda is complacency and apathy.

Can I first of all thank the committee for bringing forward this really worthwhile report, with some worthwhile recommendations? But I'm only going to focus on one area—I say to the Chair of the committee—and that's the issue that is referred to in the report around active travel and what more can be done. And it's interesting that the report actually flags that if we were to genuinely, meaningfully, deliver active travel, not simply active travel infrastructure but the cultural change that would enable schools to make it absolutely normal to walk and to cycle to school, the impact would be substantial, but it would be particularly proportionately impactful on young girls, because the benefits that they would achieve through that would be more, according to studies that have been done, than with young boys, though both would do it.

So, I just want to say to Government Ministers who've seen this—and I welcome a few weeks ago, in fact, when the Minister for Education came along to a presentation by a Cardiff school here in the Senedd and watched what they did. It's difficult sometimes to say to schools in your own area, 'Imagine a school where the governing body said, "We are going to do this; we're going to actually make ourselves into an active travel school. We're going to do it genuinely, not just the infrastructure, not just the cycle racks, we're going to do it. And we're going to do it in a number of ways. We're going to have the commitment from the top leadership of the school, from the teachers, the headteachers, the chair of governors, the governing body, we're going to engage with the local authority on it to make sure that not only do we have the hard infrastructure in the school, but around the school and around that town and around that community as well". Imagine a school where they actually said to every individual parent, "We're going to deliver personal travel agreements with you. At the start of your school year, we're going to talk about how your child will get to school safely and securely and to do it not by car. So, you can walk, you can have crocodiles, you can scoot, you can cycle, you can do whatever, but we want that understanding and agreement", and working with the parents, despite scepticism, to get to the point where every parent agrees to it there, and then to engage with local residents to explain to them what will be happening, that they will have little troops of children going past them in the morning and not to worry about that—that will now be normal—and they will have children coming through past the backs of their houses on the cycle lanes on bikes in great numbers.'

Now, there is a way to do this and it does require support and guidance to parents, some of whom will be sceptical. It does require the school infrastructure for bikes and scooting, and parking for bikes and scooters rather than cars—

Would the Member take an intervention?

Indeed, I will.

Would you agree as well that 20 mph default speed limits in urban areas would be very helpful to achieving that sort of change?

Absolutely, I fully agree with you, John. And the work you did on putting in place the groundbreaking legislation to do this I think took us so far, but, actually, now delivering on the Welsh Government's aspirations to have 20 mph speed limits as the de facto speed limit within urban areas would be a huge help in this, and, in fact, he's prophesied what I was going to say next: imagine a school that actually worked with a local authority, regardless of that, to actually deliver that, and a school, then, that developed their walking buses with the parents involved, including some of those more sceptical parents.

Well, that happens. We have now, within Cardiff, within Ysgol Hamadryad, exactly that happening. And, okay, you can say that there were distinct advantages, but it wasn't easy to make it happen. It was a brand new school, they could start from a blank sheet on a relatively flat area, and so on, but they worked with the council, they worked with the police, they worked with the parents, they persuaded the doubters. And they even worked with the police to say and make it clear to parents and residents, 'We will actually be encouraging parking cautions, first of all, but then fines to be given to anybody who parks', and do you know, since last September, when they introduced this, they've only had three, and none of them, I understand, were for parents—they were actually for other people coming into the area and parking. This is quite remarkable, and the impact that has been flagged up in the committee's report about what this can do for young people's health, regardless of the other things that are in the report, is significant. We have that groundbreaking legislation. If we actually have the will, now, amongst Ministers—the Minister who's in charge of active travel, the Minister for Education, for local government and communities Ministers and others—to really make this work, we can make an enormous difference. There are 101 reasons why we can't do this; there are 101 much better reasons why we should. Ysgol Hamadryad proves it can be done. Let's see if we can do it throughout the whole of Wales.

I had the privilege of being a member of the committee whilst the inquiry into physical activity of children and young people was conducted. I would like to thank the Chair, fellow members of the committee, the clerks and all those who gave evidence over the course of the inquiry. As a former PE teacher myself, this subject and the importance of it is very close to my heart—totally understanding, after many years of study, how growth and development, both physical and emotional, is enhanced by physical activity, and its importance and relation to this growth.

As Dai quite rightly points out in the foreword of the report, obesity is one of the world's most serious global public health challenges for the twenty-first century, and Wales has one of the highest levels of obesity in western Europe. I welcome the committee’s 20 recommendations and am pleased that the Welsh Government have accepted most of them. It is really disappointing that the Welsh Government has rejected two of the more important ones, recommendations 6 and 8.

Children spend much of their waking week in school, and yet less than half of them participate in sport or physical activity three or more times per week. As a result, less than half of the children meet the recommended guidelines for physical activity. More worryingly, just one in six 11 to 16-year-olds engage in moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity for at least one hour per day. We cannot leave it to local education authorities to deliver improvement. The Welsh Government must show leadership.

Recently, I was dismayed to learn of the intention to shorten the school day at Nottage Primary School in my region. The proposed changes to the school day in order to align with the nearby comprehensive will eliminate a morning break and cut the pupils' lunchtime by 20 minutes, and this move will dramatically reduce the opportunities for physical activity for pupils at this school. Play is essential for the health and well-being of our young people, and we should be increasing opportunities, not reducing them, and I urge the Welsh Government to reconsider its position on recommendations 6 and 8.

Finally, while I welcome the committee’s nineteenth recommendation and the Welsh Government’s acceptance in principle, I would ask that the Welsh Government go further. New social housing developments must include green spaces as close to the dwelling as possible. Every home should have an individual garden for children to play in, and, where that is not possible, a shared garden.

We have to be bold if we are to ensure that our children and young people are as healthy as possible. Diolch yn fawr.

Getting to grips with the health issues of our nation has to be a priority. I barely need to say that. We know that obesity and physical inactivity, which helps to create that obesity, is something that we can't afford to ignore at any level. There is a Public Health (Wales) Act 2017 that we now have that demands that a strategy is in place to tackle obesity. I was pleased to play my part, as the health spokesperson for Plaid Cymru at the time, to ensure that that amendment was added to the original draft Bill.

But the challenge now is to ensure that a strategy is put in place that can genuinely change the culture, with new investment and introducing greater urgency in the Government's actions. Without a doubt, ensuring that steps are taken to encourage greater physical activity amongst children and young people has to be, I think, at the heart of that. Indeed, I was very pleased, as a member of the health committee at the time, that there was a consensus reached among the Members that this was an issue that deserved our attention, and this report that we're discussing today is the result of that, of course.

It's a national issue. I'm sorry to say that it is a particularly serious problem in my constituency, where recent research by Public Health Wales showed that 13.5 per cent of children who are four and five years old in Anglesey are obese, as compared to 12 per cent across Wales. Over a quarter of children in Wales are considered to be overweight.

And I was very pleased that the first witness who came before us as a committee as part of this inquiry was Ray Williams, a former physical trainer in the army, who won the Commonwealth Games gold for weightlifting, and who now, through his gym, which is a social enterprise in Holyhead, is trying to change attitudes towards health and fitness. I had a chat with Ray at the beginning of this week, and we both agreed that the report is very useful, but that the Government's response was very disappointing.

We both have no doubt that one of the main things that needs to be done is to use the fact that we have children in school for a large proportion of their lives to drive a change in fitness levels. Personally, I would like to move towards something like an hour of physical activity every day for everyone, through a combination of activities within school hours and outside school hours. The committee received international evidence. Slovenia came to the fore as a nation that realised the health crisis facing them and transformed their attitude towards introducing physical activity into the lives of children and young people, and to do that on a national level. I'll quote from the report:

'The Slovenian Parliament has adopted a National Programme of Sport for 2014-2023 which proposes the following actions: to provide at least 180 min of high quality PE per week to every child, to provide free swimming and cycling lessons as a means of enhancing social competencies, and to ensuring leisure time for sporting activities.'

It goes on to list some of the other steps. And yes, the time that is allocated for physical activity is important, and that's why I, like the Chair of the committee, am so disappointed to see the Government rejecting the committee's recommendation 8 to put that 120 minutes of physical activity, which is already recommended for schools, on a statutory footing. As I've already said, 120 minutes a week isn't ambitious enough in my view, and to reject even guaranteeing that is a major failure on the part of the Government to take this issue seriously enough.

What's happening far too often, I know from experience with my own children and what we heard as a committee, is that the time for physical activity is used for other purposes. The purpose of recommendation 9 is to prevent that from happening, by getting Estyn to give greater priority to physical activity, to monitor and evaluate the physical activity that is being provided. Yes, the Government agrees on that issue of making it a priority, but they note, then, in their response to the committee that they don't of course agree that giving greater priority to physical activity should mean ensuring 120 minutes of activity a week. That, again, is extremely disappointing.

To conclude, another issue I'm disappointed in is that the Government is rejecting recommendation 6 to introduce a programme of investment in schools that isn't part of the twenty-first century schools programme. They say in their response, as we heard from Helen Mary Jones, that it's an issue for local authorities. Of course, local authorities have seen their budgets being cut to the bone, but it's about investment in our children, in our future. The health of our nation won't come for free. Healthy body, healthy mind.

I very much liked the focus in your report on the fundamental motor skills that children need to develop at an early age, and the misconception that all the skills that they require will develop naturally in childhood just by running around, and this is absolutely incorrect. Just as one of your witnesses says, you wouldn't expect people to learn to read by chucking a bag of letters at them and assuming that literacy would emerge from the chaos. So, I appreciate the fact that your report has identified this gap in the foundation phase in terms of teaching these motor and co-ordination skills, which obviously—. It really affects children's confidence if they don't have those skills, because that's how they form friendships, and if they can't do things that their peers can do, it's going to be very disabling for them.

So, I absolutely agree that schools have a vital role to play in getting children and young people to be more physically active, but I think the problem needs to be addressed much earlier than that. I note, from the Government's response, that there's going to be increasing measurement of babies and toddlers' weight, and I would like to assume that we are using those contact opportunities to ask their carers about the physical activity that they're engaging in, as well as the diet the child is following. I appreciate the fact that the Government has accepted recommendation 3 about the importance of a whole-family approach to those children at risk of obesity, and I wondered if the Government is considering the success of HENRY in Leeds, which is a whole-system approach to early education and the parents of young children, which indicated that in Leeds the obesity rates of children starting in reception have actually gone down, which in the rest of the country is going the other way. 

So, there must be something right about what this HENRY intervention is doing, which of course relies on training up volunteers to work on a one-to-one support programme to enable families who are disadvantaged, who are less likely to engage with statutory service to access the healthy families programme. I think that the work that's been done by HENRY has—. There's lots of evidence that it is one of the most statistically significant in delivering sustained changes in parenting, diet, physical activity, emotional well-being and lifestyle habits. All of these things go together. If people are not physically active, as Angela Burns has already highlighted, they are unlikely to be emotionally and mentally very well either. I note that they are actually working around many regions of England, and some of the work that they are doing is training staff in English children's centres. So, my question to the Government is: have you considered using this programme in Wales, and do you think that Flying Start would benefit from the methodology? If not, can you provide evidence that Flying Start is achieving the improved outcomes that we have seen from the Leeds programme?

Moving to what's going on in our secondary schools, I agree that it is disappointing that the Government has rejected recommendation 8—for two hours of dedicated physical activity a week. It's not a huge amount, after all. I asked the secondary school where I'm a governor, and they are compliant in key stage 3, but by key stage 4 it's down to one hour because of the pressures of the curriculum. But, I think that is a really short-sighted decision, simply because, if they are not being active, their brains aren't going to be so active either. So, I think that a further hour of physical activity would actually improve their academic performance.

If we look at what happens after school, only 50 per cent of the year 7 pupils are doing any exercise outside school four times a week, and that falls to a third in year 11. So, I want to know what the Government is considering doing to open up all schools to be community-focused schools. I regard this as a public health emergency. Just as we have a climate change emergency, we also have a public health emergency. On that same note, how many schools have an active travel plan? Yet again today I saw pedestrians being pushed off the road by rat-runners delivering their children—their able-bodied child—to school by car. This is completely unacceptable, and also not in the best interests of the child, who is imbibing all the fumes that they get from the car.

There's a private school in my constituency that takes in pupils from three counties, and they have an active travel plan. Why can't all schools have an active travel plan? Where children have to be bussed into school because the school is 10 or 11 miles from where people live, stop the bus at least half a mile from the school and they can walk or run the last half mile. These are things that we need to do and we need to do them now because we have a major problem.

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

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I will seek to focus on those sections that we have responded to a little negatively according to the views of some of those who’ve participated in this debate. But before doing so, I would like to refer to two specific points. First of all, that we are looking at the whole question of the fitness and health of pupils in a holistic and community-based manner. I am very grateful to Huw Irranca-Davies particularly for referring to the latest school to have been built here in Cardiff Bay that the Minister for Education will officially open very soon. That school is an example and an inspiration in terms of how we can operate on a community basis in a manner that safeguards pupils and visitors to the site, but also meets head on the challenge of not relying on cars to take children to school.

I'm pleased to say that I think there are many good examples around Wales of schools meeting this challenge, and I wonder if you would join me in recognising the progress of schools like Ringland Primary in my constituency, where they've increased walking, cycling and scooting to school by 20 per cent over the last year, so that now just under half of the pupils travel to school by those means.

Thank you very much for telling me about Ringland Primary, and I certainly congratulate them, because this, to me, is the way that we must move. We must move holistically and on the basis of community and the school community itself, and the wider community. 

Another thing that's important to note, I think, is that we have made progress in implementing in partnership with other bodies in order to focus on the issue of health, which is so centrally important to us as a nation, as has been stated in the debate. We have done that by bringing the organisations working on this together, namely the health promotion body, Sport Wales, as well as NRW, who emphasise the environmental side of things and the opportunities of making use of nature and our environment as an area where people can have experiences of being physically active.

But another thing that we have done with Sport Wales is to focus specifically on tackling the issue of the participation of women and girls in sport. The remit of Sport Wales now includes a particular focus on encouraging women and girls to participate in physical activity. There is a particular programme where prominent athletes visit schools in order to ensure that a positive image of successful women in athletics is made public in our schools. There is a particular programme, namely the Young Ambassadors programme, which has been developed, and this is a means of highlighting those successful examples that are role models for our young people.

Would you take an intervention?

Yes.

It's most kind of you to take an intervention. I think the point I just want to make is that we refer a lot to sport, and I'm aware of the Sport Wales programmes, but of course, for young women—12, 13, or 14 years old, hormones racing around their bodies, very body conscious, very aware of trying to figure out what they're all about and everything—actually, the notion of somebody coming in and doing the sport side of it is, and can be, a turn-off. And I would love to see some of these organisations be far more creative in how they get these young women to undertake physical activity. 

Well, this is the whole point about shifting away from the traditional notions of physical activity and physical education as taught. It's an attempt to make physical activity attractive through interaction with those who have been successful in that field. It's not a matter of saying that we expect everyone to pursue elite sport, but we do expect everyone to pursue physical activity to their level of satisfaction, which enables them to enjoy life to the full. And that's why these role models are so important.

If I could also mention the criticism made on the recommendations rejected, and to make it entirely clear that the reason that we have rejected these recommendations is because we believe that the way that we operate at the moment deals with what's covered within those recommendations?

For example, I believe that there is a misunderstanding here about the nature of the changes to the curriculum that the education Minister is leading on at the moment. We are not in the—and I'm old enough to have been involved with the national curriculum back in the 1980s, and I'm very pleased to see that concept disappearing from our public discourse. That is why we have rejected the recommendation on 120 minutes of physical education in schools. Because what we want to see happening is the kind of thing that I had the pleasure of seeing in Llansanffraid Glan Conwy in the county of Conwy, where I live, relatively recently, namely the way in which pupils take part in the daily mile on the school grounds, and that was done without any kind of enforcement, but it was just good practice that had developed within that school, and that happened on a daily basis. Estyn, as has been emphasised by us several times, continue to review their methods of inspection to support the new curriculum, and that will mean looking at the way in which the quality of teaching can be looked at in all areas of learning experience, including this area.

Thank you very much. I, too, am a fan of the daily mile. The children at the school that my children attended, Ysgol Henblas in Llangristiolus, do that and it brought them a great deal of benefit. But in wanting to see 120 minutes being given to physical activity, I'm perfectly happy for that to include the daily mile. I don't mean formal physical education lessons necessarily. The important thing is to ensure that that time is allocated somehow, and to empower Estyn to demand that it happens by putting it on a statutory basis.

Well, what we've moved away from as Government now is the concept that a national curriculum should be imposed on schools, rather that the educational experience that is enjoyed within schools should develop within those schools, and we are seeking to place all of this in the context of the policies that have been developed across Government.

For example, the 'Healthy Weight: Healthy Wales' strategy that will be published by the health Minister in October will put in place a new framework to secure progress on the commitment to physical activity across Wales. There will be an opportunity for us soon, before the end of this year, to see the outcome of the collaboration between Sport Wales, Public Health Wales and NRW—that physical activity partnership for Wales that brings all of these issues together. The use that has been made of the healthy and active fund has already generated a response, and there will be an announcement tomorrow on many of the schemes to be supported within that fund.

Therefore, the shift that's important for us is that we respond to the challenges that we face through the new guidance from the chief medical officer, which I referred to, which will be published in the summer, but also through the activity that will increase at a community level, when schools look at the challenge that we pose for them. I accept—and this is the final point that I will make—that there is a grave challenge here, but I want to say that we're not going to resolve it through evangelising by individuals, but by working on a community level within our schools.

Dai Lloyd to reply to the debate.

Thank you very much, Llywydd, and I'm pleased to respond. Thank you to everyone for their contributions.

Obviously, we've heard, and I won't rehearse the arguments that I outlined in the original speech, pulling together all the evidence that we took, but it remains that obesity is a huge and rising agenda. The evidence we took that early fundamental motor skills, those co-ordination skills, taught at an early age—and taught, actually, at an early age—are vitally important. That's the evidence and it is not happening at the moment. That is also the evidence, and it needs to happen, and that is also the evidence.

I hear what the Minister was saying about the 120 minutes of physical activity as a statutory minimum and stuff, but the evidence we took—we try to base everything on evidence—is that that has to happen. It is not happening when the 120 minutes is not prescribed now in an awful lot of schools. They don't get anywhere near the 120 minutes, however much people would like it so to happen. It doesn't happen unless you put it on a statutory footing and that, again, is the evidence that we took.

Because physical fitness, as again evidence says, if you are physically fit, your blood pressure is 30 per cent less than if you're not physically fit. Your blood sugar is 30 per cent less than if you're not physically fit, and your blood cholesterol is 30 per cent less than if you're not physically fit, and your weight is normal compared to if you're not physically fit. But those instincts are ingrained at an early age, and that's where it is down to schools, it's early schools intervention, it's down to parents—we talk a lot about families and stuff—and that's the evidence.

And the other part of the evidence was that it requires a step change from Government. Business as usual just won't do it. We are facing an obesity epidemic, and we have to face up to that and step up to the plate, and that also is the evidence we took. People always go on that health costs are increasing. Yes, because health is left to pick up the pieces that we should be sorting now at an early age under education, physical activity, or whatever other portfolios that the Deputy Minister carries.

So, to avoid those increases in health costs, we need to be sorting out the problem at a far earlier stage, as Members have attested. I'm grateful for everybody's supportive comments. Angela, first of all, emphasising the obesity epidemic and not just the physical impairments, but the mental impairments as well. And I'm grateful to Vikki Howells as well, emphasising the sugar tax that we need to be in control of to make sure that the money from sugar tax is actually ploughed into the obesity agenda here in Wales. It is not at present because we're not in control of it. And, obviously, also using schools, our modern schools, for longer outside normal school hours.

I'm grateful to Helen Mary for emphasising these important points, that we do need a step change in behaviour, as we have said. What we're doing now is just not doing it, and we have to change. Huw Irranca followed a different—though linked, obviously—agenda as regards active travel and that culture change that needs to happen, and I'm grateful for his experience. And, obviously, John Griffiths about the 20 mph speed limit. There are so many aspects to all this coming together, as well as Caroline Jones invoking her experience as a PE teacher. Rhun, in terms of—

—that very powerful evidence that we received. That was one of the main focuses of our evidence, was to hear Ray Williams telling us what he thought should happen, from his gym in Holyhead. Yes, and also agree, as we as a committee agreed, that the committee drew up a wonderful report, but that the Government's response was so, so disappointing. And that is the response out there, because it is asking you to step up to the plate. We heard about Slovenia, a nation similar in size to Wales, 1 million fewer people in fact, independent of course, but clearly able to think creatively about these issues, and also coming to a decision that 180 minutes a week was required. And of course, they do prioritise physical activity. It is extremely important.  

I'm grateful for Jenny Rathbone's emphasis on those fundamental and co-ordination skills that you learn at a very early age when you can do things—kicking, catching, co-ordination skills at a very early age. You get confident in doing that from a very early age, certainly before seven. If you can't seem to manage it, you then think, 'Oh, this physical activity lark is not for me.' It is fundamentally important. The current foundation phase is not tackling that issue. 

The clock has turned red. So, just to conclude, thank you to everyone for their contributions to this report. Thank you to all the witnesses, the clerks, the researchers and so on, to the Members for your contributions today, but there is a significant challenge remaining for the Government to step up to the plate here—

—because business as usual just won't do. Diolch yn fawr. 

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

That brings us to the Plaid Cymru debate on alternatives to the M4 relief road. I call on Delyth Jewell to move the motion.

Diolch Llywydd. I would usually like to open a debate like this by setting out why it's timely, but, in many ways, this isn't a timely debate. Improving the M4 has been a matter of debate since before the beginning of devolution. It was first proposed in 1981 by the Welsh Office, yet here we are 27 years later and we are still discussing it.

Let me be clear: rejecting the proposed black route on the grounds of cost and the environment was the right decision. To spend the equivalent of 10 per cent of the Welsh Government's annual budget on one stretch of road that would have destroyed the Gwent levels was not an acceptable course of action. What's more, studies have shown that upgrading roads alone simply leads to more cars using these roads. Our Parliament was the first in the world to declare a climate emergency. I'm very proud of that, and this is one of the, yes, difficult, but absolutely necessary steps that had to spring from that declaration. But we knew all this before Welsh Government decided to spend £114 million and five years of effort on the inquiry and project development. That's £114 million more that could have been spent on a deliverable scheme such as the blue route, which Plaid Cymru supported.

So, here we are back to square 1. Many of us were surprised that Welsh Government didn't have a plan B ready to go, so we're having to begin from scratch with the establishment of yet another commission to consider which of the alternatives to the black route should be pursued. The problems for Newport will not go away on their own. People living in Newport, one of my members of staff included, are desperate for a solution to congestion and pollution that too often spills onto their streets when accidents at the Brynglas tunnels mean that traffic is redirected. It can't be allowed to just get worse. So, we have called today's debate to outline some alternatives that could be considered to help the people of Newport whose concerns, of course, have to be central in these considerations. But we will also look at alternative means of easing congestion on our roads and upgrading our infrastructure to make us a green, sustainable nation fit for the twenty-first century. After all, we now have £1 billion-worth of borrowing powers at our disposal on top of Welsh Government's capital investment budget.

In terms of road improvements, the blue route should certainly be considered alongside other options, including upgrading current roads and intelligent signing that would direct vehicles either onto the new road or the current M4 to keep traffic and trade flowing. What's more, we should consider learning from the Scottish example of paying grants to companies that decide to transport freight via train. Furthermore, Government should look at a programme of freight consolidation, where goods are transferred from smaller vehicles to larger HGVs in order to reduce the amount of vehicles on the road, but this can only be part of the solution.

So, in terms of public transport improvements, options should include exploring express coaches to hotspots, improving public transport from areas like Monmouth and Newport to Cardiff to decrease the pressure on the M4, and bringing forward upgrades to the Ebbw Vale line. One train per hour in lots of areas just is not good enough. And Welsh Government could even look at setting local rail fares. Finally, we could consider providing a free bus service on selected routes for a designated period. It took just four months to set up the free weekend travel on all TrawsCymru services, which raised passenger numbers. Free or half-price travel could have that very same effect. Let's be bold here. The people of Newport and all commuters who are sick to the back teeth of sitting in queues on the motorway need and deserve a resolution to the daily problem that they face. We need a twenty-first century solution that combines modern public transport infrastructure with a sea change shift away from car use.

I hope that these ideas can form the basis of our discussion today. Plaid Cymru will be discussing them internally—we are already discussing them internally—and intend to publish our detailed recommendations in due course. I look forward to hearing ideas from other Members across the Chamber.

I have selected five amendments to the motion, and if amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call on the Minister for Economy and Transport to formally move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans.

Object.

No. Formally.

No, sorry. Formally.

It was your own amendment. [Laughter.]

I call on Russell George to move amendments 2, 3, 4 and 5, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Russell George. 

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I probably agree with the Minister's first response today. Can I thank the Presiding Officer and can I move the amendments in the name of my colleague, Darren Millar? I appreciate the Government won't agree with this—I heard the Minister's comments earlier—but £114 million has been wasted in developing a scheme, as well as the public inquiry, which already looked at 28 alternatives to the M4 relief road. All of the associated evidence has been considered by an independent public inquiry, only for the project to be scrapped, and the Welsh Government has spent a large amount of public money and public funds on preparing for the M4 project and the inquiry, only for the First Minister to reject the findings with, I'm afraid, no real alternative plan or targets in place.

Now, as I said earlier in my remarks to the economy and transport Minister, I am sceptical that the new commission that's been established can come up with any different conclusions in the space of just six months than the public inquiry did, which looked at the issues over many, many years, over a cost of £44 million to the public purse. And I do agree with Plaid's second point to their motion today that I think that the National Infrastructure Commission for Wales is well-placed to look at infrastructure planning in the wider term as well.

Plaid Cymru's motion today calls for the rapid development of a long-term vision for a green, sustainable, integrated Welsh transport network. Well, that should have been exactly what's been happening over the last six years. I'm sure Plaid Cymru would agree with that as well. I've had the opportunity, as have other Members, to look over in more detail the public inquiry report.

Now, my notes are quite extensive on the report in terms of highlighting the conclusions of the inspector when it comes to the consideration of environmental considerations of the Welsh Government's own scheme. Time limits me in what I can say, but I would point out the inspector's conclusions on carbon emissions, which are outlined on page 400 of the report. They say that the Welsh Government's carbon calculations were detailed and thorough, but they have overestimated the generations of emissions:

'the scheme would alleviate congestion and eradicate excessive emissions from stop-start traffic.'

The scheme would not adversely affect the Welsh Government's carbon reduction policies or frustrate its public ambitions for meeting reduction targets, and

'the scheme would, perhaps uniquely, be carbon-neutral over time',

and

'would be beneficial for the overall environment'.

That's the conclusions of the inspector in agreeing with the Welsh Government's own proposals. The inspector concluded that the Welsh Government's carbon-related evidence was sound and consistent with the well-being of future generations Act. And I think the point here is—and it's a highly-unusual position to be in—that, in rejecting the scheme, the First Minister seems to be positioning the Welsh Government firmly against not only the Welsh Government's own proposals for the M4 relief road, but also its own legislation, which is on the statute book. The economy Minister gave his view on this matter earlier today. I certainly would be interested in hearing from the First Minister and the Welsh Government Minister responsible for the environment whether they believe that the legislation contained within the Environment (Wales) Act 2016 and the well-being of future generations Act is sufficiently robust or now requires amendment.

The congestion on the M4 motorway is one of the most worrying examples of, I think, the Welsh Government's poor management, I'm afraid, of Wales's transport network, and, despite the importance of the M4 route, there is still no practical solution to the congestion issues on the road. So, in conclusion, Presiding Officer, the rapid development of a long-term vision for a green and sustainable integrated Welsh transport network, which includes giving priority to addressing the congestion issues around Newport, which Plaid Cymru call for in the motion today, I believe would have been largely achieved by the Welsh Government's own proposed scheme.

Llywydd, although there are different views as to the best solutions for the problems on the M4 corridor around Newport, I don't think there's anybody that doubts the seriousness and the gravity of those problems and the need to take urgent action in the short term, as well as medium and long-term action, to deal with those problems. And, obviously, the people of Newport are long suffering in terms of the air pollution, the congestion and the other difficulties involved. So, we do need to have that action.

I believe that what the First Minister has decided is the appropriate way forward. I agree with him that the environmental factors drive the decision that he's made, and the value of the Gwent Levels is very significant within that. Those Gwent Levels are unique, they're historic, they're environmentally very valuable. I am the species champion for the water vole, which is present on those Gwent Levels, Llywydd, and that's just one example of the diversity of life and nature in that area. I was very pleased to take forward a short debate here in the Assembly setting out the value of the Gwent Levels in the round.

And, of course, we've declared a climate emergency, which I believe is absolutely right, and we must follow that through with the appropriate action, strategy and policy. And I do believe that the old 'predict and provide' model of predicting traffic growth and then building new roads to provide for that forecast traffic is largely discredited because, as we all know, what tends to happen is those new roads fill up with more and more traffic journeys and then there are demands for further new roads, and on and on it goes. We must break with that way of doing things and find new imagination and new energy. So, I do believe we need integrated transport, active travel, 20 mph areas in our inner urban zones; I think all of these things help address the air pollution issues and take forward integrated transport.

In my area, in Magor, they have a proposal for Magor walkway station, which the Minister is familiar with, which would help address these problems, getting that modal shift onto public transport. And I know that the Minister will consider an application for £80,000 from Welsh Government to match Monmouthshire County Council funding to take forward a proposal for the new UK new stations fund to take that through to the next stage. Also, there has been quite substantial new housing in the Monmouthshire area along that M4 corridor, and there will be several thousand further new homes. The rail services there, on the Chepstow-Lydney line, along that route, are overcrowded, infrequent and not of the quality in terms of reliability that we need. I think perhaps phase 3 of the metro is a good opportunity to address those issues and help with those M4 problems and modal shift.

I believe there is much we can do, Llywydd, in terms of car sharing, incentivising that through employers providing space for parking to allow the car sharing to take place from particular locations. New apps are proposed, new technology can help; there is much that can be done. I believe we can incentivise freight to get it off our roads and onto rail, and that happens in Scotland, for example, I believe, quite effectively.

In Bristol, they've got a scheme now where the multiplicity of vans that are flying around doing home deliveries are lessened drastically by having a sort of central point where they go to and, rather than having many individual vans driving around delivering packets, they all leave their packets at a particular location and then they're then taken forward by one van rather than any number. So, there are many new ideas, much new energy, and we need to look at this, and I'm sure the commission will, to decide how we can best achieve what the First Minister described, which was many individual measures adding up to a substantial and effective whole.

I would just like to say as well, Llywydd, that it would be important, I think, that the new commission includes in its composition people who have experience and knowledge of public transport, integrated transport, how you get this modal shift, how you get this behaviour change, and I hope that we can get some reassurance from the transport Minister on that front as well. Diolch yn fawr.

It's clear that we need to find a long-term solution for the congestion around Newport, and no-one is denying that; no-one has ever denied that. If the Welsh Government is serious about achieving their goal of a multimodal, high-quality, integrated and low-carbon public transport system, then now is the opportunity to make a meaningful and significant step towards achieving that: £1.4 billion of capital investment has been freed up—just imagine what can be achieved if that is used effectively. The future generations Act requires public bodies to think about the long-term impact of their decisions, to work better with people and their communities and to mitigate persistent problems, such as poverty, health inequalities and climate change. Transport in Wales accounts for 14 per cent of current carbon emissions. If we're genuine about reaching our carbon reduction targets, then it's almost impossible to do that without investing in smart, greener public transport, and this is something that the Government here is lagging behind on.

In the next 10 years, to achieve a reduction of 43 per cent in transport emissions, it's obvious that we've got to do a lot more. We also need to make it much easier for people to change their habits. In 2013, the Government published figures highlighting that 43 per cent of journeys made on the section of the M4 in question were, in fact, under 20 miles, or, in other words, considered to be local journeys. We should aim to be reducing that number to 0 per cent, and that means creating a public transport system that's fit for the twenty-first century European nation that we are. Can we blame people for opting to use their own cars over public transport when it's expensive and in constant decline? We can't even guarantee toilets on certain services now, can we? Now, that feels like going backwards, not forwards, to me.

It's also worth noting that 10 per cent of the traffic on this stretch of the M4 is responsible for the congestion. As we look for solutions to the congestion problem, we should, as a priority, tackle these local journeys. And tackling those local journeys has the potential to reduce that congestion in a big way. Investment in public transport also has the added benefit of making society more equal. Investment in car-based transport systems does little to tackle transport poverty, as it excludes those who do not have access to cars. Welsh Government's own data shows that 23 per cent of households in Wales do not own a private car, and that will, no doubt, correlate with low income or deprivation. A car-dependent transport system is cutting many of Wales's poorest people from employment, from education, from community and social activities. So, investing in an integrated transport system that is affordable and accessible would mitigate transport poverty, as well as increase local economic investment. 

Equal access to public transport, both in social and geographical terms, is essential to achieving effective, sustainable mobility in Wales's urban environments. It's something that can be done and other nations across Europe provide great examples. Luxembourg provides high-quality public transport, and is now going to provide free transport for its citizens. Luxembourg City, the capital, suffers from some of the worst traffic congestion in the world. It's home to around 110,000 people, but a further 400,000 commute into the city to work, and a study suggested that drivers in the capital spent an average of 33 hours in traffic jams in 2016. The Government plans to invest in transport infrastructure, and it's new mobility strategy, Modu 2.0, envisages a public transport network that carries 20 per cent more people by 2025, with reduced rush hour congestion. The plan includes rail network modernisation, better cross-border connections and the new train-tram-bus exchange hubs, as well as road-related initiatives, with state investment of €2.2 billion by 2023. If it can be done there, then it can be done here, and, with this opportunity that we now have, we urgently need to invest in our public transport.

Many thanks for the opportunity to speak in this debate today. While the Plaid Cymru motion recognises the congestion issues around Newport, I'm concerned that by putting the word 'includes' in the motion, the significant challenge around Newport will be lost, and will divert the focus away from solving this particular problem.

I'd like to say that the blue route is no silver bullet and, for me, is a complete non-starter, which the inspector suggested, and I know that my colleague John Griffiths as well also feels the same about the blue route. The M4 around Newport is the most heavily used road in Wales. It's critical to the Welsh economy, it provides access to industry, ports, airports and is crucial for tourism. The vast majority of this traffic is not local traffic. We cannot see the funding siphoned away to hundreds of different projects. If it is, its impact will be diluted, and Wales's gateway to both England and Europe will still be a road that the independent inspector's report stated does not even meet modern motorway standards.

I'm clear that the money that has been set aside for tackling this specific problem must be spent on doing exactly that—tackling the congestion and air pollution caused by the M4 around Newport. The Welsh Government has given assurances that the commission will have first call on the money that would have otherwise been set aside. They must be given the resources to put their solutions into practice. The commission is due to report in six months, and I know that the Minister has said that it might be able to report back sooner than this. I'm keen to find out how the people of Newport and the wider area will be able to monitor the commission's progress.

The motorway cuts through the city, and local air quality is deteriorating, caused by idling traffic, which pollutes more than flowing traffic. Welsh Government statistics have shown that doubling of use of public transport would only reduce traffic on this stretch of the M4 by 6 per cent. When we talk about local traffic, the 20 miles, I would like to remind Members, can actually include Bristol, and I'm not quite sure that people who live in Bristol think that they're local to Newport. We've already seen a 10 per cent increase in traffic since the Severn bridge tolls were removed. Today's motion and amendment are about where we go from here. This is an opportunity for Newport to be a test bed for some exciting low-carbon projects. But let's be clear; we need to see solutions that work, solutions that will make a very real, improved difference to people who have waited patiently, while the situation's only got worse.

The recent announcement by Newport Transport of 15 electric buses is very welcomed—one to arrive in February, followed by 14 in 2020. This small number is a good start, but they have a fleet of 99 buses, and if we're determined to increase bus travel, we'll undoubtedly need more. I know Welsh Government is having discussions with the bus industry to look at how it can reach a zero-emissions bus fleet by 2028. This is admirable, and certainly something we must achieve. However, what actions can be taken to ensure that every time we replace a polluting bus or taxi, it's not sold on to pollute another part of the country? When congestion builds up on the M4 around Newport, many drivers use their sat navs to try and avoid it. This pushes them onto local roads, taking them even closer to homes and schools—roads that are not suitable to have such heavy vehicles on, or the volume of traffic. I'd be interested to hear what discussions the Welsh Government can have with companies to try to resolve this.

Many ideas have already been proposed that I'm sure the expert commission will examine. A peak time for congestion is during the school run. I believe one suggestion would be to look at Newport to trial free bus travel for all primary and secondary pupils living over a mile's radius from their schools. By enabling pupils to use buses, you not only instil a habit of public transport use in the next generation, but you also free up work opportunities for parents. The price and eligibility for school transport mean many parents currently have no option but to decide between work and driving their children to school. This solution will not solve everything, but could form part of a green and sustainable integrated Newport transport network.

My constituents have waited patiently for over 30 years for something to be done, and they need reassurances that urgent action is being taken. Anything less is not good enough for the people of Newport and Wales.

I do not wish, here, to comment on the pros and cons of the decision of the Welsh Government not to proceed with the M4 relief road. I simply want to concentrate on the implications of that decision and give a brief outline of what I humbly believe will be a cost-effective—one could almost say 'cheap'—alternative, designed to alleviate the problems at the Brynglas tunnels, and thereby, obviously, taking a huge weight off the shoulders of the Cabinet Minister. My submission starts with the premise that the Brynglas tunnels are precisely 369m long. In other words, it is a short tunnel. The Welsh Government has just spent, quite rightly, £42 million on bringing the tunnels up to the latest European safety standards. So, one must ask the fundamental question: why is this relatively minor obstruction causing the turmoil that we see manifest itself in the huge tailbacks that are a daily feature on the approaches to the tunnels, for both westbound and eastbound traffic?

As someone who habitually, almost daily, uses the eastbound approach to the tunnels, I take a keen interest in the causative influences on the traffic flows. I have, in fact, made detailed observations in relation to both light and heavy traffic flows, which lead me to believe that a major factor in causing traffic to slow, resulting in traffic build-up and subsequent long queues, is the speed restrictions that are placed immediately before the Tredegar Park interchange. A speed limit of just 40 mph is often in place from this junction right up to the tunnels themselves—a distance of almost 3 miles. My contention is that if these speed limits were disregarded and substantial lane indicators placed on large overhead gantries, placed at appropriate intervals prior to the tunnels, each containing graphic illustrations of the two lanes that give access to the tunnels, and the inner lane, which gives access to the Malpas turn-off, any safety issues resulting from late lane changes would be largely, if not entirely, alleviated. I assume that is why the speed limits are there in the first place. Indeed, the Malpas exit lane could be made a solid colour-coded line at least a mile prior to the tunnels, and motorists would be warned that any change of lane after that point would attract a penalty fine. Exactly the same signage would operate on the westbound approaches to the tunnels, with exits to Caerleon and Cwmbran being clearly illustrated, and again, penalty cameras installed to avoid lane changes after a certain point. The introduction of these new lane indicators would allow traffic to flow freely through the tunnels at the standard motorway speed, thus negating traffic build-up.

One issue that would have to be addressed is that at present there is access to the M4 from Malpas eastbound, just prior to the tunnels. This would be closed permanently, as would the egress from the M4 immediately after the tunnel for westbound traffic. Anyone who has travelled through Europe will be aware of tunnels that can be a few miles long, often containing several bends, and yet carrying speed restrictions of 100 kph. These tunnels often carry volumes of traffic comparable to those on the M4, but from my extensive observations over many years of travelling through Europe, do not experience the hold-ups that we witness at the Brynglas tunnels. I urge the Government to give serious consideration to my proposals when I publish them in full.

I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, as the issue of the M4 and the solution to the traffic issues around the Newport and Brynglas areas is something that I have been involved with from day one, since I've been in this Assembly. In fact, I was part of the environment committee's consideration of these proposals that resulted in a report back in July 2014, which was published. I think this very much confirms—and, I think, endorses—the conclusion that has ultimately been reached by the First Minister. I agree with that, and I also agree very much with some of the comments that were made by my colleague John Griffiths in terms of a number of alternatives, so I don't want to go into those again.

One of the conclusions in that report from 2014—. I'll read it, and it has to be read in the context—. Then, we were talking about the possibility that it might be costing £500 million to £750 million, whereas now, the reality is that we are talking about a £2 billion project, if that were to have gone ahead. It said:

'The total cost of the scheme including all ancillary measures remains unclear and the source for funding this total cost uncertain'

and

'Given the lack of clarity on the assessment of alternative options, wider public transport measures, the Metro proposals and the potential impacts of electrification it is difficult to conclude on the basis of current information that a convincing case for the long-term value for money of this potential investment has yet been made'.

Now, Russell George will remember this report because you were a member of that committee and were in agreement with the report and, in fact, the conclusions that came out at that time.

It's very clear that there needs to be action taken in respect of the situation around Newport and to the infrastructure. But, what I do want to do is to broaden out the debate a little bit on it because this is not just a Brynglas problem. Traffic doesn't magically appear at 7 o'clock in the morning in the Brynglas area and then reappear again by some sort of instance of magic at 4, 5 or 6 o'clock in that particular area. The traffic problem stems far further back, and any solution has to look at the broader traffic infrastructure issues—down from the Valleys, down from Bridgend, down from Swansea, down from the Gwent valleys.

Any solution to it has to also take into account the need to actually provide an alternative mechanism of transport in these areas. And these are areas also where there is massive housing expansion because housing is cheaper. In fact, in the Taff-Ely area, part of which is in my constituency, there are plans over the next decade for 20,000 houses. So, among the options that we have to look at are the broader metro options, and that has got to include the reopening of railway lines, many of which are still predominantly there. The former railway line from Cardiff through Cardiff West, through Efail Isaf, Creigiau, all the way through to Llantrisant, Beddau and connecting to Pontyclun, is still predominantly there. If we are building 20,000 houses in these areas, many of these people without an alternative transport system will be on the M4, will be driving down to Brynglas and down to other areas.

So, what we do need is a very broad and comprehensive transport infrastructure plan that encompasses the Valleys area of south Wales, that looks at where the traffic is coming from, and is there to provide a real solution. I'm absolutely clear that, if we were to have proceeded with the black route, it may have provided some temporary relief for a couple of years, but then in five years' time, we would be exactly back where we started from. The only real alternative is to allow people the opportunity I think most people want, and that is not to have to take their cars on these journeys, but to use an alternative public transport system. We have to ensure that we provide that alternative public transport solution.

The Minister for Economy and Transport—Ken Skates.

Diolch, Llywydd. It's a pleasure to be responding to this debate this afternoon. It's an incredibly important subject, and I'd like to thank all Members for their contributions today. As Members were informed just last week, and as we have debated here today, the First Minister decided not to proceed with the M4 corridor around Newport project, otherwise known as the black route. The reasons for that decision and the important next steps were presented in my written statement.

The First Minister and I have been very clear indeed in those statements and decisions that we remain absolutely committed to addressing the problems of congestion on the network in south-east Wales. In the short term, I've asked my officials, working with partners in the Cardiff capital region and Newport City Council, to bring forward a suite of measures to provide modest but immediate benefits to the road. As I've also stated, I'm appointing an expert commission to make recommendations on the next steps for the transport network in south-east Wales, and the terms of reference of the commission were published alongside my statement—[Interruption.]—I'm very tempted to. I have carefully considered the question of whether the national infrastructure commission should have been tasked with this particular piece of work, but, Llywydd, I judged that this significant and immediate piece of work may prevent them from moving ahead with other crucially important pieces of work that must be considered in our long-term interests. That said, I am keen that they have input into the work of the expert commission.

I'm pleased that Lord Terry Burns will chair the commission, and I spoke to Lord Burns on Monday of this week and said to him the commission should be able to consider all solutions, but that they must take into account the reasons for the First Minister not proceeding with the black route. And I will, Llywydd, ensure that the commission considers the solution that was kindly shared with us today by David Rowlands, together with any other viable proposals from Members in this Chamber. I expect an interim report within six months of the commission's formation, but I've been very clear in saying that the chair should be able to bring forward viable suggestions that can be delivered in the short term between now and the end of those six months if he feels that they could be delivered.

The First Minister has already been clear that the recommendations put forward by the commission will have the first call on funding set aside by the Welsh Government to resolve the issues that we see on that part of the network. But we've also been clear with Members that those solutions must represent good value for money. And it will be for the commission to consider all solutions. We will not be entertaining any pet projects, as I said in my written statement, outside of the commission's work. Now, whilst there will always be competing demands for funding, we are clear that delivering sustainable solutions to the significant challenges along this transport corridor is a top priority, and I can assure Members that the development investment since 2013 will not be wasted and will be put to good use by the commission, making sure that it is fully informed in terms of transport modelling, environmental surveys and all other factors in play across the region.

I have to say to Members, anybody who has read the report could only conclude that the blue route should not be considered at all. The blue route was absolutely trashed in the inspector’s report, and I really don't understand how Members who claim to support a climate emergency could support the blue route, or indeed how Members who oppose the spending of £1 billion on the black route could support the spending of £1 billion on the blue route. [Interruption.] I’ll give way in a moment, but first of all, I’ll just say, for the benefit of the Member, if he hasn’t yet had the opportunity to read the report and the inspector’s decisions in regard to the blue route, on page 460 he concluded that, at 2015 prices, the blue route would not be £350 million, but £838 million, meaning that it would be considerably higher still in 2019 prices. On the very same page he outlines why the blue route would have a negative or very low benefit-cost ratio, in contrast to the black route’s 2:1 BCR. On page 459, he says the blue route would be inadequate, be unsustainable, would perpetuate avoidable carbon burn and local air pollution, and that the blue route would be severely deficient in terms of offering relief to the motorway, both in the short or long term, and would thereby be unsustainable. The inspector also said about the blue route that it would have involved building an elevated urban expressway close to where people live and burdening still further an important distributor road. It would have caused dreadful damage for 3,600 families, and it should have been given no further consideration. I’ll give way.

Thank you. I did, previously, promote at least wanting to see further consideration of the blue route. Having read the report, having gone along that route with Professor Stuart Cole, having spoken to more people in Newport and elsewhere about it, I am persuaded by many of the points that the inspector says, and I would like to put that on the record.

I'm very grateful to the Member, actually, because I think it is right that Members take time to digest what the inspector said about those alternatives because, quite clearly, the blue route should not be given any further consideration. And Members, if they read the report, and I do hope they will read the report, will retrieve any support that they've given to date for that particular solution. [Interruption.] Yes, of course.

Could we also put on the record that there is no mention in our motion of supporting a blue route? I've long been of the opinion that there might have been something based around the blue route, but not the blue route itself, perhaps that would be worthy of investigation. To me, that still stands in terms of strengthening and building resilience into the road network. Not the blue route as—

I take the point that the Member states and I'm very pleased for his clarification. I was basing my comments on many previous speeches and declarations from your colleagues in support of the route that has been so roundly trashed in the inspector's report. But I have to say that, moving forward, we all need to recognise that there is deep frustration with the congestion issues on the M4 network, particularly around the Brynglas tunnels, and the impact that it has on Newport and the economy of south-east Wales. I can assure you this is a problem that we are determined to resolve.

We have some incredibly exciting and bold plans for public transport in Wales, from the £5 billion plan that we've developed through Transport for Wales for the new and transformational rail franchise and metro, to major legislation that will help to re-regulate the bus network, to the biggest investment we've ever made in active travel. There is a huge amount of exciting work taking place right across Wales and it will inspire, it will encourage, and it will enable modal shift, which is so very important. 

I think Jayne Bryant's point about needing to avoid the cascading of high-carbon emitting buses when we introduce a new fleet of zero-emitting vehicles is very important. We'll use the bus services support grant to prevent this from happening and we will also look at developing a scrappage agreement with bus operators. 

Dirprwy Lywydd, we are committed to resolving the congestion issues around the M4 as part of our ambitious plans for transport in Wales and I have confidence that the commission can take us forward in the shortest possible timescale to meet that need, but I'd finally make two points. First of all, I'd say this to Members—don't suggest people should change their modes of transport unless you're willing to change yours as well. And finally, for the three years that I've been in this role, I've been giving very serious thought to the free public transport model that some Members have recently been speaking about, but in order to reach the point where we could deliver this, we first need to legislate and we first need to introduce the reforms—those radical reforms that I've outlined in the White Paper. For that reason, I do hope that Members across this Chamber will support me in implementing those radical reforms and bringing forward that legislation.

Thank you. Can I now call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to reply to the debate?

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, and thank you to those who have participated.

Thanks to everybody who's taken part in the debate this afternoon. I've sensed real frustration this afternoon and, in fact, over the past week or so, and I share much of that frustration. I've heard frustration from a local Member that the pulling of the black route leaves an unresolved issue for her community. We've heard frustration about money wasted, about time wasted, indecision and lack of leadership. I certainly share that frustration. But whilst, yes, we can at this point—and it's more than that—look back, in a way, and ask how and why we ended up in this situation, we have to move forward now. I think this afternoon has been an opportunity—and there will be more, including a debate in Government time in a fortnight—for us to start thinking creatively about ways to address the issue. [Interruption.] Yes, certainly.

Just very briefly, with those opportunities to look at innovative ways that we could release capacity on that very important M4 corridor, one way is to shift the massive growth that we now have in package transport up and down the country, coming from Bristol, Avon, but also west Wales as well. So, innovation such as the rail operations group, with their proposals to actually refurbish carriages, put 100 mph trains—not the old-fashioned, heavy industrial freight—and actually bringing on palleted goods onto vehicles and shifting them across the country. Things like that we should be pioneering in Wales. 

Thank you for the intervention. I shall be launching a leak inquiry immediately after this debate to find out who passed my speech on to you—[Laughter.]—because I was also going to be talking about that as an innovation, because it certainly is an innovation. We heard suggestions about moving light freight onto heavier freight road vehicles. That's a way of doing it. Another potentially more exciting way is exactly that—moving roll cage sized packages onto passenger-type trains that can be offloaded and loaded in stations, on platforms in our town and city centres. So, there are innovations, and a lot of the answers to what Wales will look like in 2050 aren't inventions that haven't yet been made—we already have the technology, we already have the innovations in place. [Interruption.] Yes, certainly. 

And talking about innovations, I know that you're very interested in the electric car revolution, and the electric car revolution and autonomous vehicles give an opportunity for getting more capacity out of our motorway network, because cars that can communicate with each other via computer actually don't need such great stopping distances. So, there are all sorts of things happening with the road network as well and cars in the future that would alleviate some of the congestion problems in Wales. 

Indeed, this is very much a speech by committee and I'm glad that everybody's on the same page in terms of looking at all these innovations and solutions that are already out there. 

What about car sharing? 

Car shares have been listed, and, obviously, investing in public transport in a much deeper way than is currently planned, looking at how we investigate free public transport in order to use that incentive—the financial incentive to get people out of their cars. We've heard Professor Mark Barry recently talking about changing working times in different parts of the south-east Wales economy, so that people travel at different times. I was at Imperial Park, the industrial park on the west side of Newport this morning, and it struck me, as so often it does when I go to a business park, it was rammed with vehicles. It was rammed with vehicles, not just in the car parks of the factories and the business units, but all along the roads in, which tells me that something is wrong. People are not being persuaded or being offered different ways of getting to their workplace. So, the innovations are out there.

And we need to strike, I think, a very careful balance or a number of balances. We need to move swiftly but we can't move rashly. The commission that is being set up now, as we've heard from the Minister, will be looking at action that can be taken immediately, but, at the same time, we need right now to be planning for the longer term. We've got to have a focus on finding a response to that road-based issue that has driven this agenda—that is, traffic congestion on the M4 around Newport—but at the same time doing it in a way that takes a wider look at the transport landscape in the Newport area, yes, as a matter of priority, which hopefully we're making clear is important to us as a party, but also at a strategic Wales-wide level. And remembering that, of course, we do have potentially now a release of capital that was ready to go, but can be used on a wider strategic plan. 

We mention in our motion a rapid development of strategy. Again, rapid development of strategy, yes, but not a knee-jerk sticking plaster-type plan. I'll certainly give way. 

Can I just take this opportunity to say—and I know the Member will be keen for me to reiterate this point—that not all of the money that was allocated to the black route is available for a road-based solution or for interventions purely on the M4? Because, of course, one of the reasons why the First Minister decided to not grant the orders was because it would have drawn capital from other social infrastructure. So, I think it's just important that we recognise that all of that money that would have gone into the M4 relief road would have led to fewer hospitals being built, fewer houses being built. And so it's important that we take forward that social infrastructure alongside any investment in the road.   

Yes, and it's a fair point to make, but we also have to be aware and remember that we were willing to consider spending a significant amount of money on a single scheme, otherwise it would have been killed dead a long, long time ago. We have to now be brave and look at ways that we can use, again, significant investment in looking at the issues in the south-east of Wales plus more wide strategic planning Wales-wide.

I think most points have already been made, so I'll wrap up by saying that, you know, the clock really is ticking now and it's time to be creative. I think we should be looking now to be creative in delivering for Newport and the south-east of Wales, but I genuinely believe that, by providing a response to an issue in Newport and the area, that city can be a pathfinder, a groundbreaker, if you like, for the whole of Wales, and it'll be the people of Newport and the south-east of Wales who will perhaps benefit first from a new drive that has been allowed by the cancelling of the black route towards a new way of providing transport and a new way of thinking about transport and how we get around this country of ours. Thank you.

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

Item 7 on our agenda this afternoon is the Welsh Conservatives debate on reducing plastic waste, and I call on Andrew R.T. Davies to move the motion.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, it's a pleasure to move the motion this afternoon that is laid in the name of Darren Millar. We are really in the twilight zone for a Wednesday afternoon, but I'm pleased to see that Members from all parties have stayed for the debate this afternoon. If I can just deal with the amendments first, and then I'll move into the substantive part of my speech.

Sadly, the Government have reverted to form and got a 'delete all' amendment down. I'm not quite sure why our whole motion needs to be deleted, and then you take two points of that motion and insert them into your amendment. That does seem slightly bizarre to me. On the Plaid amendments, we'll happily support the first of Plaid's amendments, and on the second we'll be abstaining, not because we disagree with that amendment but because we are unsure whether the technology is there to actually deliver on that aspiration. If, in the Plaid spokesperson's points this afternoon, you can convince us of that then we'll happily support accordingly, but at the moment we don't think the technology is there to move it along.

So, moving on, today's motion states that this is an issue that is wholeheartedly resonating with the Welsh public and one that they are placing a growing importance on us as politicians to tackle. Latest polling shows that an overwhelming majority of the public are concerned about the use of plastic and, in part, that has been sparked by David Attenborough's brilliant, illuminating Blue Planet series, which has served to highlight the ever-increasing detrimental impact that plastic litter is having on our natural environment.

You only have to look a stone's throw away from Cardiff Bay itself to sadly see the significant levels of plastic that are entering our marine environment, and it is clear that, as politicians, we have a duty to act. Indeed, a study by Cardiff University found that one in every two insects in the river Taff system contained microplastics, and there is evidence that these microplastic particles are being ingested by river birds. We can be in no doubt that plastic is wreaking havoc on our environment, having a terrible impact on animals and wildlife and degrading our most precious habitats.

And it is not only isolated to marine life. It is also having a detrimental impact on our streets and our neighbourhoods. It is absolutely vital that we act now to tackle this threat and curb the millions of plastic bottles that we find discarded each day and not sent for recycling. We need to educate and deliver a huge change in the behaviour and habits of people. Without urgent action to cut demand, it is estimated that 34 billion tonnes of plastic will have been manufactured globally by 2050.

The shelf-life of plastics means that they can last for centuries in landfill or else end up as litter in the natural environment. In turn, this can pollute soils, rivers and oceans and harm the creatures that inhabit them. It is in the fish were eating; it is even in the bottled water we're drinking. Estimates vary, but the Canal and River Trust and Coventry University estimate that 14 million pieces of plastic end up in British rivers and canals each year, with around 0.5 million items of plastic being carried into the ocean.

I think we all agree in this Chamber that a key part of our mission as AMs is to leave the environment and our country in a better state than we found it. At UK level, the Conservative Government has made great strides in tackling the scourge of plastics, through its 25-year environmental plan, which has brought forward important measures, such as the ban on microbeads in personal care and cosmetic products, and a ban on plastic straws, stirrers and cotton buds. And whilst there is a good level of co-operation between the two Governments on these issues, it's clear that, in Wales, we can be doing more.

As highlighted yesterday by the latest member of the opposition ranks, the Member for Blaenau Gwent, who sadly isn't with us today, who said that Wales seemed to be struggling in this particular policy area of late, and we could and should be far more ambitious. Because whilst I am a supporter of the UK Government's achievements on policy platforms, I want to see Wales leading from the front on this issue, and, at the moment, we're behind the curve, not just the rest of the UK, but other countries across the globe, in tackling this issue.

Canada, for one, announced this week that it will aim to ban harmful single-use plastics by 2021. To its credit—and I don't say this often—the Welsh Government has delivered some impressive recycling rates in Wales, all but for the first time in 2017-18, the total amount of recycled waste actually decreased. And, of course, Wales did take the lead on introducing the plastic bag carrier charge in 2011, but I think it is fair to say that these innovative policies have been somewhat lacking of late. Whether this is a capacity or leadership issue, that is one for the Government to answer, but it is clear to many that we need to up our game here in Wales, and that's not just the responsibility of the environment department, but all Government departments.

Only yesterday, I received a note from a constituent who was alarmed at the high level of plastic waste currently witnessed across the Welsh health service, for example. We need to join up the approach right across Government with dedicated targets and strategies that leave no stone unturned. And why is that? Because plastic waste is escaping into our environment at a phenomenal rate of knots. It degrades into microplastics and this is then easily absorbed into the natural environment. The impact that this has on our wildlife, ecosystems and human health is poorly understood. We have dangerous and negative consequences for people and nature here in Wales.

This shows that we must do all we can to lower the consumption of single-use plastics as we look to improve Wales's natural environment and lessen the impact of human activity on our planet. And that starts with strengthening our supply chains here in Wales to prevent the export of environmental pollution to third countries and retain public confidence.

You might have seen on Monday BBC's documentary with Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, War on Plastic with Hugh and Anita. That uncovered shocking evidence of recyclable plastic waste from Wales that had been exported for recycling but had, in fact, been dumped in Malaysia. Amongst a raft of items from the UK, footage from the documentary showed that recycling bags from Rhondda Cynon Taf were part of the dumped waste, which, of course, brings into question the Welsh Government's supply chain and procurement strategy. A 20 ft-high pile of plastic waste in Malaysia that has been exported from other countries is a travesty and clearly unacceptable, and shows we are not dealing with our waste appropriately. The issue of the exportation of environmental pollution has been exacerbated by Malaysia sending back almost 3,000 metric tonnes of non-recyclable plastic waste to its place of origin, including the UK, whilst China has recently banned the importation of plastic waste for recycling due to environmental problems caused by the contaminated waste.

It is paramount that the public has confidence in the waste management systems and that waste produced in Wales is dealt with responsibly and that waste being sent for recycling is actually being recycled. That's not too big an ambition, surely. The Welsh Government's circular economy fund is a welcome step, but like a number of announcements from your benches of late, we are lacking a significant amount of detail on how it will be implemented, monitored and assessed.

Circular economy experts, WRAP Cymru, have made a number of recommendations that aim to create greater, greener transparency in the supply chain. These include achieving a fourfold growth in reprocessing capacity to around 200,000 tonnes per annum and encouraging manufacturers and importers to report how much virgin plastic and recycled plastic they use within their processes. In their view, this will reduce plastic waste exported outside of Wales for recycling to 25 per cent. As such, on these benches, we want to see the Welsh Government focus on creating a circular supply chain that places sustainability and the environment at the core of the supply chain processes, retaining materials and products, and ensuring that they're reused to limit the amount of natural resources used and carbon emissions produced. Furthermore, the exportation of waste must be limited to prevent the exportation of environmental pollution to other countries, which reduces attempts in Wales to create a greener, more equal society. This strategy should outline steps to reduce waste creation within the supply chain, promote more sustainable supply chain processes, and reduce the exportation of waste and other environmental issues to restore public confidence.

As Welsh Conservatives, I am proud of the fact that we led way back in 2015, calling for a bottle deposit-return scheme. Regrettably, some four years on, we haven't seen as much progress in this area as we'd like to have seen, and on these benches, it is now imperative that the Government come forward with greater ambition. We need to move away from being the throwaway society and clean up our streets and environment, our beaches and our rivers. A deposit-return scheme will have a widescale impact on increasing recycling rates, reducing emissions and helping to reduce the unsustainable exploitation of natural resources and materials. And I hope the Welsh Government will continue to work with colleagues in Westminster and other devolved parliaments and assemblies to help eliminate avoidable waste by also ensuring the ban on the supply of plastic straws, but exempting individuals with disabilities; preventing the supply of plastic-stem cotton buds, except for scientific use; and banning drink stirrers. As a Conservative, the word 'ban' often gives me the shivers, but we are reaching a breaking point.

We can no longer tinker around the edges. Urgent and decisive action is needed from the Government to tackle plastic pollution and protect our environment. We need to lead and we need to take the public with us, and large public bodies and industry need to buy into this. Plastic items are often used for just a few minutes but take hundreds of years to break down, ending up in our seas and our oceans and harming our precious marine life. We can no longer do nothing. So, I call on Members to support the motion before them this evening and support what we are seeking to do, which is hand on a better environment to the next generation than we inherited.

I have selected the three amendments to the motion. I call on the Deputy Minister for Housing and Local Government to move formally amendment 1, tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans.

Formally.

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

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and it's a pleasure to participate in this important debate on plastics, following that excellent opening by Andrew R.T. Davies. Of course, as a party, we are seeking to enhance the motion with two amendments. The first calls on the Welsh Government to use its powers to update festival planning and licensing guidance to eliminate single-use plastics. And the second is to add another point at the end of the motion that calls for a ban on plastic food packaging that isn't recyclable or biodegradable, which would include polystyrene and plastic film packaging. So we're calling for a ban on those along with single-use plastics.

Because there's a major challenge facing us. And Andrew, like me, is a member of the climate change committee, and we've published a report just this week—the climate change committee here in the Senedd—on plastic pollution, which outlines the fact that plastic pollution is one of the greatest challenges facing our planet. Those are the first words of the Chair's foreword here, because microplastics are everywhere. And of course the background to all of this is that the Welsh Government recently declared a climate emergency, and in making such a declaration, we do then need to step up and take action. It's not a matter of simply making an announcement; we need to take action about that. This report by the climate change committee does note in general terms that we are disappointed as a committee that the Government in the past hasn't tackled the scale of this problem, particularly in relation to plastics.

I didn't want to rehearse many of the points that Andrew has already referred to, and we've all seen those television programmes, such as Blue Planet and the programme broadcast on Monday evening, which found plastic waste from Rhondda Cynon Taf in rural Malaysia. But I did want to focus on the impacts of microplastics, which are an increasing challenge for our health as human beings. There have been many studies that have discovered that microplastics—very small pieces of plastic—and nanoplastics, which are even smaller, do permeate to everywhere. They are in our soils, our rivers, our seas; they are even in the Arctic ice. That's the evidence that we as a committee received. Having permeated, these microplastics then appear in our food chain, in what we eat; in the air that we breathe—it is part of air pollution. Because these nanoplastics are so very small you find them even on the rubber of our tyres, which generate these nanoplastics and then they become air pollution. We breathe them into our lungs, and they are so very minute that not only do these nanoplastics get into our lungs, but they also get into our bloodstream, given their size. That plastic then enters our bloodstream and therefore enters our hearts too, as do very many other microgranules. The particulates that are part of air pollution are now getting into all parts of our body.

So, there is a huge challenge here in terms of public health, and Governments everywhere need to step up to the plate, because there is a direct challenge to public health here. The Welsh Government, having declared a climate emergency, must now take action in this area, and they have to be serious about eliminating plastic. Plastic has to be seen as the enemy, and certainly we need to eliminate the use of single-use plastics and tackle polystyrene and plastic film packaging. Exporting them across the world is not a solution to the problem. We need to tackle it here, and we need to ensure that we use far less plastic, with the intention, ultimately, of eliminating the use of plastics. But, of course, as Andrew has mentioned, they last for years, centuries, so we have a challenge in dealing with the plastics we have already created. Thank you.

I'm very pleased to take part in this debate—very timely; as Dai just indicated, there's a report just published by the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee on this subject, and I too thought the Chair's foreword was excellent and rather sobering, and I quote:

'Plastic pollution is now one of the greatest challenges facing our planet, and Wales can't solve this global problem on its own, but we cannot wait any longer, it's important that we step up and take a lead when we can.'

And that's very much what we should be doing. I know that there are some people in this Assembly who take the view that, because Wales is such a small part of the world population, we're sort of absolved from playing our part in these challenges. Well, that's not how it should be; we should be completely aware of our responsibility and we should try to lead where we can, and we've talked a little bit about recycling, and there are deeper issues there. But, broadly, I think Wales has done well there, and has led the way in many respects. 

Deputy Presiding Officer, I read today in one of our national newspapers that the World Wildlife Fund has just issued a report saying that the average person in Britain ingests the equivalent of a credit card's worth of plastic a week, and 90 per cent of that is via water. Now, I hope Radio 4's programme More or Less will be looking at that claim, because it seems absolutely fantastic to me that we can be consuming so much plastic directly. But it is a reminder that, particularly in our consumption of water and in consuming products that come in plastic containers, as more and more do, whereas, often, many of them would have been in glass or whatever—you know, these things really have to be borne in mind.

So, I've said I do commend the Government where it has taken action and I think the spirit of this motion is that we bank that but then go further and we do need, as Andrew said, to ensure that the next generation gets a greener, more sustainable environment than the one that we've inherited and, indeed, partly created.

I do want to look at the deposit scheme first, because I think it's interesting how the public not only widely accepts the need for this, but they've been ahead of us, they've really been pushing us to look at these schemes. I think this is true on many environmental issues as well, and we need to draw on that enthusiasm. In fairness to the Welsh Government, they have sponsored a report that looked at extending producer responsibility, and that demonstrates that a 90 plus per cent recycling rate could be achieved in this area, and, indeed, there is some best practice around the world that does demonstrate that. So, again, I do think that Welsh Government is right to be pushing in this area. And also, if you look at, in particular, a deposit-return scheme, one of the advantages of that is that we would also be developing very high-quality data in the way that those schemes tend to be run. Again, I think that would be very, very helpful for us, and we've heard issues of the circular economy referred to.

I think the Government is sending the right signals, but, like Andrew, I think you need to get a move on, and we need to see that there is some progress fairly soon. I was pleased that a significant number of Members, Deputy Presiding Officer, attended the event that I sponsored earlier this year, when a deposit-return scheme machine was brought into the Assembly, and we all had a chance to use it and see it in action. I think we were very impressed by how practical and effective it was, and I thank in particular the Marine Conservation Society for helping to organise that event, and, indeed, thank them for the wider work they do in Wales in leading the fight against plastic pollution.

I think the visible effect is really quite a concern as well. Andrew mentioned that we see it in our watercourses. I walk in to the Assembly more days than I drive, and I walk across the barrage, and to see the plastic waste being washed up against the barrage is really quite awful. So, I do think that we need to look at innovative ways, industry-led ways. That's the wonderful thing about the deposit scheme, that they would be responsible for it, at least with the favoured model, and we need to get on and do it.

Can I just conclude by saying how shocked I was by the documentaries on where we're sending our plastic waste, which we assume is being recycled? Malaysia and China were mentioned, and we need a reality check here, because this 'out of sight, out of mind' attitude needs to change, and we need to be assured that, when we're sending our waste abroad, it is actually getting recycled, and we're not just sending our problem abroad into economies and societies less equipped to recycle than we are. Thank you very much.

I want to concentrate on one aspect of plastic pollution, and it's been mentioned here earlier, of course, which is deposit-return. We have had a number of discussions and debates in this Chamber with regard to introducing a deposit-return scheme for plastic bottles, but there seems to have been little or no progress with regard to legislation on this subject. There's almost certainly cross-Chamber support for such legislation, as witnessed in earlier contributions, particularly David Melding's just now. The Minister for Environment at the time, Hannah Blythyn, stated as long ago as May last year that she was going to set up talks with Scottish, UK and Northern Ireland counterparts with a view to introducing such legislation. Did these talks take place and what was the outcome?

The scourge of plastic pollution is evident wherever we look: from our town centres to almost every walkway and, of course, in the huge volumes of detritus we see washed up on our shorelines. The time for action is now. We cannot procrastinate whilst this appalling form of pollution not only continues, but grows day by day.

There are two main solutions available: manufacture and distribute less, which should be our ultimate goal, and to recycle that which is being produced. Why is it that we were able to be the first country to put a tax on plastic bags, but we have not been able to go it alone with regard to introducing a deposit-return scheme not only for plastic bottles, but for glass bottles and drinks cans as well?

One word of caution: if we are to introduce deposit-return, then the deposit must be at a level that encourages everyone to recycle. It will be of little use putting 5p on an item—children, in particular, have no value on such amounts. In former years, the cost of a full Corona bottle was around a shilling, but the deposit-return was as high as thruppence. Now, for those who are unfamiliar with the old currency, that is a 25 per cent return value. As a young boy, I can assure you that was plenty of incentive to return your bottles, and, of course, any others you were fortunate to accumulate. I'm sure that a deposit-return scheme based on around the same percentages would have a massive impact on the recycling rates of not only plastic but glass and aluminium as well. I urge the Government to work with all of us in this Chamber to get the legislation in place to see this scheme go forward.

The plastic plague and pollution is a global worry. It is also a huge problem for us here in Wales, and no more so than in Aberconwy. I'm sure I'm not alone as an Assembly Member—we've carried out beach cleans with the Marine Conservation Society, NFU Mutual, and many of our residents. The things that we find there—mainly plastic, from bottles to cigarette stubs, which contain plastic also. I know, at my last beach clean, one member of the public just spent about half an hour and, around one of the benches on the promenade in Llandudno, 308 cigarette stubs. Sadly, that is just typical of so many of our beaches across Wales. For every 100m of Welsh beaches cleaned, an average of 53 drink containers are found. Residents report plastic waste in hedgerows beside the A470. Trefriw community council is admirably working to combat the waste caused by wild camping around Llyn Geirionydd. And, only last Friday, I had a meeting with a resident promoting alternatives to plastic. She'd actually been to Kenya and actually come back with—. Even in Kenya, over there, they are so in tune with what's going on and they are now banning the use of plastic bags in supermarkets and shops and things.

Clearly, combating plastic waste is a priority, so I welcome the debate today to highlight how the Welsh Government could and should be doing more for Wales, and the overwhelming majority of residents now, who are switched on, who are in tune, and they are simply unhappy with the use and the throwaway society of plastic that we have. Keep Wales Tidy's 'How Clean Are Our Streets?' report found that there has been little change in the presence of drinks litter since 2013-14. Plastic-related incidents reported to the RSPCA have increased almost 29 per cent between 2015 and 2018, and, according to WRAP Cymru, whilst Wales produces 400,000 tonnes of plastic waste per annum—an increasing figure—just 33 per cent of plastics are recycled.

Wales could be a world leader in recycling, and actually boasts itself to be so, but 17 local authorities have reported a decrease in reuse and recycling rates. The situation is even worse, as we know—Andrew Davies quite rightly pointed out that plastic waste exported from Wales has been found dumped in Malaysia, and personally I don't blame Malaysia for returning plastic waste, because I believe that we too have a moral and environmental obligation to target and to treat our own trash trouble. 

At the end of the day, poor waste management and not properly getting to grips with plastic pollution contradicts the goal—one of the main goals—in the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, of having a globally responsible Wales. Positive progress can be achieved through creating a circular plastic economy, which could be greatly facilitated with better grants to help businesses boost use of recycled plastics. Finance can be used as an incentive, too, for the wider public to recycle, especially through the use of a deposit-return scheme, and I thought that the initiative brought forward that David Melding mentioned was absolutely fantastic. Why we haven't got those now in the Assembly, I have no idea.

This solution is very close to my heart. The need for this is clear when considering the plastics that are now being found, that our recycling rate for bottles is lower than other parts of Europe—around 70 per cent here in comparison to 94.5 per cent in Norway—and the fact that 3 billion plastic bottles are thrown away in the UK. England and Scotland have committed to introducing a deposit-return scheme, whilst all we seem to be doing here is talking about it, consulting about it, but not actually putting it into action. YouGov and the MCS have shown that 71 per cent of people in Wales support the introduction of the scheme, as does my counterpart Julie Morgan. So, I implore the Minister to get going and give us one.

Similarly, we need to give serious consideration to other areas where the UK Conservative Government is leading the way. These include the intention to ban, with reasonable exceptions, the sale of plastic straws, plastic-stem cotton buds and drink stirrers in England. I could probably name another 100 items that I'd like to see banned. According to Surfers Against Sewage, this is a really positive and bold step in the right direction in the battle against plastic pollution.

I agree, and have earlier this month written to my colleague Hannah Blythyn AM, asking about the use of plastic straws at Cardiff Airport, finding that only WHSmith now seem to continue to have such straws on site. Overall, the UK ranks second in the EU for the consumption per capita of straws and stirrers and first for cotton buds. These embarrassing figures are unsurprising when considering that the amount of plastic straws used within the public sector is actually increasing, and has done so by over a 0.25 million since 2013-14. So, whilst we are talking about it here today, it is still happening. So, Minister, please listen to our debate. Please do not 'delete all'. Support our motion, and let us all work together across this Chamber to see the eradication of plastic everywhere. Thank you.  

No reasonable person would disagree with this motion or any of the amendments tabled today. I am proud of the steps already taken to reduce the use of plastic in our consumables. The carrier bag charge in Wales broke new ground and has had a real impact on the use of these bags. It has changed behaviour, and we see evidence of this when we go to the supermarket and see people getting out their cloth bags, their trolley bags and their bags for life. Similarly, recycling rates are improving and are world-leading. Smaller bins, fewer collections of refuse and more collections of recyclables all help in this.

But there is more to be done. I see people in their cars throwing litter out of their car windows at traffic lights that they are passing through. They don't live there so it doesn't matter. Around local shops and around bus stops, plastics, paper food waste—all are chucked on the floor because they don't think or care, and someone else will clear it up eventually. And don't get me started on takeaway food outlets or our beaches. Who thinks that it's okay to leave dirty nappies on a beach, or are they just not thinking? Who on earth thinks that it's okay to throw their uneaten food and packaging out of the car when they are literally feet away from a bin, or are they just not thinking again? I think that all of the recommendations mentioned today have merit, and so I say, 'Just get on with it.'

I think that the whole country was touched by the Blue Planet series last year. There, in glorious technicolour, we all saw the heartbreaking end result of our throwaway society. But has this led to the behavioural change that we need? It has not. It does seem to me that a major consideration in this debate that is not mentioned is behavioural change, and I am interested in whether the Welsh Government is looking at behavioural science and its application in this area.

We've seen this nudge theory before used well in the opt-out for organ donation and pension arrangements. As a huge animal lover, I am very concerned with the detrimental effect that plastic has on animals in our seas and on our lands. In my view, this sort of approach needs to be in the mix to encourage a more mindful treatment of our environment and the place of plastics in it. Thank you.

I thank the Tory group for bringing this motion. The motion is absolutely spot on in attempting to prevent the use and export of plastic products, rather than some of the amendments to be made to the motion, which attempt to suggest that recycling is the solution to the issue of plastic overuse. We shouldn't get shrink-wrapped into a belief that material that is recyclable or biodegradable is okay to use. In order to biodegrade, material needs air and water, neither of which it gets if it's trapped under tonnes of other waste in landfill. Recycling itself takes a substantial amount of energy. Something made from 100 per cent recycled material is often thought of as totally environmentally friendly, yet the energy expended in its manufacture may well be higher than the original product. Labelling should be changed to reflect more accurately the total environmental cost of plastics—recycled or otherwise.

Typically, Labour's amendment congratulates itself rather than coming up with additional ideas to move the debate forward, and restricting the use of plastics is a much more limited undertaking from Welsh Government than the original motion’s suggested ban on the most unnecessary plastic products that cause a great deal of damage. The main reason we have exported plastic waste to other countries is because of the EU landfill tax, which placed a levy on every tonne of waste sent to landfill, while making no effort to ensure that any of it was actually recycled. As a result, instead of sending our rubbish to landfill or to our own recycling plants, we sent it to China and other places. The environmental cost of shipping it all that way was not considered, although it was huge. But it has allowed the EU and Welsh Government to claim a victory that their rules had saved tonnes of rubbish from going to landfill. Instead, it sits as huge mountains of waste not being recycled and not doing a thing to reduce the demand for creating new plastic. The EU directive has cost the global environment very dear, and has, to all intents and purposes, created landfill in China and the like instead. Sensibly, those countries are now starting to tell countries like us to deal with our own rubbish instead of dumping it on them. The EU landfill directive is a prime example of exactly the kind of deceitful and damaging virtue signalling that, for the sake of the planet and every living thing on it, Welsh Government and everyone else should avoid.

I will be supporting the Conservative motion, but I do think more emphasis should be placed on the manufacturers and producers that use plastic to stop doing so. Why should the public or local authorities—funded by public money—pay for the processing of waste that is produced purely and simply to help producers sell their products? Often, the consumer has no choice but to accept a lot of plastic that they neither need nor desire. Why should they then have to fund its processing? Perhaps a levy or an obligation should be placed on supermarkets and manufacturers to take back and dispose of the plastic they’re happy to dump on consumers. If producers and supermarkets had to take back the waste they create, and pay the resulting cost of recycling or disposal, they would think twice before foisting it on consumers in the first place.

And why oh why does everything have to be made out of plastic? Pretty much anything that can be made out of plastic can be made out of other materials—materials that could potentially be grown in Wales and provide an additional cash crop for Welsh farmers. Yes, manufacturers sometimes need to protect their products during transit, but they’re going way overboard with it—for instance, bottles of ink that come encased in massively thick plastic after they sold it for decades with minimal packaging. Perhaps the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee could investigate and challenge manufacturers and supermarkets to explain their decisions as to their use of plastics.

But it isn’t just packaging and the items listed by the Conservative motion—all of which I support. Plastics are also used in vehicles and home appliances—the list is absolutely endless. Certain items have an established process to dispose of and recycle the plastic components, but governments on both sides of the border and across the globe need to discourage the use of plastic across the board. So, finally, although the suggestions of the Conservative motion are a really good start, there needs to be a co-ordinated approach to plastic use to address all of its sources, and eventually eliminate its use altogether. Thank you.

I call on the Deputy Minister for Housing and Local Government, Hannah Blythyn.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I would like to start by genuinely welcoming the opportunity to have this debate today on this important topic—a topic that is incredibly prevalent in both the public and political consciousness. Plastic is a modern material that has transformed our lives—in many ways for the better. In the right way, it’s an important, useful material that has many applications, not least in medical usages, but has now increasingly and often brutally brought home just how the throwaway culture, which developed in the latter part of the last century, is costing our environment dearly.

We have to find innovative and effective ways to deal with plastic waste and end the use of unnecessary single-use plastics and materials that cannot be recycled or reprocessed. We’ve heard today how we have to act for our environment and for our future generations. And so much of the work to tackle plastic pollution is being led by young people, whether through our eco-schools network, localised action, and events of our own Youth Parliament. We can be proud of what we've achieved in Wales to date. We know we lead in the UK in municipal recycling with rates of 67.2 per cent, but we cannot be, and are not, complacent. I liked the way David Melding put it when he said we can bank what we've done and then go further, and that's what we are committed to doing.

There is no simple solution or perfect panacea for tackling the problem of plastic. Tackling plastic waste is complex and multifaceted, crossing personal, business and inter-governmental boundaries. So, we're working with industry and local authority partners to develop new infrastructure to increase the sorting and repossessing of plastic waste in Wales. We want to significantly reduce the reliance on overseas markets to recycle the plastic waste collected here at home in Wales. I have therefore agreed that the use of the £6.5 million circular economy capital investment fund for 2019-20 is focused strongly on the recycling of plastics. WRAP Cymru are overseeing the scheme on our behalf and I'm happy to circulate further details to Members.

Alongside that, we need to consider the management of plastic in the supply chain. Deposit-return schemes are proving—[Interruption.] Yes, sure.

I welcome that announcement that that money will be targeted at making a more robust recycling regime here in Wales, and I appreciate you're going to circulate information to Members. Will that information contain the details of what you're likely to achieve by the time you've spent that money? Because actually seeing that waste appear in Malaysia and other third countries is something that really is sapping the confidence of people making that conversion over to recycling.

We don't want people to stop recycling, so the answer to that is actually making sure we develop those markets closer to home. I'm more than happy to send as much information as we can for you to take a look at. 

I was talking about deposit-return schemes. They're proven to improve on-the-go recycling and reduce littering, as well as providing a high-quality collection of drinks containers that can be recycled. I've heard criticism today—I think we talked about how we had conversations with counterparts across devolved and UK administrations, but we have actually passed that now. I don't know whether some Members have been napping, but we did recently consult jointly with UK Government about the merits of introducing a deposit-return scheme and extended producer responsibility.

The consultation closed just last month and, as Members would expect, there was significant degree of interest and responses to the consultation. It's now important that we consider how any scheme would fit with our existing household collections as well as looking at the impacts on the consumers, such as costs and accessibility. As I said, these proposal for a DRS sit alongside wider proposals to introduce extended producer responsibility, which places more of an obligation on the producer for the packaging that they create. If these were implemented, the best and most beneficial approach would be to do this at the same time. 

During the consultation on both of these, I held a briefing session for Assembly Members as well as a meeting for stakeholders from across the piece with the local authorities, retailers, and also the environmental sector, and I'd be more than happy to repeat that as we go to the next stages of this process. Linked to this is our ambition to become the first refill nation. Refill is a practical tap water campaign to reduce the amount of plastic waste caused by single-use plastic bottles. Following our support and promotion of the refill schemes, I'm pleased to share with Members that there are now over 1,000 refill stations across Wales and over 96 per cent of communities along the Wales coastal path have a refill presence. 

I think it was Dai Lloyd and also David Melding who talked about microplastics and the impact particularly on the marine environment and our food chain. We are committed to working in partnership to tackle this problem to gather more evidence, and also work is under way regarding restrictions on products made from oxo-degradable plastics, which contain additives that hasten the breakdown to damaging microplastics. 

We've all heard about the recent announcement that has been repeated here today by the UK Government to ban plastic straws, stirrers and cotton buds in England. I can tell Members that here in Wales we are committed to restricting or banning the availability of these products in line with the European Union's single-use plastics directive. We've had announcements but what we do need is action. So, we will work with stakeholders and consult on our proposals for restrictions on plastic straws, stirrers and cotton buds and on a wider range of items such as balloon sticks, cutlery, plates and polystyrene food and drink containers. 

Additionally, the Welsh Treasury has been working with HM Treasury on proposals to incentivise the use of recycled plastic by applying a tax on all plastic packaging with less than 30 per cent recycled content. We will continue to work collaboratively with HM Treasury until more information is available on the UK Government's proposed approach, and ensure we continue to be part of the policy development and implementation process for any taxation measure in this area. 

But it's clear that the public, politicians and stakeholders across the piece are keen to take action to tackle plastic waste in Wales. Therefore, we continue to assess the potential for introducing a tax or charge on single-use drinks containers in Wales. This remains an option for us, and will depend on the outcome of a suite of waste and packaging consultations launched this year, including extended producer responsibility, which also actually had a question regarding a potential levy on drinks containers, alongside further action, and the work we're doing with businesses to increase their own levels of reuse.

It's also incredibly important that, in taking forward this agenda, we guard against unintended consequences, in addition to being both fair and proportionate in line with tax principles set out in the tax policy framework. But, as a nation, we can be particularly proud of our groundbreaking success in recycling, something that is recognised around the world. This year marks the twentieth anniversary of devolution, and, at the dawn of devolution, Wales recycled only 5 per cent of our waste. We have now reached over 60 per cent. We led the UK, introducing a carrier bag charge and brought in legislation to ban microbeads. I want Wales to lead the way once again on waste and resource management and in transitioning towards a zero-waste circular economy.

Colleagues, we should be under no illusions regarding the scale of the problem. There is much we can do as a Government and as individuals to make things better. Communities across the country are taking action to reduce single-use plastics, from Aberporth to Anglesey. This is to be applauded and supported. Momentum has been gaining in recent months on this, including in Mold, in my own constituency, with a second community meeting of Plastic Reduction Mold taking place this week. Small individual actions add up to make a collective difference, so the onus is on all of us to take action, Government included—action this Government has and will take to tackle problem plastic for our environment, for our communities and for our future. Diolch.

Thank you. Can I call on Nick Ramsay to reply to the debate?

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I think that the Minister hit the nail on the head there at the very end of her speech when she said that we need action on this as well as warm words. I'll keep my comments brief, Dirprwy Lywydd, because I appreciate the time, and Members from all parties, and independents of course, have made some very good points.

I think that, if you look at the statistics, they're truly horrifying. They have been cited by many speakers. Wales currently produces 400,000 tonnes of total plastic waste per year. The longevity of plastics, as we've heard, can mean that plastic lasts in landfill for centuries. I think Dai Lloyd's points were particularly pertinent to me as the father of a seven-month-old baby now. I think it's horrifying, not just what you spoke about with plastics and microplastics and nanoplastics—it's almost at science fiction level—building up in our bodies on a daily basis, but that process starts very early on when a baby is born, or perhaps even before. These microplastics and nanoplastics are everywhere. They're throughout the food chain. It's going to be incredibly difficult to deal with this situation, but we need to deal with that situation and we need to start now.

As my colleague David Melding said in his contribution, there's often an attitude of, 'What difference does it make if Wales does this, if a small country does its best? Because there are much larger countries, and if they're not taking any notice, then we can't really get anywhere'. Well, at least it's a start. We often talk about that phrase 'the size of Wales', don't we? Well, if a country the size of Wales can make a start with trying to deal with the problem of plastics, then maybe we can spread out good practice across the world and other countries will follow suit. We know other instances where we've passed things in this Chamber that, at the time, have seemed to a lot of people ludicrous. You might remember, when the single-use plastic bags were being discussed, there were some people who thought that would never work, that it was crazy, that people would take a Morrisons bag into a Sainbury's supermarket and would use that. Well, you see that all the time now, it's commonplace, and you have reusable bags and paper bags. So, there are things that, whilst at the time they seem difficult to achieve, in the future they can be achieved. So, let's make a start and urge that to happen.

Yes, we've had, as we've heard and as Dai said, a climate change emergency declared. We need to see action on the ground with climate change, but there are wider environmental issues such as the issues of plastic that need to be dealt with as well. I'm pleased that the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee has been looking at this. It's very important that this area is scrutinised fully. One of the reasons, in terms of the amendments, we are rejecting the Government amendment is because it will delete our motion. We are supporting amendment 2, which makes some very good points about guidance given by the Welsh Government. We have an issue with amendment 3 and we're going to abstain on that, not because it's a very noble aim to ban plastic food packaging that isn't recyclable or biodegradable, but I want to see some more information on the mechanisms of doing that and then we will give our full support. And I think that's an issue where climate change committee and other committees can look at scrutinising and providing very real solutions to the Government.

As Andrew R.T. Davies said right at the very start, we need to hand on—I'm paraphrasing now—an environment that is better than we received. We need to do that in terms of the next generation with all sorts of things. We can look at the health service, we can look at education, we can look at transport, at roads, as we discussed, but, on the issue of the environment, it is this planet that is our heritage and that we leave to future generations. And without the planet on which we—well, I am standing now and I am talking to you about defending the planet—. Without that, really, everything else pales into insignificance. So, I think, Andrew, you made a very good point at the very start of your speech, which really resonates through everyone else's contributions today and, indeed, that the Minister responded to.

So, can I thank everyone who contributed to today's debate? I think it's a debate that has been brought to the fore by programmes such as David Attenborough's Blue Planet. I hope that many other programmes also continue to raise the profile of this issue. It's something that wasn't discussed that long ago and now we're discussing it in this Chamber, and discussing a problem is the first stage to solving it.

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

Item 8 on the agenda is voting time. Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I intend to proceed to the vote. No. Right, okay. The first vote this afternoon, then, is on the motions that were grouped together for voting, on motions to elect Members to the committees. It requires a two thirds majority of Members voting to vote for this to pass. So, I now call for a vote on those motions. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motions 12, no abstentions, none against. Therefore, the motions are agreed.

We now move to the Plaid Cymru debate on the alternatives to the M4 relief road and I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. If the proposal is not agreed, we will vote on the amendments tabled to the motion. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 10, no abstentions, 28 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed.

We now go to vote on the amendments. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. So, I call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 19, no abstentions, 19 against. So, as required by Standing Order 6.20, I will cast my casting vote against the amendment, and, therefore, amendment 1 is not agreed.

We now call for a vote on amendment 2, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 29, no abstentions, nine against. Therefore, amendment 2 is agreed.

We now call for a vote on amendment 3, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 19, no abstentions, 19 against. Therefore, again, as required by Standing Order 6.20, I will cast my casting vote to vote against the amendment and, therefore, amendment 3 is not agreed.

We move to amendment 4 and I call for a vote on amendment 4, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 19, no abstentions, 19 against. And again, as required by Standing Order 6.20, I exercise my casting vote to vote against the amendment. The amendment is not agreed. 

We now move to vote on amendment 5. I call for a vote on amendment 5. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 18, no abstentions, 19 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

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

Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amended motion seven, six abstentions, 25 against. Therefore, the amended motion is not agreed. 

And so, as the Assembly has not agreed the motion—it's not agreed, therefore, we move on. Sorry, I was reading something else there that I shouldn't have been reading. I've been terribly excited because I've been able to vote. Sorry about that. [Applause.] [Laughter.] You might not like the way I voted, sorry.

We move on to the Welsh Conservative debate on reducing plastic waste. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Darren Millar. If the proposal is not agreed, we will vote on the amendments tabled to the motion. So, open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 12, no abstentions, 26 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed and we move to vote on the amendments. 

I call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans. Open the vote. Close the vote. For amendment 1 21, no abstentions, 17 against. Therefore, amendment 1 is agreed.

I call for a vote on amendment 2, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. For amendment 2 38, no abstentions, none against. Therefore, amendment 2 is agreed. 

I call for a vote on amendment 3, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 27, 11 abstentions. Therefore, amendment 3 is agreed. 

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

Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amended motion 33, no abstentions, five against. Therefore, the amended motion is agreed.

Members who are leaving the Chamber, can they do so quickly, please?

We now are moving to the short debate and I call on Caroline Jones to speak on the topic she has chosen—Caroline.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I am pleased to move this short debate today and have agreed to allow Michelle Brown speaking time in this debate. We are facing an epidemic in Wales. The Welsh public are being targeted by ploys to swindle them out of their hard-earned money, ploys that are becoming more and more sophisticated and increasingly targeting our elderly and the most vulnerable in our society. Customers receive fake e-mails purporting to be from their bank or credit card company seeking to extract personal details and attempting to glean their passwords. Fake ads and copycat websites are set up impersonating well-known brands in order to sell fake products. People are accosted on their doorstep by others selling fake investment opportunities, shoddy goods and products they neither need or want. Families are targeted by mass mail promoting fake competitions, lotteries and goods. The postal service is also used to con people into paying for goods or services they never ordered or even received in the first place.

Each year, more people fall victim to scams and the scammers become increasingly sophisticated in order to con more people. According to the crime survey for England and Wales, fraud and computer misuse crimes were the most common crime experienced by individuals last year. Action Fraud, the police body set up to co-ordinate information on cyber crime and fraud, saw a 28 per cent increase in card and bank account fraud in the past 12 months. The crime survey for England and Wales's findings suggest that less than one in five incidents of fraud are reported to the police and Action Fraud.

Unfortunately, once someone has fallen victim to the fraudsters, their details, including personal details and passwords, are added to suckers' lists, sold on to other criminals. According to estimates by the Chartered Trading Standards Institute there could be 0.5 million UK residents on these lists. One victim’s details were sold on over 200 times—200 scam groups and organised criminals targeting just one individual.

Three-quarters of adults living in the UK have been targeted by a scam in the last two years. They range in sophistication from a poorly worded e-mail from a foreign prince offering vast wealth to highly targeted social engineering based on your online profile. My office has spent the last couple of weeks apologising to people around the UK who have contacted us believing that Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs are seeking their arrest for unpaid taxes. The fact that our Assembly office numbers have been spoofed to add a modicum of believability to this particular scam shows the increasing sophistication of the criminals involved.

A few weeks ago I was contacted by a constituent who has given me authority to use his name, Mr Mark Morgan of Gordon Road in Porthcawl. Mark Morgan is one of my constituents who fell for a scam. He is in his 60s but is computer literate. As he travels abroad frequently, Mark does much of his banking for various personal and business bank accounts online. When Mark was contacted by a fraudster by telephone, purporting to be from his bank regarding a fraudulent transaction on one of his online accounts, they were so convincing that Mark fell for their scam, which resulted in them draining £38,000 from his account. Around half of the money has been reimbursed by his bank, but the likelihood is that he will never see the remainder—money he can ill afford to lose; his life savings set aside for his retirement. Mark wanted me to highlight today what had happened to him in the hopes that it would stop others having to endure something similar. Sadly, Mark is not alone; cyber crime victims lose £190,000 a day.

So, what can we do to tackle this increasing menace? Raising awareness is the No.1 thing we can do, as a Government, as an institution and as individuals, because we all have a role to play in this subject. We must educate the public about the increasing range and sophistication of the scams. We must increase the number of consumer education campaigns in order to inform the public about what constitutes the different types of scam. We must send out a clear message that there is nothing, absolutely nothing, to be embarrassed about falling victim to such a crime. You wouldn't be embarrassed about admitting you were mugged, so why should falling victim to a highly skilled criminal be treated any differently?

Embarrassment is, unfortunately, a major reason why only one in five scams are being reported. People need to understand the importance of reporting scams. Not knowing about these crimes makes it more difficult for the authorities to identify and act against the scammers. It makes it more difficult to identify who is most likely to be targeted and then act to ensure that those groups are provided with relevant information on how to avoid such scams in the future.

Aside from increasing awareness, I would ask that the Welsh Government and the UK Government work together with industry to put better safeguards in place. It should not be possible for scammers to spoof telephone numbers. Government and the phone operators need to tackle this growing threat and put a stop to robocalling. These automated calls have moved on from PPI claims to encouraging people to fraudulently claim for personal injury following a car accident. We need to strengthen data protection laws to prevent the selling of personal information without explicit knowledge and consent.

Over the next two weeks, Citizens Advice are running their Scams Awareness 2019 campaign, and it is a complete coincidence that I opted to table this topic for a short debate during their campaign, but it is fortuitous. I urge all Members here to tweet their support for the campaign using the hashtag #scamaware.

Scams can affect anyone at any time, so let’s do all that we can to raise awareness, remove the stigma, increase reporting, and strengthen legislation, in order to protect our constituents and prevent others having to go through what Mark Morgan has had to endure. Diolch yn fawr. Thank you very much.

I'd like to thank Caroline for allowing me to contribute to her debate. Scams are essentially a breach of trust. They often cause embarrassment, where a victim will almost blame themselves for falling for the scam. Raising awareness of scams will of course greatly help to reduce the unwarranted stigma of being a scam victim, as well as going some way to encouraging the public to be on their guard, but one of the key ways of raising awareness is via prosecutions, which seem to be extremely rare.

In fact, earlier this year, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services said that there's an inconsistent approach to policing fraud in England and Wales, which has left the public at high risk of scams. In April, Wayne May, founder of Scam Survivors, a website dedicated to exposing fraudsters and helping victims, told the BBC that he sympathises with police. He explained that fraudsters often operate in different countries, so although a victim could lose everything they have, it would cost more to try and investigate it. Often, victims won't report the scams, not just because of the embarrassment, but because they've read stories online where the police have told victims that there's nothing they can do.

So, where could the answer lie if detecting and bringing prosecutions is so difficult and costly? Google, Amazon, eBay, Facebook and PayPal all make huge sums of money and use sophisticated algorithms to profile people using their services. If you walk into some branches with your mobile phone in your pocket, Google will let the clerk behind the counter know which financial products you've googled recently and that they should therefore try to sell you. Of course, Google charge the banks for this service. Surely with all the monitoring Google, Amazon and the others do, they could be doing more to spot scams and those who are vulnerable to them. Perhaps we should explore forcing the big tech companies to do more, and look at holding them to account, at least in part, if one of their users falls victim to a scam. This problem largely comes about because of the online marketplace, and it seems only right that as we are rightly dealing with physical safeguarding, we should insist it is now time that those who make a fortune by putting people in contact with others online should have to take some responsibility to recover the losses of those who fall victim to scams as a result. So, I'd like to thank Caroline for bringing this debate. I fully endorse the debate—

Will you take an intervention?

No, no, no, she can't take an intervention. She's had far more than the minute she was allowed. Sorry.

Oh, all right. I'll sit down, then.

You can intervene on the Minister if you need to. Sorry. Thank you. I call on the Deputy Minister and Chief Whip to reply to the debate. Jane Hutt.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. This is an important subject, and very timely, with this year's Scam Awareness campaign starting this week. I know many Members will have been contacted by people, as Caroline Jones has and has reported—often older and vulnerable people who have been victims of scams. As you're aware, policy on stopping scams isn't devolved. Similarly, fraud of any kind is a crime and is for the police to deal with. Despite this, we are determined to do all we can to deal with issues that affect community safety in Wales and have such a huge impact on victims.

As we all know, and we've heard so clearly, scams can have a devastating impact on victims and their families. It's estimated that British consumers lose around £3.5 billion to scams every year, the equivalent of £70 for each adult living in the UK. And we've heard, of course, Citizens Advice research showing that 61 per cent of people have been targeted by scammers in the last two years. I'm also alarmed to learn through their research that nearly 40 per cent of people have been targeted five or more times. Older people, some in their 80s and 90s, are being contacted by fraudsters, demanding money or attempting to get them to transfer bank funds, as we've heard, and threatening them if they don't comply. These calls are extremely distressing for those who are targeted, whether they lose money or not.

The impact on health and well-being can often be far greater than the financial loss. People lose confidence and can suffer from increased isolation and become more fearful. This, in turn, leads to deterioration in both mental and physical health, but it's by working together across a wide range of organisations that we're well-placed to influence change. We can help stop scammers inflicting the pain and misery that ruins lives, and that's a strong message from this debate. Feeling safe and secure in your home and community is fundamental for everyone. That's why we made a commitment in 2013 to support the extension of no-cold-caller zones to prevent rogue traders and cold callers from contacting people in their homes. But not all scams are conducted on the doorstep—[Interruption.]

Thanks for taking the intervention. I'm really pleased that you've made mention of the fact that you've been supporting no-cold-calling zones because, I think, obviously, the theme of the debate here, really, has been more about online and telephone calls that have been scams. I've been a 'scambassador' for some time as part of the programme that's been running to involve politicians in this, but one of the things that many people have asked me to encourage the Welsh Government to adopt is for Wales to be a no-cold-calling country, and I wonder, Minister, whether that is something that the Welsh Government has considered. Surely, it must be able to look at encouraging counties to come forward with their own schemes. I wonder whether that is an approach that you might consider taking forward.

Well, I thank Darren Millar for that recognition that—. In fact, we have debated this, probably with you, in the Chamber in terms of supporting the extension of no-cold-caller zones. I'll certainly go back and look at that and report back to you, not just as an ambassador, but in response to this debate.

When I was saying that not all scams are conducted on the doorstep, we know that individuals are targeted by post, over the telephone, and, increasingly, via cyber scams. We probably didn't know that so far back when we were looking at this originally. The Welsh Government recognises that the financial and digital inclusion of our citizens can help people become more aware of the threats and increase confidence in implementing simple steps to protect themselves. We have a financial inclusion strategy that acknowledges that increased financial capability can help people avoid becoming the victims of scams, and that could, of course—. For those victims, it has an impact on their ability to stay in employment, it can lead or contribute to debt and housing and welfare issues, all of which have established links to mental ill health. Our digital inclusion strategic framework does recognise that online scams can affect anyone, but those who lack basic digital skills to protect themselves online can be especially vulnerable to these scammers.

We know that online scams are becoming increasingly prevalent as more people are making online payments, banking online, communicating via e-mail and social media, and although the banks are doing excellent work in this area, we must all raise awareness of the threats to help people avoid falling victim to evermore sophisticated scams. Fraud is now recognised as the most prevalent crime in the UK and criminals are developing evermore sophisticated techniques to scam people out of their money.

Although responsibility for policies on crime are not devolved to Welsh Government, several areas of devolved responsibility can impact on community safety and anti-social behaviour. In March of this year, Tarian, the regional organised crime unit, arranged the Wales cyber security bus tour to educate people and businesses about cyber security and crime. That was funded by the Welsh Government's cyber resilience revenue grant. It travelled to every local authority area in Wales, engaged with members of the public, businesses, providing them with cyber security advice to ensure that people in businesses are able to recognise the signs of cyber crime and have the tools they need to stay safe online. And I can assure Members that I meet regularly with chief constables, police and crime commissioners of each of the four forces in Wales, where we discuss matters of mutual interest aimed at making communities safer. Our Welsh police forces are raising awareness of scams. The Police and Crime Commissioner for South Wales is working with partner agencies and communities in south Wales to tackle nuisance doorstep callers and uninvited traders. The Welsh Government continues to provide funding for an additional 500 community support officers who work in our communities, providing assistance where and when needed, and regularly carry out awareness raising about scams with local residents and the important role they can play.

I welcome the actions being taken by the National Trading Standards scams team to train 1 million friends across the UK by 2020, including 50,000 in Wales, over the next two years. It's about encouraging people to look out for each other within their communities and recognise the signs that someone might be at risk—that can only be a positive step in the prevention of further crimes. And I'd like to highlight the work of the Wales Against Scams Partnership, WASP, whose members include Age Cymru, the Older People's Commissioner for Wales, and trading standards. So, I hope I've reassured Members that the Welsh Government is concerned about this issue. We're working hard within our devolved responsibilities to stamp out scams and support victims and we'll continue to provide support and raise awareness of this important issue wherever possible, and will raise our concerns and work with the UK Ministers who remain responsible for these matters. Diolch.

Thank you. And that brings today's proceedings to a close. Thank you.