National Assembly for Wales

Welcome to this Plenary meeting. Before we begin, I want to set out a few points. This meeting will be held in a hybrid format, with some Members in the Senedd Chamber and others joining by video-conference. All Members participating in proceedings of the Senedd, wherever they may be, will be treated equally. A Plenary meeting held using video-conference, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the Welsh Parliament, constitute Senedd proceedings for the purposes of the Government of Wales Act 2006. Some of the provisions of Standing Order 34 will apply for today's Plenary meeting, and these are set out on your agenda. I would remind Members that Standing Orders relating to order in Plenary meetings apply to this meeting and apply equally to Members in the Chamber as to those joining virtually.

Before we begin today's proceedings, I wish to reflect on events that took place during yesterday's debate on the elimination of racial discrimination. Many of you have expressed to me your frustration and disappointment at the manner in which one Member's conduct disrupted proceedings and brought our Senedd into disrepute. Conduct of this nature by any Member is entirely unacceptable. I have written to the Member requesting that he withdraws his defamatory remarks and apologises to me personally for his actions. In the meantime, the Member will not be called to speak.

The first item is questions to the Minister for Economy, Transport and North Wales, and the first question is from Alun Davies.

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. And I think you have the support of Members across the whole Chamber in what you've just said.

We continue to work with Transport for Wales and with Network Rail on the Ebbw Vale line frequency enhancement scheme, which would enable four trains per hour to be operated, and we're also working with Blaenau Gwent on plans to reopen the line to Abertillery.

Minister, I'm almost speechless. I'm delighted that you referenced both the station in Abertillery and also four trains an hour. Those are exactly the objectives that we all want to see. You will know, perhaps better than I, how we've all been let down by the Westminster Government—successive UK Governments have refused to invest in the rail infrastructure in Wales. And I think we're all grateful that the Welsh Government has taken the view that the rail infrastructure's too important to be left to wither on Westminster's vine. Therefore, will you commit to continuing to invest in the infrastructure serving Blaenau Gwent, but also that the metro will continue to be a priority for a Welsh Government, and that the Welsh Government will continue to ensure that we have the public transport links that really mean that connectivity for stations serving Blaenau Gwent is something that we can look forward to seeing developed and continued investment in it into the future?

Can I thank the Member for his supplementary question? He regularly makes a very powerful case for the devolution of responsibility for rail infrastructure and, with it, fair funding. And I've recently outlined how we found, through a conservative estimate, that, over the course of 28 years, from 2001 to 2029, spend on Welsh-related rail infrastructure is £2.4 billion below what it should have been—£2.4 billion. So, as part of the UK Government's desire to level up the UK, let's see them level up rail investment. I can guarantee to the Member that we will go on investing in those areas that we are responsible for, and we will also look to accelerate schemes where the UK Government needs to come to the table with cash. The metro is a major priority for this Government. And in spite of reduced passenger numbers during the course of this pandemic, we remain as committed as ever to promoting public transport and investing in infrastructure and services the length and breadth of Wales, and including in my friend and colleague's constituency.

Can you outline, Minister, the implications of Network Rail's decarbonisation strategy, which sets out how the rail industry aims to become net zero in terms of carbon emissions by 2050 on this rail service?

Well, I should point out the fact that Network Rail is accountable to the UK Government; it is a UK Government body. But, for our part, when we secured the contract for the Wales and borders franchise, when we outlined our aspirations for the metro, we also detailed how we intend to deliver a raft of services across the metro area that would be zero carbon. Their power would come from forms of renewable energy. That's something that we're very proud of, as we seek to meet the targets for decarbonisation, and public transport in Wales is contributing to that effort. 

Minister, the reason given by rail operators for the lack of a train link from the Ebbw Vale line into Newport has been that train capacity was fully taken up by the service into Cardiff. Minister, given the fact that the use of public transport has fallen dramatically since the onset of the COVID pandemic, has any thought been given to open trial train journeys into Newport, in preparation for a full service? Notwithstanding that there are delays in the procurement of rolling stock, which we acknowledge are outside the hands of the Welsh Government, surely there is now sufficient spare capacity to make these trials possible.

Well, unfortunately, service numbers are actually at a maximum. It's service capacity, the number of seats, or seat capacity, that is currently much reduced and, therefore, there is not the space available on those lines in order to trial as the Member suggests. But, I can assure the Member, again, the Welsh Government is doing all it can to deliver against the ambition of four trains per hour across not just the established metro area, but the wider area. But, in order to deliver that, as I keep saying, we need UK Government investment, and the UK Government can deliver that investment. We've seen, many times, mentions of the UK internal market Bill and how the UK Government would wish to spend money in Wales, but they wish to spend money in areas where they're not responsible. We want to see them spend far more money in Wales, and they can begin by spending on rail infrastructure. 

As the Member is aware, north Wales has a huge range of strengths that have proven to be attractive to overseas investors over this Senedd term, and we'll continue to use both economic and international levers to ensure those strengths are recognised globally.

Thank you, Minister. I follow the fortunes of the UK manufacturing industry, and there are some fabulous announcements coming out about new factories and technological advancements. In recent months, I've only seen one announcement relating to north Wales, about the excellent Wrexham-based Village Bakery. What is your department doing to ensure Wales, and especially north Wales, gets its share of that inward investment spoil?

Well, the Member will also be aware of the astonishing work that's been taking place at the Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre Cymru, which we opened just last autumn. That centre was designed to deliver opportunities for businesses to collaborate. It was designed to capture the 'wing of tomorrow' for Airbus, it was designed to capture more research and innovation funding from the UK Government, but, during the course of the pandemic, it's also stepped up to the national effort, producing invaluable equipment for the national health service. 

Right across north Wales, we've seen investment levels at a very, very high rate in terms of foreign direct investment. We've seen around about a quarter of the recent inward investment projects secured in north Wales. In 2019-20, there were 15 investments from overseas, creating 348 jobs. I do apologise if the Member has missed any press releases regarding those 15 significant investments, but I can assure the Member that we are doing all we can to land as many opportunities for the region as possible. And that's shown by the employment figures. We have a higher rate of employment in north Wales than we have across Wales on average. And, right now, unemployment across Wales stands at 3.1 per cent, compared to 4.1 per cent across the UK. And that demonstrates the value of devolution and, in particular, the enormous efforts that the Welsh Government have displayed during the course of the pandemic, with the Wales-only economic resilience fund securing more than 100,000 jobs.

I would like to raise my concerns about inward investment in Conwy during this enforced economic lockdown by your Government. You must be aware that these actions are having a devastating impact on my constituents and businesses in Aberconwy: the tourism sector has only had two months to trade to see them through the winter; the queen of Welsh resorts now described as a ghost town; hoteliers and the retail sector bewildered and angry at the threat to their livelihoods by your Welsh Government. Now, no-one is denying that public safety is paramount, but your actions should be considered proportionate and fair. There is an overwhelming opinion, now—. In fact, it's over 1,000 on Facebook—they want to even start a campaign group about your actions. Now, you're bringing the tourism and retail sector to its knees. Yesterday, the First Minister had the audacity to suggest that we, as elected politicians, raising these valid concerns on behalf of our businesses, were suggesting residents should break the rules. I'm sure you would agree with me that was preposterous and it was grossly offensive.

Now, the local lockdown business fund—. A week tomorrow it is since this lockdown was announced—people sent home from hotels, bookings cancelled. The lockdown fund, when I've looked into it, is pennies compared to what's needed to see these people not lose their livelihoods. So, what assurances can you provide this Senedd, today, Minister, with, that you will put in place a fair and proportionate response in terms of funding these hard-pressed businesses so that we do actually have them able to open again next spring? But also—

No, you'll need to bring your questions to a close now.   

Will you be pressing the Minister for Health and Social Services and, indeed, the First Minister to look at the figures again and bring this lockdown to an end ASAP? Thank you.

Well, first, a number of points in observation on what Janet Finch-Saunders has just said in the Senedd Chamber: we're putting lives first, we are prioritising human life and we make no apologies for that; the First Minister was right in what he said yesterday; and, thirdly, the incident management team that met last week, to decide on restrictions in north Wales were unanimous. This was a decision not taken—[Interruption.]

Allow the Minister to respond, please. If you carry on, and we'll have some—. No point of order. Allow the Minister to respond. Carry on, Ken Skates. 

Diolch, Llywydd. I was just saying about the IMT that met last week: a range of stakeholders—local authority leaders, the police, health chiefs—all in agreement that action had to be taken. The reason being that the later you act, the longer restrictions are often in place. Just look at what's happening in Paris right now, just look at what's happening elsewhere, when you fail to intervene early, and look at what's happening in many parts of Wales where we did take action early—the figures are dropping.

Now, I have another number of points I'd just briefly like to make. The Member says that the local lockdown fund amounts to pennies. Well, maybe she could explain what she thinks about the English support, because that is far less generous than what we are offering in Wales. In England, you will only be able to get support if you close your business down; that's not the case in Wales. I'd also invite the Member to look at how many businesses in her own constituency have benefited from the most comprehensive and generous package of support anywhere in the United Kingdom. If we just take Conwy, as a county area, we know that a total of 461 microbusinesses and small and medium-sized enterprises secured funding through the economic resilience fund. That wouldn't have been available to those 461 businesses if they'd been established in England. And, in addition, 83 start-up grants were awarded for start-ups in Conwy. Again, funding that wouldn't have been available to them if they were in England. And, thirdly, in Aberconwy, in the Member's own constituency, the Development Bank of Wales's COVID-19 loans scheme has provided more than £3 million to 68 businesses. Again, support that wouldn't have been available if they had been in England.

We are doing all we can—far more than the UK Government is doing exclusively in England—to provide those bridges for businesses and working people to get through to the point where we have a vaccine or where we adequately suppress the virus numbers. 

Minister, you'll be well aware that the workforce in Alyn and Deeside is the most highly skilled in the United Kingdom. I've worked alongside them as an engineer and I've seen this first hand. Those making investment decisions should be aware of this fact too, and we should be shouting from the rooftops. So, I was very pleased to hear you earlier mention the Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre Cymru. Minister, can you provide an update on the important projects such as the logistics hub at Tata Steel in Shotton and also the Northern Gateway?

Can I thank Jack Sargeant and say that his question is actually very timely, because I've just come out of a virtual meeting with the local area board, who oversee the AMRC and economic development opportunities across Deeside industrial park and the enterprise zone? I was pleased to receive a comprehensive briefing from Bill Duckworth, the excellent site manager at Tata in Shotton, and also from Andy Silcox, who brilliantly runs the AMRC at Broughton. And I learned today that there is not only potential for Tata Shotton to host a Heathrow logistics hub, but also a logistics hub for floating offshore wind industries and possibly for off-site modular housing—incredibly exciting programmes.

Also, we know that the Northern Gateway is one of the most attractive development sites in north Wales at the moment. I'm optimistic about being able to say something positive in the near future concerning job creation, and what we're doing there complements what we're investing in across north Wales. And I recently announced—Members will be aware—the establishment of a development company for Trawsfynydd to look at all opportunities for that part of north Wales as well. 

We are investing across the region, creating jobs in record numbers, and we have a pandemic to overcome, but we are confident that, by working as a partner to local authorities, we have the strongest team in north Wales to overcome this challenge.

Questions now from party spokespeople. Conservative spokesperson, Russell George.

Diolch, Llywydd. Minister, do businesses that have received funding from the Welsh Government during the pandemic need to become unionised?

I'm sorry, Llywydd, I can't hear—I can't hear Russell George.

Okay. The question will be repeated. I'm not sure what the problem was there. Repeat the question.

Can I just check, Llywydd—can I be heard now?

Yes. That's perfect.

Thank you, Llywydd. My question was, Minister: do businesses that have received funding from the Welsh Government during the pandemic need to become unionised?

No.

Well, I'm very pleased with that answer, Minister—that businesses don't need to be unionised in order to receive Welsh Government support. I raise the question because of a recent letter that had been sent to businesses in receipt of funding from the economic resilience fund. Now, as I read this letter myself, there does seem to be an element of strong-arming businesses into becoming unionised.

Now, there's clearly frustration from businesses—. As it happens, Minister, I understand the requirement from Government to attach requirements for fair working for employees in connection with receiving Government funding, but the fact is that there are thousands of businesses up and down Wales that have employees who do not see the benefits of being a member of a union, and the businesses they work for work with the fair and correct working that we would all expect. I wonder if you would reflect on that feedback that's been received as a result of that letter going out. 

I turn to another question, Minister: during the new restrictions that have come into force in north Wales, there is clearly a concern for businesses in that area, which fear that local lockdowns will lead to job losses in the tourism and hospitality sector in particular. Now, I welcome the additional funding that you announced last week to support the tourism and hospitality sector, but it is concerning that only half of the economic resilience fund from the last phase had actually been distributed. How are you going to ensure, Minister, that the money is distributed more quickly in the future to ensure that businesses that are, sadly, on the brink of collapse are protected as quickly as possible?

Can I thank the Member for his questions? First of all, on the point regarding the letter that we sent out, I make no apology whatsoever for my commitment to working with employers and trade unions to change people's working lives for the better. Nobody is trying to coerce any individual or any business, but we are promoting a 'something for something' relationship between the public and people and businesses who receive taxpayers' money in the form of grants or loans that are favourable. And it's about making sure that we move to a point where we collaborate more, we don't just co-exist as Government and businesses, where we work together on employment opportunities. And I really must say that the role of the unions in promoting better health—and particularly better mental health—in the workplace is vitally important. We know just how much of an impact poor mental health—poor health in general, poor well-being—has on productivity rates. Trade unions help businesses overcome those problems, and I just look to Airbus as a perfect example of how, when you have strong union partnership with management, you can achieve great things. For decades, they have had there strong union partnership between management and the unions, primarily Unite, and, as a consequence of that, they have fought as one for new projects—new wings, new research and innovation, more investment centrally from Toulouse. So, I'd encourage the Member to move on from a 1980s, jaundiced view of trade unions and recognise that social partnership has enormous value in the twenty-first century.

Now, in terms of tourism and hospitality businesses, what would be cataclysmic for tourism and hospitality is failure to get coronavirus under control. And that's why we have taken action early to bring down those numbers swifter, so that the restrictions, hopefully, can be eased or removed quicker. And in terms of getting business support out of the drawer fast, I think our local authorities did a remarkable job in administering the grants for tens of thousands of businesses across Wales, putting many councils across the border, actually, to shame in terms of the speed in which they were able to administer them.

And I must remind Members again that what we are offering through the economic resilience fund is the most generous and comprehensive package of support anywhere in the United Kingdom—so far, it's secured more than 100,000 jobs; it has helped more than 13,000 businesses—which, if they were based in England, they would not have benefited from.

Minister, I agree with the many benefits that you point out that being member of a union can achieve, but the fact is that employers and employees can also work together without being members of a union, which is the point I was making and which was the concern that was being pointed out by those that were frustrated by the letter.

Finally, Minister, looking ahead at your long-term ambition to see around 30 per cent of Welsh workers working from home following the COVID-19 pandemic, you say that this has the potential to drive regeneration and economic activity in communities. However, whilst homeworking may be suitable for some, others see the benefits of real-life interaction, which can stimulate ideas, creativity and business productivity.

The figure of 30 per cent does seem to be arbitrary, so it would be helpful if you could explain how you arrived at that figure. But I wonder also what assessment you've made in regard to how this figure will affect town-centre planning, the growth deals that are dependent and have planned for office space, and also public transport planning and the raft of other planning-related areas as well that will be affected by this figure that you've presented, Minister. But to understand the logic behind 30 per cent would be welcome.

Can I thank the Member for his questions, and say that I do appreciate his more reasonable sentiment today regarding the letter to employers than his colleague expressed in the press release last week, which I'm afraid was just pure scaremongering?

In terms of remote working and homeworking—or, as I like to call it, multi-place working—we came to that target on the basis of the proportion of people who have been homeworking and remote working during the course of the pandemic and then made a reasonable assessment of what could continue into the medium and longer term.

The Member rightly raises the question of growth and city deals. All of the existing deals have to be COVID-proof, and regional partners have done a very good job in carrying out immediate assessments of various programmes and projects that are contained within their deals. But I have to say that the aim of increasing the proportion of people who work remotely or from home is to ensure that we get a better work-life balance, to ensure that wellness and well-being at work is improved, to ensure that we inject more vibrancy into town centres with remote-working hubs, and as the Member said—rightly—to drive innovation through co-locating public services with private sector services as well. I'm incredibly excited about the prospects for remote-working hubs in many towns that have felt left behind in recent decades. Near me, in Wrexham, we have the town-centre enterprise hub, which has been hugely valuable in promoting and supporting business start-ups and bringing—mainly young—people together who have innovative ideas, huge creativity, and work with one another. They get their ideas from one another. They promote their own businesses, but, crucially, they also support one another's. 

Plaid Cymru Spokesperson, Helen Mary Jones.

Diolch, Llywydd. I know that the Minister agrees with me that the steel industry is absolutely vital to the future of Welsh industry, and I'm sure that he would also agree with me that, in terms of decarbonising the industry—. Sorry, is the Minister having trouble hearing me?

I missed the first part of Helen Mary Jones's question.

Okay, can we—?

Shall I start again?

Can we repeat the question fully?

Of course. I know, Minister, that you'll agree with me how important the steel industry is to not only Wales's current economic activity, but to our future. And I'm sure that you would also agree with me that, in order to decarbonise our use of steel in Wales and in the UK, we should be decarbonising our own production, rather than allowing our production to disappear and then purchasing steel from other countries where they may not be setting the same decarbonisation targets as we are. Now, obviously, that long-term future is dependent on the immediate survival of the industry, and I wonder if you can tell us today, Minister, what recent discussions you have had both with Tata and with the UK Government about the current position of the steel industry in Wales and its immediate future.

Can I thank Helen Mary Jones for her question? It gives me an opportunity to promote the consultation that's taking place at the moment concerning the Welsh Government's new manufacturing plan. I encourage all Members to contribute to that consultation, because it covers all important sectors within the Welsh manufacturing base, including, obviously, steel. And we are determined to support the sector to become sustainable. But the main role—as the Member has alluded to, the main role in supporting the future of the sector is actually the UK Government's. And the industrial energy transformation fund could prove to be of huge value, but we've been clear in stating that, as a very minimum, we would expect a Barnett equivalent to be drawn down by Welsh businesses from the industrial energy transformation fund. We've said that, actually, we believe that a significant proportion of that fund should come to Welsh businesses, given how we are dependent on many businesses that are intensive in terms of their energy use.

Now, we have very regular discussions both with UK Government and with Tata, and, in fact, I have weekly calls with UK Government Ministers within the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. My understanding is that those commercially confidential discussions are still proceeding between Tata and UK Government, and we've impressed upon UK Government a need to make sure that there is sector-specific support relating to the pandemic for important manufacturing subsectors, such as steel, automotive and aerospace.

I'm very grateful to the Minister for his answer, and I'm sure that we all, across the Chamber, will be glad to hear that those discussions and negotiations are ongoing. We had a representative of UK Steel, the umbrella body, before our committee today, and he acknowledged the point that the Minister makes—that there will need to be UK-wide intervention, and that intervention is beyond the capacity of the Welsh Government. But he did say that there was one very important thing that he felt that the Welsh Government could do, and that was to use procurement to ensure that when Welsh Government is spending our money—Welsh public money—on things like the house building programme, on infrastructure developments, that there are clear targets for the percentage of Welsh steel that is used in those developments. I appreciate there may be issues about those being binding at this stage, but you could set those targets and you could ensure that the performance of companies against those targets was published. It was certainly our witness's view that that would make a big difference. He also suggested that this would be an opportunity for the Welsh Government to set a good example to the UK Government that the UK Government could then consider following. 

Can I thank Helen Mary Jones for that important point about the role of Welsh Government in supporting steel businesses in Wales through the procurement process? As we seek to build back better, we intend to do so using Welsh steel, and we will look for every opportunity to do so. The Member is aware that the Welsh Government was the first Government to sign up to the steel charter, and that demonstrates our determination to use procurement as a lever to support the Welsh steel industry. And I'd like to put on record, Llywydd, my gratitude to UK Steel for the advice that they have given to my officials as well. They're an excellent umbrella organisation, serving Welsh steel businesses extraordinarily well.

Thank you for that, Minister. I'd like, in my third question, to take you to a very different industry, and that is the hair and beauty industry. We, again, had representatives of that industry before us—before the committee—today, and they were emphasising the importance of those businesses as destinations on the high street. You know, you can't get your hair cut remotely; you might be able to buy your books remotely, but you can't get your hair cut remotely. She expressed a concern that she wasn't always convinced that the importance of the industry was understood properly by Welsh Government. She pointed out, of course, the importance of the industry in providing opportunities for women, and for women who work part time. 

She also pointed out some potential anomalies in the safety regulations. She told us, for example, that whereas a barber, mostly male, is allowed to shave a male customer, a beautician, mostly female, is not allowed to give a facial to a female customer. She was suggesting to us that, for the viability of the industry going forward, she'd like some of those anomalies in the regulations looked at again. I'd like to invite the Minister today to commit to look at those anomalies and also to send a clear message of his own understanding of the importance of this industry, which also, of course, has an impact on the well-being of customers.

Can I thank Helen Mary Jones for her third question and say that when I announced the third phase of the economic resilience fund, the first inquiry I got was from somebody who owns and operates a hair and beauty salon, asking whether the lockdown fund would be applicable to them? It will be. Where the business development grants would be available to them, they will be, provided, of course, they employ people and they meet the criteria. The lockdown fund will be administered by local authorities. Of course, I'm in no doubt that in those areas where there are restrictions, where customer footfall has fallen significantly and where turnover has dropped below 40 per cent, a very significant number of businesses in the hair and beauty sector will benefit.

I can assure the Member I will look into those anomalies that she's outlined. In any way that I can, I will help that important sector, because, as the Member says, it contributes towards social justice, employing a high proportion of women. Therefore, we have to ensure that we support the survival of those businesses as much as we can, because experts predict that it will be women; young people; people from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities; disabled people and people with low levels of skills who will be most adversely affected if we do not intervene with strength. And we intend to intervene with enormous strength.

Brexit Party spokesperson, David Rowlands.

Diolch, Llywydd. Given that part of the strategy to reinvigorate the Welsh economy post COVID-19 is the expansion of the engineering sector in Wales, would the Minister outline where this expansion is most likely to occur? By that, I mean the companies and projects the Minister sees as being the new or existing anchor points for this expansion.

Well, I'd like to thank the Member for his question and, again, stress the importance of our recently published manufacturing plan; that covers those areas of growth in engineering that the Member has asked about. He has until the middle of the month to make his views known on the manufacturing plan, but there are opportunities for growth, of that there is no doubt. 

Today, I've learnt about huge opportunities associated with jobs in the floating offshore wind industry, which could be of major benefit to many parts of Wales; opportunities concerning logistics hubs and offsite manufacturing; and also opportunities in terms of advanced electronics. The Welsh Government is taking forward—. As an example of how we are backing these opportunities up with action, we are taking forward plans for an advanced technology research centre, which will focus on advanced electronics and provide many opportunities for engineers and businesses within the advanced electronics field.

I am confident that as a result of the Welsh Government's focus on the manufacturing sector—our dedication to manufacturing in Wales and to engineering in Wales—that we can emerge from coronavirus in a position of strength. But, it's also vital that we work as a partner to the UK Government in refreshing the UK industrial strategy, and that we draw down a greater share of UK Research and Innovation funding. It is a tragic fact that too much of that funding—four times as much, per head of population in Wales—goes to the south-east of England. There is a golden triangle that, for years and years, has taken the lion's share of research and innovation funding. And, as part of the UK Government's aspirations to build back better, to level up, research and development and innovation spend is a crucially important factor.

Thank you very much, Minister, for that answer. Minister, we have heard much talk with regard to the centre of engineering excellence proposed for the Heads of the Valleys area, particularly around Ebbw Vale and other parts of Blaenau Gwent. Could the Minister give us an update on the projects envisaged for the region, in particular the possibility of TVR relocating to Ebbw Vale, which would of course be a catalyst for other automotive production companies?

And turning, Minister, to something I broached in a debate a little while ago, when I mentioned that there was a great opportunity with the closure of the RAF St Athan apprenticeship facility to set up a Wales university of modern technology under the umbrella of Cardiff University. Though of course not yet finalised, the prospect of Britishvolt locating to St Athan is something I believe everyone in this Chamber would welcome. Surely, Minister, setting up such a training facility in close proximity would greatly assist the company in recruiting the skilled personnel it will undoubtedly demand. It may also provide a catalyst for other companies in this sector to locate to St Athan, especially given its proximity to Cardiff Airport. Can I call upon the Minister to give the creation of such a facility serious consideration?

Well, not just myself but also my colleagues, primarily Kirsty Williams, the education Minister, would I'm sure take a very keen interest in the proposal. We will look at it very carefully, and I can assure the Member that I'm in regular calls with TVR and with Britishvolt. These are significant opportunities for the Welsh economy, and in particular TVR offers an enormous opportunity for the Heads of the Valleys as well, not just in terms of job creation but in terms of kudos that the brand could bring to the area.

I should put on record today my thanks to the National Digital Exploitation Centre, which has proven to be incredibly valuable during the course of the pandemic, offering free support from the Ebbw Vale site, and I can assure the Member today that we are fully committed to delivering on the Tech Valleys initiative.

Question 3 next, Helen Mary Jones.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I hope the Minister isn't getting fed up with me by now.

Can I thank the Member for her question and say that the third phase of the economic resilience fund contains £60 million to support businesses in areas that are subject to local restrictions? We'll continue to press the UK Government to take bolder steps in assuring our economic recovery and supporting future prosperity for businesses and people across the UK, including in Wales.

I'm grateful to the Minister for his answer. I'm sure he understands that in many communities across Wales, and Llanelli is one of them, many businesses, especially smaller businesses, have already suffered pretty seriously through the COVID crisis, particularly in fields like hospitality. They're working on very small margins. They won't have resources to enable them to invest in recovery.

In terms of that emergency support for those businesses affected by local restrictions, can he tell us what sort of levels of harm the business needs to be able to demonstrate it's suffered in order to be able to get the support, and can he tell us a bit more about how that support will be accessed? I'm sure that he will understand that, while larger companies may have specialist staff who can reach out to Business Wales and fill in the appropriate forms, some of the smaller local businesses will find that all a bit daunting, and I wonder if there is a role in terms of this emergency support for local government to play.

Helen Mary Jones is absolutely right: there is a key role for local authorities to play. I spoke with the spokesperson for WLGA yesterday concerning economic development and discussions have proceeded very well at an official level as well, because local government will be crucial in administering the local lockdown funds to businesses.

I can assure the Member today that, unlike in England, a business does not have to close down to get that emergency support. The criterion is relatively simple: a business must be able to demonstrate that it's seen a reduction in turnover of at least 40 per cent compared to the period prior to which restrictions were introduced. I'm confident that this support will offer businesses those bridges through restriction periods.

Each of the payments will be made on the basis of three-week waves of restrictions—three weeks being the period at which we would hope to see numbers reduce sufficiently for restrictions to be eased. We've modelled against what is possible this autumn and winter, and we are confident that we'll be able to offer two waves of support to businesses across Wales where there are restrictions.

Minister, thank you for the answer to Helen Mary Jones, because there are many businesses in the Afan valley that have been depending upon the visitor trade for mountain biking and the excellent trails up there. Therefore, that answer will help them very much because they'll see their numbers decrease, because they are a business from outside of the county borough, not necessarily from within, because we know you can travel up there quite easily.

But another sector that's been affected is the taxi drivers across Wales, in these local restrictions. They had difficulty in lockdown, but we're now facing more challenges as local restrictions are coming into place, because there are fewer people coming into the town and they're not able, necessarily, to transport people beyond the county boroughs. Are you looking at the taxi organisations? Because buses have been helped, trains have been helped, but taxi drivers are yet to be helped in this area and they are struggling now to find out their long-term viabilities.

Well, I can assure the Member that, if they're able to meet the criteria of the business development grants or the local lockdown grants, they will be able to secure the funding. But it's also worth highlighting the fact that the UK Government has an important role to play in this area, because it's the UK Government that is responsible for the self-employment income support scheme. And the Member will be aware that an extension has been announced by the Chancellor and two further grants will be made available. That is something that we very much welcome, because the self-employment support scheme has been vitally important for many, many individuals in Wales.

The first grants will be calculated at 20 per cent of three months' trading profits, up to a minimum of £1,875, and I'd encourage anybody who may be eligible for that particular fund to apply as soon as they possibly can because, unfortunately, it is still the case that many self-employed people in Wales are either unaware that they're able to apply for support or have failed to do so to date.

Absolutely. The visitor economy is hugely important to the Welsh economy, particularly in north Wales. We have been overwhelmed by the spirit and perseverance of the sector during the crisis. We have recognised this not just by giving the tourism industry support through the first two phases of the economic resilience fund and through the non-domestic rates related grants, but also earmarking specifically £20 million from the latest phase of the economic resilience fund for those important sectors.

Thank you for that answer, Minister. You'll be aware because of your own constituency interests that Conwy and Denbighshire have a very vibrant tourism economy. They lost out, many of the tourism operators and the jobs that depend on those businesses, on the Easter season because of the lockdown earlier this year. The summer season started later than in any other part of the United Kingdom because of the Welsh Government continuing to cause those businesses to remain closed, and, of course, they now face the prospect, because of the local coronavirus restrictions, of not being able to receive any people travelling into Conwy and Denbighshire because of the travel restrictions that have been put in place.

I've had a number of businesses that have been in touch with me in recent days since the announcement last week. They are very, very concerned about the viability of their businesses. They say that livelihoods will almost certainly be lost as a result of those restrictions, and they do not feel that sufficient evidence has been published to demonstrate that they are proportionate. What work are you doing, as the economy Minister and the Minister for north Wales, to ensure that your Cabinet colleagues produce all of the information necessary so that tourism business owners and those who are employed by them can properly test whether these measures are actually proportionate?

Can I thank the Member for his question and assure the Member that the measures are proportionate? As I've already said, they're designed to ensure that the period in which restrictions apply is minimised, taking action early, limiting the amount of time that we have to apply those restrictions. On Monday, I met with members of the north Wales business council, including key representatives of the tourism and hospitality sectors, and outlined the reasons why restrictions are necessary in parts of north Wales.

I must highlight, once again—and I've been at pains to do this—that when the IMT met last week, it did so in partnership and agreed that the restrictions had to be introduced. That is a partnership of local government leaders, health experts and the police. We are, I can assure the Member, extremely concerned about the viability of businesses in the tourism and hospitality sector, which is so important to north Wales, and that is why we have delivered the most generous and comprehensive package of support for businesses in those sectors anywhere in the United Kingdom. As a result of that support, more than 1,200 micro and SMEs in the tourism and hospitality sectors, in north Wales alone, have been awarded funding through the economic resilience fund, and that's in addition to the many businesses that have secured funding through the development bank.

It's worth just highlighting today as well, if I may say so, Llywydd, that the development bank has been extraordinary in administering its support for businesses in Wales. I can tell Members today that it has administered 1,335 COVID-related business loans; that compares to every single high-street bank—every single high-street bank—having administered, on behalf of the UK Government, just 1,391. So, our development bank in Wales has administered and provided support to almost as many businesses as every single high-street bank, through the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme programme. That's a phenomenal achievement. We should be very proud of the Development Bank of Wales.

Yes, absolutely. The safety of customers and staff remains TfW's top priority. I continue to discuss social distancing with Transport for Wales and, indeed, with other industry partners as we work collaboratively to ensure that the safety of passengers on public transport continues.

Thanks for that answer, Minister. You'll be aware, I'm sure, of continuing concerns and anxiety surrounding Transport for Wales arrangements for students travelling from Torfaen and Monmouthshire to and from Hereford; it's an issue I raised with the Trefnydd yesterday, and she did say she'd raise it with you. Despite each child having paid for their season ticket in advance, students are being segregated from other passengers and transported on coaches, a journey that takes twice as long as by train. I'm told that the buses are inadequate and that there's no social distancing going on whatsoever. I wonder if you could update us on any discussions you've had with Transport for Wales about this and make clear to Transport for Wales that this situation is totally unacceptable and young people should be treated with the same respect and dignity as other fee-paying passengers.

Can I thank Nick Ramsay for his question? I think I will write to the Member with comprehensive detail of the rationale behind the measures that have been taken by TfW. But just to highlight briefly that Transport for Wales are currently operating 70 buses, in addition to all of the trains, to support public transport across Wales, and students from the same educational establishments can travel together on dedicated buses under our safety guidelines. The reason that greater physical distancing is required on rail services is because they carry not just students but the general public as well. Now, TfW have tried to encourage students to travel on particular services in order to maintain bubbles for specific institutions, wherever possible, and that again is in line with Government requirements. But I spoke yesterday with Transport for Wales regarding this matter, and as I've already said, I can assure the Member that I'll be writing to him with some comprehensive detail.FootnoteLink

It's very important, of course, that staff and passengers are protected as appropriate steps are taken, but I do have a concern that train services in Anglesey are being struck too hard by the measures in place at present. I'm specifically referring to the fact that trains, for months now, don't stop in Valley or Llanfairpwll because the platform is too small to be able to open two doors. Will the Minister ask Transport for Wales to review this urgently and look for another way to mitigate the spread of the virus in a way that doesn't mean that the local vital service is being lost entirely? I'm sure there is another way to do this.

Can I thank the Member for his question and say that I'm extremely sympathetic to the point that he makes? Short platform challenges are a problem elsewhere in Wales as well, and TfW, I know, are regularly reviewing not just the figures concerning transmission of COVID, but also how they might be able to produce a novel solution to the challenge faced by stations that are too short to allow two doors to open. We do regularly review it, we will continue to do so, and as soon as we're able to allow services to stop at those stations, we will do so.

Minister, if our economy has any chance of surviving this pandemic, we have to learn to live with COVID-19. Living with the disease means that we have to keep apart from those not in our immediate family and for us to wear masks in enclosed spaces. Thankfully, masks are now mandatory on public transport, but keeping apart is more difficult. We have to ensure that not only can social distancing be maintained on public transport, but that there is sufficient capacity for those who need it. Minister, what discussions have you had with Transport for Wales and bus operators about increasing the frequency or capacity of services during this pandemic? Diolch.

Can I thank the Member for her question and the important points that she made about the responsibility that we all have as citizens in trying to overcome this challenge? I'm pleased to say, Llywydd, that based on surveys, based on field work, we're seeing an average of 95 per cent compliance of passengers wearing face coverings on both trains and buses. That's quite an impressive figure, and it's been increasing, as well. So, clearly, citizens are showing responsibility, by and large.

I can also assure the Member that all of Transport for Wales's trains are currently in use across the Wales and borders network and that we're working extensively to provide essential travel links to keep people moving. In addition to this, additional buses—as I've already said, 70 buses—are being utilised to provide home-to-school transport. We are maximising the number of vehicles that are available to support people, but because of the need to socially distance, obviously, capacity—the number of seats, the number of spaces available—has been vastly reduced. But we will continue to do whatever we can to keep people moving, to keep people commuting, to ensure that people and businesses can get through this pandemic.

I can tell the Member today that 672 micro and SME businesses in the hospitality sector in north Wales alone have been awarded funding through the economic resilience fund, and that amounts to more than £12 million. The third phase of the economic resilience fund will include a ring-fenced £20 million for businesses in tourism and hospitality.

Thank you. How do you respond to the hospitality sector representatives in north Wales who have asked me to advocate most strongly on behalf of full-licensed hotels being able to serve alcohol to hotel residents after the 10 p.m. curfew, emphasising the critical distinction be taken into consideration in that the hotel will become the guest's official residence during their stay, effectively their home, that a hotel has every incentive to abide by the curfew for non-residents in order to protect its licence, that although the current guidelines say that alcohol can be served via room service, this creates operational issues with staffing and will dull or destroy the overall ambience hoteliers are attempting to create, that this subtle clarification will help to keep hotels viable during the pandemic and the bleak winter hospitality is facing, and that this may also provide Welsh hotels with a slight competitive advantage?

I am extremely aware of the challenge that the hospitality sector is facing right now, but I have to say that small exceptions in isolation might be one thing, but once you grant an exception to one subsector for one particular area of activity, the door is then blown open for others to demand exceptions as well. In the aggregate, that can have a major impact on our ability to bring down transmission numbers. Of course, we will listen to any calls for exceptions, but there has to be an extraordinarily compelling reason to allow exceptions during these difficult times, because if we don't get transmission rates under control, particularly in those areas where there are restrictions, we will unfortunately see those restrictions last for longer. There is a role for all of us, as Caroline Jones has outlined this afternoon, not just to consider what we can and cannot do by the law, but also what we should and should not do as individuals responsible for one another. That does mean acting responsibly, it does mean taking responsibility not just for one's own life and behaviour but also for one's family and the community in which we live. We have to get through this as a team, as a society, and so whilst I've listened to calls for exceptions like the one that the Member has outlined, as I say, it would have to be a very, very compelling argument to support it.

Can I ask you, Minister, what discussions are you having with the brewery sector in all its diversity in Wales, from microbreweries to the growing independent, indigenous brewers that add to the Wales brand for top-quality local food and drink, like Brecon Brewing of Brecon and—wait for it—of Ogmore, to ensure that everything is being done to ensure the future of these local job-creating businesses as we work through the challenges of COVID? And what discussions have you had with the UK Government to ensure that they play their part in supporting these businesses and jobs too?

Can I thank Huw Irranca-Davies for his question? He makes a very important point—that independent brewers are not just important for the food and drink sector, but actually they're important for our culture and identity. I've visited many independent brewers across Wales, and their contribution to the economy is quite extraordinary. They are creative, they show great resolve as well, when they're up against large international brewers, and so we've listened to them very carefully in terms of what support is required to assist them through this pandemic. Indeed, the Minister for International Relations and Welsh Language, and the Deputy Minister for Culture, Sport and Tourism, have established and regularly attend a hospitality stakeholder group to consider the impacts on the sector of the pandemic. The views of that group feed into the work that I take forward within my department, and I'm pleased to be able to say that the views of the independent brewery sector informed the decision to ensure that there is that £20 million fund specific to tourism and hospitality businesses. And, of course, independent brewers will be able to apply for business development grants, which could prove to be hugely, hugely helpful in transitioning to the post-COVID reality. But equally, you're right to say that the UK Government has an important role in this, and we've consistently called on the Chancellor to increase the level of support to sectors that are subject to Government restrictions, including hospitality.

Question 7 [OQ55656] has been withdrawn. Finally, therefore, question 8—Paul Davies.   

Everything possible. We have already awarded £9.5 million through the first two phases of the economic resilience fund, and a further £5.4 million through the Development Bank of Wales. That's gone to more than 700 businesses in Pembrokeshire.

Thank you for that response, Minister. Now, I recently visited Nolton Stables, an accommodation provider and countryside riding facility in my constituency, which is one of many small tourism businesses that are in a very challenging financial position because of the COVID-19 pandemic. In response to the pandemic, the owners have also diversified their business to include a drive-in cinema as a way of helping keep the business afloat during this difficult time. Minister, could you tell us what the Welsh Government is doing to specifically help businesses diversify and remain competitive in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic?

It sounds a really innovative scheme that that business has developed. I know that cinemas all across the UK are struggling, but hopefully in the case the Member has identified they'll be very successful. The whole purpose of the third phase of the economic resilience fund is to provide support through short periods of restrictions—but also through the business development grant to help businesses adjust and adapt to coronavirus and to Brexit. So, those business development grants are going to be awarded to businesses that have plans for survival and also plans to thrive after coronavirus, and to adapt. Those grants could be very significant indeed: £10,000 for small and microbusinesses, then grants of up to £150,000 for medium-sized enterprises, and £200,000 for larger employers—all designed to assist businesses in adapting to coronavirus and to the new reality that we now face.

I thank the Minister.

The next item, therefore, is questions to the Counsel General and Minister for European Transition, in respect of his European transition responsibilities. And the first question is from Lynne Neagle.

The Welsh Government is in regular discussion with the automotive sector regarding the potential impact of European Union exit. The UK Government's approach to the negotiations risks significant new barriers to trade being introduced. I have repeatedly made the case to the UK Government they must prioritise a deal that protects highly regulated manufacturing sectors in Wales, including the automotive sector.

Thank you, Minister. The recent letter from Lord Frost to car manufacturers, ruling out any third-country cumulations as part of the trade deal, is a hugely concerning development. The sector has already warned of the devastating impact of a potential 'no deal' endpoint, and now it appears they are facing being cut out of any deal that might be possible, as the UK Government pursues other goals. Clearly, car manufacturers are being offered up as a sacrificial lamb by the UK Government, as it flails around for a last-minute deal that is politically palatable to its base support. Will you make the strongest possible case to UK Ministers to immediately put this industry back on the priority list in negotiations, where it should always have been?

Let me say I completely share the Member's concerns as she's outlined them. And when I read about the letter, which effectively confirmed the UK Government wouldn't insist upon the rules of origin, I was bemused. The UK Government seems more than capable of insisting upon other aspects of its negotiating position, including, for example, sacrificing the possibility of a generous trade deal in defence of the fisheries sector, which, whilst we don't want to see any sector suffering, is a significantly smaller contributor to economic well-being in Wales and across the UK than the automotive sector, which in Wales alone employs around 10,000 people. As she says, ambitious cumulation arrangements are absolutely vital. And even if the UK Government was able to secure a zero-tariff, zero-quota deal with the EU, if it hasn't got those cumulation arrangements in it, Welsh goods will still end up paying significant tariffs due to those rules of origin obstacles. I've made the case to the UK Government many times in relation to this question, and I've repeatedly raised that point with the UK Government around rules of origin and cumulation specifically. I wrote on 29 June, when, at that point, the UK Government was describing its objectives in terms of rules of origin quite ambitiously, and we would support that. But there is no point describing ambition if you're not prepared to deliver it in a negotiation.

The impact of the end of transition will be significant and work has been under way across the Welsh Government on preparing for the range of scenarios we may face at the end of December. This includes developing our own bespoke interventions and working as well with the UK Government on preparedness projects.

It's very important for Wales, I believe, that EU citizens living here continue to do so, and continue contributing to life in Wales, bringing their skills to our workforce and economy, enriching our culture and communities, taking a full part in life in Wales in all aspects. So, Counsel General, could you update us on the steps taken by Welsh Government to ensure that there is awareness of the settled status scheme, so that we do get a good level of applications from EU citizens in Wales, and hopefully the vast majority of them continue to live here in Wales and enrich our society in the way that they are?

Well, firstly, let me associate myself with the Member's comment in the question in relation to the contribution made by EU citizens who've chosen to make Wales their home. We want them to continue to feel the welcome that we've always extended, and to recognise the valuable contribution that they make, which is why this is such an important question.

Our central, recent concern has been in relation to more vulnerable or excluded groups who may not be able easily to access the scheme. We've tried to do what we can in terms of communications and social media campaigns, and we've allocated funding through the European transition fund, as he will recall, to organisations such as Citizens Advice—[Inaudible.]—local authorities and an expert service through an immigration law firm here in Wales. 

What has happened, unfortunately, during the last few months, as a consequence of COVID, is that a number of those groups who've been working face-to-face with EU citizens have obviously not been able to do that, given constraints as a result of COVID. And there has been the temporary closure of a number of Home Office support services, for example. I have recently written to the Home Secretary to press her to consider extending the deadline for applications in light of that, so that, in particular, people who might struggle to identify the scheme, perhaps, have an opportunity to do that. The UK Government has refused to extend the deadline, and whilst they maintain that if someone has reasonable grounds for missing it, they will be given a further opportunity, clearly people need certainty about what lies ahead. So, we continue to press that case. 

We know that there are about 70,000 people in Wales who may need to make an application. We think the applications are a little over 60,000 at this point, but, of course, only a small majority of those will have had settled status; a very significant proportion still have pre-settled status. But we seek to encourage EU citizens across Wales to apply at the earliest opportunity to the scheme. 

Alun Davies.

Will the Minister make a statement on how his economic programme will support areas such as Blaenau Gwent?

As set out in our publication yesterday, we are committed—

Sorry, Minister—this is your supplementary question, Alun Davies, to question 2.

Yes, I've just asked it. 

No, you didn't, you asked question 3 on the order paper. You made a request for a supplementary question for question 2. 

I'm sorry. Will the Minister make a statement on the release of documents yesterday that showed that the UK Government has deliberately sought to keep information from the devolved administrations in terms of their plans for Brexit, and their plans for the internal market Bill?

I thank the Member for that question. Behaviour such as withholding information from devolved administrations, in relation to the matter of preparedness on a question so significant as this, is fundamentally corrosive of the relationship of trust between Governments in the UK. What we have been able to say is that, in the area of preparation, joint working has been possible, and it has been effective, even if it has, at times, not been adequate. But where information is withheld, that causes the Welsh Government to have to revisit our level of assurance around the arrangements that have been put in place. And I was very disappointed, not least that yesterday I had a meeting with UK Government Ministers to describe food supply, and to see the information that was put in the public domain a matter of hours after that was particularly disappointing. 

I've asked for an urgent meeting with Michael Gove, so that I can understand what's gone on here, and what other information we may not be having access to. What this suggests is that, where there is a policy or political difference between the governments in the UK, we cannot rely on full information being made available. And I think the reference in the extract that we saw yesterday to the internal market Bill just tells us, I think, how toxic that Bill is in terms of its impact on the relationship between Governments across the UK. 

Minister, clearly, we had the Road Haulage Association before the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee last week, and one of their concerns was, not for themselves—they said they'd get things sorted out during the first two months of next year—but the concerns of clients, and the paperwork from customs issues in relation to Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and border controls. They're deeply worried that there's not enough preparation being made to ensure that those clients are in a position to get that done in time, because they clearly stated that lorries would not be leaving unless they had the documentation ready. What discussions are you having with the UK Government, and particularly with HMRC, to ensure that the systems are in place to ensure that businesses in Wales are able to undertake the proper procedures and get the paperwork done, so that all their goods can travel to Europe without any delays whatsoever? 

Well, subject to the concerns that I have just articulated more broadly, the level of engagement in relation to haulier preparedness and business preparedness more broadly hasn't been what it needs to be. There is a very practical set of interventions that will have a very real effect on routes to our ports, if freight operators are not able to arrive there with the level of preparation that's required. There will be a significant potential logistical knock-on effect to that. And as you say, as the Member says, there is a much broader ripple effect in terms of the preparedness of suppliers and businesses across the UK, and it remains the case that our confidence that that level of preparation amongst businesses is being undertaken is very low. That isn't a criticism of those businesses. Many of them are facing incredible pressures as a consequence of the response to COVID and, bluntly, even though we want to raise awareness that there is a need to prepare, nobody at this point can articulate exactly what's required in order to meet those new arrangements. And so that is exactly why there needs to be an urgent clarification around those requirements and stepped-up engagement, both with hauliers, but also enabling businesses to make those preparations in a sensible and pragmatic way, as the Member suggests. 

The party spokespeople next. Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Dai Lloyd. 

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Minister, the Welsh Government has rightly criticised the internal market Bill as an enormous power grab, which you say you will oppose every step of the way. You will be aware that Plaid Cymru MPs laid an amendment to the Bill at Westminster, which would have protected the devolution settlement by preventing the Bill from coming into force unless the devolved legislatures gave their consent. Now, despite the cross-party support of the SNP, Liberal Democrats and Greens, Labour MPs decided to abstain. Now, do you agree that Labour MPs did Wales a great disservice by failing to back an amendment that was fully consistent with the Labour Welsh Government's policy? Do you also agree that it was a missed opportunity to display a strong cross-party stance in defence of devolution? And can you explain how this fits with the stated Labour Party position of opposing the Bill every step of the way? 

There are certainly examples, Llywydd, of amendments put forward by the Labour Party to defend devolution, which Plaid Cymru haven't supported in Parliament. I would urge the Member that, at this point, we should be looking for ways of working together. We have a very productive relationship with the Scottish National Party in Scotland. It is a mature and collaborative relationship that acknowledges that Governments of different political colours can work together where they have a common interest. I hope, at some point, that we can persuade Plaid Cymru to have the same kind of relationship with us in Wales. 

Of course, the Bill increases the likelihood of a 'no deal' Brexit. Business leaders are this week again warning of the risks of a 'no deal' on already fragile businesses currently suffering the impacts of the pandemic. So, what assessments, therefore, have you undertaken in terms of the multiple threats facing businesses in Wales in the event of a 'no deal'? And do you not agree that that analysis should be brought to this Chamber as a matter of urgency? 

Well, the Member will be aware that we have consistently modelled the impact on the Welsh economy and Welsh businesses of the range of scenarios that we may face, and there is a significant amount of evidence-based analysis in the public domain through the hands of the Welsh Government. At this point in time, as he will have heard me say to David Rees earlier, we are anxious to make sure that businesses in Wales are alert, amongst the range of other pressures that they face at the moment, to the need to prepare for the end of the transition period. We continue to keep the Brexit portal updated. We continue to make funding available to support businesses. The most recent iteration of the ERF has an eye on both COVID and Brexit preparedness, because these things needs to be looked at in the round, as I know the Member agrees. The task at this point is to try and guide businesses towards that, and as the picture becomes clearer—and I know that you will share my regrets that we are not able to provide a clearer picture at this point—businesses will have a better chance, as it were, to be able to make those preparations, but none of us should underestimate the scale of that challenge and the scale of the burden that imposes on businesses right across Wales.

The—[Inaudible.]—will have a potentially catastrophic impact on the NHS—[Inaudible.]

Dai Lloyd, can you restart the question, please? Sorry, we weren't able to hear you via your Zoom connection. So, just try again and we'll see where we get to.

I apologise, Llywydd. I'm naturally softly spoken, plainly. [Laughter.]

The British Medical Association have this week warned that a 'no deal' Brexit will have a potentially catastrophic impact on the NHS, with clear concerns around supply of pharmaceuticals, medical devices and protective equipment. We know that the Welsh Government have built up a Brexit warehouse of medical supplies and that these supplies have been utilised as part of the COVID response. Now, earlier this year, the pharmaceutical industry warned that some supplies had been completely used up. What assurances can you therefore give around the availability levels of medicines in the Brexit warehouse, given that we are potentially only a few months away from a potential 'no deal' Brexit?

I thank Dai Lloyd for raising this very, very important question in the Chamber today. This is obviously a key priority for us as a Government. And as with previous stages of preparation, some of the solutions are UK-wide and some of them are bespoke to Wales. So, in relation to medicines first, as he raises in his question, all four Governments in the UK are engaged in continuity of supply discussions. Parts of that are around express freight services, and parts of it are around supply disruption response. But there are additional steps that we are taking in Wales to give us additional assurance in relation to that, and some of that, as his question suggests, is about learning from the experience of COVID-19.

In relation to medical supplies, whether that's medical devices or clinical consumables, for example—and this, by the way, relates both to the NHS and to parts of the social care sector, for reasons that he will understand—we are reviewing and replenishing the Welsh stock holdings of MDCC products. We are testing and refining the plans that we had in place at the end of last year in anticipation of leaving without any sort of deal at all. And we still, as his question implies, benefit very significantly from investment in the warehouse storage facility and IP5 near Newport, which continues to be able to help us in our preparation work.

The Conservative spokesperson next—Darren Millar.

Diolch, Llywydd. I want to ask some questions in relation to the Minister's responsibility for COVID recovery. What consideration has the Minister given to older people as part of the Welsh Government's build back better project?

We recognise the impact on various groups in Wales has been unequal of the COVID experience. Older people are amongst those and we will frame our response in light of that to be able to make sure that older people across Wales get the support they need in our response.

Thank you for that answer, Minister, but there has been precious little evidence so far that you're taking the impact of the coronavirus on older people seriously. I was very surprised when I saw the coronavirus reconstruction challenges and priorities document published yesterday, with not a single reference to older people actually being in it. I understand that you've held a number of round-tables, including one that was entitled, and I quote, 'Planning for Economic and Social recovery from the Coronavirus pandemic: Annex 2: Vulnerable Groups'. Yet even that particular round-table did not involve anybody from the older people's commissioner's office. In fact, I understand that the older people's commissioner was not invited to meet you and, in fact, her office had to make a request to meet you and it wasn't until that time that you actually did meet with her to discuss her concerns around the impact on older people. So, can I ask you: why is it that you've got such a blind spot for older people as a Welsh Government when it comes to including them within your COVID reconstruction efforts?

Well, I certainly don't accept the premise of the Member's question. Whether it's in relation to the challenges from isolation, the support required for people who are shielding, perhaps, the support required from third sector organisations, the particular set of interventions required from public services to acknowledge the experience of older people in this pandemic, whether it's about acknowledging the particular contribution that older volunteers have been able to make in a very positive way to supporting other people in their communities during this time, whether it's a particular recognition of the needs of older people who might be at risk of losing their jobs and particular support that they might need that is tailored for people at the latter part of a work journey—all of those are absolutely fundamental to the interventions that we've made to date and our continuing discussions. 

I have met with the older people's commissioner. I can't assure him in relation to whose office made the first approach to which person in relation to any of the very large range of meetings that we've held with stakeholders in relation to this, but I've certainly found the discussion with the older people's commissioner, which happened I think at a comparatively early stage, very productive and demonstrated a very good and positive meeting of minds. 

It's very nice to hear your warm words about older people now; it's a shame that none of them were contained in any of the documents that were published by your office yesterday. And, of course, you didn't reference older people either in your statement to this Senedd. And perhaps, frankly, if you'd been more supportive of my older people's rights Bill when it was presented to this Senedd, we might be in a slightly different position. I can assure you that the commissioner's office has made it clear to me that she had to put the request in to your office for the meeting, which you eventually did have, and not the other way around. 

Look, we all know that older people have faced serious consequences as a result of the pandemic and, in fact, they've been disproportionately impacted by it. We know that they're more likely to die, they're more likely to suffer serious illness, more likely to have to self-isolate, more likely to suffer the impact of loneliness as a result of this pandemic. And, of course, they're more likely to be victims of the even longer delays that we are now going to have in accessing NHS tests and treatments as a result of the backlog that has built up in our health service during the pandemic. Now, the recovery plan you published yesterday, for all your warm words today, does not address a single one of those challenges. So, I ask you: will you now agree with me that there needs to be a further round-table specifically focusing on the needs of older people, bringing experts together, including the older people's commissioner and other important stakeholders in the third sector and the public sector, so that we can make sure that we get this right and that older people can be confident that the Welsh Government is actually listening to and addressing their concerns, not, frankly, ignoring them, as you have been to date?

Well, there is an ongoing range of engagement with stakeholders in relation to this document. As I said yesterday in my statement, this is the beginning of a national conversation, and the conversation we've had has been rich, it has had a range of voices, sometimes complimentary, sometimes more challenging, in the way that these things are, and we welcome all of that, and we will continue on the same basis to engage with everybody affected by COVID in Wales and to listen to their voices, and to reflect their voices faithfully in our considerations. 

I invite the Member to look at page 22 of the document, where he'll find priority 8, which itself talks about supporting the NHS to make up lost ground in terms of treatment of non-coronavirus-related conditions, and sets out across the balance of that page a number of interventions that the Government will undertake. I don't know if he got that far in the document, but it makes specific reference to reinstating routine services, which we absolutely recognise, as I'm sure all Members do. People who've been waiting longer as a consequence have made their own particular contribution in the response to COVID, and this Government absolutely recognises that. As I mentioned in my response to his question yesterday, the health Minister, of course, will be making further statements in relation to this in addition to the statement recently made about the winter protection plan.

Question 3—try again, Alun Davies.

Thank you very much for your patience, Presiding Officer. 

As set out in the publication yesterday, we are committed to a reconstruction that works for the people of Wales, including Blaenau Gwent, by addressing the issues that matter to us most: unemployment, entrenched inequalities, affordable housing, the revitalisation of town centres, and support for the foundational economy.

I'm grateful to the Minister for that response. I'm also grateful to the Minister for his statement yesterday. Blaenau Gwent is a part of the country, of course, that will lose out more in terms of funding than almost any other county borough. Blaenau Gwent has relied on funding from the European Union in terms of connectivity, both investing in railway and the dualling of the A465. People in Blaenau Gwent have benefited from European funding, of course, in terms of training and apprenticeships as well. So, both our place and our people have benefited in the past. I know the Minister has worked hard over the last few years to ensure that these funding streams will be maintained, and I know that the United Kingdom Government has let him down and let us down, and broken the promises that they've made. So, how will the Welsh Government pick up the pieces of those broken Tory promises and ensure that we have the budget, that we have the funds available for a long-term programme to sustain and support people in Blaenau Gwent and our communities in Blaenau Gwent? 

I thank the Member for that important question on behalf of his constituents, and he raises matters that affect the daily lives of his constituents, as they do mine and others in the Chamber. He's absolutely right to say that his constituency and, indeed, mine and others will have benefited significantly from some of those programmes, and he is right to articulate his disappointment about the UK Government's failure to live up to its promises to make sure that Wales continues to have that funding, and that people in Wales get to make the decisions for Wales, which is the guiding principle of devolution and a promise that the UK Government should be living up to. 

We know from their recent moves in Parliament that they're seeking to undermine that, looking for powers to spend money in Wales where the Welsh Government could spend that better on behalf of the people of Wales. His constituents will have lost out by virtue of the fact that the UK Government has failed to live up to its existing financial responsibilities, whether that's to do with the rail network, whether it's to do with the energy system or digital connectivity—all of those things are massively underfunded and they're responsibilities of the UK Government. 

What we are seeking to do is to make the case that the UK Government should keep its promises in relation to this so that we can continue to support communities like Blaenau Gwent with future programmes, but also, as he will have seen in the document published yesterday, to seek to stimulate the economy for the benefit of all parts of Wales, including Blaenau Gwent, from investment in schools, in road maintenance, in health infrastructure, in care infrastructure, in housing and in energy upgrades. All of those are designed to stimulate the economy, to help people keep work and to get new work, and that is at the heart of the challenge that the Government will be setting its sights on addressing over the coming months. 

As it stands, the proposed UK internal market Bill is an assault on devolution and will be detrimental to the whole of Wales. There are elements in the Bill that create a particular risk to our ports, including Holyhead, and we will do our utmost to limit any detrimental impact.

Thank you very much. There's very real concern that the Bill could lead to trade being lost from Holyhead to ports in England and Scotland that go straight to Northern Ireland, and, with a third of the Holyhead-Dublin traffic going to or from Northern Ireland, that risk is very clear, and that's on top of the risk of more crossings going directly from the Republic of Ireland to continental Europe. I'm also concerned about the impact of the checks that will be required on lorries. I’ve already warned that there’s no space in the port itself. The UK Government has paid hardly any attention to Holyhead as compared to Dover, for example, and now with just weeks to go they are digging around for a location, suggesting totally inappropriate places such as the Sioe Môn ground, which would mean that there would be heavy traffic in that area 24 hours a day. Now, I know that the Welsh Government is in negotiations with the county council on this, but can you give us an assurance that you, like me and the council and my fellow Plaid Cymru Members in Westminster, are urging the UK Government in the strongest terms possible to ensure that everything possible is done to ensure the flow of trade through Holyhead and to secure the future of a port that is so important for Ynys Môn and the whole of Wales?

Well, the Member is right to raise this issue in the way that he has and I agree with his analysis. There is a great risk implicit in this and we’ve lost a significant period at the start of the year when we could have been making arrangements for work to ensure that this happens in a sensible way that is planned, not in the way that it’s being done now.

In terms of communication with the UK Government on this, I was in a meeting yesterday, making the exact points that the Member has suggested, to ensure that work is being done urgently to look at appropriate locations, to ensure that that happens in partnership with us as a Government, and with local government and with the companies that use the port and the port itself, and also the question of which checks are going to be undertaken. I’ve written to the UK Government to get some assurance that the same kinds of checks happen in England and Scotland, to avoid a situation where there is an incentive for lorries to go on different routes, and I think that's at the forefront of the Member's mind. So, we are putting pressure on this and we’re waiting for information from the UK Government about the impact of transport being delayed in and outside the port, which will be vital to the arrangements that we make on the ground. So, I can give him some assurance that we are raising these issues regularly. We have a ministerial meeting this afternoon to discuss this, because it’s so important.

Well, without a deal, there will be a serious risk of delays to the import of fresh produce into the UK as well as price increases as a result of tariffs. A co-ordinated UK approach is essential to minimise the potential impacts on food supply, and information put in the public domain yesterday will cause us to re-evaluate our level of assurance in relation to these arrangements.

I'm most grateful to Guido Fawkes for revealing that the transition period planning assumptions of the UK Government—which will confirm the worst fears that I have been raising for the last several months—is that a 'no deal' on trade with the European Union would lead to a tightening of supply, an increase of demand for agri-food products, and the effect of this disruption, I quote,

'is likely to be reduced supply availability, especially of certain fresh products.'

I think perhaps the most disturbing thing about the information that was raised earlier by my colleague Alun Davies is that the civil servant notes in this document that they were instructed not to share this assumption with devolved authorities, but they acknowledged it will have an impact on devolved authorities and their planning. Now, we are not talking about caviar being flown in from the Black sea—we are talking about everyday vegetables and fruit that we have come to rely on as a result of being 40 years in a single market. So, this is extremely serious. So, in addition to seeking an immediate meeting with Michael Gove as to why information is being withheld from the devolved administrations, what can we now do to try and avert this potential disaster for ordinary people and their daily food?

I thank the Member for that important supplementary. Let me be very clear at the start: aspects of food supply are devolved, but the question of food crossing the border into the UK is obviously fundamental to supply, and that is entirely the responsibility of the UK Government, and any restrictions on supply will be a matter of the outcome of choices made by the UK Government.

Now, I share her concern in relation to what we read in the meeting notes yesterday. I had a meeting yesterday with the UK Government in relation to food supply and impressed upon them the need for joint working in relation to this area. So, the context in which the material was in the public domain was very disturbing to us. What we are doing in Wales is making sure that we are speaking to the supermarkets in Wales to make sure that we understand their logistical arrangements, to understand that there will be an equity of distribution in relation to food produce coming into the UK. I have made the point very forcibly that—and the environment Minister, by the way, makes these points as well—there is a risk in terms of food prices next year increasing, and that at a time when people are suffering, in terms of their livelihoods, from COVID and the choices made by the UK Government to discontinue the enhancement to universal credit.

So, these are potentially very significant challenges for the most vulnerable people. Even if the overall supply of food isn't affected, the cost of it for people in those income groups could be—the effect of that could be very significant. We will continue to do all we can to make sure that we get those assurances about equity of distribution, but the question of supply into the UK is one that necessarily we need to work with the UK Government on.

Minister, it is right to acknowledge there may—and I emphasise may—be some disruption to food supplies coming from the continent post Brexit, but do you not agree that this could give a huge opportunity for the UK and Wales to become far more self-sufficient in our food production? British farmers are some of the most efficient and innovative in the world and husbandry standards are amongst the highest. I am sure the British public would far prefer to buy home-grown produce, especially given the fact that farming practices in Spain, for instance, where much of our imports of fruit and vegetables come from, are far from desirable. It is evidenced that immigrant labour is being shamefully exploited, with low wages, long hours and very sub-standard living accommodation. Given such practices, does the Attorney-General not agree with me that it is far more desirable for us to produce such foods at home, where exploitation does not exist, or at least is far less prevalent?

Well, I have no idea what the Attorney-General's view on this is, but what I would say is there are two—. The Member's question is premised on two assumptions that are fundamentally misconceived: firstly, that we should be prepared to tolerate restrictions on food supply, if that is what happens, and an increase in costs, if that is what happens, because of a future long-term benefit. I completely disagree with him that that is an acceptable way to proceed. And the second error that he's making in the assumptions is that our current arrangements are in any way preventing the development of that kind of sector in the UK. I completely agree with him: we want to see an increasingly vibrant agricultural and horticultural sector in Wales and across the UK. I don't accept for a moment that the current arrangements are a barrier to that.

Since its launch in May, the 'Our Future Wales' consultation has been very successful. We received just over 2,000 submissions from stakeholders and members of the public, telling us about what matters to them. Those submissions have informed the priorities for recovery and reconstruction that we published yesterday.

Minister, could I thank you for joining me recently in an online event where you engaged very deeply and thoughtfully with dozens of questions from the public on post-COVID recovery and reconstruction? So, recognising the immense challenges ahead of the pandemic and of the EU 'deal' or 'no deal' scenarios, and without coming across all Johnsonian now, oozing fantasy optimism about 'world beating' this, 'moonshot' that, driving JCBs through flimsy polystyrene walls, is there any real note of optimism that he can give to the people of Wales—especially young people—about how we get through this well, and do it in a way that is better and fairer for our jobs and economy, better for our environment, and better and fairer for society as a whole?

I do think the point the Member makes is very important, because whilst the overall effect of COVID on our lives is obviously very detrimental, we have learnt to do things differently in some ways in the last few months, and we will want to hold onto those ways where they're better ways of proceeding.

So, in the economy, for example, we have seen, despite the overwhelming impact on businesses in Wales, that there have been opportunities for some businesses to look at different product lines in terms of personal protective equipment and so on and supplies to the NHS. And there's been a level of innovation in relation to that that has been positive for those businesses, and we want, obviously, to be able to encourage that. In relation to the way we've approached public services working together, delivering some of their services increasingly online—we've seen that in the health service; we've seen that in local government—that won't work for everybody but it'll work for a lot of people and it will allow reconfiguration of some of those services to deliver ever better services to people in Wales.

We've also seen—and he acknowledges this in his question—a renewed enthusiasm across the public, I would say, for making sure this is a green response to COVID. I know he will welcome the investment that's already been made in terms of active travel and in terms of renewables and in terms of similar interventions, and the document we published yesterday I think very hopefully describes an optimistic way of taking forward that agenda in relation to decarbonising our economy, supporting biodiversity, improving air quality, and also, at the same time, many of those interventions also help stimulate the economy, also help to create skills pipelines and provide a number of other benefits.

So, part of the message I wanted to make sure was conveyed yesterday was that some of the responses that the Government have necessarily are to mitigate the damage that COVID will have caused in the long term, but some of it is to identify those points of positivity that he suggests and to try and build on those.

The Government's submission to the inquiry will be to highlight to the House of Commons Justice Committee's attention the Commission on Justice in Wales report. The commission described a dire situation, which we are likely to discover will have deteriorated further during the COVID-19 pandemic.

I thank the Counsel General. It's been widely reported that, during COVID-19 lockdowns, we've seen an increase in cases of domestic abuse. Legal aid is still available for divorce cases where there has been domestic abuse, because the UK Government recognises that often, in order to make a safe, clean break from their abuser, a person will need to go to court for a divorce, a financial settlement, or, most importantly, to sort out appropriate arrangements over access to children.

When two-child benefit caps were introduced, Labour made great play of the fact that women with a third child born from rape may have to prove that they were raped or answer very personal questions if they needed to be exempted from the benefit cap. Labour felt the process may stop women from claiming, and, for those who did, the questioning may cause them distress. The same could apply, though, to people who have suffered abuse who need legal aid to get a much-needed divorce. They may feel a misplaced embarrassment about suffering the abuse. They may feel they have to prove it took place. They may not have reported it to the police, and be concerned that raising such allegations may inflame the situation again, something they live in fear of.

Now I appreciate that the issue of legal aid is not devolved, but what is devolved is your Government's ability to help all survivors of domestic abuse, particularly those who feel too afraid to say what's happened to them. For that reason, would you please consider trying to find the budget to fund representation in divorce cases? Means testing any help would be understandable, but please don't make abused people have to flag up their status, because many of them won't, and they and their children will continue to suffer as a consequence.

Well, the Member makes a series of very important points, and I appreciate the way in which she is raising this extremely sensitive matter. A well-designed legal aid scheme would address the challenges that the Member raises in her question. We are a long way away from that as a consequence of cuts in the budget over the last number of years at a UK Government level. We would wish to be in a position, in Wales, where those matters were in our hands, so that we could design a system that tackled precisely the sorts of challenges that Michelle Brown raises in her question. She will know that where we have been able to intervene in providing advice services and support for domestic violence, we have been able to do that. But the sorts of interventions that she is describing necessarily require very significant intervention, and absolutely that is why if the UK Government wishes, as it were, to continue with these powers being reserved, it is incumbent on them to provide the funding to deliver the levels of protection that individuals in those circumstances need. But I would refer her to the document that we published yesterday, which recognises that over the course of the last few months the incidence of domestic violence has increased, and we will be looking to further support domestic violence services within the resources that we have, as was flagged in the document yesterday.

Finally, question 8, Helen Mary Jones.

The UK Government's approach to the negotiations means the manufacturing sector will face significant new barriers to trade in any event, and these will be worse if there is no agreement. The UK Government must prioritise negotiating a deal that protects the economy, including highly regulated manufacturing sectors in Wales.

I'm grateful to the Counsel General for his answer. We had representatives of the steel industry in front of the economy committee, and they were highlighting the dangers of a 'no deal' Brexit as potentially very serious for their future. This, obviously, has a big effect potentially on the Trostre steel plant in Llanelli. What further representations can the Welsh Government make to the UK Government with regard to the importance of retaining the steel industry here in Wales, and those parts of it that are in the mid and west region?

Well, I echo the Member's concern. Our friends in the steel sector continually make the argument to us, which we accept and agree, that the sort of scenario that she envisages would be very, very detrimental to steel production in Wales and in the UK. I can assure her that the Minister for the economy has an ongoing dialogue with steel producers in Wales, and across the economy actually, in relation to other sectors as well that are potentially adversely affected by Brexit, and the consequences of leaving the European transition period without a significant deal focused on supporting livelihoods, focused on supporting those foundational sectors in our economy. The risks of doing so are very significant and he continues to be in regular discussion both with steel producers, but also the UK Government on these issues.

I thank the Counsel General.

The next item is the topical questions, and two have been accepted today. And the first is to be answered by the Minister for economy and to be asked by Russell George.

Well, can I express my sympathy for everybody working at the site? This is understandably devastating news, and my officials are in direct contact with the company, and they're exploring all potential options and available support.

Thank you for your answer, Minister. This is, of course, the largest employer in the Llanfyllin area, and this has come as a serious blow to Llanfyllin and to all the families that are affected at the plant. My understanding, from speaking to the local county councillor, Peter Lewis, is that the company, which is owned by Magna International, is intending to restructure its UK operations, and this will affect 129 people who will lose their jobs.

What is particularly sad is that only recently the company made a £2 million investment into the factory—that was last year—and had intended to make a further £2 million investment next year. Now, we all know, of course, that the pandemic is drastically affecting the car manufacturing industry, and this has, of course, a knock-on effect on companies like Stadco, but I know that you will agree with me in saying that what was a successful and viable business in 2019 should be a successful business in 2021. Stadco is just too important a company in north Powys to allow it to close without making every effort to find a workable solution.

So often, we hear of redundancies being made immediately. In this case, these redundancies aren't due to come into effect until the end of 2021. So, I am pleased to hear that your officials have already spoken with the company, but I wonder whether you could also outline what else the Welsh Government can do, from your conversations with your officials, what else they can do during this consultation period to ultimately attempt—attempt—to safeguard these jobs at this plant.

Can I thank Russell George for his questions and for the points that he rightly makes about the importance of this site to the community that it serves and the community that relies on it for well-paid jobs? Our regional team is already working to look at how we can support the community. We do have a good relationship with the company. We've offered a joint meeting with them and the Welsh Automotive Forum, and the purpose of that meeting is to explore every possible option for retaining the factory and to identify any alternative work streams.

Our understanding is that the rationale behind the decision is that there's been a general decline in the automotive industry—that there's overcapacity and this has been exacerbated by coronavirus. But, the Member is absolutely right that they recently invested in the site. Of course, just two years ago, there was a similar consolidation effort undertaken by the business when it closed the Shrewsbury facility. They continued operations here in Wales, in Telford and at Castle Bromwich, but my understanding is that, as well as proposing to close the site in Powys, they're looking at cutting staff at the two remaining sites as well.

My officials have already met with senior human resources managers and we've signposted them to relevant support, including, of course, the ReAct funding and wider Welsh Government employability programmes. But, our focus, I can assure Russell George, is on retaining the factory and securing the jobs. We have a 45-day period of consultation taking place and we will explore every single opportunity that there might be for this business.

I should say that I also met with the Welsh Automotive Forum just two weeks ago, where we discussed the state of the industry. Clearly, with multiple challenges, the sector is experiencing deep uncertainty and anxiety, but the manufacturing plan that we've published was widely welcomed; it should serve to support the sector.

But, should the jobs ultimately be lost, then we will be implementing ReAct support, and that will include the offer of grants to acquire new skills; it will offer reimbursement of travel costs and childcare costs whilst training; and, of course, there'll be employer recruitment support, with the offer of up to £3,000 to employers who recruit people who have been affected. But, ultimately, we wish to help the site remain open and we will explore every option for doing just that.

Can I thank Russell George for putting this very important question to the Minister today? I'm grateful to the Minister for all that he's said with regard to what has been done so far. Can I just ask him to be absolutely clear that he and his officials will take the most flexible approach possible to any potential business support to enable these jobs to be retained?

A hundred and twenty-nine jobs in a community the size of Llanfyllin is the equivalent of some hundreds, even thousands, in a larger community. While I understand what he says about ReAct, the chance for people to get alternative employment close enough to their homes is not good at the moment. So, can he give us an assurance today that he and his officials will take the most flexible approach possible, if there is any possibility that additional investment from the Government would enable the company to stay?

Yes, absolutely, I can offer Helen Mary Jones that assurance. Just recently, I was able to point to something of a success in terms of retaining some employment opportunities, that being at the Laura Ashley plant, again in Powys, where I think we were able to look at a number of opportunities and we were able to ultimately support the opportunity that has led to a number of people being retained. And we'll do exactly that with this particular site. It's vital because, as Helen Mary Jones said, 129 jobs within a community as small as Llanfyllin is like a 1,000 jobs in a community as large as a small city or a major town. So, it's vitally important that we do what we can to retain those jobs, if it can be achieved.

Joyce Watson.

Diolch, Llywydd, and I thank you for accepting this question today, because I asked for a statement yesterday. But what's important here is, I think, registering two facts. And the first one, it seems to me, is that the 129 people who are employed here were the last to know, and that should never be the case. So, going on from that, Minister, I heard what you've said, you're working with various people, but clearly there's a role for the trade unions here as well as the private sector.

You say that there's a 45-day consultation period and ReAct grants to acquire new skills, but the one thing that strikes me in this particular area is that there is a huge ability within Powys to innovate, particularly with new skills. We could link that innovation to this particular area with these particular skills through that ReAct programme, looking forward, to prevent further depopulation of this area. Because it is an area that is increasingly becoming depopulated, and all the evidence is there to back that up. So, it would be worse than 129 jobs if the families connected to those had to move out of the area to find work. So, I suppose my question is this: using the innovation that exists within the Powys area to drive forward the change that we've seen that is happening fairly rapidly, which you mentioned in your report yesterday, and using that facility to keep those people there, but, more than that, to grow jobs to prevent that depopulation from going any further. 

Joyce Watson makes a number of important points, and of course the role of the foundational economies can be crucially important within the community. I'm in no doubt there are small businesses that can identify how the company has been supporting them, whether they're directly in the automotive supply chain or whether they're a local newsagents, butcher or baker. This will have an impact, should the facility close and jobs be lost, on a number of smaller businesses within the area. That's why I think it's important that we look at this challenge in the round and deploy the regional team to examine the wider impact on the community and small businesses in the area.

Joyce Watson is absolutely right: the social partnership and the involvement of the unions could be critically important in ensuring that workers get the right support, not just signposting to other opportunities and support in accessing ReAct funding and skills opportunities, but also emotional support right now, because this will be an incredibly difficult time for people. The announcement has come as we look towards Christmas; it's come at a time when, because of coronavirus, there are likely to be significant job losses, so there are going to be greater competition for opportunities out there.

One thing I would say, though, that is something of a positive, is that those affected—should their jobs be lost, should they lose that employment that they've been able to enjoy for quite some time, then they will be able to access support as part of the £40 million employability and skills intervention that I announced recently, and that includes a job matching service. Obviously, there will be fewer opportunities in that rural part of Wales than there might be in a more urban area, but we will endeavour to match as many people as possible—should they lose their jobs at the end of the consultation period—with other well-paid, highly skilled opportunities. 

I thank the Minister. The next question is to be answered by the Minister for health, and is to be asked by Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you for the question. Public Health Wales have confirmed that this issue does not affect their capacity for COVID-19 antigen tests, as Roche swabs are not used, nor will it affect other Public Health Wales tests. In relation to wider health-board-delivered testing services, I have asked my officials to urgently review and report back to me.

Thank you, Minister, for that response, and I welcome the assurance that, obviously, COVID testing is unaffected by this news today. But importantly, obviously, this warehouse supplies other testing products to the NHS across the whole of the United Kingdom, in the field of cancer, cardiology, thyroid testing, and also electrolyte testing—in fact, it's a market leader in electrolytes. Other parts of the NHS in the UK have issued restrictions on blood testing—just for essential services only. Can you give an assurance today, or certainly in the short term, that there will be no disruption to blood testing in particular in the NHS in Wales, and if you can't give that assurance today, can you make sure that you make it available to Members as quickly as possible after you've had that information back?

I discussed this very point with my officials this afternoon, Llywydd, and that's why I'm seeking urgent reassurance from our officials. In terms of the tests that Public Health Wales carry out, including, for example, sexual health testing and cell pathology, they're the things that I'm most concerned about. We do have some stock that is left within Public Health Wales and other health boards, but I want assurance on how that affects each health board. I'm happy to issue an update to Members in the form of a written statement once I have that assurance. Roche themselves have said that they think the supply issues will take two weeks to resolve. Obviously, we want to see that happen sooner rather than later. But as I said, I'll issue a written statement to update Members and the public on the actual position here in Wales.

Having lost Roche testing capacity early on in the pandemic, I'm pleased to hear that you're not expecting an impact on COVID testing in Wales. Now, can I just ask one question? Simply, what assurances have you had that if Roche's problems hit other services across the UK, including Wales, Wales won't be cut first or hit disproportionately?

There's no suggestion of that at present. But as I said, that's why I'm seeking the assurance, not just from my officials, but from health boards directly, about the position they find themselves in with this unexpected supply chain interruption. And that's what I will cover in the written statement. Obviously, it would not be acceptable if Wales were hit disproportionately, or in a different way, and other parts of the UK were preferred; I expect every part of the UK to be treated in a manner that is generally fair. But it is good news that, because of the way we deliver our testing service here in Wales, the COVID testing will not be affected by this issue.

I thank the Minister.

The next item is the 90-second statements. There is one statement this week, and that's to be presented by Caroline Jones.

Diolch, Llywydd. October marks Breast Cancer Awareness Month, and aside from wearing pink, I want to mark it in another, more personal way—to talk about my journey with breast cancer, to point out that you can survive this terrible disease, and to urge women across Wales to take the threat seriously, and to check, check, check.

It has been 13 years since I found a suspicious dent in my breast, a dent that indicated there was a cancerous tumour beneath it. And thanks to finding it early, and some amazing doctors and nurses, I am still here. It took five operations and gruelling chemotherapy, but I am here to tell the tale of how I survived one of the biggest killers in Wales of women. And I can think of no better way to pay tribute, to give thanks, than by helping to raise awareness by marking Breast Cancer Awareness Month. I urge every woman in Wales to regularly check their breasts for lumps and bumps and dents, and if they find anything suspicious, to get it checked out.

In my spare time, I often talk to people on a one-to-one basis as a buddy for breast cancer, and people tell me that it really does help. Despite coronavirus, the NHS is still open for business. Please don't leave it. Please get it checked. I am living proof that you can survive breast cancer if you contact people early enough, and I send my love and support to all people undergoing tests and treatment for breast cancer. Diolch yn fawr. 

We will now take a short break. 

Order. Order. The Senedd is back in session. 

We move to item 5, the Standards of Conduct Committee report, and I call on Andrew R.T. Davies to move the motion.  

Thank you, acting Presiding Officer. As temporary Chair of the Standards of Conduct Committee I formally move the motion. 

The committee considered the report from the acting commissioner for standards in relation to a complaint made against Vikki Howells MS regarding the improper use of the Senedd estate. I'd just like to clarify that it wasn't in Vikki's personal capacity; it was in her capacity as chair of the Labour group. The Standards of Conduct Committee gave the commissioner's report careful consideration, and our report sets out the committee's judgment as to the sanction that is appropriate in this case. 

The facts relating to the complaint, and the committee’s reasons for its recommendation, are set out in the full committee report. Since the agreement of this report in March 2020, the chief executive and clerk, in her role as accounting officer, has issued an update: 'Rules and Guidance on the Use of Senedd Resources'. These were circulated to Members on 4 September, and came into effect at the beginning of this term. The Standards of Conduct Committee welcomes the updated rules and considers that they will help significantly in bringing clarity to the use of Senedd resources.

The motion tabled today invites the Senedd to endorse the committee’s recommendation.  

I accept the committee's report and its recommendations. It was never my intention to breach the guidance that is in place. I'm pleased that the Standards of Conduct Committee is currently reviewing a range of issues, including the guidance provided to Members. I hope that this will ensure that the rules are clear, reasonable and well understood in future, so that other Members do not inadvertently find themselves in this situation. 

I speak in my role as Plaid Cymru business manager and chief whip. We accept the content of this report and we will be voting in favour of it. However, I do believe that there are broader issues arising from this case, as the commissioner recognises, which raise important questions about the maturity of our democracy and our ability to recognise the totally appropriate interweaving between our party political work as Members and our parliamentary work, but that we are clear that there is a boundary between the two and that that should be respected. 

So, I suppose the first question is: where does that boundary lie? And do the rules and guidance in place make that clear and provide sufficient guidance to Members and their staff? As the commissioner says in the case of this inquiry, it is

'almost inconceivable that at any party meeting during an election period there will not be some discussion of the forthcoming election.'

It is crucial for the smooth running of the Senedd and to secure a vibrant democracy that there is a safe space for political groups to discuss and arrange their work in a way that recognises the party-political context. It is also crucial that there is an appropriate opportunity for opposition parties within a particular framework to use their resources to develop an alternative policy programme.

The commissioner is of the view in the report that more clarity is required within the rules, particularly around election periods. And I do welcome the work that has already been undertaken to publish a new version of the guidance on the use of resources and the Senedd estate.

I also welcome, however, the commitment from the Commission that the new guidance can be kept under review and that it will be possible to refine it further this side of the election in order to ensure that it does properly retain that appropriate balance between party-political and parliamentary work and without any unintended consequences. 

No further action is recommended against Vikki Howells and I do think that that is proportionate. However, this case has taken up a great deal of time for everyone who's been involved in the process. It is important, therefore, that there's an ability for the complaints system to carry out its functions appropriately and clearly. As we move forward, we do need to ensure that complaints that reach Plenary, and all the steps leading to that, merit such a response. Thank you.

Andrew R.T. Davies to reply.

Thank you, acting Presiding Officer. I'm grateful to the two Members who contributed to the debate and to Vikki Howells's acknowledgment of and support for the report's findings. I hear the comments of Siân Gwenllian and I'm sure they will be fed into the review that the committee's undertaking into the code, and I'd welcome any other Member's contribution to that review that the committee is undertaking at the moment. I also welcome Siân Gwenllian's endorsement of the committee's findings and the report. I formally move the report.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? I see no Member objecting. The motion is therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Item 6 is a Standards of Conduct Committee debate: the recruitment of the commissioner for standards. And I call on the Chair of the committee, Jayne Bryant, to move the motion.

Diolch, acting Presiding Officer. Can I just—is it possible to clarify something first of all, acting Presiding Officer?

Yes. Please, go ahead, go on.

Sorry—the first point is to move the motion to delegate authority for making arrangements for recruiting a new standards commissioner.

Yes, that is the case. Then there is another motion—

Yes.

—on the remuneration of the acting commissioner.

Thank you. I formally move the motion to delegate authority for making the arrangements for recruiting a new commissioner for standards to the Clerk of the Senedd.

The National Assembly for Wales Commissioner for Standards Measure 2009 sets out that the arrangements for recruiting a new commissioner be delegated to either in whole or in part to the Commission, to the Committee on Standards of Conduct or to the staff of the Senedd.

This motion seeks to delegate that authority to the Clerk of the Senedd, while recognising that the final decision for the appointment would remain with the Senedd as stipulated by the Measure.

Acting Llywydd, it's the Standards of Conduct Committee's aim to ensure that a commissioner is recruited who is able to help maintain the high standards of conduct required for a Parliament, and therefore, if this motion is passed today, it is our intention to work with the Clerk during this recruitment to help recruit the best possible person to this very important role. 

No speakers have indicated they wish to be called in this debate, and therefore I assume that you don't want to speak again to the matter, Jayne. I therefore say that the proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? I see no Member objecting, and therefore the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

We now move to item 7—Standards of Conduct Committee debate on the remuneration of the acting commissioner for standards. And I call the Chair of the committee, Jayne Bryant, to move the motion.

Diolch, acting Llywydd. I move the motion to approve the report and recommendation. The committee's report sets out a proposal to amend the acting commissioner's pay. As the length of appointment for the acting commissioner has become clearer, the committee considered it appropriate to pay the acting commissioner in line with that of the former commissioner.

This report sets out the approach to achieve this, while being clear that consideration will be given to the pay structure for any future commissioner for standards.

Again, I have no other speakers, therefore the proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? I see no Member objecting, so the motion is therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Item 8 is a debate on the Committee on Senedd Electoral Reform's report, 'Senedd reform: The next steps'. And I call on the Chair of the committee to move the motion—Dawn Bowden.

Thank you, acting Presiding Officer. I'd like to start by thanking the Business Committee for scheduling this debate today, because within the context of the COVID pandemic, of course, it's been right that the majority of the Senedd business is focused on how we can support our people, our communities and our economy in these unprecedented times. Nevertheless, the constitutional issues addressed in our report are central to democracy in Wales, and our ability, as Members of the Senedd, to carry out our representative, legislative and scrutiny roles. I therefore welcome the chance to debate these issues with Members.

In July last year, we debated the question of how many Members this legislature should have and how they should be elected. The Senedd resolved, by a clear majority, that more Members were needed, but agreed that further work was required to consider how that could be achieved. The Committee on Senedd Electoral Reform was subsequently set up in September 2019. We were asked by the Senedd to examine the recommendations made by the expert panel on Assembly electoral reform.

During our work, we heard clear and compelling evidence that the Senedd is currently undersized, that its membership should be more diverse, that the current electoral system constrains voter choice and Member accountability and that it is inappropriate that there is no mechanism for reviewing the Senedd's boundaries. There is not time today for me to outline all of the recommendations, which include, for example, that there should be between 80 and 90 Members of the Senedd elected by the single transferrable vote, that arrangements should be put in place to review the Senedd's boundaries on an ongoing basis, that voluntary and legislative interventions should be put in place to overcome the structural inequalities and societal barriers that stand in the way of a more diverse Senedd, and that we need to do more to increase levels of public awareness and understanding of what the Senedd does and how its work makes a difference to the issues that matter to people.

Investing in our democracy has a cost attached to it and those costs would have to be carefully scrutinised as the Senedd considered any reform Bill. But on the basis of the estimates that the Llywydd has prepared for us and the evidence that we've received, we believe that the additional cost is not only a price worth paying, but it's a necessary investment in our democratic processes and institutions. On the basis of the evidence we've heard, we believe that a larger Senedd would be cost-effective. It would improve the governance of Wales, enhance the scrutiny and oversight of Welsh Government and lead to more effective policy, more efficient spending and better legislation.

Even marginal improvements in spending or value could offset the cost of a larger legislature. But we won't see these improvements, and the Senedd elected in 2026 will not have the appropriate number of Members to carry out its important responsibilities unless political parties are able to reach consensus on reform proposals and agree to take legislative action early in the sixth Senedd.

In 2017 the expert panel acknowledged that there was no perfect moment for constitutional or electoral changes, but posed the question: if not now, then when? It challenged the Senedd to be bold and to take this opportunity to reform the institution, to invigorate Welsh democracy and to enthuse and energise voters so that the 2021 election delivers a legislature with the capacity to represent the people and communities it serves and becomes a Welsh Parliament that truly works for the people of Wales.

The powers to reform our Senedd have been in our hands since 2018. The first steps in the reform process have already been taken, with the result that 16 and 17-year-olds will be able to vote for the first time in next year's election. However, we have further to go before we can say that we have fully empowered our Senedd to meet the needs of those it represents—the people of Wales. We believe that our report offers a road map to guide the sixth Senedd as it takes the next steps in that reform process. We are, however, realistic; we know that there is more to be done to engage the public on these issues, and we know that Members and parties across the Chamber have different views. And we know that these are politically sensitive matters on which it is difficult to reach consensus.

However, as legislators and elected Members, we all have a responsibility to work together to invest in and strengthen our democracy in Wales. The evidence is clear: unless legislation is brought forward early in the sixth Senedd, we risk failing to ensure that our legislature can continue to deliver effectively for the people of Wales. We risk missing the chance to make sure that the scrutiny of policy, legislation, spending and taxation is informed by the perspectives of people from a diverse range of backgrounds. And we risk losing the opportunity to empower and engage voters through the introduction of an electoral system that maximises voter choice, clarifies Member accountability and delivers fairer and more proportional outcomes.

In publishing our report, I urge all Members and political parties to reflect on the evidence and to fully consider our conclusions and recommendations. I believe that the sixth Senedd can work together to reach agreement on the next steps for Senedd reform and to make sure that our Senedd remains at the heart of a flourishing democracy in Wales. Diolch yn fawr.

In accordance with Standing Order 12.23, the Llywydd has not selected amendment 1, tabled in the name of Gareth Bennett, nor amendment 2, tabled in the name of Neil Hamilton, though it is my intention to call both those Members to speak in the debate. Siân Gwenllian.

Thank you very much. This is a comprehensive report, without doubt, and there is great and detailed work that's been done by Members and committee staff. It is disappointing, despite that, that we by now have missed the opportunity in this Senedd to act on the evidence of another very detailed piece of work that was done at the start of the fifth Senedd under the chairship of Laura McAllister, and adding to the evidence of the need to strengthen the Senedd and to create a democracy that is representative of all of the voices in Wales—that's what this report does, in truth, rather than moving us forward quickly.

I believe that the business case is obvious and clear for us all by now and that the time has come for action. As you know, Plaid Cymru wanted us to act at once during this Senedd, in response to the report by Laura McAllister, and we did give an opportunity, through a motion on the floor of the Senedd, in July last year to that end. And at that time, Labour did, for the first time, agree in principle that we did need to increase the number of Members, but they weren't prepared to commit to putting that in place at that time, and the current Government will have to answer as to why we had to spend another five years with this deficient system. I'll be listening carefully in order to hear whether the Government will support unambiguously the legislation that we will need in the next Senedd.

Since its establishment, the Welsh Parliament has been very progressive as a legislature where equality was written into the DNA from the outset, but, evidently, much more work needs to be done. And for that, the responsibility is placed on our modern Senedd's shoulders to lead the way once again, to ensure that the Senedd does represent Wales in all its diversity. If we're willing to adopt the name 'Senedd', then, as a modern and diverse nation, we have to be a Senedd for everyone in Wales and a Senedd for the whole of Wales. All of the responsibility can't fall on political parties alone. It's evident that we need an element of positive action to realise this ambition. There are small steps being taken, and there are some steps that are praiseworthy being recommended in the report: a system of collecting data on the diversity of the candidate list of each political party, and a fund to support people with disabilities, for example, to support the election of some of those groups that are underrepresented in public office. But we need to go further than that.

Job sharing—you've heard me discussing this previously. I don't think that we need another working party to look at this. The focus, right from the outset of the next Senedd, should be implementing this in legislation. The evidence already exists. And I would be very eager to see the inclusion of statutory quotas to ensure appropriate representation for women and people of colour in the new legislation.

We don't have to wait until the next Senedd to start acting on this. There is a window and an opportunity, even in the remaining legislative timetable of this Senedd, to take steps towards making the democracy of Wales more inclusive and more equal at a local government level. Delyth Jewell has introduced amendments to the legislation that's being discussed at present in terms of local government, and passing those amendments would mean introducing STV in every council without exception, as well as other measures to protect the maternity rights of councillors and to ensure that it's not possible to have a cabinet of men only. I greatly hope that those small steps will have the Government's support and that we can move even now during this Senedd at least part of the way towards being a genuinely inclusive and equal Senedd.

Well, Wales has many problems at the moment, but I don't think we'll find many people in the outside world who think that the answer to any of them is more politicians, more Members of this place. The reality is that there is absolutely no demand whatsoever amongst the people who have elected us to this place to increase the size of the Senedd, and we know this just by looking at the electoral statistics for the last 20 years. There isn't a single election in which we've managed to get turnout to elect Members of the Senedd to 50 per cent. Recent opinion polls have shown a growing disaffection with this place and a growing demand to get rid of it—22 per cent or so in the last opinion poll that I saw. The idea that, as was said a moment ago, increasing the size of the Senedd would invigorate democracy is actually quite laughable and is actually an indictment of what we are at the moment—[Inaudible.]

We appear to have some technical difficulties. Can the sound operator just see if we can re-establish contact with Neil Hamilton?

I was muted—

Yes, sorry, Neil, we had difficulty hearing you. The sound feed didn't work. So, we've heard you up to a minute and 34, so, obviously, I will allow you to make up the necessary time for your argument.

Thank you very much for that. I proposed in an amendment—and I understand, of course, it's not been selected—that we should actually have a real consideration of this by the public at large in the form of a referendum. Angela Burns said in an earlier debate that the Welsh Conservatives say 'no' to referenda because ultimately we should have the power to proceed or not using our collective political judgment here, in line with our mandates. Well, of course the collective judgment of politicians is that there should be more politicians. I don't think that that's a very convincing argument to the electors. We all know what happened on Brexit, where 85 per cent of the Members of this place wanted to remain in the EU, but 53 per cent of the Welsh population wanted to get out. Indeed, many of the proponents of this argument for increasing the size of the Senedd wanted a second referendum on the Brexit referendum even before the result of the first has been implemented.

The Commission's argument is that the voice of the people can be adequately represented by what they call a citizens' assembly, but of course that wouldn't be the voice of the people, it would just be the voice of the Cardiff Bay establishment. It would actually be another shield against public opinion, and it would be just like, I think, those sham parliaments that we see in dictatorships like North Korea, where basically they're rubber stamps to produce what the establishment wants. These organisations would be filled with wannabe politicians themselves, or Cardiff Bay hangers on, or people who are funding beneficiaries of the institutions of Welsh Government and so on. The third sector I'm sure is very worthy, but they're all quasi politicos as well, and they're all sucking on the taxpayer teat, so of course they have a vested interest in continuing the existing organisation. A lot of these organisations are funded either directly by Welsh Government contracts or grants, so I don't think we should regard any of them as independent, and they're run by the political friends of Welsh Government. Wales isn't a democracy, it's a chumocracy, as has been comprehensively revealed in the Jac o' the North blog, for any of those of you who read it.

And, in practical terms, are we currently overworked as Members of the Senedd? I say that we're not. Members of the Senedd are in my experience very conscientious and I pay tribute to them, but I think they can cope with the existing workload. I was for a while a party group leader and on four of the Assembly committees, and I represent, along with others, Mid and West Wales, which is the most diverse, in geographical terms, region in Wales. Yet I could cope, and I enjoyed it, and we sit in Cardiff only three days a week—two days in Plenary and one day, usually, on a committee. Compared with other countries, we're not overworked. In the United States they're about to have an election to the House of Representatives; there are 330 million electors in the United States, and 450 Members of the House of Representatives will represent them. Italy has just had a referendum on whether to reduce the size of their Parliament. Seventy per cent of the people voted in that referendum to reduce the size of both houses of the Italian Parliament from 900 to 600.

This report has ignored the argument of those who are opposed to increasing the size of the institution, and of course David Rowlands resigned from the committee, and we got—UKIP, that is—a one-line mention in the report. So, all that this report does, I think, is to confirm that the Senedd is an echo chamber for Cardiff Bay politicos, and not really the voice of the people. So, I look forward in the election in May next year to debating this, and it's a very good thing that it's not being decided upon, as Siân Gwenllian and her colleagues wanted, during this Assembly. Because I think that this will be an extremely useful issue for those of us who think that devolution has actually been a failure in practice, and I very much look forward to joining battle on the hustings.

Can I say 'well done' to Dawn Bowden for chairing a committee on a controversial matter of singular importance to the functioning now and in the future of this Senedd, this Parliament of Wales? She did so with real skill, and with the help of an exemplary small team of clerks, despite the unexpected disruption of a pandemic and some local political challenges. I'll reserve my remarks on that for another day, but I simply note that I feel it is incumbent on all political parties in this place to engage with the arguments and the evidence no matter how difficult politically that is. And our role as parliamentarians is sometimes to be signposts to the future, not simply weather vanes to the prevailing populist winds. 

I'll touch briefly on some of the key findings and recommendations of our report, before turning to significant challenges in making this happen. And in doing so, none of us in the limitations of this debate can do justice to the wide-ranging detail and evidence in the report. I would simply say: go and read it and digest it. 

The evidence we heard on the size of the Senedd was compelling and clear and remarkably consistent—that the Senedd is currently too small and should increase to between 80 and 90 Members to improve our governance and representation, enhance our scrutiny and our oversight of the Welsh Government, and deliver more effective policy, more efficient spending and better legislation. 

On electoral reform, and again faced with remarkably consistent evidence, we conclude that the single transferable vote electoral system should be introduced to give voters greater choice whilst still maintaining the clear links between Members and constituencies, and producing more proportional electoral outcomes and, crucially, making every vote count—making it worth while voting in seats that have only ever produced a Labour or a Conservative representative, for example; making every Member work for every vote in every constituency.

And on diversity of candidature and Members of the Senedd, the evidence was clear that having a more representative Senedd with greater diversity of candidates and representatives goes hand in hand with reform of the electoral system and increasing the numbers of representatives. But equally clear was the crying need to see positive action to help overcome the structural inequalities and barriers that make this so difficult. So, political parties should get on with publishing information on diversity of their electoral candidates and set out their plans for increasing diversity and inclusion in the way that they work. And there needs to be more cross-party work on how job-sharing for Members of the Senedd and diversity quotas for protected characteristics other than gender as well could work in practice. And there needs to be financial support for people with disabilities who want to stand for election—[Inaudible.]

Can the sound operator again try and reconnect to the Member?

Acting Presiding Officer, I understand I'm not—

Yes, you've had about a 20-second interruption. You were just dealing with the point of diversity of candidates. If you could recommence from there. 

Thank you, acting Presiding Officer. The point I was making is that there needs to be more cross-party work on how job sharing for Members of the Senedd and diversity quotas for protected characteristics other than gender could work in practice. And there needs to be financial support for people with disabilities who want to stand for election, changing the rules so that spending as a result of disability or childcare or other care responsibilities does not count towards election campaign spending limits. And where parties can get on and do these things, they should just do it voluntarily, but, where legislation is needed and within our powers, subject to clarification with the UK Government, we should work towards this too.

But until 2026, we will be living with a 60-Member sixth Senedd, come what may. So, interim measures will be urgently needed to help the already overstretched 60 Members fulfil their representative, scrutiny and legislative roles effectively. The report makes it clear that we've already made many adjustments for the increased workload over an underpowered Senedd and that, going forward into the sixth Senedd, this may have difficult implications for working patterns of the Senedd and some unintended consequences, not just on the quality of our work but on the work-life balance that this Assembly, then, proudly set out to achieve. But it may be possible to learn lessons from new ways of working used during the COVID pandemic to try out other options between now and the end of this fifth Senedd. Now, there's far more to be discussed than can be covered in five minutes, so I go to my earlier comment: read the report in detail; it is compelling.

But, in my final remarks, I just want to address where we go from here, and this all depends on the will of this place right now, but also at the beginning of the sixth Senedd. The committee has tried to be of service to the Senedd by mapping out very clearly the very tight timescales for implementing these major reforms in time for the elections to the seventh Senedd. They are challenging, with key milestones to be met and decisions to be taken in the first few months, let alone the first couple of years of the next Senedd. And there will need to be a two-thirds majority to deliver these major reforms. These are high mountains to scale, but even before we get to those high mountains there's another whole range to overcome, and that requires the leadership of the main political parties—all of them—to be willing to take these matters back into their own parties, wrestle with them and come to a conclusion. I suspect for Plaid Cymru and the Lib Dems, those mountains will look relatively puny. For my own party, we'll see some heights rising ahead of us. I think the Conservative Party may have decided already not to bother under the current leadership—I don't know—and assorted others have already turned their backs on the challenge, or even on Wales or the Senedd already.

But ultimately, acting Presiding Officer, our committee has done what was asked of us. We took the decision early on, by the way, as a committee, which I commend, to constrain our activities, recognising that responding to the virus is of paramount concern. But having completed our work as best we can in these difficult circumstances, and having come to clear conclusions, we now return to the fundamental truth that we all recognised in the beginning: ultimately, this is a matter for political parties to resolve, for political leadership of those parties and for leadership of the next First Minister and Llywydd in this Senedd. There are mountains to scale, but we are a nation of mountains and used to scaling them. Twenty years after devolution, after at least five substantial changes to the governance of Wales, yet with no accompanying electoral reform—

You must conclude. This is beginning to be Everest without oxygen. Now please finish.

I will indeed conclude, acting Presiding Officer. This report sets out the path to take for the next stages for reform. The question is whether we're willing to take the steps along that path to ensure we have the democracy and the legislature we need and that we deserve in Wales. Thank you. 

Thanks to the committee for bringing today's debate, and also for the large and informative report that they produced. Now, Huw was just talking about the new ways of working and I think all of us are learning at the moment how to function under the so-called new normal. It is unfortunate that the massive crisis of COVID-19 occurred when it did, when the electoral reform committee had already finished most of its work, because COVID is going to have a major impact on how we work going forward, and that impact has not informed in any way the findings of this report. That isn't the fault of the committee, of course; it's just a misfortune of timing.

As I said, this is a voluminous report that has thoroughly examined several issues that were of interest to the committee. The problem is that other solutions, like planning in detail how to continue operating with 60 Members, were of almost no interest to it. So, the report barely touches on this. As Huw mentioned, it does go into it a little bit, but the underlying assumption is that we will ultimately have to have close to 90 Members here. So, I fear I must profoundly disagree with this assumption.

The fixation on getting extra Members was the starting point for this report, so it's a bit like the old joke when somebody is on a motoring holiday abroad and they ask a local, 'Can you tell us the quickest way to get to the city centre?', and the local says, 'Well, I wouldn't start from here.' That's my problem with this report: I wouldn't have started from here. I wouldn't have started from the presumption that this place cannot operate properly without another 25 to 30 Members. We sit here for two days in Plenary each week. In the House of Commons, they sit for four days a week. It's not like we're paid much less than MPs; certainly, we are paid a full-time salary. So, if we are overworked, why aren't we having Plenary for more than two days a week? 

A major problem is the business of committees. This is a big issue. But when we discussed this in 2017, I suggested that the number of committees, the amount of committee meetings and the number of AMs that would have to sit on committees could all be looked at. My remarks were treated rather witheringly. Lo and behold, a few months later we had a reorganisation and it was decided by the Business Committee that we didn't need eight Members on committees after all; we could have six.

So, given that, could we now also look at the number of committees we have or, more usefully perhaps, the volume of work that is undertaken? We could look to cut down on the number of meetings when we do the forward work programmes because, as we know, work expands to fill the time available. A witness was quoted as saying that in this report. Once committees are set up, they like to feel important, and they like to have a full programme of work, but let's be honest: we're not discussing legislation all the time on committees, are we?

Even if we are debating legislation, what good would extra Members do? We operate here in a party political system with party whips. Members are whipped as to how to vote on legislation. They don't just sit there and listen to the evidence and then decide for themselves how they're going to vote—they're told how to vote by the party whips. If you had another 20 Labour Members here, then what earthly good would it do? They wouldn’t provide any greater level of scrutiny since those extra Members would still be told how to vote by their party whips. This system would be the same if we had 60 Members, 90 Members or 100 Members, and we'd still get perfectly good opposition amendments being voted down by the Government. That is the reality of party politics, and that reality is being completely overlooked in this report.

This is a time of uncertain public finances. People in the real world are losing their jobs and their livelihoods. This is the very worst time to try and convince the general public of the need for 30 more Members of this Chamber, at a cost to them of millions of pounds a year. For that reason, while I appreciate the work that has gone into this report, I must oppose its findings completely and utterly. Many members of the public are concluding that we don't need 90 Members of the Senedd. We don't even need 60. We need precisely zero, because we don't need this place. But don't trust my opinion; ask the public themselves directly in a referendum if they want 30 more Members, or if they would rather abolish the Assembly altogether. I know which way I would vote. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

May I thank the Chair for her excellent address at the beginning of this debate, and the clerks and researchers for their very hard work over many months? This committee was formed following a decision of this Senedd. I regret, therefore, that not all parties participated in the activities of the committee, although it was a Senedd decision. The decisions of this Senedd should be respected.

The vast majority of the detailed evidence that we took over a period of months did come to the conclusion that this Senedd needed more Members and that they needed to be elected with the proportional representation system of STV in order to improve scrutiny. Improved scrutiny gives you better legislation and also saves money. That’s what the Auditor General for Wales’s report said recently when discussing the issue too: it would save enough money to fund the costs of the additional Members.

But, of course, there are those who oppose all of this. We’ve heard them this afternoon. They oppose the very existence of this Senedd despite the results of two referenda, with the result of 2011 showing that 64 per cent of the people of Wales were in favour of enhanced powers for this Senedd. However, there are people who still oppose recognising Wales as a political entity in any way whatsoever, particularly following Brexit. They want to abolish our Senedd and our nation and to sweep us off the face of the earth, and to take us back to some golden age of British empire when the sun never set on the red zones on the map.

But Wales has survived despite all oppression and we will continue to survive. But we do need to strengthen our political structures. We need to strengthen our Senedd. Yes, by having more Members from diverse backgrounds with enhanced powers. Sixty Members here and that is less than many of our county councils. There are 72 councillors in the chamber in the city of Swansea; 90 Members of the Legislative Assembly in Northern Ireland; and 797 Lords in the House of Lords, constantly increasing without any elections at all, and spending £5 billion to repair Westminster and nobody mentions it. No, we have withstood being swept off the face of the earth as a Welsh nation for eight centuries, now we need to strengthen our Senedd. That is the next step and, ultimately, independence: that is the only solution to all of those forces that seek to abolish our Senedd and our nation. Thank you.

I now call the Llywydd.

Thank you, Chair. I'd like to thank the committee and the Chair of the committee for presenting this important report, which has helped to maintain the momentum of the debate regarding the future work of the Senedd. As Members know, the committee's remit covered a range of topics identified in the report of the expert panel on Assembly electoral reform, which I established in February 2017.

As the Member in charge of the Senedd and Elections (Wales) Act 2020, I'm pleased with the progress that we've made thus far in extending the electoral franchise, but at the time of the Act's assent, I expressed my personal disappointment at the lack of consensus in favour of legislating on the size of the Senedd and the voting system used to elect its Members. Therefore, I welcome today the committee's conclusion that

'there is clear and compelling evidence that the Senedd is currently undersized'.

The Senedd itself has also expressed this view more than once through votes in favour of increasing the number of Members.

Many have already referred to the COVID-19 crisis, and it's true to say that that has changed the way that we work here. It has taught us how difficult it is to anticipate what challenges we will face in the future and has reminded us of the need for a Senedd that is more flexible and more robust. The pandemic has also made the debate on work-life balance even clearer, and here in the Senedd, as in wider society, we're asking Members to do more in less time. In my view, increased responsibility without increased capacity leaves us vulnerable to a decline in the quality of scrutiny, which is our primary role as a Parliament. For this reason, I welcome the recommendation that legislation be introduced early in the next Senedd term to elect between 20 and 30 additional Members to the Senedd in 2026.

I also welcome the recommendation that measures to alleviate capacity pressures should be implemented in the sixth Senedd, and many have referred to the need to do that as well as we start the work on the sixth Senedd. In my view, we should continue to consider all possible measures to alleviate the pressures facing the 60 current Members; those of us who are here at present and those who will be here following the next election.

In my role as Chair of the Business Committee and Chair of the Senedd Commission, I will seek to ensure that a review of the measures taken in this Senedd to address capacity pressures is part of our legacy work and ready to be implemented in the sixth Senedd. This will include consideration of the committee's other comments on ways of working, such as those outlined in recent correspondence from the committee Chair, Dawn Bowden, to me, and I'm grateful to her for those comments and recommendations.

Turning to the other recommendations made to the Senedd Commission, as a body, we will give careful consideration to how we monitor the impact of public information and education campaigns and the possibility of developing a systematic and proactive approach to assessing the impact of the scrutiny and oversight work of the Senedd. For my part, I will ensure that the Commission fulfils its role in this regard so that we can provide a Senedd that scrutinises Government and serves the people of Wales to the best of its ability.

I call the Minister for Housing and Local Government, Julie James. 

Thank you, acting Deputy Presiding Officer. I, too, would like to begin by thanking the committee for their very hard work. This has been an extremely difficult year, and as everyone has pointed out, COVID-19 has absolutely disrupted our processes and taken priority in all of our workloads. But in a time of unprecedented uncertainty where we have all be strained, the committee has produced a very comprehensive report and I'd like to pay particular tribute to the Chair of the committee, Dawn Bowden, for her commitment and hard work in this regard.

The reforms that we are talking about are, of course, already under way. The 2021 Senedd elections will be, for the first time in Wales, ones where 16 and 17-year-olds as well as qualifying foreign citizens will be able to play a full part in our democracy. The committee has outlined a number of recommendations to help the Senedd be a more diverse Parliament and better representative of the people it serves. Many of those recommendations are for the next Senedd to consider, but the committee has also identified a few more immediate issues, and today, acting Presiding Officer, in the interest of time, I'll confine my remarks to those.

I particularly welcome the committee's recommendations on enabling disabled people to stand for election. We've been working on our diversity and democracy agenda since 2018. We're taking action on this in two respects. First, we are bringing forward legislation this autumn to exempt disability-related expenditure from election campaign spending limits. And second, we're establishing a pilot 'access to elected office' fund. This will provide financial assistance to help disabled people stand for election, and it will be open for next year's Senedd election as well as for the local government elections in 2022. By removing barriers in this way, we aim to help create a much more diverse and representative Senedd.

The committee made a number of other linked recommendations, which I think are extremely important. We've already accepted the recommendation about commencing section 106 of the Equality Act 2010, when it was made by the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee, and we are giving careful consideration to the recommendations about broader expenditure exemptions and financial assistance to help other under-represented groups and those with caring responsibilities.

The idea of a larger Senedd is not a new one, and, as everyone has pointed out, has been recommended both the Richard commission in 2004 and the independent expert panel in 2017. The referendum in 2011 gave a resounding platform for this institution, and I don't think we need to revisit it, as a number of people who have contributed to this debate have sought to do.

I do intend to publish the Welsh Government's formal response to the committee's recommendations in the coming weeks. The Welsh Government welcomes the committee's insight and once again would like to thank them for producing their report despite the extremely challenging circumstances.

It is, of course, acting Deputy Presiding Officer, at times of crisis when we see most acutely the need for a strong and representative Parliament for our nation. The committee's work is a significant contribution to that, and I pay tribute to them. Diolch yn fawr.

I call Dawn Bowden to reply to the debate.

Can I thank everybody who's contributed to the debate this afternoon for the largely supportive comments that have been made? Siân, Huw, Dai, the Llywydd and the Minister have all identified some of the key aspects of the report around equality and diversity, political consensus, new ways of working, scrutiny, better legislation, and the need for a stronger Parliament. That is all what this report sets out to do.

In terms of the contributions from Neil Hamilton and Gareth Bennett, they were utterly predictable. Neil Hamilton talks about evidence not being taken on the other alternatives, but of course evidence was taken from a very wide range of stakeholders. Everybody had the opportunity to submit their evidence and to submit their views, and whether they chose to do so was a matter for them. In terms of referenda, again, we've already heard that there is no requirement in law for a referendum. We've had two referenda on the establishment of this place and powers, and a third referendum would not be necessary unless the Member in charge of taking the legislation through the sixth Senedd indicated that that was what they wanted to be a part of the legislative process.

I do think it's important, Llywydd, just to point out that whilst it suits the populist political agenda of some people here to make all this about more Members and try to make that the headlines, and deflect from anything else, we have to acknowledge that is a central plank of the proposed reforms, of course. I truly believe that if we had a representative and deliberative consultation process with the public as we had planned to do—and Neil Hamilton's comments about a citizens' assembly just demonstrated to me that he clearly doesn't understand what a citizens' assembly is and how it works, because it is a very deliberative consultative process. It can join a wide range of people. We had planned to do that until the pandemic hit us, but we still need to convince people of the need for what we have set out to do.

So, there is still very much more to do in relation to the recommendations of this report. It is about how this Senedd truly represents the people of Wales through inclusivity and diversity, and how the people of Wales can deliver representatives who are truly reflective of their views with an electoral system that ensures that everyone in this place is directly accountable to a constituency that elects them. And again, I have to say to Neil Hamilton, I don't know what he does during his time as a Member of the Senedd, but for most of us, this is a 24/7 job, and it's not about three days a week sitting in Tŷ Hywel or in the Senedd. This is about the work we do in our constituencies, with our communities as well as the work that we do in this place. 

Llywydd, as far back as 2004, we had a commission set up to look at the many issues of powers and electoral arrangements for this Senedd. That commission recommended more powers and more Members. We got the first, but the second has not yet followed. Despite the commission and the McAllister review, votes in this Senedd and this committee report, we're still debating these fundamental issues. But how many more commissions, reviews and reports do we need to tell us what we already know? It is now about having the courage to take this forward, because this whole package of measures would deliver a more accountable legislature, more responsive to the needs of people of Wales, and more able to ensure good governance and good government. I hope this Senedd approves this report, and that we can build a political and public consensus that will finally deliver the changes proposed. 

Thank you. The proposal is to note the committee's report. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I see Members objecting, and I therefore defer voting under this item until voting time.

Item 9 is a debate on the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee report, 'Into sharp relief: inequality and the pandemic'. I call the Chair of the committee to move the motion—John Griffiths.

Diolch yn fawr. I'm pleased to open today's debate on the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee's report on inequality and the COVID pandemic. I would like to start by thanking all those organisations and individuals who, despite the many pressures placed upon them by the pandemic, took the time to share their views and experiences. Our report and our 44 recommendations were very much rooted in this evidence.

Of course, no section of society has been spared the impact of the pandemic, but the very stark reality is that it has been the individuals, households or communities that have the least who have borne the brunt of it—whether that be mortality rates, reduced income or impact on mental health and well-being. Everybody has been affected by the pandemic, but while for many of us the difficulties can be managed, and even some of the sharper edges of the discomfort rubbed off, this is not the case for those who are already the poorest and the most disadvantaged. The pandemic has laid bare those inequalities that have been present in our society for far too long. So, I think it's very apt that in our report we quoted the words of the Secretary General of the United Nations, who said that while we are all in the same sea,

'it's clear that some are in superyachts while others are clinging to drifting debris.'

As I said, we made 44 recommendations, and I'm very pleased that the vast majority have been accepted—34 out of the 44 accepted in full, seven accepted in principle, one accepted in part—and only two rejected. The recommendations cover a wide range of areas from policy development, data, citizen engagement to education, benefits, fair work, accessibility and health and social care. I cannot seek to do justice to all of those in the time available to me, so I'm going to focus my comments today primarily on poverty. 

It is worth noting that we published our report in what now feels like a very different stage in the pandemic, in that all-too-brief interlude as the initial lockdown restrictions were eased, but before the resurgence of the virus that has led to almost half of us in Wales being back under some form of localised restrictions. We said in the report that as well as helping to inform the plan for recovery, we hoped our findings could help the response to any further waves of infection, so that the same mistakes are not repeated.

As a committee, we have been calling for a cross-Government tackling-poverty strategy, underpinned by clear targets and data, since 2017. This report was the third time we have made this recommendation; first, in our Communities First report, where it was rejected, and then in our report on making the economy work for people on low incomes, when again it was rejected. So, I'm pleased now to report some progress, in that this time it has been accepted in principle, but I do believe the accompanying commentary to that acceptance in principle could have been fuller and more convincing, in terms of its content and its detail.

We know strategies on their own will not solve the problem of entrenched poverty in Wales, but a clear, strategic approach with targeted actions, focusing on those who are either in poverty or most at risk of falling into poverty, is the only way we can be assured of knowing that the right actions are being taken at the right time and in the right places.

We know the Welsh Government does not have all of the levers necessary to eradicate poverty in Wales, and only a few weeks ago I spoke on the need for further devolution of benefits, but this is why it is so important that the Welsh Government uses all of the tools available to it. It has to maximise the impact of every single action; it needs to have the data and evidence to enable it to evaluate and monitor success and, where necessary, to change tack.

Our committee has not been alone in calling for this strategy; others, including Oxfam, agree with us. In its response, the Welsh Government cites the review into tackling-poverty programmes, but does not provide any detail of the steps that the Government has agreed to take, so I would ask the Minister to tell us what actions will be taken to maximise the incomes of families and, also, individuals.

One of the ways in which the Welsh Government provides support is through the discretionary assistance fund, or DAF. As the head of Oxfam Wales told us,

'If I was in financial crisis today, I would not put the phrase "discretionary assistance fund" into Google.'

She added that not enough people were aware of it. This is a long-standing issue, as we noted in our report, so it is surprising to see the Government describe it as a recognised brand. While we welcome the additional support that is being provided through the pandemic via the DAF, is the Welsh Government really confident that everybody who needs the support offered by it is accessing it?

The pandemic should and must act as the catalyst for us to finally address the inequalities that are far too prevalent in Wales, not just to help with recovery from the pandemic, but to build a fairer and more equal country into the future. I now look forward to hearing contributions from across the Senedd and the Deputy Minister's response. Diolch yn fawr. 

Although our report notes that since March

'the Welsh Government has taken a number of measures to address the specific or unequal effects on certain groups of people',

it also states that many respondents to our inquiry stressed the need for immediate action rather than the production of more strategies, and that

'in drawing up policies and actions that address these issues, there must be real and meaningful engagement with those most affected.'

The Welsh Government's response to our report's first recommendation states that they will

'look to learn the lessons of the past few months to ensure that consideration of impact continues to be an integral part of how decisions are made by the Welsh Government.'

However, as our report evidences, this is more a matter of becoming, rather than continuing to be, an integral part of how the Welsh Government makes decisions. As our report also notes, it is important that decisions by the Welsh Government and other public bodies are

'informed by lived experience to make sure that existing equalities are not entrenched, but addressed.'

In responding to our recommendation 4, the Welsh Government states that when resources become available, public sector equality duty review work will be restarted. However, it is now nine and a half years since the public sector equality duty came into force in Wales, underpinned by specific duties including engagement, involving and consulting people and assessing the impact of policies. Although this duty applies to all listed public authorities in Wales, my casework pre and post COVID is jam packed with examples of public authorities creating further barriers to the real detriment of people with protected characteristics, particularly disability. Failure to resource and prioritise this now will exacerbate inequality during this pandemic and put greater pressure on public resources at every level.

The Welsh Government's acceptance in principle only of our recommendation that it should publish a cross-Government poverty reduction strategy, with targets and performance indicators, is frankly unacceptable. And their statement that they remain committed to developing their approach to anti-poverty policies and programmes in the future would be risible if this wasn't so serious. 

As our report states, we have repeatedly made the case for the need for a cross-cutting, comprehensive tackling poverty strategy, with clear targets, deliverables and milestones that progress can be assessed against, as our Chair has previously emphasised. The Bevan Foundation has stated we need an anti-poverty strategy that clearly sets the steps that the Welsh Government intend to take to reduce the number of people living in poverty in Wales. 

In accepting our recommendation 17, the Welsh Government states that it wants to make it as easy as possible for people to claim devolved benefits, such as free school meals and council tax reductions, adding that they're working with local authorities and other key stakeholders to identify potential solutions. However, it's now almost two years since Community Housing Cymru called for the Welsh Government and local authorities to work with Jobcentre Plus in Wales to co-locate services and enable applications for local authority benefits to be made at the same time as universal credit. The Bevan Foundation has again recently called for the Welsh Government to encourage local authorities to establish a single point of access for free school meals, the pupil development grant access and the council tax reduction scheme. 

In accepting recommendation 37, the Welsh Government state they've set up an accessible communications group, including organisations that have testified to the difficulties those who are deaf or hard of hearing, blind or visually impaired, with learning difficulties or are autistic experienced when trying to access clear and concise information during the coronavirus pandemic. However, one of the organisations that attended told me: 'The meeting was far from accessible for those there. It was honestly like a sitcom on how not to run a meeting with disabled and deaf people and would have been funny in any other circumstance.'

Finally, in accepting our recommendation 38, the Welsh Government states that it is continuing to consider opportunities to improve support for those with no recourse to public funds. However, specialist services are now calling for clarity on how homelessness support for survivors with no recourse to public funds will continue. To be effective in supporting all survivors with no recourse to public funds, the Welsh Government must therefore tell us whether it will agree a sustainable funding model with specialist violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence services and local authorities this Senedd term to ensure safe, secure accommodation. Diolch yn fawr.

I'd like to thank our committee Chair, Members and the clerking team for the work that they've put into this inquiry and this report. We should all be angry about how COVID-19 has affected some people in our society more than others. That anger shouldn't fade. We should use the anger to compel us to make sure we change the way our society functions, because COVID-19 has not been a leveller. People in the poorest communities have not only experienced higher mortality, as we've heard, but they've also been more likely to lose income, have employment reduced and faced periods of restrictions and lockdown in a smaller space. Housing has been recognised not just as a functionality, but a provider of security and solace, and people without that security and solace have been exposed to an unnecessary and unconscionable risk.

The lockdown and now the restrictions are also having a disproportionate impact on people in the poorest communities. As our report makes clear, children with the lowest educational attainment before the pandemic will have fallen further behind their peers. Disabled people are more likely to face difficulties because of the challenges to the environment caused by social distancing. And, of course, those with caring responsibilities being more likely than not women—though not always—are more likely to face difficulties in employment, as facilities like childcare, education and routine social care become less available.

Now, I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have restrictions, but we should be more targeted on keeping the virus out of our communities altogether, and we should have mitigation plans for dealing with the effect of the restrictions. But poverty is not the only inequality we should consider. Seventeen and 18-year-olds went through the A-level debacle and are now either in university in very difficult circumstances or facing levels of unemployment not seen since the 1980s. Young people and children have missed out on seeing friends and socialising, which is important for development, but also mental health and joy. The importance of joy in all our lives should not be discounted. We must find ways of giving young people hope again. 

Llywydd dros dro, another group that's faced unprecedented strain and worry these past few months has been older people. It was noted yesterday that the Government's report looking at recovery after COVID-19 does not make much mention of older people, which is an oversight that must be corrected. Because older people, residents of care homes especially, have been marginalised; they've been made to feel like their lives don't matter as much. More than 1,000 residents of care homes were discharged from hospitals without tests, and an investigation by the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the older people's commissioner into whether the human rights of older people were breached is ongoing.

There is an obligation on all of us to ensure that this narrative of marginalisation doesn't set in. Ninety-four per cent of everyone who has died from COVID-19 has been over the age of 60. Damage has been done and there's a further danger that older people and the many ills done to them will not be part of the story that this Government wants to tell. They must be central, because if we don't learn the lessons about the myriad inequalities that have been exposed by this virus, the same pattern will be repeated.

Let's look at the early response to the pandemic, particularly the UK Government's complacency, and compare it with other tragedies that have befallen our poorest communities. We see worrying patterns. In Grenfell, warning signs went unheeded for years because the people who were crying out weren't listened to. The British establishment has spent the past few years determined to not learn lessons, to not acknowledge responsibility and to not concede that poverty doesn't just strip people in this state of wealth, but of a voice. That can't be allowed to continue.

Likewise with COVID-19, a decade or more of austerity meant that there were insufficient stocks of personal protective equipment, whilst our defective social security system left many people unable to self-isolate when they needed to. Our society should be built around the needs of our most vulnerable citizens. Inequality cannot be a catalyst for disease. Our anger should not diminish. This should be a rallying cry, a chance for things to change, not just a report that gets noted. Diolch.

Alun Davies.

I'm grateful to you, acting Presiding Officer. I have to say that this report is an excellent piece of work and I think all of us should be very grateful to John Griffiths as Chair, but all Members across all sides of this Chamber who contributed to this report, and, of course, the staff who worked on it as well. I think it reflects poorly on some of those Members who were here to contribute to the previous debate, but have disappeared back into the depths of their mansions for this debate, when this debate demonstrates the power of this place, the power of the committee system and the power of democracy to hold a Government to account. I was very proud to be a Member of this Senedd when I read this report, because I was very proud of the thoroughness and the work that had gone into the detail of this report. I think all of us will be grateful to see and have the opportunity to examine how this report will shape and influence Government policy in the future.

The findings, acting Presiding Officer, are as stark as any of us would expect and anticipate and any of us have seen in our own communities over recent months—the impact that the virus, the pandemic, has had on people living in poverty, on older people, on ethnicity in and across Wales. We've seen how the virus has not been a virus that has hit people equally, but has had a disproportionate impact on those people who are, in some ways, the weakest and most vulnerable in our society, but also the people who need the support of a community and a Government that has to be on their side. And I think the report sets that out clearly, and all of us need to take note of this.

I'll be interested to hear how the Minister responds to this debate, but I'm grateful to Ministers—and I say 'Ministers'—over the last few months for the way in which they've put people first. It's very difficult responding to a pandemic when the science will change, our experience will grow and our knowledge will grow over time, because people will point to a decision taken in March and then ask why a different decision was taken in May or June. People will seek certainty in a science that simply doesn't exist and therefore Ministers and officials and scientists need to take decisions. And those decisions are based, obviously and clearly, on our knowledge and experience, but they're also based on our values—what is important. What we've seen in Wales is a Government rooted in the values of putting people's health and people's well-being first, and I think that's something that has united people across the country. And I hope that opposition parties will also recognise that, not only in this debate but in the months to come.

There are two points I wish to make, acting Presiding Officer. In the same way as the virus has targeted, if you like, the most vulnerable in society, so must Government support. The Government needs to look hard at ensuring that, when we are imposing regulations—and I think the Government has acted in an entirely proportionate way, in dealing with these matters—the measures that have been put in place to deal with the pandemic are being proportional to the threat from the pandemic, but are also, of course, disproportional in their impact on particular people in our communities. We know that poor people, women, we know that older people and children have been disproportionately impacted by the regulations, and we know why that is happening, and we understand why that is happening, but it does mean that the Government's support needs to be targeted at those people as well.

And if I could, acting Presiding Officer, say a particular word about the situation facing children with additional learning needs and children who come from deprived backgrounds. We know that these children are the people who are the most at threat from disruption to services and to the support that they require on a day-to-day, week-by-week basis. And I hope that, throughout all of our actions, we will always ensure that there is the support for children who are from deprived backgrounds and who have additional learning needs that means they must have the support available, because they cannot catch up quickly in six months or catch up in a couple of months, or have the sort of private support that is provided in some places.

In the same way as the measures to address the pandemic have to be supported by measures that support the people, so must the recovery. The recovery must be targeted at those who have lost the most, and I thought the report was very, very convincing on this particular issue. We need to ensure that we are able to put in the funding and to put in the resources to ensure that the communities who will be most greatly affected by the regulations that are in place, but also by the economic disruption that has been created by the pandemic, have a safety net, if you like, but that there's also investment in those people and in those places at the end of the day. I'm looking at my screen now and I can see my colleague Dawn Bowden, who represents the next-door constituency. She knows and I know how Merthyr and Rhymney and Tredegar are intricately linked, and that the communities just across the hill from where I am at the moment in Rhymney will be as affected as my own community here in Tredegar, and we need to ensure that we have support in place.

I won't, acting Presiding Officer—

Alun, you are way out of time. I've been very generous to you, especially when you were making those felicitations to your neighbour, but we will have to leave it there. Caroline Jones.

Diolch, acting Presiding Officer. I would like to thank our committee Chair and the committee clerks for their amazing work throughout this inquiry. COVID-19 certainly meant that this was no ordinary inquiry. Remote working made holding such an inquiry even more challenging. However, the challenges faced by committee members pale into insignificance when compared with the challenges faced by the wider community.

COVID-19 has caused the deaths of over 1 million people around the globe, and over 1,600 people in Wales. Sadly, even those who do recover from this awful disease can be left with long-term, life-limiting conditions. I have had constituents tell me that they still struggle to breathe months offer recovering from COVID-19. The long-term impacts of long COVID are only starting now to be understood, but Governments must help those impacted and ensure that they receive all the necessary support. The toll that COVID-19 is having continues to rise as infections continue to spread, and, in order to try to halt an exponential rise in the death toll, Governments closed down large parts of the economy, causing one of the biggest economic collapses in history.

As our committee discovered, the downturn has hit and disproportionately impacted the most disadvantaged in our society, and limited the life chances of younger generations. Measures designed to limit the spread have also disproportionately impacted the mental health and well-being of older people and those with disabilities. While we take measures to stop the spread of coronavirus, we have to mitigate the impact that they have on people's lives, and the best way we can limit the impact that COVID has on people's lives is to move away from lockdowns. Unfortunately, we can only do that if everyone obeys social distancing, wears a mask in public places and practices good hand hygiene, because the selfish actions of a few have led to outbreaks and the inevitable imposing of stricter restrictions on people's lives, restrictions that have an impact on people's mental health and economic well-being, restrictions that have had a disproportionate impact on younger generations. Young people have had their schooling interrupted, their exams cancelled and university life changed dramatically.

As the committee discovered, shutdown measures have hit the youngest workers the hardest, with employees under the age of 25 almost three times as likely to have been working in shutdown sectors. Those same young workers will be the ones left footing the bill for the billions of pounds that have been spent and will continue to be spent dealing with the impacts of this pandemic—the very same generation that will be left struggling with the devastating impacts of climate change and ecological disaster. The biggest inequality of this pandemic has been the fact that, although young people are the least likely to suffer the serious effects of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, they are the most likely to be impacted by measures aimed at curbing its spread. I urge the Welsh Government to do all it can to mitigate the impacts, to do all it can to ensure there won't be any further lockdowns and to provide additional support to improve the life chances of the under-25s. Diolch yn fawr.

Huw Irranca-Davies.

Acting Presiding Officer, thank you—I will try scaling Everest once again.

My thanks to my fellow committee members, and our Chair and our clerks, and especially those who gave evidence for helping us to bring forward wide-ranging recommendations in respect of our committee's report on inequality during the COVID-19 pandemic.

One thing is crystal clear: the harsh social and economic inequalities that have always been present have sharpened as a result of the pandemic. As such, the committee is equally clear that the responses to the pandemic must focus on those who have been most exposed by this virus and who are at greatest risk of suffering the deepening and entrenching of that inequality: those who are in poverty already, in precarious work on low incomes; those with lower educational attainment and skills, in the worst housing, and overcrowded and poor standard private rented housing; single parents, the vast majority of whom are women; low earners from certain ethnic groups working in that low-paid, precarious employment, exposed to the economic slowdown and the health inequalities affecting men and older people, but with a virus perniciously targeting people from certain black, Asian and minority ethnic groups; the women who, in the majority, have taken on the additional unpaid caring roles for children and older relatives that have arisen through COVID-19; children with low educational attainment, who will have fallen further behind; children with special education needs or additional learning needs, who will be likewise affected by the absence of educational and wider support during the pandemic; disabled people who've seen their world shrink because of necessary COVID measures; carers and older people receiving care at home, or in a residential setting, who have also seen the COVID world closing around them; and migrants, who are most likely to work in those shut-down sectors, and are even more exposed through their restricted access to benefits and other public funds.

These are the same people, collectively and individually—because behind this there are thousands upon thousands of individual human stories—who were already vulnerable to poverty and inequality before, but the harsh winds of coronavirus have shaken violently what defences were previously in place. So, I'm pleased, therefore, that the Government has indeed accepted, or largely accepted, or accepted in principle, the vast majority of our recommendations—so, for example, on equality impact assessments, to comply with our human rights obligations and public sector equality duties; on health and care and coronavirus-related data gathering; on the impact of the Coronavirus Act 2020 on measures affecting social care and mental health duties; on poverty reduction strategies and targets and performance indicators; on school meals and summer holidays; on fair work measures to a values-led recovery, and implementation of the Fair Work Commission's recommendations; on additional funding to advice services on benefits and employment and discrimination, especially for BAME and disabled employees; on a benefits take-up campaign; on exploring automatic entitlement to devolved benefits; on reviewing and rolling out the BAME advisory group's assessment tool; on promoting fair and flexible work to all employers receiving Welsh Government support; maximising the income of unpaid carers through council tax discounts; on reviewing the accessibility and availability of mental health services, especially for men from lower socioeconomic groups; on delivering a sustainable funding model for the violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence sector before the end of this Senedd; on data collection for older abuse victims; on updating and reviewing community cohesion and hate crime plans and frameworks; and, I have to say, on lobbying the UK Government for the lifting of 'no recourse to public funds' restrictions; on migrant awareness training for front-line public staff; and on targeting employment support at those who are furthest from the labour market, and so on.

Now, the Government has rejected a couple of our recommendations with reasons, and some are accepted only in principle, as I say. But I welcome the fact that we have a Government that has responded positively to the vast majority of recommendations, and indeed has not waited to act on many of them already. It's clearly committed to tackling the inequalities that have been brought into such sharp relief by this pandemic. If anything positive at all comes out of this personal and human tragedy of COVID-19, in which many have lost their lives and their loved ones, then it must be, surely, the redoubling of our efforts to reduce the inequalities in life that are there by chance of birth and chance of geography. Let's extend our hands further to help people up when the world must seem to them to be always knocking them down. Thank you. 

I call the Deputy Minister and Chief Whip, Jane Hutt. 

Thank you, acting Presiding Officer. I'd like to start by thanking John Griffiths and the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee for bringing forward this debate today, for the work that the committee has undertaken to produce a very comprehensive report, 'Into sharp relief: inequality and the pandemic'. I have to say that this is a report that is very fundamentally important to the Welsh Government in terms of our responses and in terms of the wide spread of issues and recommendations that you have brought forward. Of course, we've responded to the committee on each recommendation, addressing the policies and responses to the pandemic from across the Welsh Government, and I think that's a crucial point to make. The committee inquiry took evidence from across the spectrum of Welsh Government responsibilities, and many Ministers are engaged and responding, requiring a cross-Government response to assess that impact of the pandemic and the inequalities it has exposed, which you've all so powerfully spoken of in this debate. And I do agree with the Chair, John Griffiths, that we need to use all the tools available to us to tackle poverty and inequality, and your report and the responses that we have given demonstrate how we can address this and particularly, across all the recommendations, really, do relate to your recommendation 7.

I think the focus on equality and human rights is fundamental. It's key to the report's themes and recommendations. It accords with our commitment to high positive equality impact decisions set out in our 'Leading Wales out of the coronavirus pandemic: a framework for recovery', and also 'Unlocking our society and economy', and, indeed, the report on reconstructing Wales that the Counsel General presented yesterday afternoon. But what's clear from the report, and what we know as we go about our daily lives, and as you've all given such clear evidence of, is that no aspect of society has been untouched by this pandemic. And we know that the impact of the pandemic has not fallen equally, with disproportionate impacts on our black, Asian and minority ethnic citizens, our older people, disabled people, those in poverty, on children, people with co-morbidities—you've spoken about all of these who are most disadvantaged—those who are suffering mental health issues and those who are homeless, among others; in short, the most disadvantaged members of our society. And these disproportionate impacts are at the forefront of our work, and I'm grateful to the many people and organisations who not only gave evidence to you but have actually joined with us in the Welsh Government to help us design appropriate actions. As we've responded to this health crisis, our goal has been to protect the most disadvantaged, seeking to identify and address the disproportionate impacts as they emerge. 

I spoke a lot yesterday in the race debate—the debate against racism and race inequalities—about the work that we've already undertaken, which you acknowledge in the report: the BAME COVID-19 advisory group, under the leadership of Judge Ray Singh, advising us on action to address the horrifying disparity in deaths from COVID-19 among BAME people; the risk assessment tool mentioned in the debate, developed by Professor Keshav Singhal, used now to protect people's lives in the health service, social care and beyond; and, of course, Professor Ogbonna's recommendations to the socioeconomic group, which are being implemented. 

Equality and human rights considerations have been fundamental to all decisions on how to respond to the health crisis and work towards recovery, and we have to reflect on some of the steps we've taken and, again, it's important—this scrutiny through your report helps us with those reflections. And one point I'd like to make in terms of recommendations is that we fully understand the unease that the committee and others have expressed about the Coronavirus Act 2020, section 12, which relates to social care— shared amongst many of our key partners and stakeholders affected. The Deputy Minister for Health and Social Services has asked her officials to undertake a rapid engagement exercise to seek stakeholders' views, and will use the results to inform decisions about suspension or retention of these provisions. This consultation began on 2 October, closing on 2 November, with decisions being made shortly after. If the outcome is to remove the provisions, we anticipate the necessary secondary legislation, made in November or early December, could come into force very quickly, subject to the Senedd's consideration. So, we are already responding to those recommendations.

Turning to the recommendations that we should build on implementing the public health communications that have been recommended in the BAME advisory group, I fully accept that recommendation, as I said yesterday, and we are continuing to ensure that we get it right about how we message and how we work with disadvantaged groups, and that we get those communications right. That's why our disability equality forum is so important, and the accessible communication group can learn from those with lived experience, disabled people, who join us to tell us how we should get this right.

We've worked with Public Health Wales to ensure that their coronavirus information pages are translated into over 100 languages, and distributed through our networks. And also, our nation of sanctuary website is providing translated information for refugees and asylum seekers. I mentioned yesterday our funding of the BAME helpline outreach workers in each health board for working with BAME citizens, and also recognising this is about building trust and everyone having access to relevant support and advice.

So, your report covers so many policy areas but education is key, and has been mentioned in the debate. It's clear that many learners have not progressed as much as they might and that some have been impacted more seriously than others. To address this, as you know—you've said in the report—the education Minister announced an investment of £29 million to recruit, recover and raise standards to ensure schools and pupils have the support they need.

I fully accept the need for better data on equalities. We've taken steps to improve the quality of data on ethnicity and coronavirus mortality through the implementation of the e-form, including for health workers. And we will continue to work with partners in the NHS and social care to encourage better recording of equality data in both staff and wider health records, and overcome the reluctance some citizens have in providing information. And we are actively working with agencies such as the Office for National Statistics and Public Health Wales to provide new insights into the data that we hold. Fundamentally—and again mentioned yesterday—our emerging plans for a race disparity unit will strengthen our capacity and capability to act on what the data is telling us.

Understandably, the review of the Welsh public sector equality duty was temporarily halted during the pandemic, but in a similar way, of course, PSED reporting obligations were suspended for six months by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. But we are restarting that work, building on the work already under way to improve the findings and the publication of employment and other equalities data. And the findings of that research to strengthen the equality and human rights in Wales will be an important source of evidence for the PSED review work. 

We are fully committed to the priorities and ambitions for a fair work nation set out in 'Fair Work Wales', and accept the recommendations of the committee that we secure a values-led recovery by adopting additional fair work measures. I do want to mention advice services, the single advice fund that is helping to meet increasing demand for access to advice services, which is crucial in terms of tackling poverty; £8.2 million grant funding has been awarded to providers, including specialist services on welfare benefits, employment and discrimination. 

A couple of final points before I finish. I think the point about the discretionary assistance fund and your recommendations about it are important, because since 2013 we've made over 370,000 awards, with more than £66.4 million being spent in grant funding supporting the most vulnerable people. I think the flexibilities to the discretionary assistance fund during the pandemic have been key, and I know you welcome them; they've been responsive to people's needs. Currently, 66 per cent of the fund relates to emergency payments. And we are in the process of establishing a VAWDASV commissioner group that will support more strategic and sustainable approaches to commissioning VAWDASV services, including children and young people services across Wales.

Members have mentioned recommendation 38. I welcome the fact that you are asking us to lobby the UK Government for the lifting of the no recourse to public funds restrictions and that you're joining the Welsh Government, because we are advocating for changes to the immigration system and we welcome your support. But we have had no response to the Counsel General's letter, as we say in response to the recommendation, urging the Home Secretary to lift the restrictions during the COVID-19 crisis. But it is the Welsh Government that's responded to improve support for those with no recourse to public funds. But the committee can help us in that lobbying of the UK Government, and our Welsh Conservatives, indeed, can do that.

The pandemic has brought into sharp relief the inequalities in our society, and Welsh Government's commitment to reducing these inequalities and to eradicating child poverty has not wavered, and we're continuing to work to achieving our goals. And next week I look forward to making my statement on the hate crime framework that we're developing—indeed, it'll be National Hate Crime Awareness Week. I know that the issues that you've brought forward in your report will be addressed not just by myself as Minister for equalities, but by every Minister in the Welsh Government. I thank you and your committee, Chair, for producing this very important report for us in the Senedd in these very challenging times. Diolch yn fawr.

And John Griffiths to reply to the debate.

Diolch yn fawr. Well, I'd like to thank everybody, obviously, for their contributions, which were very wide ranging, as is the report, but also, I think, showed a real passion for these concerns that we all have, and a real force to the arguments and the points made to find better ways of addressing the inequalities and the vulnerabilities that we have in Wales, which, as so many Members said, were brought into stark relief, as we say in the title of the report, by the pandemic.

Yes, the recovery must be targeted at those who have lost the most, and when we talk about building back better, it must be about rectifying these existing inequalities. So, it was very good to hear from the Minister, Jane Hutt, just how engaged the whole of the Welsh Government is in these matters and in making sure that the response to the challenges is everything that it needs to be. I think that commitment and, again, that passion came through very clearly.

Yes, it is wide ranging in terms of the issues, and it is very challenging, but we know that some things have already been done, because, obviously, it's about the short term during the pandemic as well as the medium and longer term. I think one example of Welsh Government action, which was very welcome, was the way that the issues around rough-sleepers were dealt with, with additional funding, but also clear thinking and strong partnerships that meant that that funding was used to best effect. Then, to follow it up with further funding so that we don't slip back from the progress made was just what all of those who were delivering the services to rough-sleepers and homeless people were calling for and wanted. So, that's one good example, I think, where, difficult though the challenges are, we can, here in Wales, take effective action and make necessary progress, and it's good to have those examples to draw on.

People rightly mentioned the issues around our black and ethnic minority communities and, again, I think we have examples here where Welsh Government acted quickly in setting up the working group with Professor Ogbonna. That group produced some practical ways forward, including the toolkit to assess risk, and then act on that assessed risk, again showing that it is perfectly possible, with the right sort of commitment and organisation, to act quickly and meaningfully. So, daunting though the challenges are, it's another example of how they can be effectively addressed and dealt with. We do need those examples because I think we need to take heart ourselves and make sure that all of those out there delivering the services understand that it's perfectly possible to deal with the scale of the challenge in working together.

Many Members and the Minister mentioned the need to engage meaningfully and effectively, and I know Mark Isherwood mentioned this, and he rightly very often does: we have to find new ways to make sure that we really are reaching out into our communities, into those that are most vulnerable and in the greatest difficulty and to those providing the services to them, to really understand their situations and to make sure that we're moving forward together in that spirit of co-production, which I know Mark Isherwood, again, rightly, is also very keen on.

So, it's clear, isn't it, that one size doesn't fit all and that policies, interventions, funding and legislation do have to be targeted and tailored for different needs and experiences. The only way that we can do that is through that level and depth and breadth of engagement. I'm confident from what we've heard that Welsh Government will move forward in that spirit and in that way. I do believe that the recommendations in the report are practical and that they are short to medium-term actions in the main, but they will help produce a fairer country, which is what we all want.

It was really good to hear Members and particularly, I think, Alun Davies, who isn't a member of the committee, paying tribute to the work of the committee staff as well as the committee members and all those who gave evidence. Because I do believe that our committees here in the Assembly fulfil a very important role, and the staff that back them up do an amazing job. Too often, although we are, I think, consistent in making those points, in Wales as a whole, perhaps, too often, we're not really singing from the rooftops what our committees do and the importance of the work and just what practical effect it has in partnership with Government.

So, housing was mentioned by Delyth Jewell, and that, I think, is something that the committee has concentrated on quite a lot over a period of time, and rightly so, because insecurities in housing, overcrowding in housing, poor-quality housing, insecurity of tenure and so on really did come across strongly in terms of the impact that they have on people's lives in general, but also their health. And in the pandemic it was an important part of the vulnerability that certain sections of our society have, and they are the people with the protected characteristics, and very often there is that intersectionality between them that really does put them in very difficult positions, and housing is very often at the very base of that.

We do have to deal with the data issues again, as the Minister said, because it's so obvious, isn't it, that unless we're in a position to know where we are and whether we're moving forward effectively through meaningful data, then we're never going to know whether our policies are having the impact that we require from them. We have to work at this to produce more meaningful data, otherwise we'll never have the evidence base that we need, and when we talk about evidence-based policy, we won't really be able to back that up in terms of the data situation that we have.

I know I'm getting dangerously close to the time available to me, so let me just finish by saying, in terms of the tackling poverty strategy that we've consistently called for as a committee, it is something that we will follow up further with the work that we do in the remainder of this Assembly term, but it would be really good to see Welsh Government setting out some detail and timing in terms of the steps it will take to produce that, I think, vital tackling poverty cross-Government strategy. We've called for it consistently over a long period of time because of the evidence that we've had and because of the backing from key organisations in Wales that are working to understand and tackle poverty. So, I do think that recommendation has real force. I'm pleased that it is now accepted in principle, but we do need to see detail and timing behind that acceptance in principle as we move forward. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you. The proposal is to note the committee's report. Does any Member object? I see no Member objecting, and therefore the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

We will now suspend proceedings to allow for change-overs in the Chamber.

The next item on the agenda this afternoon is the Plaid Cymru debate on the challenges facing the arts, culture and heritage sectors, and I call on Siân Gwenllian to move the motion.

Thank you, Llywydd. I apologise for that slight delay. The arts in Wales touch each and every one of us and every community in Wales. Wales is a melting pot of talent. We are a nation where culture is at the heart of our way of life. How would the past few months have been if it hadn't been for the arts? Without the entertainment, the time to reflect and the opportunity to come together whilst remaining apart. The Government of our nation should also espouse the importance of the arts for the economy, for society, for its preventative and spiritual role. But, that isn't how it is. Yesterday, 'Coronavirus reconstruction: challenges and priorities' was published by the Counsel General Jeremy Miles, but there is little mention of culture; culture isn't considered as a priority. Society, the economy, the environment, health, social care and well-being, political engagement and digital technology—those are the six specific areas of priority. There is one major priority missing, and that is culture and the arts. This is an area that is central to the redevelopment of the nation post COVID. The fact that it isn't listed is very disappointing, and says it all: the Welsh Government doesn't see our arts and culture as a priority. And in Jeremy Miles's document, there's little talk of anything that would help to safeguard the sector, to help it rebuild stronger or to use it as an important tool in that recovery.

In Ireland, there is an ongoing, positive dialogue between the sector and the Government, and a full appreciation of the importance of the arts in the recovery programmes. In New Zealand, the sector is central to their recovery; work has been given to hundreds of artists in the nation's schools as part of their recovery programmes, and there are many different funds and proposals in place, as well as a particular arts and culture recovery programme in place that includes all parts of the sector. Oh, to have an imaginative vision of that kind here in Wales.

In Wales, the arts and the creative sector are in the mire at the moment, or like a beautiful ship without a captain. In speaking to stakeholders across Wales, the message is the same: the Government has no clear vision; there is a lack of leadership and a lack of communication with the sector as a whole, including with the unions representing creative people.

There are positive developments, yes, such as the activities in Theatr Clwyd to name but one, but, on the whole, the lockdown has highlighted the great weaknesses that already existed. A top-down model—that's what we have here in Wales, with the arts council given funding to administer, with that trickling down. That's not the Plaid Cymru vision; rather, we put the emphasis on building from the bottom up and feeding our institutions.

The arts are one ecology here in Wales, with the various elements reinforcing and strengthening each other. But, for that arts-ecology wheel to turn effectively, you have to respect every part of it and to support every part of it. Without freelance workers, the system would collapse; without the institutions, there wouldn't be projects or infrastructure to support artistic practitioners.

But, where is the Welsh Government's emphasis? On attracting film companies from outside of Wales and centring them in Cardiff, rather than nurturing our inherent creativity from the bottom up. There was an announcement over the weekend that the Welsh Government had made a deal with Great Point, which will come to Seren Stiwdios—the new name for Pinewood. Why couldn't the Welsh Government focus on assisting the sector and Welsh companies working on the ground, rather than multinationals? 

The Welsh-medium sector is under specific threat. Evidence from the Welsh Language Commissioner to the culture and Welsh language committee notes that the Welsh language sector needs specific support because of the opportunities it provides for Welsh speakers to socialise through the medium of Welsh. We need assurances in the longer term that the Welsh language is given a central role in the workforce and output of the arts sector in its entirety as we move forward.

I turn now to our cultural institutions, and I want to mention just three. The national library has suffered as a result of systematic underfunding from the Welsh Government over a period of years. The recent tailored review, which has just been published, expresses major concern about the future of the national library, noting very clearly that the current situation is not sustainable.

The situation of our national museum is very vulnerable too. Certainly, underinvestment has been notable in terms of infrastructure and maintenance of sites. The Urdd—Urdd Gobaith Cymru—is facing what's been described by its chief executive as its most challenging period in its 98 years of history as a result of COVID-19. The organisation is facing a reduction of income of £14 million over the next two years.

We must stand against the disrespect shown to our national institutions and to the arts in general, as well as those working in the industry. We saw a perfect example of that disrespect just yesterday from Rishi Sunak, who infuriated musicians with his disrespectful comments. 

The UK Government were very reticent to provide financial support to the arts when the pandemic was at its height, and when a percentage of that funding came to Wales, far too late in the day, £6 million of it was missing. And just last week there was the announcement of a fund worth £7 million for freelance workers—the missing funding finding its way to the artists, perhaps? But it's too late in the day for many, who have long since given up trying to make a living in the arts, and our nation is losing out because of that.

The lockdown has highlighted the importance of the arts, in humanity's efforts to make sense of the world around us, but it has also drawn attention to just how vulnerable the sector is in Wales and that there's a great deal of work to be done before we deliver the ambitions of the well-being of future generations Act, which wants to see culture and the arts as a central part of everything that we do here in Wales.

We need to ensure that cultural activity takes root in our society and our economy and to create an interrelationship that is interactive and vibrant between the arts and all aspects of national life. That's not where we are at the moment, but that's where we will go when Plaid Cymru is in power in this place.

I have selected six of the 13 amendments tabled to the motion. If amendment 3 is agreed, amendment 4 will be deselected. And in accordance with Standing Order 12.23, I have not selected amendments 1, 10, 11, 12 and 13 tabled in the name of Neil Hamilton, nor amendments 6 and 7 tabled in the name of Darren Millar. I call now on Laura Anne Jones to move amendments 2, 3 and 9 tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Laura Anne Jones.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I move the amendments in the name of Darren Millar. We all recognise the value of arts and culture in our society. As well as enriching our lives, arts and culture have a wider more measurable impact on our economy, health and well-being, society and education. The current pandemic is continuing to have a devastating impact on our arts and creative industries. Theatres, galleries, music venues, heritage sites, museums, libraries, archives, festivals and cinemas are all at risk. 

The UK Conservative Government appreciates the grave challenges the arts face and the need to preserve them for future generations. That is why in July they announced a huge rescue package of over £1.5 billion to help weather the impact of the coronavirus. Thousands of organisations across a range of sectors are able to access the emergency grants and loans. This represents the biggest ever one-off investment in UK culture, providing a vital lifeline to the cultural and heritage organisations across this country. As a result of this new funding, Wales receives a consequential and additional £59 million, as outlined earlier, which we welcome in amendment 2. 

The Deputy Minister, however, announced in his cultural recovery fund that it would not consist of the full amount of the funding provided. As my colleague David Melding said at the time, the arts had been shortchanged by Welsh Ministers. I would ask the Deputy Minister: where has the additional funding gone, why isn't it being used to secure livelihoods in our creative industries and why isn't that money helping to secure the future of leisure and heritage venues and other organisations that contribute to the rich tapestry of Welsh life?

Not all the problems of the culture sector have been because of the coronavirus. The recent review of the National Library of Wales came after 10 years of financial problems, with income decreasing steadily year on year and a 23 per cent drop in staff numbers from 2008 to 2019. The reviewers concluded that the national library had not been as effective or consistent as it could have been in driving change, and they remained concerned about the lack of medium to long-term strategic plan. Our amendment 9 notes the outcome of the independent review and calls for an increase in baseline funding in the next financial year to put the finances of the institution on a more sustainable footing for the future. 

Our amendment 3 seeks to erase Plaid Cymru's opposition to planned military museums in Cardiff Bay. The first museum referred to is the museum of military medicine. It would tell the history of the four corps of the Army Medical Services: the Royal Army Medical Corps, the Royal Army Veterinary Corps, Royal Army Dental Corps and the Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps. The museum's archives, which go back to the Napoleonic wars, would be used by researchers in medicine and medical history. The second proposed museum is the museum of army music. I'm so disappointed to see that these proposals should be opposed by Plaid Cymru. In no way can it be claimed that museums of military medicine and music somehow glorify war. By letting their innate pacifism cloud their judgment, Plaid Cymru has exposed its contempt for those who serve and have served in these branches in our armed forces, and it again tries to pander to the cancel culture that would whitewash the history of a proud nation. Remembering war and commemorating sacrifice serves to ensure that mankind does not repeat the same mistakes.

Presiding Officer, these are challenging times for the arts and culture sector. I believe that recent funding provided by the UK Conservative Government demonstrates its understanding of the importance of our cultural assets and activities. If we act now, we can ensure that our arts and culture sector can grow and thrive once this crisis is over.

I call on the Deputy Minister for Culture, Sport and Tourism to move formally amendments 4, 5 and 8 tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans. 

Formally, thank you.

Formally. Thank you to the Deputy Minister. So, I next call Leanne Wood.

On the weekend, I was tagged into a tweet of a photograph from 1965 asking me if I could identify the location from the background surroundings. The photograph was entitled 'Brass band, Wales', and it was taken by Evelyn Hofer. It turned out to be a picture of the Mid-Rhondda Band, which is still going strong despite the challenges that all entertainers face because of COVID. When I shared the photograph on my local Facebook page, it quickly became apparent that generations of the same families have played in that band, and the descendants and family members of the men in the photograph were popping up on my page, and we even saw family members united for the first time as a result of that photo share.

So, a picture taken on the site of a former colliery in 1965 in my home patch of Penygraig says so much about our culture, our history and the importance of music in it. And, of course, now, all of these bands are struggling. They've been playing together and making music for decades. They've been through thick and thin and now their futures may be threatened by COVID. Our choirs are the same; they can't practice and they can't entertain us. Of course, we all understand the reasoning and that the priority has to be to stop the spread of COVID, but we must also not lose sight of how much people get from music making and what happens to us when we can't access it. We have to find ways, where we can, to enable music making to happen. It's so important to so many people.

Returning to that photograph, it reminded me of the words of one of my favourites, Welsh Marxist cultural critic Raymond Williams, when he said, 'Culture is ordinary'. To me, that short and simple statement is so important. So many aspects of our everyday culture have been changed or taken away. I talked about the impact of music, but the same is the case with the performing arts, comedy and all other forms of live entertainment. People work hard, earn money, and on weekends we may like to escape with the help of the arts or by going down the pub or the club or even the local bingo hall. Culture is ordinary, and so the culture of workingmen's clubs is as significant and it is as worthy of protecting as the more traditionally thought of aspects of our culture. And that goes for venues that are important to people of colour, like the Paddle Steamer Cafe, or the black history museum in Butetown that would serve many more people than military museums looking at music or medicine. How is this happening on Labour's watch?

So many communities have lost their local library, and pubs and shops may have closed, as well as community centres. The pub or the workingmen's club may be the only venue left. If that goes, that's it, cultural connections will be lost. It also goes for those venues that are important to our young people or gay people, like nightclubs and late-night music venues often located in prime spots in town centres or city centres. These venues need protecting so that club culture can carry on after COVID, because in nightclubs, people can party in a safe environment instead of being potentially attracted to alternative events like illegal raves.

I'm making these points to ensure that this debate includes all forms of culture. There cannot and should not be a hierarchy; different groups have different cultural expressions and all are valid and all need protecting.

Well, this is the week that Cineworld has announced that it is closing all of its cinemas across the UK, affecting 5,500 jobs. Staff will be made temporarily redundant. There are two sites in north Wales, in Llandudno and Broughton. My heart goes out to anyone affected by the decision. This announcement was immediately followed by Odeon announcing the same thing. I am particularly upset by this development, as the cinema was my very first experience of going out to be entertained when I was a child. Seeing something new and exciting, it was a real occasion. I think that seeing a film on a big screen is many people's first experience of the arts, and for children the pictures and the annual pantomime, if you are lucky, is filled with wonderment, escapism and enjoyment. And just like that, it's gone. And there are venues up and down the country, small theatres, live music venues, comedy clubs—some may have tried to open to schedule events, only to be thwarted by local lockdowns. It's one step forward and many steps back.

When I first saw the title of the debate, I thought it was a timely and sensitive intervention by Plaid, but I was wrong yet again as I read on. I really do take exception, and I've stated this before, to hanging any sort of hat on the Black Lives Matter hook. Though this is great sentiment, I have deep concerns about the core aims of the actual movement, although Plaid can make its own case for supporting a movement that wants to dismantle the state.

We usually sit in Cardiff Bay. It used to be Tiger Bay, and its heritage is steeped in inclusivity and the coming together of different communities and a welcome home of its maritime heritage. It's a shame that before devolution education in Wales was very light on Welsh history; I think, and I hope, that this has now changed. I know my children held annual eisteddfods and went to school dressed up on 1 March every year, but while these festivals are in our DNA, I'm not convinced that we have been told or remember the historical or cultural significance of them. So, I think that more can be done to instil in our children a real sense of where they come from and how this fits into the UK and the wider world. But I do question where Plaid was when they were in Government between 2007 and 2011, or would they use the excuse that they were merely a junior partner? And where is the Welsh Government? They've been in power since 1999.

I'm a little disconcerted at the motion's focus only on artists, though. I'm deeply concerned about the cleaners, the door staff and the people who hang works of art on walls. There is also a complete supply chain for the entertainment industry who will be worrying about paying their bills too. I have to admit that you lost me on point 5 of your motion.

I reiterate what Laura Jones said earlier: my own understanding is that the proposal is for a museum of military medicine in Cardiff Bay. So, as a mum with a son who is a serving soldier, I am deeply proud of his military service, deeply proud of any veteran and deeply proud of the medical boundaries pushed during battlefield medical procedures. Plaid is scoring an epic own goal here, because a stated aim of this museum is to collect stories of Welsh soldiers serving in Welsh regiments. So, well done, Plaid—not.

I think that the financial support package compiled by the UK Government has been pretty comprehensive, although I know that many, especially self-employed people, have lost out and are hanging by a thread. There are many jobs that were viable before COVID and many that won't survive lockdown measures. This week's announcement will no doubt be followed by many others. You may have guessed that I do not advocate—[Inaudible.]—measures, and my group has never voted for the lockdown restrictions, because of things like this. This is the result you get through those. So, to those who voted for the lockdown measures and continue to do so: please own it.

I have to say I never enjoy contributions by Members who have absolutely nothing constructive to say. Some people love tearing into other people's motions and have absolutely nothing positive to say, so, well done, Mandy Jones—not.

May I focus my comments on the planning system and how that system needs to change in order to do its part in safeguarding our culture, the arts and our heritage? There may not be a clear connection between the two things, but we know that many locations that have been used to this end are now under threat because of the pandemic. Many have been forced to close because of the circumstances and, as a result, have lost income, and one is concerned that we will lose some of the sites because they may have to close permanently. Others may face financial difficulties, and all of that will create problems and pressures when it comes to the assets that they own, the buildings, or, if they rent, they may have to move. Many of these organisations and entities exist in locations that are very desirable, in urban locations, in striking buildings, period buildings very often, and we are already seeing how developers would see them as a very attractive prospect in terms of making a profit, and one is concerned that we would see flats and apartments and all sorts of things developed on these sites.

So, without sufficient support from the Welsh and UK Governments, there is a risk that we will lose many of these important venues and locations in the future. But there is an effective and cost-free way for the Government to safeguard these areas, by, of course, doing more within the planning system to control change of use—not to prevent change of use entirely, but as the motion says, to use

'the planning system to restrict and manage the ability'

to change use while the pandemic continues to impact on the ability of those venues to fulfil their intended purposes. So, this would mean using the planning system to create some temporary firewall around these important arts venues, which are culturally very important, until the sector is back on its feet. Because if we lose these venues during this period, they won’t return. Once they’re sold and developed, the cultural, artistic and community and socially important venues that have been such an important feature of the heritage of so many communities across Wales will have been lost forever.

We recall how the planning system failed to protect music venues in the past. Many have closed because it’s more profitable for developers to do something with them rather than them remaining as music venues. We remember the Womanby Street campaign in Cardiff, which highlighted how absurd it was that music venues that were well established over many years had to face substantial costs in order to soundproof their buildings because nearby buildings had been used for residential purposes. Barfly and the Point, for example, in Cardiff were lost before Womanby Street was under threat, and we don’t want to see the same kind of scenarios arising again in this context because of the pandemic.

I also want to mention the fact that we continue to face a situation where historic Welsh place names have no defence from being changed and lost. This lack of statutory protection is disgraceful, in my view, particularly given the importance of these names in the context of the history and heritage of our nation. It’s three years since Dai Lloyd proposed a Bill in this Parliament, back in 2017, which would have provided that protection to historic place names in Wales. But, of course, we all recall how the Government opposed that. The names of fields, farms, houses and natural features are very important elements in terms of agricultural practices, local industries and of how the landscape has changed, but the Government refused to take action. It's these names that tell us who we are and where we've come from, and they are being lost, and they will be lost at an even quicker rate in years to come because we are seeing more and more people moving into our communities, and there's no doubt that further names will be lost.

The Government amendment to change this clause of the motion says it all, in my view: 'continue to explore options'. That's the Government's aim, in order to ensure that these names aren't lost. Well, where have you been for the last three years? What have you been doing since Plaid Cymru brought that proposed Bill forward, back in 2017? How much time does this Government need to consider this? Nations such as New Zealand have already taken action; they have already legislated. There are examples out there that we can emulate if we choose to do so. There are 18,000 people who signed a petition over the summer calling on the Senedd to legislate in order to prevent the loss of Welsh names. This fire is already burning, Deputy Minister. You've had plenty of time to consider options. Surely, the time has now come to take action.

Thank you very much to Plaid for putting forward this debate. I think it's given us an opportunity to discuss some of the more subtle challenges of beating this pandemic.

It seems to me that our arts and culture are so rich in Wales because so many of us care so much about our history, our storytelling and our music. But I want to start by thanking David Stacey, who has chaired the board of the Sherman Theatre for no less than 35 years, and who only stood down last week. He has been an indefatigable champion of the Sherman Theatre's innovative, challenging and award-winning work. The passion with which he has served the organisation since its inception is exemplary. Even though he is standing down from that role, I'm absolutely confident he will continue to hold people to account for promises made that are currently on hold because of the pandemic.

The Sherman's path-breaking work through the Sherman 5 to reach out to communities who do not normally go to the theatre—disabled people, low-income households, ethnic minority communities—is well recognised by the Arts Council of Wales and, I'm sure, the Welsh Government. This has given the Sherman the agility and the imagination to adapt its creative storytelling role, carrying on within the restrictions required to contain the COVID pandemic. The 'Tydfil Tales' is an excellent example of their way of working. Before the pandemic descended, students from Merthyr College had been visiting a local care home to interview residents about their lives as the basis for a new play. When COVID made live performances impossible, they simply adapted their dramatisation of the stories they had gathered into an audio format, so that care home residents have been able to share the 'Tydfil Tales' together. We hope that, in the future, we'll all be able to hear and indeed see the 'Tydfil Tales'. It's typical of how organisations can and must adapt to the current restrictions or risk falling silent forever.

Another amazing organisation in my constituency is Rubicon Dance, whose eclectic mix of dance opportunities for people of every age and ability has not ceased during the restrictions imposed by COVID. Many of you will have seen the quality of their work in the Senedd in better times. So, they initially started by making sure that they contacted people at the time when they normally attended classes in order to reach out and befriend people during lockdown, and now, like Mr Motivator or Joe Wicks, their online dance classes continue to offer exercise and creative expression to their students, and have been particularly enthusiastically received by the shyest students, who no longer feel inhibited to give full expression to their feelings, expressed through dance.

This doesn't mean that these organisations do not face challenges. The roof still leaks at the Sherman, and they no longer have receipts from ticket sales and cafe takings to pay for that. They have relied on an arts council stabilisation fund grant to invest in the IT infrastructure needed to hold their creative team together, and they managed to furlough 70 per cent of their staff through the coronavirus job retention scheme, which, however, comes to an end at the end of this month. They cannot extend their online performances without upgrading their website, for which they have now applied to the Welsh Government's cultural recovery fund.

Rubicon, too, had to suspend its renovation of the Roath library building on Newport Road, which was a community asset transfer from Cardiff Council. The roof leaks there, too, and the boiler is absolutely bust and does not work at all, so it's impossible to reopen it at the moment, but normal fundraising is impossible at the moment and so they've only managed to retain the current level of activity because of the dedication of their creatives and the generosity of some charitable trusts. How long they can go on for without additional funding is something that we all need to worry about.

The people I worry most about are the musicians in our communities, because, for them, the coronavirus restrictions have been particularly onerous. I know that Clwb Ifor Bach did attempt to reopen during the summer, when the lockdown was lifted, and were doing a reasonable business just as a bar in the city centre, on Womanby Street, but, when the 10 o'clock restrictions came, they felt they just had to close because 70 per cent of their takings were after 10 o'clock in the evening. So, now it is hard to know what organisations like Clwb Ifor Bach face, who have been so important in ensuring that we have a vibrant music industry in Cardiff and for developing the musical abilities and success of so many of our bands. So, I fear for the future for some of these organisations, particularly our musicians, and, so far, the support that's been available, particularly for freelancers, is insufficient to retain these people in the industries for which they are so well suited. So, we have very varied challenges and very significant challenges ahead, and we are absolutely not out of the woods. 

Well, there's much in this motion that I can agree with, in particular the importance of the arts. Having been a performer myself and appeared in shows at the Grand Theatre in Swansea and the New Theatre in Cardiff, as well as, I think, having had four sell-out shows at the Edinburgh festival, nobody needs to tell me of the importance of support for the arts in this country, and it is a tragedy what is now happening to it. But we also have to recognise that this is fundamentally, of course, ultimately, the result of COVID-19, but more immediately it's a result of the policy choices that have been made by the UK Government and the Welsh Government in how to deal with COVID-19.

It didn't need to be like this. The problems of the arts could have been so much more manageable but for the lockdown policies that have been imposed upon us all. Things like a maximum of 50 people in an auditorium in earlier times, and so on—no, sorry, this is something that is not found in other countries, like Sweden, for example, where a maximum of 50 people in a theatre was imposed, but nevertheless their industries have survived. The Swedish cinema chain Svenska Bio has remained operational and, as a result, has become Europe's biggest operator by box office revenue. And the latest figures for Sweden are that the number of people suffering critically or seriously from COVID in hospital has gone up from 15 to 20 in the entire country, whilst ours has been going up very rapidly because what we did as a result of the lockdown measures was not to stop the spread of the virus, but only to delay it. And the consequence has been vast economic damage as well as artistic damage done widely throughout the country. 

Of course, I agree entirely with what Leanne Wood said—it doesn't happen very often, but there was nothing in her speech that I disagreed with. Wales's social history, in all its diversity, does need to be commemorated, and I certainly do think that the role of ethnic minorities is a part of our history that we need to recognise and learn about, because that is part of Wales's history, but I don't believe that we should see everything through the prism of a kind of Black Lives Matter-skewed vision. Black Lives Matter, as I pointed out yesterday and as Mandy Jones has repeated, is actually a violent group, evidently anti-British and anti-Welsh. Their activists have desecrated war memorials, memorials of people who've given their lives to fight against racism and fascism, and they want to tear down statues like that of Sir Thomas Picton or the obelisk in Carmarthen. Picton, as David Melding has pointed out, was a flawed man but a man of his time, but, nevertheless, his military achievements were absolutely essential in winning the Napoleonic wars, and therefore keeping this country free from the clutches of a megalomaniac dictator who wanted to impose his rule on the whole of Europe and, in the process, re-impose slavery in the French West Indies.

So, yes, history is a checkerboard with black and white squares on it, and we should recognise them all. Black Lives Matter policies are open Marxism and Leanne Wood did refer to a Marxist philosopher in the course of her speech, but I don't know how many people who vote for Plaid Cymru actually believe in the kind of Marxist ideals that Black Lives Matter stands for—defunding the police, scrapping the army, opening the prisons and so on and so forth, dismantling capitalism, et cetera. Nobody in Wales beyond a few crackpots wants that.

I think the motion is spoilt by these kinds of references, because otherwise there's much at a practical level in this that I could vote for: for example, recognising the role of freelancers and properly supporting them; using the planning system imaginatively to enable arts institutions to survive; introducing statutory protections to avoid the loss of Welsh language place names—I can agree with that, and I can agree on the importance of preserving and developing and enhancing the Welsh language. But we have to recognise ultimately that the arts are going to be permanently damaged by the overall legislative scheme that all the people who are going to vote for this motion today have voted through this Senedd. I know these are hard policy choices to make but, fundamentally, the overreaction to COVID and, instead of concentrating on protecting the vulnerable, imposing a sledgehammer lockdown on everybody, has done enormous damage to our economy, enormous damage to our social life and, ultimately, to the mental well-being of the people of Wales.

The UK Tory Chancellor, Rishi Sunak, yesterday was asked what was his message to musicians, actors and freelancers in the arts, and the Chancellor eventually told ITN that everyone is having to adapt. Quite frankly, that is not good enough. Llywydd, musicians, actors and freelancers in the arts are integral to the cultural and economic soul of our great nation. It is imperative that this Senedd, this Welsh Parliament, refuses to let the UK Government stand by idly and sacrifice our cultural landscape during this pandemic.

Since my election to this place, I have strived to establish musical events and I'm privileged to now chair the cross-party group on music. Through this group, we have sought to bring together key stakeholders from across the entire music sector in Wales, from music educators to world-class orchestras, community choirs, brass bands and international artists. From the meeting of this key group, it was very apparent how devastating the impact of COVID-19 has been to the entire music sector in Wales. 

From this meeting, three key themes emerged from the challenges facing musicians: guidance around assuming activities; financial support for professionals in the music sector; a strategy for their sustainability. These challenges were shared with key Ministers from Welsh Government, and further to my correspondence I was grateful to the Deputy Minister for culture for meeting urgently with me to discuss these issues raised by the CPG. I know that we will all want to, as stated already, see music practice and performance resume safely as soon as this is possible and, of course, this has got to be guided by science. 

However, there remains a need for greater clarity in the existing Welsh Government guidance around music, and this needs urgent specification now. For instance, music teachers who work in private practice and in people's homes need clarity over how they can continue their work as safely as possible, complying with the rules. Community bands and choirs want clarification on how they can return safely to socially distanced rehearsal. There's also a need for specific guidance to be provided for musical instrumental performance teaching in schools. Music education, as the Minister knows, is key to skills, well-being, career pathways and attainment. 

The need, though, for further cultural UK Treasury funding to Wales means that these measures are continually adapting, but I would strongly articulate during this debate that assurances on those matters raised with the Minister be provided to the Senedd as a matter of urgency, and that further and specific guidance, as called for by the sector, will be issued for musicians by the Welsh Government.

The second major issue raised was the number of musicians that have fallen between the gaps, despite Welsh Government efforts and the funding provided by furlough and other schemes. So, I greatly welcomed last week's Welsh Government launch of the freelance £2,500 grant. But I hear, as in successive schemes, today that, just days on, it is oversubscribed and closed in the first phase. So, this demonstrates, surely, the level and scale of the benefit to the economy of music in Wales, and demonstrates the underestimation of the need for this Wales-only fund. We need more funding, though, from the UK. So, how is this being articulated by the Minister to the UK Government as the Minister responsible for music in Wales?

Finally, Llywydd, the letter from the CPG outlined the sector's continuing and deepening call for a national music strategy for Wales, and an underpinning music education plan and the actioning of the Welsh Government feasibility study on the future of music support services across Wales. A Welsh network of accessible, equitable pupil access to a music support service and instrumental tuition should not in Wales, surely, be based on postcode, the whim of a headteacher and, overall, the depth of a parent's pocket.

We must be creating made-in-Wales employment pathways and professional interaction with the new curriculum in areas of creative learning. Class practitioners often have no or little experience. Wales must lead the way here, and I call again for the resolution of this and an end to the erosion of instrumental teaching across Wales. Culture, historically, has always felt the poor relation in public spending, but I also know that the Deputy Minister for Culture, Sport and Tourism, Lord Elis-Thomas, values greatly and understands that this is not just about the economy, culture or livelihoods—it is also about the type of Wales this Government sees for the future and sells to the wider world, and I know he has a deep passion for Wales's cultural soul and the need to save it. So, now, Minister, is that time, and you will have my full and unequivocal support in doing that. I support the motion.

I call on the Deputy Minister for Culture, Sport and Tourism to contribute—Dafydd Elis-Thomas. You need to—

Thank you, I'm doing that now. Can you hear me now?

Excellent.

Okay, thank you very much. I'd like to thank Plaid Cymru for bringing this motion forward, which has given us an opportunity to have such a varied and valuable debate. I think this is the most comprehensive debate on culture and the arts that we've had during my period in this role. I will seek to respond to some of the points made by everyone who contributed if I have enough time. I think I have around eight minutes, do I, Llywydd? Something of that nature.

Siân Gwenllian said that I and the Government didn't place the arts at the heart of our activities, but we have placed Creative Wales at the centre of our policies and we are now developing activity through Creative Wales and investing in that. The investment in Seren Stiwdios was criticised, but, of course, developing international film output along with the development of the industry in Wales goes hand in hand. As people have an opportunity of working on the international stage, then standards can be raised.

Laura Anne Jones discussed the future potential of a military medical museum in Wales. Of course, we already have a small military museum, the Firing Line, which I was associated with years ago, and I think it is important that we realise that these developments will be private developments—they're not part our national museum system—and therefore I doubt very much whether we will be called upon to fund or support them.

Leanne Wood took us back into that wonderful world of brass bands—again a tradition that I know she appreciates and, with family coming from Blaenau Ffestiniog as I do, I also appreciate it, and this is a central part of our musical tradition and one that we must struggle to maintain, even throughout these difficult times. And of course she ingratiated herself to me once again by quoting my great mentor, Raymond Williams. 'Culture is ordinary' is the strapline of this department of culture, and always will be.

She referred to the development of a black history museum. This is something we have not actually discussed in detail. The question that we have to face is whether this should be a further distinctive museum or whether we should recognise that the nationality of Wales must—must—give appropriate and full status, especially in this part of south-east Wales, to the black and other minority communities and the diverse nationalities that are part of our history. So, it's a question of how we develop that.

Mandy Jones stressed the importance of the cinema, and again I warm to that because in the dim and distant past I was a member of the British Film Institute. I think the experience of cinema and the public enjoyment of film is a very difficult thing to restore, but I hope that will develop soon.

Thank you very much, Llyr, for addressing the issues around the planning system. We are very eager as a Government to see how we can use the planning system in order to safeguard historic buildings. 'Planning Policy Wales' already sets out how music and arts venues can be supported as part of regeneration, and we are aware also that it's important that the class use order does allow some changes to use without there being a need for a planning application, but this is limited to heritage, arts and cultural activity, and I'm eager to ensure that we can retain that.

Thank you, Jenny Rathbone, for your references to David Stacey and the great legacy of Sherman Theatre and also your support for Rubicon Dance, with which I have strong connections. I was pleased to be able to visit the Roath library building and I hope that what is a central building, really, in the middle of Cardiff, and has great architectural value—I very much hope that there can be funding, a combination of private and public funding, made available for the revitalisation of this place for Rubicon Dance.

Clwb Ifor Bach: I was one of the original contributors to the setting up of that club, and, again, you're absolutely right, we must try and ensure that we can find a way of ensuring that these music venues—which we have funded, by the way; we have given limited funding to music venues already. It was one of the first things we did as a Government as this crisis developed.

Neil Hamilton regaled us with his performance at the Edinburgh festival; I wish I could have seen it. But he also emphasised the importance of the public health impact of lockdown measures and made some comparisons with Sweden. Well, unfortunately, Wales is not Sweden, and the kind of social and political culture that exists there is not exactly replicated in Wales. But he also said some supportive things about the position of ethnic minorities, but I don't think he was so keen on Black Lives Matter. I think Black Lives Matter is very important because it's an international movement of the black community and is very much strongly reflected in the black communities in north and south Wales, and I think it's our duty as a Government to indicate that where we can we support activities that are community-based around the black community.

Rhianon Passmore is always very strong on support for music and she asked for greater clarity on guidance, especially guidance for private music teachers, and, certainly, I will have another look at this following our discussion. 

I think I've referred to most of the people who have spoken, so again, I'm very grateful for this opportunity to respond, and I will study anything else that was said in the debate that I haven't specifically referred to.

I haven't been able to refer to everything, but we will have a look at the Record, and I will be in touch with any Members that I haven't referred to already. So, thank you for the opportunity to celebrate the light of the arts in the darkness that we are currently in because of the pandemic. Thank you very much.

I call on Helen Mary Jones to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Llywydd, and can I thank everybody who has contributed to this debate? I think the number of people who've contributed—and indeed the number of amendments that were tabled—show us how important the parties across this Senedd take our responsibilities towards the arts sector. I should be clear at this point that I am speaking for my party here, not as Chair of the culture committee, but much of the evidence that the culture committee has taken has influenced our motion today.

Siân Gwenllian has painted a very stark picture of the position of the sector now; she talks about the interconnectedness and the vital need to support the Welsh-medium sector, and to support our institutions.

Laura Anne Jones's contribution was a little bit confused to me, really. I very much welcome what she had to say about amendment 9; we're accepting that, we feel that that's very important. I know that my colleagues Elin Jones, the Llywydd, and Ben Lake have written to the Government with their concerns, as have I, about our national library. It is a vital institution, of course.

With regard to amendment 2, I mean, nobody is going to say 'no' to money, but other speakers in this debate have referred to what Rishi Sunak said yesterday, and I think that shows a lack of respect, to be honest.

When it comes to a amendment 3, we need to be clear here: I am nobody's pacifist, and as to disrespect for the military, my father served on active service all the way through the second world war, so there is no disrespect to the military from this side of the house. But these are questions of priorities. Our current museums are full of military history in many, many aspects. When you look at our—[Interruption.] I wish I could take an intervention, but the current rules do not allow, Darren Millar, as well you know. It is about priorities. Our museums are full of military memorabilia; they could often, I'm sure, be better portrayed and the story better told, but we believe that a museum to reflect this community in which we sit, a museum for black people and people of colour, is a higher priority, and I was glad to hear the Minister say that despite their amendment, they're not taking this off the table. I'm quite surprised, given what I thought was an excellent contribution by Laura Anne Jones to yesterday's anti-racist debate, that she doesn't agree with me that this is important.

Leanne Wood's contribution was about how deeply rooted arts and music are in our history and in our culture. I love the phrase—as does the Minister indeed—that culture is ordinary; it is ordinary and extraordinary at the same time, and all forms of culture matter.

I think Llyr Gruffydd has said probably everything that needs to be said in response to Mandy Jones. Llyr, of course, speaks very strongly about the importance of protecting our venues and the long-term consequences if they are not protected. It is clear that the current planning system does not allow for that: the evidence that was taken by the committee made that very clear, and it's the same situation with our ancient place names. We are losing ancient place names on a daily, weekly basis in many of the communities that I represent, and we can't wait while more options are considered.

I felt that Jenny Rathbone's contributions about the importance of arts in her own constituency were extremely valuable and very welcome, as were Rhianon Passmore's. Her passion for music is well known and she made some very positive and strong contributions here.

I'm grateful to the Deputy Minister for his positive response to the debate, and I suppose I should also be grateful to him that the Government has paid our motion more respect than to do that all-too-common 'delete all and replace', but we can't accept their amendments. I don't have time to go through all of the reasons why, but essentially what the Government amendments do is to water down our motion. It's a little bit back to telling us that everything is all right. Well, people who work in the sector tell us, people who need the sector for their emotional well-being tell us that not everything is right. It is not, of course, Llywydd, our contention that the Government has done and is doing nothing, but they have not done enough.

In conclusion, we know that the arts and cultural sector are a vital industry in Wales. If we added up all the jobs that are at risk, they would be as big a threat to our economy as many of our big institutions like Airbus, like the steel industry. But because they're made up so much by individuals, freelancers, small institutions, we perhaps don't see that economic importance as we should, and we must value that vital economic contribution.

But, as other speakers have said in this debate, arts and culture is about much more than that. The arts is about who we are, about how we express ourselves, how we explain ourselves to each other, how we understand our past and our present and how we map our future. I think this is true globally, but here in Wales our history tells us how important the arts have always been, from the middle ages onwards. We must protect them through these hard times or future generations will never forgive us. The Welsh Government's response is not enough, and I commend our motion as it stands, amended by amendment 9, to the Senedd.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I've heard some objections. Therefore, I defer voting under this item until voting time.

Before going to voting time, I have agreed that Alun Davies may move a procedural motion under Standing Order 12.32 to postpone today's short debate to next Wednesday's meeting. I call on him to move the motion—Alun Davies. Formally, Alun Davies.

I move formally.

Thank you very much. I haven't received any requests to speak on that motion. The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? I don't see any objection. Therefore, the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Which brings us to voting time. Therefore, in accordance with Standing Order 34.14D, there will be a break of at least five minutes before voting time takes place.

The first vote this afternoon is on the debate on the Committee for Electoral Reform report, 'Senedd Reform: the next steps', and I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Dawn Bowden. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 38, no abstentions, 14 against. And therefore, the motion is agreed.

The next vote is on the Plaid Cymru debate, on the challenges facing the arts, culture and heritage sectors. And I call for a vote first of all on the motion tabled in the name of Siân Gwenllian. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 10, no abstentions, 42 against. And therefore, the motion is not agreed.

The next vote is on amendment 2, tabled in the name Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 14, one abstention, 37 against. And therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

The next amendment is amendment 3. If amendment 3 is agreed, amendment 4 will be deselected. A vote, therefore, on amendment 3, in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 37 against. And therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

Amendment 4 next, in the name of Rebecca Evans. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 37, three abstentions, 12 against. And therefore, the amendment is agreed.

Amendment 5 is the next amendment, again in the name of Rebecca Evans. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 32, four abstentions, 16 against. And therefore, the amendment is agreed.

Amendment 9 is the next amendment. Amendment 9, in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote—[Interruption.] I apologise, amendment 8 is the next amendment and that is in the name of Rebecca Evans. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 36, three abstentions, 13 against. And therefore, the amendment is agreed.

Amendment 9 is the next amendment and that's in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 24, no abstentions, 27 against. And therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

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

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 28, one abstention, 23 against. And therefore, the motion as amended is agreed.

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