National Assembly for Wales

I call the National Assembly to order.

The first item of business this afternoon is questions to the First Minister, and the first question is from Janet Finch-Saunders.

Tackling sepsis continues to be a top patient safety priority in Wales. Early recognition and diagnosis is crucial to preventing the condition getting worse and to the provision of appropriate and timely treatment. Wales has been recognised at a global level for its work in sepsis awareness and education.

Thank you. Research published by Dr Tamas Szakmany this week has found that over 7,500 people were admitted to hospitals in Wales with sepsis, resulting in more than 1,500 deaths. That is more than breast and prostate cancer combined. He also highlights a degree of variation in how clinical teams respond to sepsis, as of 290 patients showing signs of sepsis, just 12 per cent were initially screened and treated in line with best practice. Many of those affected describe the sinister effects arising from such a dangerous and life-threatening disease, including amputations and many life-changing consequences—that’s if you survive. A common theme is the blatant lack of awareness, particularly within a health setting, and the saddest part of this is that the majority of cases could be prevented or treated with antibiotics if caught early enough, especially following on—

Can you get to a question please?

England have launched a public health campaign ‘Could it be Sepsis?’. Northern Ireland ‘Just say Sepsis’—

The question needs to be asked.

How do you, as First Minister, intend to address the shortfalls and inconsistencies that are evident here in Wales and how immediately do you intend to do this?

Well, we already have in place the national early warning score system in every hospital. The Global Sepsis Alliance recognised the work of NHS Wales for its sepsis awareness and education initiatives at the 2016 Global Sepsis Awards, something, of course, which we very much welcome. But, of course, it is still the case that many are not diagnosed in time as it’s a difficult condition to diagnose—that is recognised. But it is hugely important that we have consistency across our hospitals in terms of how sepsis is identified early, and that system is something that is in place and is widely used across the Welsh NHS.

First Minister, the national confidential inquiry, as has just been mentioned, into patient outcome and death, published in November 2015, says that sepsis kills more people than breast, bowel and prostate cancer combined in the UK. The report recommends more doctors and nurses use early warning systems and screening checklists to prompt them to check for signs of sepsis. The health Cabinet Secretary says he is open-minded about considering whether to make hospitals screen patients with symptoms in the same way. So, will the First Minister outline how the Welsh Government can ensure the Welsh national health service ensure a universal and consistent approach to screening for sepsis?

Yes. The national early warning score system is part of that consistent approach. Every hospital uses it. It is a simple system that enables staff to assess whether patients are developing sepsis, and, also, ambulance service paramedics are using that system to develop systems for screening patients for sepsis prior to arrival at hospital. Also, staff are using a standard sepsis screening to identify sepsis and instigate rapid action, called the ‘Sepsis Six bundle’. And, so, we are continuing to develop the work that’s already been put in place over the last four years to ensure that more people are diagnosed early with sepsis and fewer people lose their lives because of it.

First Minister, with nearly 2,000 deaths in Wales each year, many of them preventable, sepsis is one of the biggest killers most people aren’t aware of. While educating the public to recognise the signs, and ensuring steps are taken in the NHS to prevent the onset of sepsis are vital, so too is ensuring that our healthcare professionals recognise the signs. Many sepsis survivors owe their lives to a GP who recognised the early onset of sepsis. Therefore, First Minister, what steps is the Government taking to ensure that every GP in Wales receives training to recognise the signs of sepsis as well as how to prevent it?

Building on what I’ve already mentioned, I mentioned the Sepsis Six bundle. That consists of three quick tests for sepsis, three simple treatments that are proven to combat it and can help to detect and treat the illness at its earliest stages. But, of course, it is hugely important that all health professionals are aware of sepsis, and, indeed, they are, and, indeed, look for the earliest signs, although it can be difficult to diagnose and treat, particularly in the early stages.

Yes. The non-domestic rates system in Wales contributes more than £1 billion towards the funding of local services in Wales.

I thank the First Minister for his answer. Looking ahead to proposals for new business rates arrangements post 2018, is the First Minister able to give an indication of his thinking regarding community sports clubs? I understand that, at the moment, there’s a threshold where 70 per cent of members of such clubs have to be actively participating in that club’s activities to qualify for relief. It seems a very high threshold, considering wider plans and strategies for greater physical activity promotion, especially among younger people. So, I’d appreciate it if the First Minister could give an indication on his thoughts on that matter.

Yes, we are aware of the point that the Member makes, and it does form part of our thinking as we develop a permanent system from 2018 onwards.

First Minister, on many occasions in this Chamber we have heard about the question of relief on plant and machinery in business rates, particularly in areas such as Tata Steel, where we had the blast furnace. Has your Government actually given any further consideration to looking at relief for plant and machinery in the business rates, to ensure that investment can come in to industries, such as the steel industry, and that they will not be penalised as a consequence?

It is something that we looked at with the Valuation Office Agency. It is a highly complicated area. What we have done instead, of course, is to put on the table a more generous package for Tata than business rate relief would offer. So, I would argue that what we have on the table goes well beyond what business rate relief on plant and machinery would be able to offer in the first place, especially given the complexities and the time it would take to put such a system in place.

In light of your answer to me last week, First Minister, saying that you would be able to give full consideration, after the autumn statement, to increasing funding for support to small businesses, how will your Government use the budget consequentials from the Chancellor’s announcement that he will extend rural rate relief to 100 per cent, giving small businesses in England a tax break of up to £2,900?

Well, the revenue consequential is very small—some £35 million, of which £20 million has already been announced. So, we have not been showered with largesse from the UK Government when it comes to revenue funding. Nevertheless, we will look to see how that money can be best used for the good of the people of Wales.

First Minister, I’ve had countless constituents write to me about business rates—small business holders, people running independent shops—and they’re all telling me that your Government’s business rates are threatening their businesses, may lead them to close or, certainly, lay people off. Why are you hurting small businesses in my region?

Well, I think the Member has to remember that the last time there was a revaluation was when his party was in Government. I heard no complaints at that point. It’s right to say that, in some parts of Wales, there are particular issues that will need to be addressed, but this is revenue neutral. This is not a way of the Government getting more money. This is a way of rebalancing the business rates system without there being a net gain to Government. That said, of course, we recognise that there will be some parts of Wales where things are difficult, and that’s why we’ve already announced a transitional relief scheme of £10 million, and we will look to see what else we can do in order to smooth the transition process.

Questions now from the party leaders. The leader of the UKIP group, Neil Hamilton.

Diolch, Lywydd. The Government will be represented at the Supreme Court hearing next week on the case involving article 50, and it’s perfectly reasonable that the Welsh Government’s views should be presented to the court. But what instructions will be given to counsel for the Welsh Government? Will he, or she, be supporting the Government of the United Kingdom, or will he or she be supporting the claimant against the Government of the United Kingdom—i.e. will he be helping to facilitate the wishes of the British people, as expressed in the referendum on 23 June, or the opposite?

Neither. The Welsh Government will be representing itself, and the instructions to counsel will be given on the basis of representing the Welsh Government’s position. This is not to do with preventing Brexit; it is to do with making sure that constitutional law is observed.

There is an argument, of course, as to what the constitutional law requires in this particular incident. So, what I’m trying to elicit from the First Minister is on whose side he is going to be—on the view that is held by the United Kingdom Government or the view held by counsel for Mrs Miller, who is the applicant in this case. There are sound legal arguments for saying that an explicit vote in the House of Commons is not required before triggering article 50. In 2008 and in 2011, an Act of Parliament was passed to amend UK legislation to require explicitly a vote in Parliament if there were to be any specific changes to EU law in some areas like common defence policy, the appointment of a European prosecutor, whether Britain should join the euro, whether Britain should join the Schengen agreement, whether we should replace the voting by unanimity by qualified majority voting, and a whole range of incidents. In all those instances, there would be direct effects upon the British people as a consequence of the decision. That’s the essence of the High Court’s decision—that it’s because of those direct effects upon people that an explicit vote in Parliament is required. But as article 50 was not one of the many instances that were set down in an Act of Parliament, then there is certainly no basis for saying that, in this case, there is an implied requirement for the House of Commons or the House of Lords to support a vote in favour of article 50 before the Government is enabled to fulfil the wishes of the British people.

If the leader of UKIP is pitching to act as counsel in the Supreme Court, he’s doing a reasonable job for himself. He understands the constitutional issue that has to be resolved in court. We will all have our different positions. The question for us is: can the royal prerogative be used to start what would be an unstoppable process towards changing the constitution of Wales. There are serious legal arguments that need to be explored in the Supreme Court. He has recognised that, and I welcome that. Unfortunately, there are some in his party who see this as some kind of conspiracy to stop Brexit. That is not what this is about. This is about ensuring that if an important constitutional legal principle is examined and judgment given on that, and not just for Brexit, of course, this could be used in the future for other issues as well.

Indeed. So, what I’m trying to elicit from the First Minister, and which he still has not given an answer to, is: what will the counsel for the Welsh Government actually be saying in the course of these proceedings? Because the counsel for the Government said nothing in the High Court at all. Is it intended that counsel for the Welsh Government will say something in the Supreme Court hearing, and, if so, will he be arguing against the case of the United Kingdom Government that we should go ahead and trigger article 50 as soon as possible without complicating matters by having further votes in Parliament?

Well, he’s perfectly welcome to read the grounds, which are public, and he will see the case that we make. We represent ourselves. We are not there to back one side or the other but to put the case on behalf of the people of Wales in terms of what constitutional principles should be followed. It just so happens that Brexit is the issue, but it could be any other issue where this constitutional principle would need to be examined. So, it’s important that it’s examined now.

The leader of Plaid Cymru, Leanne Wood.

Diolch, Lywydd. First Minister, a ban on letting agents fees was announced in the recent autumn statement announcement, with England now joining Scotland. When it comes to Wales, your finance Secretary told the BBC that he wanted to wait and see how the ban in Scotland worked first. Do you know which year they banned letting agent fees in Scotland?

Yes. The position in Scotland is this: that the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984 makes the payment of any premium in respect of granting, renewal or continuance of a protected tenancy an offence. That definition has been in place since 30 November 2012. So, practically, since 2012, that has been in place. I can say, however, that we are looking again at this issue. Our fear was that if fees were abolished, then that would be loaded onto rents. The evidence from Scotland is interesting in that regard. I know this is an issue that my colleague, Jenny Rathbone, has been particularly concerned about, given the effect on her constituency.

I’m glad you raised that point about Scotland, because the banning of letting fees there has shown, according to the ONS, that rents in Scotland and Wales rose at a substantially lower rate than in England over the past six years, with rents in Scotland actually falling over the past year. So, it shows that this ban on letting fees doesn’t actually increase rents. Now, you’re right—Scotland banned these fees in 2012. So, how much longer do tenants in Wales have to wait, then? I would have thought that four years was long enough. The fact is that you've been even slower on this vitally important social justice question than even the Tories in Westminster.

Now, First Minister, home ownership is becoming a crucial issue for this generation of young people; it's becoming almost impossible to get on the property ladder. Getting their rent paid is now the top priority, and, in the rented sector, moving home can bring about a set of unjustified fees, with Shelter Cymru’s mystery-shopping exercise a few years ago suggesting that it can cost up to £1,000 extra. Unless action is taken, it will only be Wales that will have these letting fees. I would welcome a firm commitment from you this afternoon, First Minister, explaining to us how you are going to ban these letting agent fees. Will you give us that commitment today?

I can say this is something that is actively under consideration. I understand the point that she makes; it would look strange for Wales to have letting agent fees while England and Scotland didn't. There is some evidence now from Scotland that the effect in terms of rental increases was not as great as was feared, and that is something that will play in very strongly to the action we will take over the next few months.

First Minister, last year, Plaid Cymru tabled amendments to the Renting Homes (Wales) Bill, but you declined at that point to take up the opportunity to ban excessive letting fees, apparently against the wishes of your own backbenchers. And banning excessive letting agency fees is not the only issue on which your backbenchers have wanted to vote with Plaid Cymru amendments to improve legislation; we wanted to ban zero-hours contracts in social care. But there always seems to be an excuse, First Minister: either you don't have the power, or the amendment wasn't drafted correctly, or, my favourite, ‘We haven't consulted on the issue’, even after 17 years of being in power. Why is it, First Minister, that when Plaid Cymru tries to implement policies that help those on the lowest incomes to get out of poverty, your Government votes against us?

Well, I do remember that her party was in Government for four years, which is often conveniently forgotten. And there will be issues—the issue of zero-hours contracts attached to the social services Bill, if I remember rightly, was an issue. The fear was the entire Bill would be referred to the Supreme Court. It’s not an issue of disagreement on principle, not in the slightest—far from it; we’re at the same place when it comes to zero-hours contracts. In the same way, we will revisit the issue of letting agents fees in the light of the evidence that is there from Scotland, through Shelter, and it is right to say that it would look unusual for Wales to have letting agents fees with England and Scotland not. The concern that we have, that this would simply be added to rents, appears from the evidence in Scotland now to be less of a concern than before.

The leader of the Welsh Conservatives, Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. First Minister, if I could return to the first question today, on sepsis, I'd like to commend my colleague, Angela Burns, who now chairs the all-party group on this particular issue—after going through some pretty horrendous experiences herself she is able to bring those personal experiences to the table. This is an issue that, obviously, through recent media coverage, really has come to the forefront of people's thinking, but has been quietly lurking in the background in health professionals’ minds for quite some time. And, in fairness to the Welsh Government, they've brought forward a strategy to try and tackle some of the areas that people do face when they present and want to be assessed in hospital. But it is a fact that only one in 10 people is receiving the right treatment and the right assessments in hospitals. What type of target can we aim for this time next year? Because I hear the warm words and, rightly, the words that people want to hear, but they actually want hear progress on this particular issue. So, what progress can we specifically hold you to on screening and treatment in 12 months’ time, First Minister?

Well, it’s part of the 1000 Lives programme that we have to make sure that more people are given the chance to survive and given the chance to have the right level of treatment for the illness itself. He asks are there any particular figures in terms of a target. The answer to that is ‘no’; there's no particular figure, but what I can say is we want to see more people diagnosed early to give them the opportunity of surviving. We have already in place, as I said, the early warning score system, the Sepsis Six analysis scheme as well. We believe that all these things, taken together, will increase awareness of sepsis, particularly awareness amongst medics, so that they are able to diagnose more quickly and, therefore, more people are diagnosed and therefore will survive.

Thank you for that, First Minister. I was specifically looking for a target from yourself, as the First Minister and the Government. I appreciate there might not be hard and fast figures there at the moment, but the figure I did put to you is that, at the moment, only one in 10 patients are actually receiving that screening and that support that most probably would help and actually save their lives. Now, that’s a figure none of us want to leave at. We want to push that on, and you have the ability as a Government to push on from that figure.

When you actually think that 15 times more people are killed by sepsis in Wales, or die from sepsis in Wales, than in road accidents—we’ve had a huge programme, a successful programme, of road traffic safety and road traffic information—this is an area that the Welsh Government need to be at the forefront of, and delivering tangible results within our health service. Pockets of good practice are just not good enough, as was identified in the recent report. So, I’ll use my second question of three, if I may, to try and push you to try and get a hard figure out of you of where we will be this time next year when it comes to hospital screening for sepsis and actually being able to deliver the treatments that are required.

Well, there is already a consistent approach through the national early warning score system. That is in place across all hospitals in Wales. It’s widely used by staff in community hospitals and in residential homes for the elderly and indeed in mental health services. I mentioned earlier that the ambulance service is developing systems for screening patients for sepsis prior to arrival. Velindre uses the system across all its clinical areas and out-patient chemotherapy units, ensuring that it meets the needs of cancer patients, and then of course I mentioned the Sepsis Six bundle. What does that mean in terms of numbers? Well, we work with the UK Sepsis Trust; there’s a very good working relationship. We want to see that figure of one out of 10 improve in the future so that more people have a chance of survival, and we’re confident that will happen.

I appreciate I don’t seem to be able to get a figure out of you today, First Minister. I have paid tribute to the actions the Government have taken so far, but it is quite clearly identified that there are only pockets of good practice, regrettably, in the Welsh NHS. I’ve given you the figure of one in 10 and I’ve given you the figure that 15 times more people die of sepsis than of road accidents, so I would hope that maybe the Cabinet Secretary could make a written statement to indicate where the Government wants to be in 12 months’ time, so that we can see how open his mind is to actually bringing forward real progress in this area.

But one area where real progress can be made is in the recruitment and retention of doctors and medical staff. I appreciate again this is a UK-wide issue, this is, and in certain disciplines it’s more pronounced in other parts of the United Kingdom than maybe here in Wales. But, regrettably, the Royal College of Surgeons have pointed out that 40 per cent of consultant posts are vacant here in Wales, and many of them do not actually attract—vacant positions I’m talking about, not actually staff positions—40 per cent of vacancies do not receive any reply to the adverts put out there. What progress will the Welsh Government be doing and undertaking over the next 12 months to actually attract and retain clinicians to our NHS so that, when it comes to sepsis and other conditions, we have the expertise at the coalface to actually deliver those diagnoses to improve treatments for patients entering the NHS here in Wales?

I’m not quite sure where he gets the 40 per cent figure from. The vacancy figure is around 4 per cent in the Welsh NHS. We continue to be proactive in our recruitment. We’ve been in London and Harrogate at events recently in order to present Wales as a good place to be a doctor. We’ve had, at the last count, 280 very hard and solid responses and enquiries to our campaign—it’s a very good campaign. We are confident that we will be able to attract the physicians at all levels, and surgeons at all levels, into the Welsh NHS to make sure that enough people get the service they require.

Yes. The Government proactively engages with local planning authorities to ensure national planning policy as set out in ‘Planning Policy Wales’ and associated technical advice notes is appropriately reflected in local development plans.

Thank you for your answer, First Minister. You will be aware that the Welsh Government publish letters to chief planning officers that supplement Welsh planning policy in Wales. Can you confirm whether or not these letters constitute Welsh Government planning policy, which local authorities are obliged to follow, or whether they are merely guidance and advice, which can be accepted or rejected in the formation of LDPs? Also, I would be grateful if you could set out what pressure the Welsh Government has exerted on Powys County Council in directing them to include local search areas for renewable energy schemes over and above existing strategic search areas across the county?

We have not directed Powys council to amend their LDP. Government officials have engaged with Powys County Council to provide advice and guidance on national policy, including renewable energy, and including responding at formal consultation stages. Local authorities do have to bear in mind the guidance that comes from Welsh Government, because of course that guidance will be taken into account when the LDP is examined by the inspector, who, of course, has the final say as to whether an LDP is accepted or not.

First Minister, your Government’s role in Cardiff’s LDP is the plan to dump thousands of dwellings on our countryside. Cardiff Plaid will make sure that Cardiff council passes a motion to demand that the Assembly revokes Cardiff’s local destruction plan. Will you support that motion to save Cardiff’s green fields?

It’s a legal nonsense, as well he knows. He doesn’t like incomers much, does he? It’s one of the things that we do notice about him. He doesn’t like people coming to live in Cardiff. Perhaps he wants to consider which party he should be a member of, but that’s a matter for him. The reality is that it’s for the local authorities to adopt their LDPs, it’s for the local authorities to decide what to do with their LDP. The Assembly has no legal role or power to rescind the LDP of a local authority, nor can there ever be a vote on the floor of this Chamber to rescind an LDP. It’s a matter of local democracy that a local council can produce its LDP, taking into account national planning policy, and taking into account what the inspector says as part of that LDP process. That’s exactly what Cardiff council has done.

Question 4, David Rowlands.

Diolch, Lywydd. First Minister, given that a large proportion of all Irish exports, both to the UK—

You need to ask the—

[Continues.]—and to the EU pass along the M4 motorway.

You need to ask the question on the order paper.

I’m sorry. Well, I just missed two of the words or something out of it. If I have, I apologise to the First Minister—

Just ask the question again.

[Continues.]—but the whole ethos of the thing—. Right, I’ll start again, First Minister.

No, it’s for the Welsh Government to maintain the trunk roads and motorways of Wales.

I thank the First Minister for the answer, but this is a serious proposition, as I understand Ireland may be able to access funds from the trans-European highways fund. [Interruption.] Very ironic, you say. And here I quote—[Interruption.] And here—[Interruption.]

I am interested in hearing the question.

And here I quote fund allocation principles:

‘Although we have been investing a lot in improving transport infrastructure, there is under investment in many smaller cross-border sections’—

I can’t hear the question, and I don’t think the First Minister can. Can everybody quieten down, please? Can you ask the question again? I don’t think—[Interruption.] And I’d like it to be—I want you to be heard in quiet.

Llywydd, I’m glad they realise what they’re saying, and that we now can get funds from the EU, post Brexit, of course. I shall start again, First Minister.

I thank the First Minister for his answer, but this is a serious proposition, as I understand Ireland may be able to access funds from the trans-European highways fund. Here I quote fund allocation principles—[Interruption.]

I have asked for this question to be heard quietly. Can everybody allow this question to be heard? I want to get to the end of this question.

And so do I, Llywydd. Thank you very much.

‘There is under investment in many smaller cross-border sections, and bottlenecks’.

I trust the First Minister would agree that the M4 at Brynglas would certainly qualify for the description ‘bottleneck’.

Well, the Member seems to be urging on me that I should urge the Irish Government to apply for European funding to pay for Welsh roads. He has been a member of a party and indeed campaigned in June to end European funding for Welsh roads. He cannot, I suggest, now go to an EU member state and ask them to make up the shortfall that he himself campaigned to engineer in the first place.

There’s a second point as well. We must be very careful here in the sense that England could turn around and say that the M4 goes across the Severn bridge, all the traffic that goes across the Severn bridge goes to Wales, much of the M4 is used by Welsh traffic and, therefore, there should be a Welsh contribution to the M4 east of the Severn bridge. The French authorities could say that the vast majority of freight that comes from the UK goes through Calais, so the UK Government should pay for port infrastructure in Calais and the roads that lead from Calais. Where is the argument then? No; we have to be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of our own roads in our own countries.

This is a surreal question, even by the standards of this year. But I must say, Mr Rowlands’s question is reminiscent of a chap who once had a plan to build a wall around his country and bill his next-door neighbours for the work. I’m not sure what happened to that gentleman.

In terms of future co-operation between Wales and Ireland on infrastructure projects, there is a potential scope for a formal arrangement, a bilateral arrangement, between Wales and Ireland, through the Belfast agreement where two or more members can enter into bilateral agreements together. Will the First Minister consider a formal arrangement with the Irish state so that we can have future joint working on infrastructure projects, even tapping in—dare I say—to European funding so that we can formalise it into a Celtic sea alliance that gives some hope to our western regions and the eastern regions of the Irish state?

Yes, the Celtic sea alliance is based on, I think, the co-operation between Norway and Sweden as a model as to how that would work. It is likely that we will lose INTERREG funding as far as Wales is concerned, which will have an effect particularly on our ferry ports. I’m keen to explore new relationships around the Irish sea, whether it’s with the republic, Northern Ireland or with the Isle of Man, to see how we can help to ensure that there is minimal disruption when the UK leaves the European Union. Of course, the British-Irish Council is a useful body in terms of exploring some of these issues with those countries that border the Irish sea.

Question 5—Jenny Rathbone.

The leader of Plaid Cymru has already stolen my question, but I’ll ask it for the record anyway.

In light of the measures announced in the autumn statement, will the Welsh Government consider joining England—

Sorry, questions are not stolen in this place. Somebody has asked your question before you got to it. So, just ask the question on the order paper.

It’s a matter of where questions are asked, of course, when these things arise, but I give the Member the same answer I gave to the leader of Plaid Cymru, which is: we are studying the impact of the ban in Scotland and, together with the final details of proposals in England, that will inform any action that we take. And as I mentioned earlier on, I thank the Member for the advocacy she has shown to so many tenants in her constituency, where they have been exploited over some years. This is a matter I know she has been very active in combating.

Just to put some details on the bones of that issue, I’ve got information that Citizens Advice says the average tenancy fee is £337, Shelter says that 15 per cent of renters are using an agency where they’ve had to pay up £500 or more, and tenants in Cardiff have said that fees are around £450.

Too many agents, certainly operating in my constituency, are charging exploitative levels of fees, frequently far in excess of the actual cost, and also putting on hidden fees, often on people who are very young and are tentatively working their way through what are their rights. You can charge £60 or more for a credit check—a check that the firm will be doing for as little as £5. The renewal fee for staying in the same property can be as high as £300, when it amounts to little more than printing off a contract to sign. So, too many unscrupulous agents have got away with excessive fees and double-charging landlords.

I just want to refer the First Minister to a report from Shelter. Shelter’s research shows—it isn’t just the ONS—that landlords in Scotland were no more likely to have increased rent since 2012 than landlords elsewhere in the UK. So, can you confirm that the Welsh Government has not ruled out action to prevent letting agents charging exorbitant and hidden fees?

Yes, I can confirm that. The Member, of course, makes a strong case for the abolition of such fees. I know that the Minister is actively looking at how this can be taken forward in the future and examining the emerging evidence from Scotland.

First Minister, there seems to have been some confusion at the time—when we debated this previously, in the previous Assembly—over whether you had the powers, or not. And I understand that you were able to give backbench Labour Assembly Members advice to suggest that it wasn’t, in fact, legal for you to do so, something that wasn’t shared with the rest of us as part of that particular debate. I would like to ask here today, First Minister, if you’re minded to bring forward any future debate or any future legislation, if you could put forward that advice to the Assembly, so that we can analyse it independently so that we can assess the way forward, because we seem to be hearing one thing from backbenchers and another from Government.

Well, the Member’s not a member of the group on this side of the Chamber, and how she is aware of what was and wasn’t said is a matter for her, but what I can say is that anything is potentially open to challenge, because of the inadequate nature of our devolution settlement, which is why, even though the opportunity hasn’t been grasped properly by the UK Government, we need to make sure there is greater clarity. We will look to proceed on the basis that we will do for the people of Wales what is proposed in England and in Scotland. The fact that the Government, the UK Government in England, I would argue, has already conceded in any event that they believe this is devolved, because they’ve only talked about England in this regard, is something that is, of course, helpful to any future potential reference to the Supreme Court.

First Minister, these fees are something of a horror. There aren’t many goods and services where we actually get charged for the process of purchase, and there’s clear support all around the house for action to be taken on this. These fees do distort the market. They’re a disincentive to the mobility of labour, and the clear experience in Scotland is that the charges would be absorbed by those offering homes to rent, which is where they’ve traditionally been.

I don’t argue against what the Member has said; that evidence that Shelter has produced in terms of Scotland is useful and strong evidence that will inform the way forward as far as Wales is concerned.

Well, this isn’t, of course, a devolved issue, but underperformance by Network Rail in providing quality public services is not acceptable. We will continue to call for the devolution of rail powers so we can have greater accountability for railway services provided in Wales.

Thanks for that, First Minister. Yes, I’m aware it’s a problem that is essentially dealt with by Network Rail. Are there regular channels of communication between the Welsh Government and Network Rail?

Yes, there are. I’ve met with Network Rail, but the more regular channel of communication will be between officials and Network Rail. It is not acceptable that services should be curtailed in this way. The problem is that, if there are compacted leaves on the line—and it’s an old joke, but the reality is, what happens is, if a train skids, it can actually damage the wheels to the extent that the wheels have to be re-ground. So actually it takes the entire locomotive out of action and, potentially, carriages as well, because of that effect.

I would not want to think that Network Rail are not spending as much money as they should be doing on trackside maintenance, thus causing more leaves to fall. That is something that we will need to talk to Network Rail about in order to rule out that possibility.

The First Minister will be aware of comments by the UK transport Secretary a few weeks ago that pressing for the electrification of the rail line from Cardiff to Swansea was jumping the gun and, most recently, comments by the chair of Network Rail that it was not a done deal. He’ll appreciate that my constituents in Neath and, I dare say, those of colleagues west of Cardiff will hear that as a rowing back on previous commitments by the UK Government. I wonder if you can outline what steps the Welsh Government can take to press the UK Government to hold its commitments.

Well, these are promises that were given, that there would be electrification. Originally, of course, the promise was electrification as far as Cardiff, and then from Bridgend to Swansea; I wondered what I’d done to the UK Government that there should be a gap between my constituency and Cardiff. In reality, it was because they failed to realise there are actually two railway lines between the two settlements. That promise was given, and I expect that promise to be kept. On top of that, it is quite clear that Cardiff Central railway station needs a significant revamp in order for it to be fit for the future, and I expect to see—I would want to see—the UK Government making the right level of contribution to Network Rail’s plans for that station as well. It is not good enough, on the one hand, to say the railways cannot be devolved, and on the other hand not spend enough money on Welsh railways. The UK Government cannot have it both ways.

Naturally, I would support the comments of Jeremy Miles on the dire need to electrify the main line to Swansea. Some of us have been making that case for a decade and more. But the original question here is on leaves on the line. Naturally, autumn comes round every year and the leaves fall annually. I understand the point that this system is not devolved, but I don’t know if anyone’s told the leaves that. But I think there is scope here to innovate in negotiations in order to ensure that we come up with solutions that eradicate this problem once and for all.

Well, that’s perfectly true, of course, but the important point is that Network Rail ensures that sufficient work is undertaken in order to ensure that trees are cut back in order to stop the leaves falling on the line in the first place. Because at present, what is not clear is whether they are doing enough to ensure that the problem is reduced, bearing in mind that we do know that the leaves fall each year in this country—from the majority of trees.

I contacted Arriva Trains Wales after disruption to services on the Wrexham-to-Bidston line at the end of October caused by leaf fall and weather conditions. They replied that they’d been trying to overcome the issue for a number of years, and were working in partnership with colleagues on the line to try and reduce the effect on their customers. They produced a paper in March of this year, supported by local user groups and bodies on the line, but unfortunately it wasn’t supported by the Welsh Government. Why was that, First Minister?

That’s not correct. What he is suggesting—well, he points out, actually, that there’s a weakness in the system; that is, that the rail track operator and owner is divorced from the actual train company, but that is a system his own party put in place. It would be a far better system, to my mind, where the train operating company and the rail track operator and owner were one and the same body, so one can’t blame the other if there are any disruptions to services. But that is a system his party put in place and want to preserve.

Our focus will be on restoring in part the previous cuts to our capital budget imposed by the UK Government and delivering our investment priorities as set out in ‘Taking Wales Forward’.

Thank you. First Minister, the autumn statement will deliver over £400 million over the next five years for infrastructure—good news. Will you make sure that all areas of Wales benefit from this extra funding, including rural areas like Monmouthshire, my constituency, which receives one of the lowest local government settlements but which would really benefit from additional investment in infrastructure projects and projects like the Cardiff city deal and the south Wales metro?

Monmouthshire is part of both projects, of course. Monmouthshire is an active part of the Cardiff capital region deal, and certainly the leader of Monmouthshire has been somebody who’s been very proactive in moving that deal forward, and also the metro. There are opportunities for Monmouthshire to benefit from the metro, particularly as we look to improved bus services and possibly light rail services into his constituency in the future.

The Government’s autumn statement demonstrated a very blasé attitude by the Tories towards an impending care crisis, and their failure to provide for our increasingly aging population means that there will be huge pressures now on the NHS. Will the First Minister make a commitment to work very closely with the Welsh Local Government Association to make sure that such a crisis does not occur in Wales?

Yes, absolutely. We already spend 6 per cent more per head on health and social services in Wales than is the case in England. We never saw the sense of taking money from social services in order to plug gaps in health funding, which is what England did. You can’t divorce one from the other, and we will continue to ensure that there is sufficient funding for both.

Some of the autumn statement money in England is going to be used to build hyperfast broadband capability through fibre to the premises. Isn’t there an opportunity here for us in Wales, as we begin to think beyond Superfast Cymru, instead of investing in a privately owned monopoly, which is highly problematical, as Ofcom’s decision today demonstrated, to create a publicly owned digital infrastructure network for Wales, something that his party leader at the UK level has recently called for for the UK?

I think that’s certainly worth exploring. The immediate objective is making sure that the current Superfast Cymru scheme is extended and completed in the middle of next year. Beyond that, of course, it’s right to say that we can’t sit back and say, ‘Well, that’s it. The technology will stay as it is for the next five years, 10 years or the next two years.’ So, yes, it is hugely important to continue to invest in greater bandwidth and greater speeds, of course, as far as broadband is concerned and we’ll continue to consider that.

Our water strategy for Wales states our policy for Water services in Wales. The Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs meets regularly with the Welsh water industry to discuss all aspects of water and sewage services.

Will the First Minister join with me in supporting calls for a phase 2 investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority into the proposed purchase of Dee Valley Water by Severn Trent Water? Clearly, there are huge implications for customers and for jobs, especially in north-east Wales, as well as wider implications for the water industry here in Wales. Will you also support the appeal for existing shareholders to do what they can to retain those jobs in north-east Wales and to ensure that Welsh Water is run in future from Wales and not from Coventry?

I would not support any change that would result in the loss of Welsh jobs. The Competition and Markets Authority have launched an investigation into the deal. Comments are invited by 1 December, so we will be looking to provide comments, as I’m sure other Members will as well.

First Minister, our natural environment, including our water environment, can provide a number of benefits to improve the quality of our lives, so it’s crucial that we do everything we can to enhance access to our natural resources. You may be aware of proposals to change the Llys-y-frân reservoir, in my constituency, into a water park in order to attract more visitors to the area. Now, in light of these proposals, what additional support can your Government give to projects such as this one, which, of course, do promote our natural environment and bring benefits to our rural areas?

Well, in knowing that area quite well, I believe that this would probably be of benefit to the area itself. In the usual manner, of course, any scheme would have to request financial support and we would then, of course, have to consider whether that support would be forthcoming. Therefore, I would tell them to consider all types of financial support in order to ensure that the project can proceed.

I thank the First Minister.

I have accepted three urgent question under Standing Order 12.66. I call on Russell George to ask the first urgent question.

Last Wednesday, all Sport Wales board activities were suspended by Welsh Government until a governance assurance review is completed. I provided a written statement to Members yesterday setting out the circumstances and the terms of reference for the assurance review. It would be inappropriate of me to comment further on this matter until the review has been completed.

Well, I hope that still allows me to ask a number of questions, Minister. [Laughter.] Of course, the abrupt nature of the board’s suspension is an unprecedented intervention by Welsh Government, so there are some questions here that I would like to ask.

Can I ask when did you first know that Sport Wales had become dysfunctional? Did you and the Government have confidence—or do you in the Government have confidence in the chair of Sport Wales, and if not, does the legitimacy of his review into Sport Wales carry any weight? And, indeed, do you recognise the findings of the leaked report? I would ask whether the vote of no confidence was linked to the findings of the chair’s leaked report?

I thank you for those questions. I think it’s important to recognise that Welsh Government did act swiftly and appropriately and in the best interests of the organisation. Officials had been aware that there were some tensions within the board over the past two to three weeks, but the expectation really was that the normal governance processes would enable the board to manage this and arrive at an agreed solution. But this wasn’t the case. Sport Wales is a Welsh Government sponsored body and, as such, it does have a well-developed governance process, so we will only intervene in exceptional circumstances, and in general, we expect all of our sponsored bodies to resolve problems themselves. They were unable to use the governance process to resolve the issues, and when this happens, issues can then be raised with Welsh Government. But a conclusion of dysfunctionality, which is where we’re at now, was based upon the fact that the board had reached a point where they adopted the vote of no confidence without exhausting both of those avenues.

The chair’s review and the assurance review that Welsh Government has commissioned are separate. They do seem to be conflated in the recent press reports. It’s worth mentioning that I did meet two of the four members of the independent panel, which is working on the chair’s review this morning to discuss the way forward with that chair’s review. Those panel members I met were also representing the other two members of the panel who couldn’t be here today.

I just want to take this opportunity to applaud the panel for the integrity that they’ve displayed in the work that they’ve undertaken this far. They are very clear that the emerging themes in the chair’s review will now require peer review. So, I expect this work to conclude early in the new year, once the assurance review has been completed. The finished report will also then provide us with guidance on the way forward for the sector. And, of course, I’m keen to keep Members updated.

Will you appoint an interim board to take things forward and will you accept concerns from wider afield, from, maybe, organisations interacting with the body already? And I suppose my main question is: how can we arrive at this point where the organisation’s board was suspended last week? Shouldn’t these things have been resolved before coming to this point?

I think I’ve described the situation under which the decision was arrived at last week. There’s no intention to appoint an interim board while the assurance review is undertaken over the course of the next eight weeks, because governance arrangements currently exist for Sport Wales. So, any business or any issues that the chief executive would normally bring to the attention of the board will now be brought to the attention of a senior Welsh Government official.

Of course, it is concerning that the board has been suspended, which does indicate a certain amount of lack of co-ordination, but of course it’s good that the normal activities of Sport Wales will continue in the meantime, and hopefully with minimal disruption. I’m sure the staff at the organisation will be able to run the show for the next few weeks without the contribution of the board. Of course, as we know, board members are sometimes political appointments, so sometimes staff do get on better without them butting their noses in. But we will await your report in eight weeks’ time with interest. Thank you.

I thank you for giving me this opportunity to put on record my thanks to all of the staff at Sport Wales who are doing a really great job in really difficult circumstances. So, I appreciate the opportunity to put on record that thanks and also to reassure Members that the day-to-day business of Sport Wales is continuing throughout this period.

I thank the Minister.

I call on Simon Thomas to ask the second urgent question.

Yes. Officials have been discussing various aspects of this project over the last two years and I’ve asked that discussions continue to determine whether a satisfactory business case can be submitted, demonstrating financial viability and the economic, cultural and linguistic benefits of the development, and explaining the need for public sector intervention.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his statement and I thank him for confirming that discussions and negotiations have been ongoing for two years and more on this proposal. There was some confusion over the weekend that this scheme relates to the relocation of S4C to Carmarthen. Will the Cabinet Secretary confirm that there is no mention at all of Welsh Government funding being provided for the relocation of S4C—that is a decision for the S4C corporation itself? But, of course, Yr Egin is an attempt by the university and partners to create a cluster for the creative industries in west Wales and in Carmarthen, and which will house S4C as well as a number of other creative industries bodies, creating up to 100 high-quality jobs in west Wales.

In moving forward, will the Minister also confirm that the proposal—there have been no decisions of yet, of course, to invest or not in the proposal—is in keeping with the Government’s creative industries strategy and is also in keeping with strategies for building the Government’s language economy? Finally, when can we expect a decision from Government on the stability of this plan in order to actually put people’s minds at rest who may have believed that this related in some way to S4C?

I’d like to thank the Member for his questions and say I do hope that a conclusion will be reached very soon on this matter. The Member is also right that we need to distinguish between S4C’s move and the entirety of Yr Egin project, which is an ambitious creative industries hub for Carmarthen. In terms of S4C funding for its share of the project, S4C has already indicated that it believes it is fully funding its share of the development. In terms of the additional resource as well, it was the original intention for Trinity Saint David to draw down structural funds to meet what is now the shortfall, but the allocation of significantly lower sums to the regional infrastructure priority for structural funds means that this money is no longer an option, so the Welsh Government has been approached to see and determine whether we would be able to grant aid to the development to meet the indicated shortfall. I do applaud the university for its ambition to drive social and cultural, and, indeed, economic development in the region, and I think it’s worth noting that both SA1 and phase 2 of Yr Egin have both secured the support of the city region board for development.

S4C makes a contribution, not just culturally to Wales but economically through the injection of over £81 million, and much of this money goes towards paying small media companies to feed the channel, as happened in Cardiff over many years. What we’ve seen is a very prosperous industry developing. Will the Cabinet Secretary explain how Welsh Government is going to ensure that the local economic potential transferring from Cardiff to Carmarthen will be realised if Yr Egin centre is not developed and funded by the Welsh Government?

I’d like to thank Eluned Morgan for her question. Just as Simon Thomas indicated, the creative industries are of enormous benefit to the Welsh economy. They are growing faster here in Wales than anywhere else in the UK, bar London, and it’s our intention to ensure that the creative industries go from strength to strength. The Government has a proud record, I believe, in supporting the creative industries, and, in particular, Welsh-language television and film. The project is indeed promising considerable economic benefits, above and beyond S4C’s move, and Trinity’s ambition is to build on S4C’s decision to move to Carmarthen. For example, there could be other anchor tenants in Yr Egin, including Boom, Gorilla and the BBC. It’s also worth reflecting on the fact that the SA1 partnership has already been able to turn £300,000 of Welsh Government revenue support into £5 million in capital investment, 50 new jobs and five business start-ups. So, as I’ve already said, officials have been in discussions with Trinity for some time. It’s my hope that a conclusion to those discussions can take place, but investment must be delivered on the basis of adding value, and that’s what we’re going to be determining through examining the business case.

I think the location in Carmarthen is likely to stimulate the use of the Welsh language within the economy, as it would wherever it’s situated in Wales. But, of course, this particular county has faced some fragility in the robustness of its growth of the Welsh language and has had some difficulties with its Welsh in education statutory plans in the past. So, the location of Yr Egin in this particular part of Wales, I think, perhaps does add that extra value that you were talking about in your closing comments just now. I also realise that you’ve mentioned the city deal, and while, perhaps, when we talk about Wylfa B, the role of the Welsh language in the north-east of Wales is much more to the forefront, I’m afraid to say, than it is with the city deal, despite the comments that you’ve made at the moment. So, would you agree with me that, actually, having this particular facility in this part of Wales brings extra value to the city deal, as it will be located in a part of Wales where growth in the Welsh language is something we should be looking for—new growth, as opposed to protecting existing use of the language in daily life? Thank you.

I’d like to thank Suzy Davies for her questioning and say that I’d be keen to look at new growth of the Welsh language and businesses that support the Welsh language anywhere in Wales, whether it’s in north-west, south-west, south-east or mid and west Wales, anywhere across Wales. So, I’m keen to support any project that can deliver economic, cultural and social benefits to the communities in which it is based, but it must be viable and deliverable.

I’m sure you would agree with me that we need to be entirely clear and entirely transparent on this case. There is quite some interest in it. You mentioned that there was a financial deficit for this plan. When did that emerge, and is that different to the negotiations that have been taking place over a period of two years? Are we talking about a more recent development in terms of this deficit that you mentioned? Is the plan to relocate the S4C headquarters reliant on the funding that has been applied for from Welsh Government?

Well, it is disappointing that a gap in funding was only discovered after the project was publicly announced, but the role of S4C is to add weight to Yr Egin and act as an anchor tenant that can attract more businesses to start up and to prosper from there. And, as I’ve already said, S4C have been able to demonstrate, through a £3 million up-front rental payment, that their investment in the project is secure, and it’s still their intention to move to Carmarthen.

Minister, as far as I can see, Yr Egin will support the Welsh Labour goal and the Welsh Government’s goal of new technical hubs in rural areas, and so I’m 100 per cent behind this. The question I would like to ask you—. I’m very well aware that the funding has been in place. I’m very well aware, as I know you are, that S4C carried out due diligence, looked at a number of different locations around Wales, and in the end settled on Carmarthen. I’m very well aware that the intention is to build and create a services industry around it, and to support the work of the film industry in Swansea, and, of course, our own industry here in Cardiff as well, so that we have a long sweep down our southern coast of a creative services industry.

Of course, being on the back of a university is absolutely excellent for this. So, Cabinet Secretary, I wonder if you would also perhaps give us a quick indication of the other support packages that Welsh Government might be looking at in order to help to promote a creative services hub based on Yr Egin, based on Carmarthenshire, based on the anchor companies of S4C, and perhaps some of the other companies that you’ve already mentioned that I know are currently looking at moving into that building, and particularly thinking about apprenticeships, and about retaining young graduates with a lot of talent in west Wales, to carry on developing our cultural and linguistic database, and that essence that is Wales.

It’s a very interesting question, and I think it is worth reflecting, not just on this model, but also models that are emerging elsewhere in Wales. For example, we cut the ground recently at the Menai Science Park in north-west Wales, and I think that offers a similar approach where you could have vertically integrated systems that drive the growth of an anchor tenant, be it in north-west Wales, Wylfa Newydd, or in north-east Wales, where we announced a similar advanced manufacturing research institute—Airbus. You can have vertically integrated systems that replicate, to some degree, old models from the past, where you had within a single company, everything built, everything provided for, but then they were hollowed out. In the twenty-first century, the key is going to be in linking in university spaces, integrating university spaces, which can offer open, creative space, with businesses large and small, that are then based on not just feeding the requirements of the major companies, the anchor tenants, but also in driving innovation throughout that network.

So, I do think that this model is a very interesting one that we could examine for elsewhere in Wales, but the other point that I would make is that I don’t think we can adopt a single model for everywhere in Wales. I think it’s essential that we take the unique skills and opportunities that exist in each community and then base this sort of hub growth model on those unique elements of Welsh communities.

And finally, Adam Price.

Of course, I do urge the Cabinet Secretary to invest in the south-west, in the creative industries. We’ve seen industry here in Cardiff with Gloworks—maybe Gloworks 2 might be on the horizon—and Pontio in Bangor. We need investment in the creative industries in every part of Wales, and we wish to see that in the south-west too. May I ask him—? I want to see every part of Wales succeeding, so may I ask him, as he assesses the new economic strategy for Wales, to look at the positive role that relocations can play? He has expressed his intention to have the headquarters of the development bank in north Wales and I support that. Why can’t we have the new Welsh revenue authority in the north-west in order to compensate for those jobs that have been lost at HMRC there? Can we have a pan-Wales national scheme? There was some kind of basis for it in the spatial plan, but, unfortunately, that’s gone off the agenda. Can we have that back in the centre as a core part of our economic strategy, so that we can see investments in every part of Wales, and the public sector, where it can, playing its role in that?

I’d like to thank Adam Price for his questions, and say that I do think he’s absolutely right. First of all, I think there’s a temptation for many—well, for all of us—to speak as backbenchers on behalf of our respective regions and constituencies. But it’s essential to recognise that there are opportunities to drive wealth creation all across Wales. Whilst today we are talking primarily about Carmarthen, I do think that the creative industries offer opportunities the length and breadth of the country, as do other key sectors. I would agree with Adam Price that decentralising and relocating, particularly public sector organisations, out to areas where economic growth can then be driven by their presence is absolutely essential. I think it will be an interesting element of the work of officials at the moment, concerning the economic strategy, in terms of how we use the public pound and the public sector to drive growth in the private sector, where there is potential, but there isn’t yet that spark that is required to get the sectoral growth actually driven.

And, finally, finally, Julie Morgan.

S4C at the moment is based in my constituency, on the Llanishen trading estate in Cardiff North. I have to be absolutely honest, I regret that it’s leaving and I have said that in this Chamber before. I think it is a mistaken decision. One of the things I am concerned about is that any grant that does go to Trinity St David’s is not going to subsidise S4C, because broadcasting is not devolved. I think it would be a big mistake if this Government was to use grant money when it really should be a Westminster Government department that should be doing that. So, I wonder whether the Cabinet Secretary could clarify that. And could he clarify how dependent the development in Trinity St David’s is on S4C going there?

I’d like to thank Julie Morgan for her questions. And it would perhaps be appropriate at this point to say that any questions concerning S4C’s decision, based on their competition to relocate, whether it be to Carmarthen or Caernarfon, are for S4C to answer. Likewise, the matter of relocating from Cardiff is an issue for S4C rather than Welsh Government to address, in terms of the questions about why the decision was taken. We would not be subsidising S4C’s move if we were to support this project. This project must demonstrate additionality. The vision of Yr Egin is for a creative hub—a major creative hub—and, in scrutinising the business plan, we need to be confident that the support that may be forthcoming would, indeed, lead to the creation of jobs that would not otherwise be generated solely by S4C’s move to Carmarthen.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary.

I now call on Jeremy Miles to ask the third urgent question.

Well, thank you for that urgent question. I can tell you that my assessment is, indeed, at a very preliminary stage. I think we were all made aware of this issue in an article that appeared over the weekend, which was the first announcement that there might be legal action. The British Influence think tank plan to write to the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, to ask him to clarify his position on UK membership of the European Economic Area after Brexit. This process may see proceedings being brought, but no court proceedings are currently live. So, it’s clear that any litigation is still some way off. The UK Government has been asked to clarify its position on withdrawal from the European Economic Area under article 127 of that agreement, and we look forward to hearing what they have to say about that.

I thank the Counsel General for his answer. Would he not agree with me that the principles being discussed here, in a sense, lie on the fault line between a hard and a soft Brexit, if you like? The UK will now leave the EU, but the question is: do we then also leave the EEA and the access to the single market that that brings? Article 127 suggests that that is a separate question and—if I may say—one that the voters haven’t been asked. So, would he share my concern that the UK Government seems to be losing sight of its legal obligations here in its rush to make political judgments about what the British people have voted for.

Well, we also have, as you know, the hearing starting in a week’s time, on 5 December, at which the Welsh Government will be represented, which is going to certainly determine the mechanism for constitutional change. What I can say is that I think the litigation exposes, even now, the UK Government’s total lack of planning, strategy and preparedness for Brexit, and there appears to be a complete lack of thought regarding the UK’s constitution and the rule of law. A state of unparalleled chaos appears to exist at the heart of the Government whose sole strategy appears to be to want to have their cake and to eat it.

I thank the Member for Neath for tabling this urgent question. Can the Counsel General clarify his view on this matter—whether the triggering of article 127 is a necessary legal step, and whether that should be done concurrently with the triggering of article 50? If so, can he also clarify whether—if there is litigation down the line—the Welsh Government will intervene in any legal proceedings, as it has done in the UK Government’s appeal to the Supreme Court on the triggering of article 50? And finally, can he also give a commitment that he will assess whether there are opportunities in the process of triggering article 127 for sub-state entities, such as Wales, to potentially leave or remain in a different way than the state as a whole?

Well, thank you. You’ve asked a number of questions, I think, that raise complex, specific and highly technical legal questions, which the Welsh Government will want to consider carefully and thoroughly in due course. With regard to the triggering of article 127, I think some of those issues may well be determined on the matter of principle in the article 50 case that’s being heard in the Supreme Court next week, where we will probably anticipate judgment sometime in early January. So, in terms of the process, that may actually be the mechanism. In terms of what the implications might be for Wales, the agreement on the European Economic Area is one of the EU treaties that is woven into the fabric of our constitutional settlement by the Government of Wales Act 2006, so, when we know precisely what has happened, when we know precisely what the UK Government’s response is to that, and when we’ve seen the outcome of the article 50 case, if there are any specific issues that are directly relevant to Wales and Wales’s interest, then we will consider those accordingly and I will advise accordingly.

You mentioned the think tank British Influence, and they said there’s no provision in the European Economic Area agreement for UK membership to lapse if the UK withdraws from the EU, and therefore the UK will have to extract itself from the European Economic Area separately to its departure from the EU itself. However, professor of European law at the University of Cambridge, Kenneth Armstrong, has pointed out that the UK neither signed nor ratified the agreement because it wasn’t within its power and competencies—it was within the EU power and competencies—and therefore, once the UK was outside the EU, the agreement would only be enforceable for very limited purposes. On what legal grounds, therefore, would you challenge the UK Government position, which has been stated, which is that the UK is party to the EEA agreement only in its capacity as an EU member state, and once the UK leaves the EU it will automatically cease, therefore, to be a member of the EEA?

Well, thank you very much for that. You’ve raised the valid counterpart of the argument that has been put as the reason why a judicial review pre-action protocol letter has actually been sent to the UK Government. So, the first thing we need to know is what the actual UK Government’s response is to that. As I understand the chronology of events, we left EFTA in 1973, when we joined the European Union. The European economic area agreement was agreed in 1992 and came into effect in 1994. It has the unusual provision in that not only does it of course include the signing of Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway—the EFTA states—but it also includes the European Union as a signatory as well as every individual state. Whether that is a legal anomaly or whether it raises constitutional issues I think will depend on a number of matters, one part of which may be determined as a result of the article 50 Supreme Court hearing in respect of the constitutional issue in respect of process. But the issues that are raised we will give consideration to when we know clearly what the UK Government's position is.

Isn't it about time the remoaners stopped trying to frustrate the freely expressed wishes of the British people in June? The question was plain and simple: do we want to remain in the EU or leave the EU? There was no if or but. There was no qualification or condition. There was nothing about whether it should be a soft Brexit or a hard Brexit. The decision taken by the British people under the terms of the referendum Act that was passed to facilitate this was: do you want to stay or to leave? And the British people voted to leave. The Conservative party, in its manifesto before the last general election, included a paragraph that said:

‘We believe in letting the people decide: so we will hold an in-out referendum on our membership of the EU before the end of 2017.’

The Government has a mandate to implement its manifesto pledge, and all this wriggling by the very inaptly named British Influence, which is a front organisation for European influence, should be ignored, and we should move as quickly as possible to trigger article 50 and, if necessary, article 127 and leave the EU, consequent upon the freely expressed wish, unconditionally, by the British people.

Well, unlike the Member, I'm not in a position to show complete contempt for our constitution and for the rule of law. It seems to me that we have a legal system that has well-established principles. Some of these are before the highest court of the land at the moment, and we should actually give due recognition to the fact that that court will be exercising its jurisdiction and giving a decision as an independent judiciary. I seem to recall that, last week, I asked the Member to repudiate and dissociate himself from the attempts by the then leader of his party to have a sort of torchlight march upon the Supreme Court to intimidate the judges. I never heard him repudiate that. My job, as Counsel General, is to stand up for the constitution and to stand up for the rule of law and, unlike him, I will actually carry out that duty.

I thank the Counsel General.

A point of Order arising from questions—Neil McEvoy.

My sincere thanks, Llywydd.

Rwyf yn codi pwynt o drefn o dan 13.9 (iv) a 13.9 (v). Rwy’n dod o gefndir Gwyddelig-Seisnig, a daeth fy nhaid i Gaerdydd ar gwch o'r Yemen. Awgrymodd y Prif Weinidog fy mod i rywsut yn erbyn mewnfudo, ac fe’m cyhuddodd o beidio â hoffi mewnfudwyr. Rwyf wedi ymdrin â hiliaeth ar hyd fy oes. Rwyf wedi ymladd yn erbyn hiliaeth ar hyd fy oes, ac nid yw'n dderbyniol i’n Prif Weinidog— [Torri ar draws.]

What is a point—[Interruption.] Just hold on a minute. I will decide on what is a point of order; I do not need advice on that from Ministers. Carry on, Neil McEvoy.

Thank you. Diolch. I’ve fought racism all my life. I do not think it's acceptable for the First Minister of Wales to use such irresponsible language. Under 13.9(iv): it was discourteous; 13.9(v): it was offensive to somebody, especially with my background, and it has detracted from the dignity of this Assembly.

Thank you for the point of order. I did not hear anything out of order in the First Minister's comments today, but I will review the Record.

Thank you. Diolch.

The next item on our agenda is the business statement and announcement, and I call on Jane Hutt.

Llywydd, the only change I have to this week's business is to reduce the time allocated to the Counsel General for questions tomorrow. Business for the next three weeks is as shown on the business statement and announcement found among the meeting papers available to Members electronically.

Last week, the cross-party group on haemophilia and contaminated blood held a meeting to hear about the experiences of those people that had been infected during the 1970s and 1980s, and their families—the dreadful experiences they’d had—and to discuss the payments that are being consulted on at the moment by the Welsh Government. That consultation is going ahead, but the other issue that was raised was the lack of a full public inquiry into how these dreadful things happened in the 1970s and the 1980s. One of the things that the cross-party group would like to do is to make sure that the Westminster Government is aware of our feelings. We’d like the opportunity to debate this in some way or other in this Chamber, so could the business Minister suggest any way forward?

I thank the Member for that question. Julie Morgan, of course, has been chairing the cross-party group on haemophilia and contaminated blood since she was elected to this Chamber, and I indeed joined that meeting last week at the end of the meeting and saw not just the strength of numbers, but the strength of feelings and experience. Of course, the Cabinet Secretary was there for that meeting. He is currently consulting those affected in relation to the payments and the way forward for Wales. He of course was there to update the cross-party group on haemophilia last week. As an interim measure, in fact, payments for the remainder of this financial year, as Julie Morgan will know, will be at the same levels as England, in line with the package of reforms they’ve put in place there. But, of course, there needs to be a response and ideas about how we can best make sure that, for those affected, their everyday living is secured. That’s why we’re looking for further schemes, and further ideas and views for a new scheme from April 2017 onwards. I think this is to ensure that those, as I said, who’ve been affected are properly supported to ensure that the Cabinet Secretary is advised fully in making those considerations and decisions.

Leader of the house, I would like to identify myself with the sentiments of the Member for Cardiff North. As someone, along with Jenny Randerson, who was in the third Assembly dealing with this matter, progress needs to be made on this, and whilst announcements keep coming out, either from Westminster or from here, with the best intentions, it cannot be right that this has been allowed to drag on, and progress is somewhat stilted, shall we say, in resolving the matters around this issue.

I’d also like to ask for a statement in relation to the signs on the motorway that you find—the digital signs. I was approached by a constituent this week who highlighted some of the trivial notices that appear on these signs. Last week, between the Severn bridge and Newport, this constituent of mine pointed out that they were advertising a point about getting your eyes tested. There must be a protocol that is actually adhered to, as to what messages are put out on the—[Interruption]. The point being that people’s attention is distracted. I hear the flippancy of the remark, but you only need one person to take their eye off the road unnecessarily and all of a sudden you’re in the back end of a truck, or you’re in the back end of another car. Surely having signs that say ‘Get your eyes tested’—I’m not quite sure how that informs a motorist about road traffic safety or safety measures they should be taking about the current flow of the traffic. So, could we have a statement from the transport Minister to identify exactly what protocols are in place that govern these displays so that there is a more co-ordinated approach in the messaging that is put up? Sometimes, some of the stuff is quite farcical that appears on there.

I think, in response to your first point, Andrew R.T. Davies, clearly, this is a very important issue. There is a cross-party group, which has been—indeed, we have been working very hard to find a way forward. But, as I said earlier on, the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Well-being and Sport is consulting on the way forward, and we are in line, at present, with the arrangements that are being implemented in England in terms of those reforms. We’re looking to see whether we can learn from that but also take this forward for a new scheme for Wales from April onwards. I think we can only note your point today in terms of those signs on the motorway, which I’m sure, in terms of road safety and the importance of public health messages, particularly when you’re driving, are very pertinent.

I’m looking for a statement from the Minister for local government about the survey that I raised last week of all female councillors. There was another resignation yesterday of another female councillor from Cardiff council. The Labour group across the way has now lost more than a third of female members, and a council member contacted me today to talk of the ritual sexist abuse that she has to go through. Now, we’re very good at using words in this Chamber, but I noticed that you passed the ball last week to the Presiding Officer, who has no jurisdiction over local government. So, I’m asking that we get a statement from the local government Minister that there will be a survey to assess the experience of our colleagues in local government.

Secondly, this is the third week running now, and the answer you gave last week really didn’t stand up, so I’ll say it again: within a stone’s throw of this Assembly, there are class A drugs being dealt openly on the streets of Butetown. When will we get a statement from the Government? When will we get action? I will invite the Minister to get out of his ministerial car and maybe join me on the streets of Butetown talking to people about their experiences. When will this matter be addressed through a statement?

I think the most important point that came out of the debate—the outcome of the debate—last week, was the agreement that a survey of female councillors would be useful and, of course, that was a positive outcome that will be taken forward.

I think, in terms of your issues in terms of substance misuse and concerns about it, particularly in communities and how communities are affected by it, I did respond last week and highlighted the progress that the Minister is making in terms of our substance misuse delivery plan, which is the delivery plan for 2016-18. Of course, it is a plan for working together to reduce harm and it does explain what the Welsh Government is doing over the next two years to improve the outcomes of those affected by substance misuse.

Following the autumn statement made in Westminster, can I ask for a Welsh Government statement on the Swansea bay city region to include a description of Welsh Government financial support, transportation proposals and plans for supporting the economic development of the region?

I think that Mike Hedges would have been very pleased that his calls for recognition of a Swansea bay city region and the prospects for a deal in relation to the region have been heeded because of the hard work led by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government in partnership with, of course, the authorities leading the city region proposals. So, I think the fact that it was acknowledged in the autumn statement that there is progress being made on this is very encouraging.

In addition to endorsing Julie Morgan’s call regarding haemophilia and contaminated blood, having also attended that cross-party group last week, I call for a statement by the health and social services Minister on HIV/AIDS, recognising that Thursday 1 December marks World Aids Day. The Terrence Higgins Trust’s theme for World Aids Day this year is HIV ‘It’s Not Over’. They say we’ve come a long way in tackling HIV in Wales. People living with HIV, diagnosed early and on treatment, now have a normal life expectancy ahead of them. Also, when an individual living with HIV is successfully on treatment and no HIV virus is detected in their blood, it’s impossible to transmit HIV. So, treatment equals prevention.

But, one in six people living with HIV are unaware they have the virus, putting their own health at risk and unwittingly passing on the virus. In Wales, half of new people diagnosed with HIV last year were diagnosed late, the highest rate in the UK. With HIV affecting both gay people and heterosexuals, 68 per cent of all new diagnoses last year were in people aged 25 to 49. Although rates of HIV and sexually transmitted infections continue to rise across Wales, and fewer people were on HIV antiretroviral treatment in 2015 than the previous year, access to sexual health services across Wales continues to deteriorate, with no current statutory sexual health service provision of any kind in Powys, sexual health prevention and health promotion services decommissioned in three Welsh health boards—Betsi Cadwaladr, Cwm Taf and Hywel Dda—and support services only funded by the lottery, with funding coming to an end at the end of next March.

The Terrence Higgins Trust is calling for an inquiry into the current level of access to sexual health services across Wales, and the impact in areas where there’s no, or low, access to services. So, we need to know from the Minister what measures he’s taking to tackle HIV in Wales, what action the Welsh Government is taking to address the unacceptably high number of people being diagnosed with HIV late in Wales, and whether the Minister will make a statement to mark World Aids Day, recognising both the importance of that event, but also the worrying figures and statistics highlighted by the Terrence Higgins Trust in Wales.

I thank Mark Isherwood for both those questions and points on the business statement—and, of course, acknowledging that you were also present, Mark, at the cross-party group on haemophilia and contaminated blood—but also the opportunity to draw Members’ attention to the statement that was made by the Minister for Social Services and Public Health on 23 November, the statement on sexual health in Wales, which does address many of the points, highlighting and updating many of the points following a review of the sexual health and well-being action plan for Wales 2010 to 2015. Particularly, you give some of the information in terms of the latest trends on rates of sexually transmitted infections. If we look at rates of STIs and HIV in Wales, although the statement recognises they’ve been high in recent years, laboratory-confirmed data for the first six months of this year show falls in rates of sexually transmitted infections and HIV compared to the same period for 2014, which is encouraging.

But obviously the Minister is recognising that we can’t be complacent; we need to take account of circumstances. So, again, she’s announced in her written statement, which I do encourage Members to look at, an acknowledgement of World Aids Day on 1 December, and she’s undertaking a review that’s going to start next year. And also that’s going to be led by, overseen by, a sexual health programme board, chaired by the chief medical officer. And she also, in that statement, acknowledges that we’re going to be introducing a new human papilloma virus vaccination programme, for example, which is relevant to this question today.

I’m going to declare an interest before speaking on this, because I have a number of family members working in the creative industries. But I do have a number of questions that I would like to raise, as it has become evident that the Welsh Government are considering a bid for millions of pounds from the University of Wales Trinity Saint David for a project that includes relocating 55 S4C posts from Cardiff to Carmarthen. I’m not happy that we have received clear answers to date today, and I do ask for a full statement on this issue from the Cabinet Secretary for the economy. The kind of clear answers that we need at present are: what is the purpose of the funding that is sought from the Government? How much money is being requested? Does this represent the financial shortfall alluded to earlier by the Cabinet Secretary? Is there a risk that the Carmarthen project will actually disappear altogether without this additional funding being secured? If the project does not progress, what will happen to the S4C relocation scheme? There are a great number of questions that require answers. I would also like to know what the process will be from now on in from the point of view of the Government, and in looking at the business case, and how you will ensure that you are completely transparent with the public as regards what is happening now. Also, how will you ensure that you come to a robust decision on this, and also on the location of the S4C headquarters?

Sian Gwenllian was able to ask a question following the urgent question today, and I think it’s important that we note your further points on the business statement. I’m going to again repeat that, over the last two years, the Welsh Government has had various discussions with S4C and other partners involved in the move of its HQ to Carmarthen, and those wider developments at the site. But it does remain the case, as the Cabinet Secretary said, that any support from the Welsh Government can only be considered if a detailed and compelling business case is provided that fully articulates and evidences the economic, cultural and linguistic benefits of the development, and demonstrates why public sector intervention is needed to deliver it.

In March 2015, the UK Government passed under section 67 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 a law that made it a criminal offence for an adult to send a sexual communication to a child. This Assembly passed a legislative consent motion to enable that the previous month. However, over a year and a half later, this law, which could help police and stop potential groomers in their tracks, has still not been commenced by the UK Government. Could I therefore ask for a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children on details of any discussions the Welsh Government has had with the UK Government and Ministry of Justice to enact section 67 of the Serious Crime Act to ensure that children in Wales are protected, and that police are given the powers they need to deal with offenders?

I thank Lynne Neagle for that question. I think, since being made aware of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children’s Flaw in the Law campaign, officials have been in touch with the Ministry of Justice office to look at the current position regarding the commencement of section 67 of the Serious Crime Act 2015, which Lynne Neagle draws our attention to today. We’re still waiting in fact—we’re still waiting for a response. We’re fully supportive of the inclusion of this section in the Act. We would welcome an update on timing for enactment from the Ministry of Justice’s office, so it’s very welcome that you’ve brought this to the whole Assembly’s attention today. And the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children is following this up with a letter to Liz Truss MP imminently.

May I ask the leader of the house for a further statement by the Cabinet Secretary for communities before the Christmas break on the Rent Smart Wales scheme? It has been reported that more than 13,000 private landlords in Wales may be letting properties illegally after the Rent Smart Wales scheme became law. Last week, I met a constituent, an elderly lady, who owns only one property, which she has rented out for more than 10 years without any problem. Now, the Welsh Government insist that she should pay a registration fee and undergo training in her responsibilities and obligations as a landlord. How many other old-age people or old-age pensioners are in a similar boat? And I would like to know that this country is very friendly to those people who own properties. Can we have a statement again so that the Cabinet Secretary can explain why my constituent has to pay the same fee as someone who owns multiple properties, and why the Welsh Government is putting an excessive burden on good landlords? This lady is going to pay the same fee as the person who owns multiple properties, by the way, so, Welsh Government is putting an excessive burden on good landlords, instead of effectively targeting the bad ones in Wales. So, I’ll be very grateful if the Minister would look into this again, and I ask for another statement. Thank you.

The Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children did make a full statement on this last week. I haven’t got the Record of Proceedings in front of me; I’m sure you asked questions of the Cabinet Secretary at that time. This is an important scheme that was backed in terms of legislation, progressive legislation, on this side of the Chamber, and, of course, in terms of implementation, opportunity for scrutiny last week was important. And the implementation of it, of course, will take into account the points that have been raised.

Could we have a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for environment, energy and climate change regarding future Welsh Government policy towards farming payments and farm support systems in particular? I’m very concerned that the decision to leave the European Union is being used as a Trojan horse by some people to get a land grab onto Welsh devolved policy. We heard the leader of the Welsh Conservatives only this week claiming that farmers would be happier for Westminster to decide farming policy rather than here in our democratically elected Parliament. Well, I’m not happy, and the farmers I talk to aren’t happy about that.

They’re not always happy about what the Welsh Government does, of course not, but there’s a difference between Government and Parliament and it shouldn’t be right that the decision to leave the European Union is being used by the Conservatives not only to take back farming policy from Wales—and, in turn, environmental policy, because they go hand in hand—but also already we’ve heard that convergence and regional development funding policy should also be retained by Westminster.

We want Westminster’s sticky hands off our policies that have already been devolved so that future Governments here can take the decision for the Welsh people. What’s really at the heart of this, of course, is the Conservatives know they will never win a majority in this Parliament so they use the back-door method of a Conservative Government—[Interruption.]—a Conservative Government in Westminster to decide policies for Wales. We fought against that for 40 years and we won that fight and we won’t fight again.

I have to say to the Minister that what’s lacking is there’s a bit of a vacuum. Because the Welsh Government isn’t coming forward with clear plans that Welsh farmers can get hold of, can critique or possibly agree with or say something different should be done, there’s a vacuum for these pernicious ideas to be circulated by the Conservatives. So, I think it would be very valuable for the Welsh Government now to set out its principles for how it will take this forward.

A final point on that that I think the statement should address is there’s a world of difference between four nations coming together at a UK level and agreeing things that are a common good in the field of farming and environment, including things like animal welfare and standards of slaughter and all that kind of—animal diseases. There’s a world of difference between that and Westminster deciding and then telling us what to do.

The second element that I’d like a statement on, because I think it’s related but slightly separate, is how the Welsh Government intends to deal with a potential crisis in migrant farm workers next year. It’s already been flagged up that late-season crops—cauliflowers, potatoes and so forth—at the moment, we’ve about 70 per cent of the migrant workforce that we need to pick those crops. That’s maybe not seen to be a huge issue for Wales at the moment, and more an issue for Lincolnshire and parts of England, but we do have between 20,000 and 30,000 migrant farm workers and food production workers coming into Wales each year, and, if we see a reduction similar to that next year then we will struggle to maintain our abattoirs, we will struggle to maintain some of our seasonal crop picking, and we will struggle to maintain our food production facilities in Wales. If the UK Government is not prepared to give the necessary assurances for EU workers to come and do that migrant work, then we need to look afresh at the idea of Welsh work visas and arguing the case for that, because our agricultural needs and workforce needs must be met in order to ensure that there’s food on our plates. So, I hope we can have two statements from the Government on those matters.

I thank Simon Thomas for raising that today. In fact, Lesley Griffiths, the Cabinet Secretary, was at the Royal Welsh winter fair yesterday. I think it was warmly welcomed; her announcement about payments by 1 December was warmly welcomed—I certainly read the quotes from the farmers’ unions—and recognising, once more, that agriculture is a fully devolved matter and has been since 1999 and we have delivered in partnership with the farming community, with the agricultural sector, in partnership in Government with you and in Government with Welsh Liberal Democrats, and also, of course, in partnership with the farming community. And that’s how we wish to take it forward. If you look at EU regulatory frameworks, of course, when they cease to apply it is for the devolved administrations, it’s for us here in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, to decide if and how—as you say, there are areas where there may be UK-wide frameworks with the UK Government—but it is our responsibility.

Now, I would dispute—in terms of the Cabinet Secretary’s engagement, it’s been full since the referendum result. Not only has she made statements that responded to this, but I think it’s worth saying again not only meeting farmers unions, industry representatives but also hosting those round table discussions on the implications of the UK’s exit from the EU.

The other point that is worth making is that, as it’s clearly been shown, Andrew R.T. Davies—we wonder what his colleagues think about his statements, I would say, over the last few days. I recognise that he’s not here today, but what appetite would there be anyway, in Westminster, to retake responsibility over agriculture in Wales? Actually, in those round-table discussions, the engagement with farmers and the unions and partners in the sector has been about how they can work with us to develop distinctively Welsh agricultural policies.

I think your second point is also very important—it’s on the record—and of course we will consider, again, how we can raise this. Of course, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government is involved in the EU committee that’s been set up; he sits on it alongside ministerial colleagues from other devolved administrations and, indeed, UK Government Ministers as well, looking at those very issues in terms of the farming workforce, which will have a particular impact not just on Wales, but on the rest of the UK.

I’d like to ask the leader of the house for a statement relating to the steel industry. I’ve been pre-empted a little bit by the statement, which I saw when I sat down this afternoon, but over the last couple of weeks, we’ve actually seen some progress in relation to, perhaps, moving forward in the steel industry. Only this weekend, we saw the news that it’s likely that Tata Steel are selling their speciality steels to Liberty Steel, and that seems to be moving forward, but that still leaves the strip products. I note that the statement that we received this afternoon from the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure highlights that he has written to Ratan Tata and that he is expecting some answer, but I think it’s time we have the opportunity to have an oral statement, on which we can ask some serious questions based on fact and not rumours that are happening in the steel industry, to ensure that the uncertainty that is still hanging over some of our areas, particularly in my constituency, is cleared up as much as possible—that we see a bright future and that the Welsh Government is taking steps forward. I appreciate that some of those levers are with the UK Government, but perhaps we can also have a link in to what actions and discussions they’ve had with the UK Government on the future of steel.

There’s no question that the Cabinet Secretary will want to engage, as he has shown this afternoon, and update Members accordingly.

Leader of the house, can I call for two statements, please? The first is from the Cabinet Secretary for health. Last week was atrial fibrillation awareness week and Members of this house will be aware that one in five people who suffer from a stroke—6,000 of them every year here in Wales—will have had an atrial fibrillation episode prior to them suffering a stroke. I’d like to know what the Welsh Government is doing in order to promote awareness of AF amongst the general public and, indeed, medical practitioners, because many of these strokes can be prevented if AF is treated.

Secondly, can I ask for an update from the Cabinet Secretary responsible for regeneration on the Government’s progress towards legal action against Lambert Smith Hampton following the regeneration investment fund for Wales scandal? Obviously, in response to the Public Accounts Committee report earlier this year, the Welsh Government said that it was pursuing a legal process against Lambert Smith Hampton, following the advice that the RIFW board received, which resulted in taxpayers losing out on tens of millions of pounds because a good proportion of the land was sold off at rock-bottom prices, including in Abergele in my own constituency, where a piece of land was sold to South Wales Land Developments by the Welsh Government for £100,000 and subsequently sold on for £1.9 million within a very short period of time thereafter. Taxpayers want justice, leader of the House, and I think it is appropriate, now that so much time has elapsed, that Assembly Members receive an update on this very important matter.

The Member raises two important issues. On your first point, of course, in terms of AF and the prevention and detection to prevent strokes—that is a very important point. I think it’s important to note that, from the most recent stroke annual report, over the last 10 years, survival rates following a stroke for people aged 74 and under have improved and the number of people dying from strokes is also reducing. But that has to be partly due to the raising of awareness as you describe, and we will be taking that forward. On your second point, of course, these are recommendations that were made regarding RIFW by the Public Accounts Committee—you were the Chair at the time—and those recommendations are being implemented.

Thank you very much, leader of the house.

Item 3 on the agenda is a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government on the Landfill Disposals Tax (Wales) Bill, and I call on Mark Drakeford to speak to the statement.

The introduction of the Landfill Disposals Tax (Wales) Bill marks another step forward in our tax devolution journey. It’s the second of two taxes that are being devolved to Wales. This follows the introduction of the Land Transaction Tax and Anti-avoidance of Devolved Taxes (Wales) Bill, introduced in September, and the passage of the Tax Collection and Management (Wales) Act, passed earlier this year. The devolution of taxes to Wales will enable us to develop a tax system that is simpler and fairer for taxpayers and that supports our ambitions for public services, jobs and growth. For the first time in 800 years, we are developing and implementing a tax regime that is more directly suited to the circumstances and people of Wales. We have consulted widely with stakeholders throughout the development of this Bill, and I would like to thank all those who have contributed. I value their continued involvement in informing the ongoing and detailed work to come.

Bydd y Bil hwn yn sefydlu treth newydd ar warediadau gwastraff i safleoedd tirlenwi, a fydd yn disodli'r dreth dirlenwi bresennol, sy'n cael ei chodi ar sail Cymru a Lloegr, o fis Ebrill 2018 ymlaen. Bwriad y dreth yw sicrhau bod y refeniw o dreth dirlenwi’n parhau i gael ei gasglu i’w fuddsoddi mewn gwasanaethau cyhoeddus yng Nghymru. Ond nid dim ond mater o gasglu treth yw hwn, oherwydd mae’r Bil hwn yn cyd-fynd â'n polisi gwastraff. Bydd y dreth gwarediadau tirlenwi’n chwarae rhan bwysig wrth ein helpu i gyflawni ein nod o greu Cymru ddiwastraff. Bydd yn parhau i sicrhau bod cost amgylcheddol rhoi gwastraff mewn safleoedd tirlenwi yn cael ei nodi a’i bod yn weladwy ac, wrth wneud hynny, bydd yn annog mwy o atal, ailddefnyddio, ailgylchu ac adennill gwastraff.

Trof yn awr at fanylion y Bil a'i gynnwys. Mae Rhan 2 yn cynnwys diffiniad o warediadau trethadwy ac o dan ba amgylchiadau y gallent fod wedi’u heithrio rhag treth. Mae Rhan 3 yn nodi'r trefniadau ar gyfer gwarediadau trethadwy a wneir mewn safleoedd tirlenwi awdurdodedig, megis rhwymedigaeth i dalu, cyfrifo treth, dyletswydd i gofrestru ag Awdurdod Cyllid Cymru a sut i roi cyfrif am y dreth, gan gynnwys gostyngiadau. Mae Rhan 4 yn darparu’r trefniadau ar gyfer gwarediadau trethadwy a wneir mewn mannau heblaw safleoedd tirlenwi awdurdodedig, ac mae Rhan 5 yn gwneud darpariaeth atodol ar gyfer credydau, mannau nad ydynt at ddibenion gwaredu, ymchwilio a rhannu gwybodaeth ac yn nodi trefniadau ynglŷn â phersonau, grwpiau, partneriaethau a chyrff anghorfforedig.

Un o negeseuon clir yr ymgynghori fu’r angen i drosglwyddo’n llyfn at dreth gwarediadau tirlenwi ym mis Ebrill 2018. Mae hyn wedi bod yn flaenoriaeth i’r Llywodraeth wrth lunio'r Bil sydd ger eich bron. O ganlyniad, bydd y dreth newydd yn gymharol gyson â'r dreth dirlenwi bresennol—bydd prosesau treth a’r agwedd tuag at gyfraddau treth yn debyg, a bydd hynny’n darparu sefydlogrwydd a sicrwydd i fusnesau ac yn lleihau'r risg o dwristiaeth gwastraff. Fodd bynnag, mewn ymateb i safbwyntiau rhanddeiliaid, mae'r ddeddfwriaeth hon yn gliriach ac yn symlach i’w defnyddio; mae'n adlewyrchu arferion sefydledig, mae'n gyfredol ac mae'n berthnasol i Gymru. Lle bo’r dreth dirlenwi bresennol yn cynnwys amwysedd, rydym wedi ceisio rhoi eglurder.

Yn y cyd-destun hwnnw, Ddirprwy Lywydd, dewch imi hefyd fod yn glir: bydd angen i bawb sydd â gwastraff i’w waredu gydymffurfio â’r dreth hon yn llwyr ac yn briodol. Bydd y Llywodraeth hon yn cymryd ymagwedd gadarn at gydymffurfio a gorfodi. Bydd Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru yn gweithio gydag Awdurdod Cyllid Cymru i ymgymryd â swyddogaethau cydymffurfio a gorfodi ar gyfer treth gwarediadau tir. Bydd hyn yn sicrhau bod Awdurdod Cyllid Cymru yn elwa ar brofiad a gwybodaeth Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru ym maes tirlenwi a’r perthnasoedd y maent wedi’u sefydlu â gweithredwyr safleoedd tirlenwi. Bydd y Bil yn galluogi Awdurdod Cyllid Cymru i godi treth ar warediadau gwastraff heb awdurdod, gan gau llwybr posibl i osgoi talu treth, a sicrhau tegwch cyffredinol i fusnesau gwastraff cyfreithlon. Bydd hyn yn ei gwneud yn fwy beichus yn ariannol i wneud gwarediadau heb awdurdod, ac yn newid y cydbwysedd o blaid gwaredu mewn safle tirlenwi awdurdodedig.

Cyflwynwyd treth ar warediadau heb awdurdod yn rhan o dreth dirlenwi yr Alban, ac mae wedi bod yn un o nodweddion ardoll dirlenwi Gweriniaeth Iwerddon am y 10 mlynedd diwethaf. Mae rhanddeiliaid yng Nghymru wedi rhoi croeso cynnes i’r penderfyniad i gynnwys rhywfaint o ddarpariaeth yn y Bil hwn. Bydd y ddeddfwriaeth yn sicrhau bod y broses yn dryloyw, yn gymesur ac yn ymarferol. Mae'r cynigion wedi'u datblygu i gydblethu â rheoliadau amgylcheddol presennol, fel y byddant yn gweithio ochr yn ochr â'i gilydd.

Mae Deddf Casglu a Rheoli Trethi (Cymru) 2016 yn darparu pwerau cyffredinol i Awdurdod Cyllid Cymru i gynnal ymchwiliadau troseddol ac erlyniadau sy’n ymwneud ag osgoi talu treth. Bydd Llywodraeth Cymru yn ymgynghori ynghylch cryfder y pwerau hyn a sut i’w defnyddio yn gynnar y flwyddyn nesaf, er mwyn sicrhau eu bod yn darparu ataliad effeithiol ond cymesur.

Yn olaf, Ddirprwy Lywydd, defnyddir rhywfaint o’r cyllid a godir o'r dreth gwarediadau tirlenwi i gefnogi prosiectau amgylcheddol a chymunedol yn yr ardaloedd hynny yr effeithir arnynt gan waredu gwastraff mewn safleoedd tirlenwi. Caiff hyn ei gyflawni drwy gynllun grant cymunedau’r dreth gwarediadau tirlenwi, gan ddefnyddio pwerau o dan Ddeddf Llywodraeth Cymru 2006. Dosberthir y cyllid i brosiectau sy'n cefnogi bioamrywiaeth, ymdrechion i leihau gwastraff a gwelliannau amgylcheddol eraill er budd y cymunedau hynny.

Bydd ymarfer caffael yn cael ei lansio ar ôl y Nadolig i benodi trydydd parti i ddosbarthu cyllid yn uniongyrchol i brosiectau. Bydd y dull hwn yn sicrhau bod cymunedau’n cael cymaint â phosibl o arian. Cyhoeddir papur i roi manylion pellach am ddatblygu’r cynllun cymunedol hwn cyn y Nadolig a chyn i’r Pwyllgor Cyllid ystyried y Bil. Byddaf, wrth gwrs, yn rhoi diweddariadau pellach wrth i'r Bil fynd ar ei daith drwy'r Cynulliad Cenedlaethol.

Deputy Presiding Officer, the Landfill Disposals Tax (Wales) Bill has been developed to provide clarity for taxpayers and the Welsh Revenue Authority and to ensure there is flexibility to accommodate future policy developments. I look forward to the scrutiny process and to hear from individuals and organisations within this Chamber and beyond. I’m sure that they will be interested in ensuring that this is Bill is a success.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for this statement on the Landfill Disposals Tax (Wales) Bill. You wait for one Welsh tax for over 700 years, and then two come along at once—funding vehicles both arriving together. We are very grateful for the opportunity, of course. This tax doesn’t raise as much in revenue as the land transaction tax—indeed, the hope is that the revenue will reduce. But this tax does provide important possibilities in securing that goal of creating a waste-free Wales.

Of course, the Government’s aim, as I understand it at present, is to see a waste-free Wales by the middle of this century. Plaid Cymru had set a target of achieving a waste-free Wales by the year 2030, which is an ambitious aim, of course, but Bhutan have also set that as their target, and even New York has done the same. I would ask the Cabinet Secretary to what extent this new tool—this new power to tax—is a means for us to reassess that target. I understand the rationale that you would want to be relatively consistent in terms of the tax framework as compared to England, and we don’t, of course, want to see this ugly phrase, or an even uglier activity, namely waste tourism, happening across our borders. To what extent can we be a little more creative and innovative in thinking how this taxation power enables us to achieve this target of a waste-free Wales more swiftly?

As the Cabinet Secretary explained, of course, this Bill also introduces unauthorised waste disposal—fly-tipping and so on—within the remit of the taxation. That’s an example of the kind of innovation that’s possible, and that’s very much to be welcomed. The explanatory documents note that the Welsh Revenue Authority will be responsible for collecting and managing the tax, along with NRW. This, again, is an innovation—to see these two organisations jointly managing this. Could he tell us a little more about how this will actually work in terms of unauthorised disposals? For example, what expectation will there be on NRW to oversee unauthorised waste disposals regularly, and if so, has the Government considered whether there will be any additional costs for NRW in relation to this? Can we be given some assurance that sufficient resources will be available, so that this new responsibility doesn’t become onerous?

Can I thank the Member for his broad welcome for the Bill and its purposes? He made some important points at the beginning about the alignment between taxes that are coming to Wales and our policy agenda. This has been a very successful tax as far as changing behaviour is concerned. The total tonnage of waste in Wales going to landfill fell by 52 per cent between 2001 and 2013. The Office for Budget Responsibility in its autumn statement predicted that take from this tax will reduce more rapidly than it had earlier in the year and that is part of the alignment between the policy agenda and the tax agenda.

Our aim, as he said, is to begin this tax with as close a replication of existing arrangements as we can while improving them. I have no doubt that as these powers come practically into operation, the ability to revisit our ambitions in this area, and see whether there’s more that we could make of this new lever, will be something that Ministers will want to consider at that time.

The Member asked questions about the relationship between the WRA and Natural Resources Wales. The decision to ask Natural Resources Wales to undertake the enforcement aspect of this tax is because of its presence already in the waste field—the fact that it is possessed of information about how it operates on the ground and to put that to best use.

We are already providing some additional funding to NRW in order to allow it to prepare for these new duties. We will see whether it is necessary to go on doing that in future in that way. I am certainly open to discussions as the Bill proceeds as to some revenue-sharing arrangements. If Natural Resources Wales is able, by bearing down on illegal waste sites, to increase the flow of revenue into the WRA, it does not seem unreasonable to me that they should not be allowed to keep a share of that additional revenue in order to promote it to do more work in this area. I look forward to discussing that possibility as the Bill moves through the process of scrutiny.

Thank you very much. David Melding.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I also thank the Cabinet Secretary for his statement, and also the courtesy of giving us the statement, or sight of the statement, a good few hours in advance—that’s very helpful? I’d like to start with areas where I think there is going to be agreement all around the Assembly. I think the goal of zero waste and a circular economy is an important one, an ambitious one, and as we heard from Adam Price, it’s one shared by many other countries now, both in the developed—well, what used to be called the developing world; I’m not sure if it’s quite correct to put in those terms now. But this really is an important part of, I think, many tax instruments now, but, obviously, particularly one such as the landfill disposals tax.

I note the intention to make the legislation simpler and clearer. I can’t judge whether it is, and I think that will now be for the full scrutiny process, but at least that’s your aim, and, having said it, you will now be scrutinised on whether you’re achieving it. But it’s not a trite point. I do believe legislation, even tax legislation, has to be drafted in as simple and as clear a way as possible. That doesn’t make it bedtime reading, I realise, but, still, it shouldn’t be needlessly obscure.

We particularly welcome the landfill disposals tax communities grant scheme, and the aim of helping environmentally focused projects is, of course, appropriate. I also think it’s entirely appropriate that those communities that have important infrastructure for the local, regional and national economy get the direct benefit of some payback from that, and that’s something that we warmly support.

Can I turn to my slightly more sceptical points, but I hope I still achieve my aim of being constructive? The Cabinet Secretary says that the Welsh Government will take a robust approach to compliance and enforcement. Actually, you emphasised those points in your oral statement, and the focus will be particularly on unauthorised disposals of waste. And I’m sure the public will say, ‘Hurrah’, but they’ll also want to know how, and I’m not sure you fully answered the points put to you by Adam Price.

The record on fly-tipping is not great. Now, I realise that that principally lies also with local authorities. But I have to say, I think the gap this afternoon has been on quite how Natural Resources Wales is going to co-operate with local authorities to improve enforcement—it’s one thing the tax revenue authority, but it will still be essential for local authorities to be there as part of the intelligence gathering and compliance operation. And I just wonder if you really do want to see an improvement in enforcement, not only for the direct benefit of the Exchequer, as it were, but also for the improvement of the quality of life for many people in areas that are currently despoiled with irresponsible fly-tipping. So, I think you perhaps need to consider that, because enforcement is, obviously, quite a challenge sometimes—fly-tipping is hardly done in the open and in the daylight, and it’s one thing to say they’ll now be subject to the tax, because, of course, they’ve got to be caught first.

Thank you very much to David Melding for those questions. He’s right to point out that this is in an unusual tax, in that it has, at its heart, an ambition to put itself out of business, and it’s succeeding in doing that. I think there is genuine scope for making the law simpler and clearer. The original landfill tax was the product of the early 1990s. It has grown up since then, through a mixture of primary and secondary legislation, guidance, Schedules—it’s one of those taxes that has accreted in a number of different places, and we are able to bring it together in a single new Bill for Wales.

I thank him for what he said on the communities scheme. It’s a very important part of this landscape. We’re going to take a different approach to it. We do think we can genuinely do this in a more streamlined and effective way, and we can cut down on the costs of administration. And given the fact that this is a declining tax, and therefore the money available for community purposes is declining as well, we want to make sure that we maximise the take that we can get from this tax for those purposes.

Let me turn to the issue of unauthorised disposals and compliance and enforcement. Compliance and enforcement is a particular issue in relation to this tax. The tax gap in landfill tax—the gap between what the tax should raise and what it does raise—is 12 per cent. In stamp duty land tax—the other tax that we will inherit—it’s 1 per cent. So, there is a genuine enforcement issue to be tackled in relation to this tax, and our decisions to include unauthorised disposals within the scope of the Bill follows the experience already in Scotland and elsewhere. The parts of the Bill that deal with this matter are serious parts of the Bill. It will rest on two rebuttable propositions: that a person controlling or in a position to control a motor vehicle or trailer, or an owner, lessee or occupier of land where unauthorised disposal of waste is made, will be treated as having knowingly caused or permitted a disposal. That’s how the Bill will shape this part of its intentions. Now, those propositions can be rebutted, and the explanatory notes show how that can be done. But we think it genuinely will change the terms of trade in this area so that the calculation that somebody makes will be different in the future.

As far as fly-tipping is concerned, there is no legal definition of fly-tipping, but the sort of small-scale fly-tipping that causes such a nuisance in urban areas, for example, is not the focus of this Bill primarily. We are focused on those 60 illegal sites that exist in Wales where it is organised, intentional and deliberate behaviour, rather than small-scale attempts to evade small amounts of taxes. The other aspects are dealt with by my colleague Lesley Griffiths, where the Government has taken different sorts of measures to strengthen the hands of local authorities, in the way that Mr Melding suggested, to deal with that aspect of illegal waste activity.

First, can I welcome the statement by the Cabinet Secretary? The landfill disposals tax in itself is a very unusual tax, isn’t it? The primary reason for most taxes is to raise money for public services. The aim of this tax is to effect behaviour. Can I just say that when the original tax was introduced, I was sceptical? It was an attempt to effect behaviour by proxy. It was councils that were being charged for the disposal, but it was the action of residents that affected the amount of landfill. It has, however, worked extremely well and has effected behaviour. The current Bill will be successful if no tax becomes payable. I don’t think we’ve ever said that about a tax before; I’m sure the Cabinet Secretary will not be saying that about the land transaction tax—‘It will be successful if no tax is paid.’ So, I think it really is about changing behaviour.

Can I just say that a range of a tax to be paid on things that are dumped other than an authorised landfill tax is a major move in the right direction? I know that fly-tipping being dealt with is difficult. People tend to fly-tip in the most difficult places to catch them. They don’t do it in a way that would make it easy for them to be caught. I know local authorities work very hard at dealing with fly-tipping, and it is difficult, but we’re not talking here about fly-tipping, we’re talking about some people who run illegal sites. They’ve done it very successfully, financially, for several years in some cases. They get fined, but they don’t get charged the amount they would have been if they were paying tax on it as well. I think that that will act as a complete dissuader to people because they’ll be paying the tax and they will be fined, in which case it will not be in their best interests to do it. So, I think that will, again, change behaviour. If, for every method of tax evasion, that is closed down, I for one feel happy.

I’ve got two questions. One is that varying the tax rate differently to that currently charged on the other side of the border will have one of two effects: it will either make us a net importer or a net exporter of our landfill. So, there is pressure to keep it at roughly the same amount as it is in England. So many landfill sites are so close to the border. So much is moving fairly close to the border. But there is that danger. So, the pressure is to keep it virtually the same.

The second one is—and this is a plea, as the local Assembly Member—on the community grants scheme. It’s very important and very useful, but when it's being given to people five miles away who are totally unaffected by it, and the people who are living on its doorstep are not getting anything, it does cause some upset. So, can priority be given to those who are closest to the landfill? We have landfill in St Thomas in Swansea, and yet places in the leafy suburbs—not represented by me, I hasten to add—are getting the benefit of it, and I think that really is something that does cause concern. So, would it be possible to give priority to locals, i.e. those who are being affected by the lorries and those who are affected by any dust or flies?

I thank Mike Hedges for both those questions. Of course, I recognise the point he makes about the border and sensitivity to different rates on either side of it. I will not be declaring my hand in relation to tax rates in this Bill until the autumn of next year. I notice that, in Scotland, where my colleague there has had to do this already, the decision was to set identical rates with those across the border and, no doubt, that reflected the arguments that the Member has just made. He will have noticed, I know, that as far as illegal waste is concerned, the Bill provides the power to set a separate rate of tax on illegal waste deposits, and I will be thinking hard about what that rate might be and how it might need to reflect the costs of pursuing those people who, in the end, will be obliged to pay it.

In relation to the community grant scheme, this issue of the mileage around the site and who should benefit from it has been one of the more lively debates in the consultation that we’ve carried out with stakeholders about our idea here. I said in my statement that I will be publishing a paper on the communities fund in advance of my appearance before the Finance Committee on 15 December, and I will certainly be reflecting on that issue in that paper.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his statement. I note him saying that this new tax will be broadly consistent with the existing landfill tax, which will provide stability and reassurance to businesses and minimise the risk of waste tourism. I wasn't familiar with that final concept before today, but I welcome the overall approach. It's a similar approach to what he has shown in the land transactions tax Bill, which I've enjoyed getting to grips with in the Finance Committee. I think David Melding said that the Bill would not be bedtime reading—perhaps we could extend an invitation to join the Finance Committee where, given the recent size of committee papers, that has intruded quite deep into the evenings of members. [Interruption.] Well, the sort of approach my party has taken to tax devolution is: both the tax he makes a statement about today and land transaction tax were in the St David’s Day agreement and we accepted that as what we would hope would be the devolution settlement. We’re perhaps less optimistic it will be any sort of settlement now, but we do support this tax as well as the land transactions tax. Our concern is with the devolution of income tax without the referendum that was promised, or the perception in some quarters that this second tax will be just one of a further series that will be buses quickly following on, which we would have concerns about.

The arrangement that he's going to have in this tax, which is not there in the current UK, or at least the England-and-Wales version, of the tax, applying to illegal or at least unregistered disposal of waste—. Can he say whether the intention there is to make enforcement more effective through, potentially, a lower standard of proof—I assume on the balance of probabilities for assessing whether the tax is required—and can that help compared to the current criminal sanctions?

I wonder whether I could also ask him—. I understand he doesn't want to talk about what rate he’s planning to set that at until at least next autumn, but I wonder if he could say a bit more about the overall emphasis he wants to give to this tax in the battery of measures that are available. We have the percentage targets for recycling, and these have been quite blunt measures. The case of Newport comes to mind, and it’s my region, where the overall recycling rate is low, but at least almost all that recycling is actually recycled, whereas a proportion of the higher recycling rates of some other authorities actually doesn’t get recycled. That doesn’t really seem to get picked up in that measure, but this tax might bite on it. Does he intend to use it in that sense?

Second, going back to the ugly phrase of ‘waste tourism’, what does he really mean by that? There is clearly availability of sites within Wales, and availability of landfill sites in England, and there are varying productions from different centres, or rubbish that needs to be disposed of potentially in that way. Is he saying that he doesn’t want to see any waste coming in from England to Wales, or he doesn’t want to see more waste going from England to Wales than currently? Is he considering potentially setting a higher rate in order to discourage what he might call waste tourism, or does he see any financial benefit to him as a Cabinet Secretary raising this finance? Were he to set a lower rate, does he believe that would lead to an increase in the revenue coming in, because of such so-called waste tourism?

I thank the Member for those questions. To address the last one first, ‘waste tourism’ is an inelegant phrase. It’s used to cover the circumstances that Mike Hedges referred to. The research shows that people taking waste to landfill are relatively sensitive to relatively small changes in the rate of tax to be paid. What I’m keen to avoid is waste being taken on long journeys to more distant places than it otherwise would have been by creating disincentives in the tax system, or incentives in the tax system. So, my aim will be not to introduce a new factor into the calculations that people currently make as to where they dispose of landfill waste. I would not want to see our tax system creating a whole different set of environmental difficulties, and we’ll be very alert to that.

The Member asked what the key policy drivers behind the Bill turn out to be. Although this is a diminishing tax as far as the Bill is concerned, it still was intended to raise £40 million in a year, and, as finance Minister, I haven’t got £40 million to fill the hole that would be left if we didn’t take action to raise that money here in Wales. So, there is an important purpose behind the Bill in securing revenue for public services in Wales, but there is at the same time that very important alignment with environmental policy, where our policy is, as quickly as we are able to do it, to reduce and then eliminate the use of landfill for waste disposal.

Finally, the question that the Member asked about unauthorised disposals, and the balance of proof that will be used in this area. The WRA already will have civil powers of investigation as part of any tax inquiry , but I signalled in my statement my intention to consult in the spring on the criminal powers of investigation that the Tax Collection and Management (Wales) Act 2016 enables Welsh Ministers to confer on the Welsh Revenue Authority. This is to be done through secondary legislation. I think we need to take a proportionate approach in that, but it will be my intention to bring proposals in front of the National Assembly for scrutiny.

Can I just remind the next speakers now that we’ve had the main speakers in your parties, and so this is a statement and not an opportunity for a speech? Simon Thomas.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. May we start by putting out a shout out of thanks to John Selwyn Gummer, who introduced the landfill tax in the first place 20 years ago, and recognise that this emerges from the EU’s landfill directive, or the European Community’s landfill directive? There has been a direct benefit to the environment of Wales as a direct result of that. This is the first environmental tax we had in Britain.

I have some specific questions for the Minister. First of all, can he just confirm—I think it’s implicit in what he said—that he isn’t using this Bill to change the environmental policy, and that he is changing the taxation system but there is no intention to change the environmental policy? I think it is implicit in what he said, but I think that needs to be said on the record, as it were.

The second question is on the communities grant. There is a great deal of interest from local communities in this grant scheme, of course. Can the Minister explain why he hasn’t placed the grant scheme in the Bill? Why is he using the Government of Wales Act 2006 instead? To me, it suggests that the Government could withdraw the grant scheme at some point in the future if they so wished, while placing it in the Bill would give the grant scheme a long-term legal and statutory status.

This question of unauthorised waste disposals: can we just be clear that it is not the intention to replace the need to punish or fine companies that undertake this activity, but that it is another way of dealing with it? As the landfill tax at present is actually levied on the operator’s site, how is it going to work by levying the tax on that person who is moving the waste? Those are two different things, aren’t they? You have two different ways of levying the tax now, rather than the simple approach that we had in the past. In light of that, will the Cabinet Secretary, as he is also the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, confirm that Natural Resources Wales has sufficient resources to tackle this problem of unauthorised waste disposals? Many of us would fear that NRW hasn’t quite got to grips with its current responsibilities, never mind having to deal with additional responsibilities.

Thank you very much to Simon for those questions. I can confirm to begin with that there is no intention to change the policy in this area. If we can get the policy to do more, then that would be a good thing, but there is no change in the intention. On the community scheme, we are going to do it like this because it is simpler. We don’t have to use the powers in the new Bill because we have the powers already in the 2006 Act. We think that, for the money that we have for this scheme, it is just simpler to do it in the way that we are going to suggest, and this will be a way of putting more money into the hands of people running these projects in the community. I answered the question from Adam Price on resources to NRW. They have resources already to prepare for these new responsibilities that they are going to have, and I am happy to keep that under review.

O ran mater y gwarediadau gwastraff anghyfreithlon a phwy fydd yn gyfrifol am dalu'r dreth, mae'r Bil wedi’i lunio’n ofalus i wneud yn siŵr ein bod yn gallu dal yn gyfrifol y sawl sydd wir yn gyfrifol am y gweithgareddau anghyfreithlon. Rwy'n ymwybodol iawn bod llawer o dirfeddianwyr yn ddioddefwyr yn y maes hwn. Nid ydynt wedi caniatáu i wastraff gael ei waredu’n anghyfreithlon ar eu tir yn fodlon ac yn fwriadol. Felly, mae angen gwahaniaethu rhwng gwahanol chwaraewyr sydd y gellir yn briodol eu dal yn gyfrifol am hyn, a dyna pam mae’r agwedd honno ar y Bil hwn yn wahanol i'r trefniadau gwarediadau tir cyfreithiol ac awdurdodedig lle mae'r dreth anuniongyrchol, fel y gwyddoch, yn cael ei gosod ar y gweithredwr sy'n casglu'r arian gan y rhai sy'n defnyddio'r cyfleusterau, a dyna pam mae angen inni ei wneud yn wahanol ar gyfer gwastraff anghyfreithlon.

Thank you, Minister, I welcome your statement but, I have to say, a mention of a new tax to Wales on disposals of waste to landfill could certainly set some alarm bells ringing in my constituency, given the direct correlation between their weekly or, what are now in some areas, monthly bin collections and the levels of council tax in Wales under a Welsh Labour Government. Of course, you will be aware that, in Conwy, there is the first pilot scheme of four-weekly bin collections across a large number of properties. The impact that this is having on our residents is really bad and many are feeling now that they cannot cope. Last week, ‘Week in, Week Out: Keeping a Lid On It’ highlighted the many problems associated with this. Yet, when some household bins were checked before collection, a large percentage of their rubbish could, in fact, actually be recycled. Now, despite, as has been mentioned, the high recycling targets set by Welsh Government, and despite local authorities providing expensive recycling facilities and receptacles, there is still this huge mismatch between domestic waste and other items that, ultimately, end up in landfill sites.

Are you coming to a question, please?

Sorry?

Are you coming to a question, please?

We have got 60 minutes for this debate.

I asked you to come to a question, please. I’m asking you to come to a question, please.

Okay. I do have a couple of questions related to your statement.

Well, hurry up then. A question, I said, but carry on. Go on, carry on.

Firstly, I’d like to ask about enforcement. We know that prosecution rates for fly-tipping are notoriously low in Wales. There was just a 0.3 per cent successful prosecution rate across the country. The Cabinet Secretary mentioned urban areas when it comes to fly-tipping, but I can tell you, in Aberconwy, there are many picturesque, rural tourism sites that are very, very badly impacted by this. So, my question is: can you explain how this tax, particularly in regard to Part 4, unauthorised sites, will actually be enforced? How will you use this Bill to actually make it very difficult, if you like, for people to be able to blight our countryside? Because, if you’ve got a Bill coming through, you’ve got to be able to use this lever and tools within that to actually bring some improvement.

Secondly, you note that some of the revenue raised will go towards environmental and community projects in areas affected by waste disposal and landfill, and I have to say I really welcome this part of it, because you’ll be aware of the Wales recycling environmental network, and I have to say that scheme has been fantastic. My own constituency has benefited from that, and so, really, this is putting back into the community and it’s actually, hopefully, going to impact on those who decide to break the law and will help communities, in the main. Thank you.

I thank the Member for what she said at the end of her contribution in relation to community projects, and the work of WRAP. I look forward to being able to share with all Members of the National Assembly the paper that I will produce on the community fund, and I completely appreciate that almost all Members here will have had some experience of it in their own constituencies and I’m very keen to learn from that experience to make sure that we design that scheme in the most effective way possible.

On the points that the Member made about enforcement, I tried my best earlier on to distinguish between the sorts of activities that she described, which I absolutely recognise from my own experience cause huge nuisance and distress to people who are affected by them, and the large-scale, organised illegal activity that this Bill is designed to tackle. There will be an overlap between the activities that my colleague, Lesley Griffiths, has responsibility for through local authorities and this Bill, but that is not the primary focus of the Bill in front of the National Assembly this afternoon.

Can I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his statement? I was very pleased to accompany you yesterday, Cabinet Secretary, to a very chilly site in Merthyr Tydfil, the Trecatti site. The microclimate there, actually, that you experienced is called ‘an overcoat colder’. I was particularly pleased to be there with you on that day when you brought the Bill into the National Assembly, as we take this step forward towards the devolution of tax in Wales as a key component of the Welsh Government’s very welcome strategy towards aiming to achieve a zero-waste Wales. But, as we’ve already heard, the aim of this tax is actually to reduce itself as we go forward, and my question is really about the community grants scheme funding, because, as that revenue decreases, so the funds available to the grants scheme will decrease, and I did talk to you yesterday about the excellent projects that have benefited from the Biffa funds in my constituency. So, can I ask you, Cabinet Secretary, to confirm that, when you do review the community grants scheme, you’ll give consideration to alternative sources of funding for such schemes as that landfill disposals tax diminishes?

Can I thank Dawn Bowden both for her question and for her company yesterday on the snow-capped hills of Merthyr? As we stood there, our only consolation was that members of the media had been sent out 25 minutes before us and had been enjoying the view for a lot longer than we needed to.

The points she makes about the community fund are well made, and it was very good to hear directly both from her and from people running that site the way in which they had been able to make a contribution to some very important local environmental activities. My aim, as I’ve said, is to design a scheme that is administered in the most effective and slimmed-down way in order to go on putting investment into the community aspect of the fund for as long as we can, while revenues allow.

Can I welcome the Cabinet Secretary’s statement today? Landfill tax might not be the talk of pubs and clubs across Wales, but it is an important tax and can be an important tool for Welsh Government to effect environmental policy in Wales.

I’m going to be part of the Finance Committee scrutiny into the landfill tax, so I will keep my comments and questions brief today, Cabinet Secretary, the Deputy Presiding Officer will be pleased to know. I have three questions. Firstly, you and your predecessor, who’s in the Chamber today, have repeatedly stated and restated your belief that Welsh taxes should be consistent with their existing English counterparts to aid a smooth transition. There shouldn’t be a deviation, unless it is absolutely necessary, to avoid unnecessary confusion. But you did suggest in your statement today that you will be deviating from the current taxation arrangements with landfill tax where anomalies—I think that’s what you called them—exist. I wonder if you could elaborate on these anomalies and what is going to be necessary to deal with them.

Secondly, you mentioned the important issue of tax evasion. This will be a new tax, to all intents and purposes, when the existing tax is switched off, as we say. How confident are you that measures against tax evasion in the future, after the new tax comes into play, will be as efficient and rigorous as they have been up until now? I think from your comments earlier you were pointing out that, actually, the current system hasn’t been as good as with some other taxes, so I understand that you see this as an opportunity to make the system better.

And thirdly and finally, and more broadly, we are as an Assembly, as a Welsh Government, planning this, the second Welsh tax, whilst the Welsh Revenue Authority is still being devised. It’s still in embryonic form; we know that the selection of the chair will be coming up in the near future. So, the success of this tax and, indeed, the replacement of stamp duty, is linked to the success of the new authority. How are you building these new taxes, as they’re developed, into the DNA of the WRA to make sure that the new taxes and, indeed, the new Welsh Revenue Authority, do hit the ground running when the old taxes are switched off, because that will be a very sudden process? We want it to be as smooth as possible, but, one way or another, in 2018—I presume at midnight; I’m not sure the exact time that it’ll happen—those old taxes will be switched off, and we need the new taxes to be as reliable and efficient as possible. Thank you.

I thank Nick Ramsay for those three questions. He’s absolutely right to point to the importance of the Welsh Revenue Authority, and our need to build up its capacity rapidly now over the coming months. I know that he’s taken a close interest in our plans to advertise for the chair and the board of the revenue authority, and to make sure that it has the necessary skills available to it. I feel we have made a strong start in getting the authority the powers that it needs to make some early appointments on the executive side to get it the experience that it needs, and I look forward to working with the committee, the Finance Committee, which will have a particular role in relation to the Welsh Revenue Authority—the first non-ministerial department that we will have created as a Welsh Government—and the future of the authority and it’s fitness for the task it has in hand will be part of that.

Can I turn to the question that the Member raised about ways in which we have taken the opportunity of this Bill, while remaining as close as we can to existing arrangements for reasons of continuity, still to try to bring about some improvements? So, here is just one example for this afternoon. The tax as it stands has been vulnerable to litigation over what is called the ‘intention to discard’ test. So, the Bill pivots around whether or not waste being taken to a landfill site is being taken there with the intention of discarding it. If that is the intention, you are taxed, but many people taking waste to landfill have argued that because that waste has a secondary use—for example, it might produce methane, as in the example that Dawn Bowden and I saw yesterday, and that methane is used to generate electricity—therefore, the material is not being discarded because it has a secondary use. There’s been very substantial litigation before the courts around that aspect. We have taken the opportunity in this Bill to tighten and clarify the scope of the tax and to make it clear that it is the primary purpose not any secondary aspects that are to be determinative as far as that intention to discard is concerned. This is a technical tax and it will be of great interest to a relatively small number of people, but we’ve had the benefit of a very strong stakeholder group in helping us to shape it and that’s just one example of the way we intend to amend the law as it currently stands in this Bill to give greater clarity and certainty both to operators but also to the tax itself.

I very much welcome the proposals to tackle tax evasion, because it’s obvious that that is one of the things that people will do. Residents around Wedal Road disposal site report commercial operators giving residents a tenner to dispose of commercial waste to avoid them having to do that. So, I suppose my question on that one is: will the resident who accepts the tenner—who therefore doesn’t have to pay anything—will they be subject to this unauthorised transaction tax, because they obviously know what they’re doing when they’re accepting this waste?

Secondly, there’s a huge differential in the number of incidents reported by different local authorities and the amount of money they spend on trying to track down fly-tippers and I’d be interested to know a bit more about what incentive there might be for local authorities to ensure that they are tackling fly-tippers by being able to apply for additional funds to, for example, educate building contractors not just to dispose of their commercial waste appropriately, but also to actually reduce the amount of waste they generate in the construction industry. There are all sorts of ways in which this can be done, through using all the materials that are generated in the building on site, and some are much better at that than others. Also, whether money would be available to talk to retailers about how to reduce excessive packaging, which I know is something that residents regularly are concerned about—. But overall, obviously, I think—

Thank you. I think you’ve had three questions. Thank you.

I thank Jenny Rathbone for the welcome she’s given to the Bill. The tax evasion point she makes at the beginning is one we’ve touched on a number of times this afternoon. In some ways, as she says, it’s understandable. Stamp duty land tax is quite hard to evade because the house is there for everybody to see. Waste is much, much more open to evasion behaviour. I could use the time of the Assembly this afternoon—but I won’t, because I’m sure it’ll come up in front of the Finance Committee—in talking about the way in which the quantity of water that is added to waste is used as a way to evade tax that otherwise should’ve been paid and how we’re going to use this Bill to try to bear down on that.

The points that were made about packaging and local authorities are, to be frank, not really part of this Bill. On the point I made earlier in responding to the very first set of questions about a revenue-sharing possibility where Natural Resources Wales takes action that leads to activity that is currently not being properly policed being policed, and where that leads to tax being paid, that they should have a share of that, well, I think local authorities would be in the same relationship.

Could the Minister explain how recycling is divided up from landfill and how the percentage of recycling is worked out? It’s very relevant to the overall figures.

It may well be, Dirprwy Lywydd, but it’s not relevant to the Bill. The Bill has nothing to say on either of those matters directly.

Would you give way, Minister?

You’ve asked your question. It’s a question on a statement, so I think you need to write to the Minister. [Interruption.] Perhaps you need to write for further clarification. Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Two points if I may, to you, Minister. The first is that you touched, in the earlier response, on the fact that the Bill envisages capturing—that the current tax take is about £40 million, and obviously, reports say that this is a declining tax, and ultimately, it could be as low as £27 million and falling. So, have you looked at the legislation as a way of increasing the scope of capture, so that that’s one way of softening the loss of income? You’re not talking small sums of money here, in relative terms to what is at your discretion. So, I’d be interested to know whether the Bill is having a wider base to it so that it captures more waste, and thus brings in more revenue, or if not, how the Government is going to make that shortfall up.

Secondly, you made the point that the onus would be on—that the presumption is that the landowner was aware of the tipping going on. Very often, in small quantities of tipping, that can be illegal tipping, both on behalf of the tax, but also on behalf of the landlord as well, where someone’s just flung a gate open and stuck three or four loads into that field—a larger version of fly-tipping, if you like. So, how is the Bill going to capture that presumption and also offer the protection to a landlord who might find themselves in the situation where some contractors have cut the locks, driven in there and dumped five, six or seven loads, but obviously, it’s the landlord who is left paying the tax and ultimately being dragged before the courts?

I thank Andrew R.T. Davies for both those questions. It’s not the purpose of the Bill to extend the scope of capture, other than in illegal dumping of waste, which will now be brought within the tax. It’s a point that hasn’t been raised so far this afternoon, but it may be important for me to say that, of course, this tax is captured by the fiscal framework, so, as the amount of tax that we raise in Wales goes down, the block grant adjustment will take account of that, because this will be a falling tax on the other side of the border as well. It is not automatically the case that, as the tax goes down, the revenue available to Wales will go down as well. The fiscal framework and the block grant adjustment will come into play in that case.

I’m very keen to respond to his second point, because while illegal dumping of waste will be captured by this rebuttable presumption that those involved in it knew what they were doing, I’m acutely aware of the fact that there are landowners who have stuff dumped on their land with no prior knowledge of their own, and it is nothing but a headache to them as well. So, we set out, in documents accompanying the Bill, the way in which that presumption can be rebutted. I think when he has a chance later on to look at the detail of that, he will find that the circumstances that he described are very carefully defended against in the Bill and people wouldn’t find themselves vulnerable to prosecution when something had happened completely beyond their knowledge or control.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary.

We move on to the next item on our agenda today, which is the legislative consent motion on the Children and Social Work Bill. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children to move the motion—Carl Sargeant.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, for the opportunity to lay the legislative consent motion today. I’d like to thank the Children, Young People and Education Committee for their scrutiny of my memorandum. I am also pleased to note that the committee has raised no objections to the LCM, and its report recommends that the Assembly supports the LCM. I formally move.

Thank you very much. I call on the Chair of the Children, Young People and Education Committee, Lynne Neagle.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am pleased to contribute to this debate today on this LCM, and to outline the views of the Children, Young People and Education Committee. Members will see from our report that the committee supports the approach set out in the LCM, and agrees that it is appropriate to deal with these provisions in the Children and Social Work Bill.

The amendment to the Bill tabled by Lord Nash will have the effect of requiring adoption agencies in Wales to have regard to the same factors as those applying to adoption agencies in England and the courts. The amendment will also mean that, for adoption agencies in Wales, prospective adopters are now included in the list of relationships that they must have regard to when making a decision about a child’s adoption.

It was helpful that the timetable for this LCM allowed the committee the opportunity to consult with key stakeholders to inform its considerations, and I would like to thank the Cabinet Secretary for providing sufficient time in the process for this to happen. It is important that stakeholders are able to feed in to the LCM process. Consultation with Welsh adoption agencies has highlighted that there is support for the relevant provisions in the Bill, and the clear view given to the committee from both Adoption UK Cymru and the national adoption service is that they welcome the proposal to allow the proposed change in Wales.

Our considerations as a committee did not highlight any other issues or concerns, and the committee, therefore, recommends that the Assembly supports the legislative consent motion before us today. Thank you.

Thank you very much. There are no more speakers. Do you need to reply?

I just thank the Member for the contribution. I ask Members to support the LCM today.

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

We now move on to item 5, which is a debate on the Older People’s Commissioner for Wales’ annual report 2015-16, and I call on the Minister for Social Services and Public Health to move the motion—Rebecca Evans.

Thank you. I am pleased to open this debate on the annual impact and reach report from the Older People’s Commissioner for Wales. I’d like to take this opportunity to put on record my thanks to Sarah Rochira and her team for the invaluable work that they do to improve the lives of older people across Wales. It’s clear from the report that the commissioner has continued her impressive record of activity. The breadth and depth of her work touches on so many aspects of older people’s lives: their rights, their health, their housing and their safety. She’s been an influential figure, ensuring that the voice of older people is always heard and that action is taken to address the issues that are important to them. And, importantly, the commissioner has never forgotten the importance of authenticity when speaking on behalf of older people. This year, she and her team have met with 218 groups and more than 5,600 older people across the country, speaking to them directly to ensure that they’re focusing on the issues that matter to older people today.

Taking the first amendment tabled in the name of Paul Davies, we recognise the impact that loneliness and isolation can have on health and well-being. This is why we’ve committed to developing a nationwide and cross-Government strategy to address loneliness and isolation. This will build on the work that’s been taken forward through our strategy for older people and the Ageing Well in Wales programme. As such, we support this amendment.

We also support the second amendment tabled by the Welsh Conservatives. Indeed, we’ve already taken steps to strengthen rights for older people through the declaration of rights for older people and the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act. In her report, the commissioner has been clear about her ambition to further protect and promote the rights of older people through legislation. The First Minister and I have already had discussions with the older people’s commissioner in relation to potential future legislation, and the written statement I issued on the international day for older people at the end of September confirms our support for the principle of a Bill.

Turning to the final amendment tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth, again, we support it. We recognise the importance of local government in the health and well-being of older people, and this is why we’ve provided additional funding in the revenue support grant to recognise the pressures on social services. There’s also been further money made available through the intermediate care fund. The draft budget for 2017-18 will also deliver the best local government funding settlement in years.

I’d like to turn my focus to some of the key themes that underpin the commissioner’s report. However, I think it’s important to set the debate within the context of the changing landscape of social care in Wales. Taken together, the social services and well-being Act and the regulation and inspection of social care Act are transforming the way that social services are delivered. People now have a strong voice and more say in relation to the care and support they receive to ensure that it focuses on what’s important to them and to best meet their well-being outcomes. The commissioner has been involved in the development of both Acts, and I appreciate the positive contribution that she has made and continues to make.

Dementia is one of the biggest healthcare challenges we face as a society, and it’s a key theme in the commissioner’s report. Only recently, the news headlines highlighted that Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias were recorded in almost one in eight recorded deaths in 2015. These figures are attributed to our ageing population as well as improved detection and diagnosis.

In March this year, the commissioner published her report, ‘Dementia: more than just memory loss’. She drew a number of key conclusions following her review, including a lack of knowledge and understanding of dementia amongst professionals and the public, a lack of flexibility and co-operation within dementia services, and a significant variation in the experiences of people living with dementia and their carers. I’m pleased to confirm that the Welsh Government recognises the importance of dealing with the challenges of dementia and tackling the issues that the commissioner has raised. ‘Taking Wales Forward’ sets out our commitment to take further action to make Wales a dementia-friendly nation by developing and implementing a new national dementia strategic action plan. This plan will, of course, take into consideration the commissioner’s findings, in addition to working with key third sector partners, such as the Alzheimer’s Society, Age Alliance Wales and the Wales Carers Alliance.

Over the last two years, the Welsh Government has provided more than £8 million of additional funding to develop dementia services across Wales. So, we do have a firm foundation on which to build. We’ll use the plan to strengthen work already under way in a number of key areas, including awareness raising and working with the Alzheimer’s Society and others to maintain the momentum of the Dementia Friends and Dementia Supportive Communities campaigns. It will also focus on improving diagnosis rates, providing practical and emotional help, and embedding a culture that puts the dignity and safety of patients first. The plan will be issued for formal public consultation before the end of this year, with the final version to be published in the spring of 2017.

As a Government, we’re opposed to all forms of discriminations, and ageism is no exception. But while sexism, racism and homophobia, for example, are generally recognised and understood, the commissioner makes the point that ageism is often overlooked and is rarely talked about. This was the driving force behind her Say No to Ageism campaign, launched in October last year. The campaign’s aim was to challenge the stereotypes associated with growing older and older people, outlining the huge contribution older people make to our society, including more than £1 billion to the economy every year. The commissioner’s used her impressive reach to spread the message across Wales through film, social media and training courses. As part of the campaign, the commissioner highlights ageism and discrimination in the workplace, and this remains a significant issue for many older people. This is often founded on preconceived notions of poor health, lower productivity and unwillingness to adapt to change. These prejudices, which bear no validity, are part of the reason why older jobseekers are more than twice as likely to be long-term unemployed compared to younger jobseekers, and why more than one in three people in Wales between the age of 50 and state pension age are jobless.

I’m proud to say that this Government recognises the value that older people bring to the labour market. Learning and training opportunities shouldn’t be just for young people. We’re committed to creating a minimum of 100,000 high-quality apprenticeships for people of all ages. We will work with employers to ensure that they value the skills and experience that older people bring to the workforce. If older people want to remain in work or want to retrain and learn new skills to apply for new jobs, we will support them in that decision.

I now turn to the final theme I’d like to highlight from the commissioner’s report—safeguarding and protecting older people here in Wales. The commissioner’s work has focused on ensuring a systemic approach to identifying the older people at risk and securing full support from the criminal justice system to help people regain their safety and their well-being. When older people need care and support, we will ensure that those caring for older people have the knowledge, skills and competencies to deliver high-quality, compassionate care.

We are committed to improving the quality of care that people receive, whether it's in their own home, or in hospital, or in a care home, and to ensuring that they are treated with dignity and respect. Action is being taken to respond to the recommendations of the Flynn review, and this includes the appointment of a senior quality improvement lead who is working with care home providers and regulators across Wales to reduce avoidable pressure ulcers.

The social services and well-being Act has put the protection of adults on a firm statutory footing. The Act has introduced a definition of ‘adult at risk’, and a new duty for the local authority to make enquiries to determine whether any action is required to safeguard vulnerable people. The Act has introduced a number of key safeguards for adults at risk, including new duties to report to the local authority someone suspected to be an adult at risk of abuse or neglect, and for the local authority to make enquiries or cause enquiries to be made to determine whether any action is required to safeguard those vulnerable people. This duty to enquire is supplemented by a power to apply to the courts for an adult support and protection order. The order will enable an authorised officer with the requisite skills and experience to securely enter the premises in order to speak with an adult in private, to determine what, if any, action should be taken.

One of the issues the commissioner features in her report is the devastating impact that scams, fraud or criminal deception can have on the lives of older people, and these crimes, deliberately targeted at some of the most vulnerable people in our society, have a detrimental effect on mental and physical well-being. Research has highlighted that there is also a direct cost to local authorities, as victims lose their confidence and independence, suffer depression, and require intervention from the state to provide protections such as sheltered accommodation and social services support. Whilst good practice does exist across Wales to tackle scams in all their forms, the Welsh Government, the commissioner and others recognised that there was a need to better co-ordinate efforts and ensure that there’s a collaborative approach across the public, private and third sectors. As a result, the commissioner and Age Cymru formally launched the Wales Against Scams Partnership in March of this year, and this works to make Wales a hostile place for criminals who often deliberately target older and vulnerable people. The partnership has also developed the UK's first anti-scammers charter.

As a Government, we’re committed to ensuring that older people are safe and able to live fear free. The tackling hate crime framework, which sets out the Welsh Government’s aim to challenge hostility and prejudice, includes age as a protected characteristic. This issue is being explored at a strategic level by the hate crime criminal justice board, established to ensure a partnership approach across devolved and non-devolved areas, including the four Welsh police forces, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office.

The Welsh Government's support for older people and the issues they face is clear: the groundbreaking decision taken in 2008 to appoint a commissioner for older people has no doubt made a huge difference to the lives of older people in Wales. I don't believe that any of us here would doubt the drive, dedication and determination of the commissioner and her team in fulfilling their purpose as an independent voice for older people, helping to keep those who are vulnerable safe and working to ensure that they have the services and support that they need. I look forward to the debate.

Thank you very much. I have selected the three amendments to the motion. I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to move amendments 1 and 2 tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Janet.

Diolch, Ddirprwy Lywydd. I move amendments 1 and 2 in the name of Paul Davies.

There are some 800,000 older people in Wales who deserve every opportunity to be empowered to have their rights strengthened and their needs fulfilled, and I would like to start my contribution today by paying tribute to our Older People's Commissioner for Wales, Miss Sarah Rochira, for campaigning so tirelessly to achieve that. I am not alone in recognising the professionalism that Miss Rochira has brought to this role—she’s certainly a real champion for our elderly here in Wales. Her work on scams and swindles, care homes, ageing well in Wales, domestic abuse and ageism demonstrates the wide range of issues impacting older people, which we recognise today. The commissioner opens this report by referring to older people in Wales as ‘a phenomenal asset’ and ‘everyday heroes’. With a contribution of £1 billion each year to our economy through childcare, volunteering, care and community work, it is fair to say that this is a great description. Yet, all too often, the value of these ‘everyday heroes’ goes unnoticed or unrecognised. It is completely unacceptable that too many older people, particularly those who may be more vulnerable, see their rights diminish as they get older, and as they really need that support most.

A year ago next week, on Human Rights Day, the commissioner called for legislation to protect and promote the rights of our older people here in Wales. Our amendments today seek to strengthen the commissioner’s calls through the introduction of an older people’s rights Bill. We want to see a single piece of legislation to clearly enshrine the rights of older people within Welsh law. We want to see a duty of due regard on all public bodies; to place a duty on the Welsh Government to promote knowledge and understanding of the rights of older people across Wales; and to introduce measures to tackle ageism, promote ageing well and embed older people’s well-being within public service delivery.

The fact that the commissioner’s casework team provided assistance and support for 413 older people across Wales last year shows that we still have progress to be made, particularly in the areas of care and residential care that, combined, made up a considerable amount of such casework. The commissioner identified the key themes that came across in her casework as accessing continuing healthcare funding, the impact of care home closures, and the overall cost of care. These are themes that I, too, have picked up on in much of my own casework, and are part of the reasons why Welsh Conservatives want to see a cap on care costs, much improved joined-up working between the health and social care sector, and much better bed provision, to prevent those terrible delayed transfers of care that we all in our constituencies know about, and to ensure choice, suitability and the right location for those who need care.

We have used our amendments to highlight the issue of isolation among older people. This is a concern that the commissioner has focused on previously, and we want to ensure that this Chamber does not forget the impact that loneliness can have on a person’s physical and mental wellbeing, particularly around this time of year. Loneliness can have an effect on mortality similar in size to smoking 15 cigarettes a day. New research has found that people with early signs of Alzheimer’s were 7. 5 times more likely to be very lonely. So, let’s use this report to commit ourselves towards making Wales the first dementia-friendly nation in the United Kingdom. Dirprwy Lywydd, we are fortunate to have such a dedicated and committed commissioner working on behalf of older people across Wales, and I will say this: I would like to see that role, where people are doing a really good job—I know it’s time-related, but I would like to see some people actually staying in the role and continuing the good work that they’re doing. That is one role that I particularly believe should continue, and that person.

Let us ensure that we are working in tandem to create an age-friendly Wales, ensuring that older people are able to access the services, the support and the care they need and deserve, and that they are empowered to continue to lead rewarding and fulfilling lives, enriching our social fabric as only those with their own life experiences can do. Diolch.

Thank you. I call on Sian Gwenllian to move amendment 3, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Sian.

Thank you. I move amendment 3 in the Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Even though this debate is about services that are provided for older people, it is of interest to us all, of course, and for the sort of country that we want to create in Wales. What sort of country would we like to grow old in? Well, that’s the question that we all need to be considering.

The report underlines the value of having an older people’s commissioner, and the casework shows that services are quite often too complex and difficult to access. The quality of care in particular is an issue that is highlighted time after time.

We support the idea of rights-based approaches to public services that the commissioner advocates, and we are happy to see these rights strengthened in whatever way possible. But there is one elephant in the room here, and that is austerity and the cuts in particular to local government. While local government in Wales is being hit less severely in Wales this year, thanks to the Plaid and Labour agreement over the budget, the general settlement, and the situation in general, creates many challenges. Inevitably, the rights of older people to have services such as public transport, libraries and public toilets, and the range of services that are essential to the quality of life of older people, are under threat. Continuous and prolonged financial austerity in the long term goes against the rights of older people, and legislation that is being passed in this place will not be as effective without the fiscal powers that are needed to ensure that public services can be appropriately funded. Unfortunately, it appears that these challenges will continue. How we respond to them will determine whether old age will be a good experience—the sort of experience that all of us here would like to have. Or will we, through austerity and through this situation, create poverty among pensioners—the type of thing that was seen decades ago?

I would like to outline three issues in terms of approach that could assist in this. First of all, the UK Government has to be much more honest with their core voters about the economic need to have a larger workforce paying taxes at a level that is needed to maintain essential public services of quality. Secondly, the Welsh Government has to find ways where public services and departments within the same services work together more effectively. This means a much better understanding about this and about the fact that failing to maintain one service means additional costs for other services, and that an obsession with the baseline creates problems in years to come. Eventually, it is cheaper to provide public services that are good than leaving people to become ill long term, to leave them too reliant on public services or to become continued users of public services.

That leads us to the third point, which also relates to attitude and approach. We have to get rid of this attitude that people who use public services are a burden on taxpayers’ money. They are not. People over 65 years of age make a massive economic and social contribution to Wales. It is worth £259 million in childcare—free childcare—for our grandchildren; and £496 million through volunteering. Those are only two examples. Think how it would be for public services without these and much more. Therefore, the attitude to be adopted is this: if we spend money on keeping people who are healthy, active and living independently, then we will have great benefit from that investment. And, in turn, this will enable more of us to age well. That is the name of the innovative project in Gwynedd, which has that exact intention at its core, which enables the people from the county to age well. I would like to thank the commissioner and her team for their work, and for this report today. Thank you.

I welcome this debate today, and thank you for the opportunity to speak. I’d like to reiterate the fact of how proud I am that Wales was home to the world’s first older person’s commissioner. I think that was a great achievement and I think it was very forward-looking of the Welsh Government to establish this role. I think what it’s done has shown that it was the right decision.

I think the important developments that the current older people’s commissioner has brought about is really because, as the Minister said when she did her introduction, she is deeply rooted in listening to what older people are saying. She’s certainly been to my constituency to speak at meetings on two occasions, and when she described where she’d been in Wales—I mean, she is going across, back and forwards across Wales all the time, so I think she really does have a knowledge about what older people are feeling.

I do agree with a rights-based approach for older people, in the same way as we’ve developed it for children, and I am very pleased that there have been discussions with the Minister and with the First Minister about enshrining the rights of older people in law, because I do feel that, if older people’s rights are firmly enshrined in law, it will make public bodies think much more carefully when they make decisions that do affect older people, and there are a series of benchmarks to measure the lives that older people are living.

I want to talk briefly about the participation of older people in everyday life and the contributions they have to give. One of the United Nations principles for older persons, which were adopted in 1991, covers participation by older people in society and says:

‘Older persons should remain integrated in society, participate actively in the formulation and implementation of policies that directly affect their well-being and share their knowledge and skills with younger generations. ’

It’s already been mentioned here in the Chamber today about childcare, because the contribution of older people to childcare for their grandchildren, I think, cannot really be costed because we know it is so enormous. We know, in Wales, there is a huge amount of informal childcare, and that is to be absolutely applauded. I think there are other great experiences that older people are able to share with children in schools when they go into schools and try to help children learn to read. There are several examples of that happening in my constituency.

I do think society’s attitude is changing slowly. There have been, in the past, many arbitrary break-offs that mean that older people can’t go on working, whereas we know now there are many older people working past the age of 65—myself included. I think we also know that Government policy is changing. I’m sure you will have heard the call recently from the Justice Select Committee in Westminster to allow magistrates to carry on working past the current retirement age of 70. I think this call was made because of the shortage of magistrates, but extending magistrates’ time to 75 is absolutely sensible because of the contribution that they have to give. Personally, I would extend it even further. I know that, under the coalition Government, the plan was to raise jury service up to 75 as well.

So, I think that there are many areas where we are seeing a move towards not having these arbitrary cut-off points where people are forced to retire or forced to end something that they may be making a great contribution to. Of course, older people can make and do make a huge contribution to school governing bodies. Certainly, in my constituency, we have many older people who are on school governing bodies, contributing as they are on numerous public bodies in Wales and on health boards. I think it is very important that we do encourage older people to apply for these posts. I know we do make great efforts to ensure that we try to get people from minority and ethnic backgrounds to apply and also younger people, but the main bulk of people are usually in the ages up to 65 and I think we should make efforts to get older people to apply as well.

I want to finish by just talking very briefly about some of the older volunteers in my constituency who’ve made a huge impression on me because of their energy. When we were threatened with having a post office closure, who was on the streets campaigning? It was the older people. And we managed to keep a post office in Whitchurch through all this effort. I think I’ve mentioned in this Chamber already the 92-year-old great grandmother who’s leading the campaign for public toilets in Whitchurch. The last few Saturdays, she’s been with me on Whitchurch high street getting the signatures and no-one has refused. I think, when she asks them, nobody dares say no. So, that’s happening as well. And of course, I read in the press today about an 89-year-old person, a man, seeking employment. So, I think we’ve got to recognise the huge contribution that older people are making.

Could I also thank the older people’s commissioner for her work? I’d much rather, as you all know, have her be directly accountable to this Assembly rather than the Welsh Government, but her report is really, really valuable and I thank her for that, as well as the others referred to within it. I also thank her for—and Julie mentioned this—the very visible and direct contact that Sarah Rochira has with older people and, in particular, for making us look very hard at what we mean by ‘outcomes’.

Key to this is a strong voice, as referred to in our second amendment, and older people being empowered to secure what they need, as referred to in the report itself. And I think this is quite a tricky job for the commissioner, because older people, of course, aren’t a homogenous group: older people fighting, shall we say, covert discrimination in the workplace have very different challenges from those designing their own domiciliary care, and there’s a different type of advocacy needed for people who are elderly, frail individuals who find themselves in that revolving door between hospital and their care home, or maybe even someone with dementia or sensory impairment having to negotiate public transport. I think if we are to embrace the rights-based approach to policy making, which might be able to deal with a lot of these issues—an approach that’s actually encouraged by the commissioner—then I think we also have to recognise that every right gives rise to a responsibility. And an older people’s rights Bill would help clarify where that responsibility might lie.

For as many people as possible and for as long as possible, that responsibility for deciding on how they live should lie with an older individual themselves—or anybody, regardless of how old they are. There’s more than one way of meeting needs, and if an older person isn’t at the centre of those pertinent decisions, then the chances are that those needs won’t be met as well as they could be, whether they’re carers or cared-for people, or anyone, really. While the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 provides parity for carers and those they care for in terms of assessment, we’re yet to see the evidence that assessment leads to meeting need in the best possible way. I hope that the commissioner will be able to guide us to evidence to help us see how that Act works in practice over time. I suspect that the same evidence will also help us, and older people, find a more individualised, co-productive way to balance rights and responsibility for care to be safeguarded in some new legislation, so that no-one is stuck with services that don’t fit, no-one is left in that purgatory where no-one takes responsibility, and so that competing rights and responsibilities are worked through by those affected by them.

That leads me to the commissioner’s work on understanding the integration of health and social care. Absolutely, qualitative outcomes are what matter to an older person needing services. Inevitably, though, I think there is going to be a great deal of focus on the logistics of integration and how to accommodate local difference. Wales, of course, may be small but its geography and demographics don’t allow for a single, centralised response. So, I’m very keen to see how the commissioner can help Welsh Government and existing managers of services in this period to keep the focus on outcomes and what ongoing engagement with older people about their experiences, to quote the report, will actually look like.

I have some real concerns about whether social care will be able to shout loud enough in this process. Twenty-one per cent of local authorities in Wales don’t even know whether they already have enough social care. And just by way of a contrasting example, really, Salford, in England, is going through their process of integration now, and their social workers have already been transferred from the local authority into the NHS. So, they’re already competing with a range of NHS priorities for status and funding. What chance will issues like social isolation, carer support and respite, care worker terms and conditions, dementia awareness and homecare provision get to rise to the surface in this integration agenda? More importantly, how will the qualitative way of measuring success—the ‘How do I feel?’ criteria—promoted, quite rightly, by the commissioner, hold up in a world of process and numbers-driven evaluation? I see from the report that health boards are doing some work on that now, and I hope that the next report by the commissioner might be able to comment on the success of this. I certainly expect the Welsh Government’s parliamentary review of health and social care to give full weight to any evidence provided by the commissioner to avoid being defective in meeting its essential aim.

Finally, I look forward to the follow-up on the review of care homes that was mentioned in the report, and I hope that there’ll be evidence available by then that changes to the inspectorates will be clearly visible and that there’ll be good news, especially regarding the use of medication. I certainly hope that the extension of dementia training will provide a better experience for older people in care homes who have dementia, but also for those caring for them. It would also, I think, be quite interesting to hear whether those with dementia who are not living in a home are having a better experience generally in communities because of the growth in dementia-awareness training. Thank you.

Firstly, can I join others in thanking the older person’s commissioner for Wales and her staff for presenting us with such a comprehensive report? The report rightly identifies that older people are, to many of us, our everyday heroes, but are sometimes made to feel that they’re excluded from society and the victims of false assumptions around frailty, decline and dependence. What is undeniable is the reality that there are far too many pensioners living in poverty in Wales. The commissioner has estimated that there are over 100,000, with approximately 20 per cent of older people living below the poverty line.

A Joseph Rowntree Foundation report in 2011 did identify a drop in pensioner poverty in Wales over the last decade, but this drop was half the rate of the drop in Scotland. Whilst poverty is unwelcome whatever your age, for older people it restricts their ability to do so many things, and this often leads to them becoming isolated and lonely.

The detailed report from the commissioner covers many areas, far too many to cover in the time available. So, I’d like to focus on one particular area, and that is the social care workforce. The recruitment and retention of a well-trained and committed workforce will be vital to efforts to provide the highest possible standards of care for our older people. Whilst this workforce clearly delivers care across a whole range of needs, a large section of its work relates directly to the care of older people in both residential and domiciliary care settings.

I’ll talk about residential care in a moment, but firstly I want to commend the statement from the Minister for Social Services and Public Health yesterday, following the recent consultation on the domiciliary care workforce. The responses to the consultation covered a variety of issues impacting on the recruitment and retention of domiciliary care workers, including zero-hours contracts, qualifications and registration of the workforce, pay for travel and core time, and career pathways. I welcome the commitment from the Welsh Government to provide for greater transparency over the use of zero-hours contracts.

I’m also pleased that the statement sets out a clear intention to extend the workforce registration regime to domiciliary care workers by 2020. Even at an early stage, I think in Wales we are seeing the benefits of the Welsh Government’s decision to introduce registration across the education workforce, and I’ve no doubt that similar benefits will accrue from the registration of domiciliary care staff.

In relation to residential care, I’m pleased to note that the commissioner has received the appropriate assurances that the Welsh Government and Care and Social Services Inspectorate Wales will carry out action identified in the commissioner’s report, ‘A Place to Call Home?’, and that the progress is being regularly monitored. When visiting residential care homes in my constituency, I’m struck by the extent of great care and good practice being delivered. However, I sometimes wonder whether we do enough to promote that good practice, and I therefore welcome the commissioner’s undertaking to hold further seminars in 2016-17, at which care home providers can come together and share good practice.

Earlier, I touched on the loneliness and isolation felt by many older people, and in concluding I therefore thank the Conservatives for their constructive amendments recognising the need to tackle this, and for their support for the consideration of an older people’s rights Bill. I also welcome and support the amendment from Plaid Cymru recognising the key role of our public services, and the challenges they face after years of the Westminster Government’s failed austerity policies.

Thank you very much. I call on the Minister for Social Services and Public Health to reply to the debate. Rebecca.

Thank you. I thank all Members who’ve contributed to what I think has been a really helpful and constructive debate this afternoon, and in concluding I’d like to set out our continued commitment to and support for older people. I think this is reinforced in the specific actions that we’ve set out in our programme for government, ‘Taking Wales Forward’.

We’ve discussed some of these actions during the course of the debate today, and they include developing a nationwide and cross-Government strategy to address loneliness and isolation, as well as our commitment to making Wales a dementia-friendly country. We’ve also discussed the work that’s being taken forward through the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014, and the outcome framework for that was developed by working with the commissioner for older people, who’s also working with us on the integration agenda as well.

Members will be aware of the work that’s being taken forward through the intermediate care fund, and that’s to prevent unnecessary hospital admissions and to deliver step-down care or quicker returns home for people. I’m really pleased that we’re committed to continuing funding this as one of our key programme for government commitments.

We’ve also been actively taking forward work to address the recommendations set out in the commissioner’s review of care homes. The care homes steering group, established in July 2014, meets bimonthly to provide strategic leadership and direction in relation to the care home sector in Wales.

One of the issues that was identified by the commissioner was access to primary care services for people living in care homes, and a new enhanced service has been agreed, which will apply to all nursing homes and residential care homes in Wales, subject to final approval.

This new, enhanced service seeks to address variations in how older people living in care homes are able to access GP services. This includes access to preventative healthcare, such as physiotherapy, occupational therapy, oral health, falls prevention and mental health support.

Work’s also been undertaken through the care home steering group to develop good practice guidance, and this includes a welcome pack, which provides a framework for care homes as to the information that they should be making available to people and their families to make them aware of what they should be able to expect from the care home. There’s also been a good practice guide developed to improve the dining experience for people and these were both issues that were highlighted in the commissioner’s review.

So, I’d like to close by once again thanking the commissioner and her team for all that they’ve achieved in 2015-16 and I know that the pace has continued ever since the report was published in June, with an equally challenging programme of work under way for the coming year. While potential legislation can be a key intervention in strengthening the rights of older people across Wales, we mustn’t forget the difference that we can all make now, both as a Government, as politicians, and as individuals. We need to challenge instances of ageism wherever they exist, be alert to cases of abuse, and increase our own understanding of the impact of living with dementia.

So, as the commissioner concludes in her report, we should never forget that we are fortunate to be a nation of older people and that they are, through what they’ve done and what they continue to do for us, a group that should be admired, respected and seen as a national asset.

Thank you very much. The proposal is to agree amendment 1. Does any Member object? No. Therefore amendment 1 is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12. 36.

Again, the proposal is to agree amendment 2. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, amendment 2 is agreed.

The proposal is to agree amendment 3. Does any Member object? [Objection. ] Object. Therefore, we will defer voting on amendment 3 until voting time.

We now move on to item 6, which is a debate on the chief medical officer’s annual report for 2015-16. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Well-being and Sport to move the motion—Vaughan Gething.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I’m happy to move the motion on the order paper and at the outset confirm that the Government is also happy to support the amendment tabled.

Now, each year, as Members will know, the Chief Medical Officer for Wales sets out an independent overview of health and well-being issues facing the nation. I’m pleased to lead this debate to mark the publication of the very first annual report from our new chief medical officer, Dr Frank Atherton. It’s been written jointly this year with Professor Chris Jones, the deputy chief medical officer.

This annual report traditionally sets out an assessment of where Wales stands with regard to health and well-being and I hope that Members have noted that, in this report, the chief medical officer has actually given us a different feel to those previous reports. Now, it builds, of course, on many of the messages of his predecessors, particularly in relation to prevention and timely intervention. But the new chief medical officer has chosen to view things in a slightly less traditional manner. He’s not simply added a section on the social gradient, he’s focused the whole report specifically on the social gradient and how people from disadvantaged groups experience higher levels of ill health and poorer life chances.

I welcome the direction of this report. It challenges all of us here in this Chamber, as decision makers and scrutineers, and it should drive our choices in the future and I hope it will inform the future debate of health and well-being in Wales. It provides recommendations on how we make our services more effective, accessible and sustainable for all.

The social gradient affects everyone and all our public sector organisations must think and act differently if we are to tackle the inequalities that exist within communities in a meaningful way. These are inequalities within each community and between different communities. Whilst these inequalities are not unique to Wales and they are seen in other countries across the world, they do, of course, have a uniquely Welsh dimension, in terms of history, culture and geographic location. It’s the understanding of people and the communities that they live in, in which their everyday life takes place, that will help us to work together to ensure the most appropriate response for those circumstances. Because all of us know that the national health service faces a continual struggle to meet the demands caused by ill health—demands that we recognise as rising, year on year.

An overreliance on services and outdated clinical custom and practice can cause huge amounts of activity in the system, but do not always meet the needs of those who are worst off. I’m pleased to highlight here the work we’re already doing in trying to reform the out-patient system. We know it drives huge inefficiency into our services. It does not make the best use of clinicians’ time, or, indeed, make the best use of patients’ time, all the time; it is really a point of activity that can have huge savings for our health service and much greater value in terms of what we deliver afterwards.

The chief medical officer’s report quite rightly asks what the NHS can do to address this situation, by, amongst other things, unlocking the power of the individual and community involvement in creating a shift away from ill health to well-being. Now, ultimately, this should reduce demand on services and make them more sustainable. By looking at health outcomes through the lens of the social gradient, we can observe a higher prevalence of lifestyle-related and social harms, illness, and early death in the more economically disadvantaged groups. So, the report seeks to set out what we understand by the social gradient in health and it shows that it is as unambiguous here in Wales as it is elsewhere. Health gets progressively better as the socioeconomic position of people and communities improve. The report also examines how the social determinants of ill health, from a difficult early-life experience during foetal life or in the early years, poor education, housing, unemployment, or the impact of poverty, each one, can impact on our health and well-being in the longer term, and how the national health service and other public bodies can intervene to influence or mitigate some of those negative factors. The report reinforces what we’ve learnt and know about how best to tackle the social gradient: that is, through universal services that respond to the level of need, which differs in different parts of our country.

Now, our free-at-the-point-of-use NHS, with its worldwide reputation for excellence, has done much to prevent health inequalities, but this report asks questions about how we use the NHS resource here in Wales to its best effect, how the NHS must be organised to further reduce, not increase, the social gradient, and about how best to embrace our prudent healthcare principles here in Wales and provide more equitable services to be genuinely co-produced with the individuals and communities that they serve. I think here is the point that the amendment is seeking to focus on as well. We recognise that there is a leadership responsibility for people like us, politicians, and for people in health boards and other organisations leading and running organisations. But, as well as that leadership, we won’t be truly successful unless we’re able to work with different communities and individuals, not simply to tell them what they must do. At each interaction with health and care professionals, and with peer support and peer challenge as well, we recognise that we can help to inform people to make genuinely informed choices. We do know that the more informed patient tends to make better choices.

The messages in the report regarding a more sustainable healthcare system and the need to manage demand are challenging, but essential. NHS Wales is a busy system. It’s our largest public service. It consumes 48 per cent of our resource, and, indeed, our spending on health and social care is now 7 per cent higher per population than that in England. The most recent OECD report, which reviewed the quality systems operating in the four United Kingdom health departments, was complimentary about much of what we are already doing in Wales, but felt we could do more to achieve our ambitions. That means moving away from treating ill health and towards ways of supporting people to make the best of their life chances, when, in many cases, good health will follow.

The messages in this chief medical officer’s report about new models of care, such as social prescribing, for example, and the need to better understand the challenges faced by communities in order to find solutions, are timely and welcome. The pivotal role of health professionals is also important and chimes with similar best practice for all of our public services in terms of culture, leadership and behaviours. Generally trusted and highly valued, with access to our population at key junctures in their lives, we need to maximise the ability of our workforce to intervene with individuals within their communities and employ shared decision making in order to improve those outcomes for individuals and families. Of course, that also supports the aspirations set out in our Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015.

The eight recommendations in the report, aimed at NHS organisations, their partners, and the Welsh Government and education providers, reflect a life-course approach, with the latest research, including Welsh publications and evidence, and that emphasis on prevention and early intervention. They also call for innovation and the need for ongoing research into new models of care. There are many challenges set out in the report. I look forward to hearing what Members have to say in today’s debate.

I have selected the amendment to the motion and I call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to move amendment 1, tabled in his own name.

Thank you, Llywydd, and I move the amendment, which concentrates on one element of the report, if truth be told. The chief medical officer’s report reminds us again that the poorest communities pay a significant price in terms of their health, simply because they are poor and live with others in poverty. There is too much focus on occasion, I think, on the lifestyle choices made by people. It is true, of course, that smoking and obesity are more prevalent in the poorer areas, but we should be guarded always against creating a narrative that the blame for ill health should be placed on the individuals themselves, or that it’s always the case that it is poorer people who have the poorest health behaviours.

There are many people on low incomes who live a very healthy lifestyle, but still have to deal with the impact of poor housing, uncertainties in terms of employment and so on and so forth. Also, bear in mind that Welsh survey data show that drinking alcohol at harmful levels is worse at management level than among others within the workforce, and I am sure that there are some middle-class managers who would be willing to admit that they could do with losing a few pounds. So, I am pleased that the chief medical officer’s report does cover these factors, which can’t be disregarded or put down to poor behaviour in one way or another.

We have highlighted, on several occasions, the links between poor housing and poor health, between homelessness and ill health, uncertainties in terms of employment and unemployment and the relationship with health, and none of those could be considered as lifestyle choices. It’s also true that improved education and access to greenfield sites and more secure employment have a positive impact on one’s health.

The chief medical officer reminds us specifically of adverse childhood experiences and the importance of the first 1,000 days. He notes that evidence shows that investing a little over £100 in preventing ACEs during childhood would lead to savings of over £6,000 across public services over the first five years of life. That is an investment rate that is far better than you will get in many other areas—apart from putting a bet on Leicester to win the premiership, possibly. That’s quite a good return. We could find similar evidence across other public services. Improved housing would prevent ill health, creating green spaces would improve health, and so on and so forth.

That’s why the chief medical officer recommends that the NHS must work with other public services—the fire service, financial services and housing support—in trying to create sustainable health for Wales for the future. I would go further, and the report does highlight that cutting public expenditure, as we have seen from the Conservative Government in England, has been an example of a false economy on the highest possible level. It’s the most vulnerable who suffer when public expenditure is cut. It is as simple as that.

At the heart of this problem we are considering here is inequality. Last week, research showed that those at the lower levels of the hierarchy in the animal kingdom have poorer immune systems as a result of their low social status, and many academics who specialise in health inequality have noted the relevance of this study to humans too. Inequality itself is the problem. The book ‘The Spirit Level’ summarises much of the research on this. Countries with less inequality tend to be significantly healthier, they have lower crime rates, and better social mobility and so on and so forth. That is something that we should consider very carefully when we discuss the huge amounts of money that we spend on dealing with the effects of inequality. We need to tackle the problem at source, not deal with its symptoms. Plaid Cymru believes that if the Government was more proactive in creating a healthier environment, then better lifestyle choices would inevitably result. To recognise that, I urge you to support this amendment.

First of all, I’d like to very much welcome this report from the chief medical officer, and I’d like to thank Dr Frank Atherton and Professor Chris Jones for the work that they’ve put into it. I think this report very much demonstrates that a one-size-all-fits approach does not work for the Welsh health service. As Rhun ap Iorwerth has talked about the social gradient, I’d just like to make a quick comment that we’ll be supporting today’s amendment.

It is interesting to note the harm that badly applied or thought through interventions can cause. As the report puts it, health interventions that do not reach those at the greatest risk are likely to increase the inequality of health outcomes. So, Cabinet Secretary, in the past your department has been reluctant to put key performance indicators into place to effectively manage or measure the outcomes of policy. With this statement, you must see the danger an ineffective policy can directly have on health. Will you therefore commit to producing key points of measurement to ensure the effectiveness of the policies that have been introduced?

The report also goes on to highlight that to provide NHS services without regard to the social gradient has the potential to increase the inequality. So, on this basis, would you also, Cabinet Secretary, give consideration to providing more power to community pharmacies to undertake some of the more minor roles to enable GPs and other healthcare professionals to focus on more detailed work and those more in need?

I recently visited the excellent Eastside Dental practice in Swansea, which is one of only two practices in Wales trialling the new prototype of providing a more holistic approach to dealing with their patients. This arrangement allows much more work to be done with dealing with prevention rather than just trying to fix the problems as they’ve arisen in terms of dentistry. The report talks of working with partnerships to reduce social inequality. So, Cabinet Secretary, I wonder whether you would have a good hard look at this prototype that’s been trialled in Swansea and see whether this might be a model that we can roll out throughout Wales, because preventing people from having bad teeth in the first place not only helps with their mouth hygiene and health but actually helps with their overall health as well. This is yet another example of where co-production can really work.

Recommendation 5 in the report, I feel, addresses the crux of the matter. Cabinet Secretary, could you please outline what discussions you’re having with your Cabinet colleague to ensure that the revised planning framework requires organisations to plan for equitable health outcomes for their populations and focuses on reducing demand? I think that that would be really key to being able to move forward on the health inequality aspect that’s covered in this report.

There are two other points that I do want to quickly make. It was really brought home in this report the effect that an adverse childhood experience can have on the life outcomes of another person. I think that, for those who would wish to read this report, I would recommend that you have a good long look at figure 7 on the long-term effects of adverse childhood experiences. People who’ve had four or more adverse childhood experiences might, for example, be 14 times more likely to have been a victim of violence in the last 12 months, and 16 times more likely to have taken crack cocaine or heroin. And if we were to prevent ACEs—adverse childhood experiences—for these young people, then we can really reduce some of the appalling outcomes that we do see within the health service. So, if we were to look at the heroin and crack cocaine use, for example, we could reduce that by 66 per cent. This is a really, really telling table.

Cabinet Secretary, one of the areas that have been highlighted recently is the sexual abuse and harassment that young girls and young women face in school. They put up with levels of sexual abuse from young men who haven’t quite understood what the game is all about, and how you respect each other—levels of abuse that we would not expect to put up with in our workplace, but young people do have to put up with it. May I draw your attention to the select committee report from Westminster that looked at all British schoolchildren and girls? Over two thirds of girls have put up with sexual abuse in school. And may I ask you to talk to your colleague, the Cabinet Secretary for Education, about how we might prioritise sexual health within our curriculum, so that we can teach our young people how to be more respectful and better able to handle the abuse within relationships? Because, when we look at this list of adverse childhood experiences, a whole load of them do come back to those formative years and the relationships between men and women. And prudent healthcare is the other matter I would like to have raised, but I will perhaps write to you on that one.

I, too, think this is a really excellent report, because it sets out so clearly the challenges that we face in Wales, not just within the health service, but across all public services. So, I really would like to congratulate the authors on it, as I think it provides loads of food for thought.

It's perfectly clear from this report that the NHS can't tackle health inequality on its own, and the future generations Act requires all public bodies to operate together to tackle these issues. I suppose one of the most interesting graphs is the one around the outcomes for cognition in children with high and low socioeconomic status and how they diverge over time. It's clear from that graph that dim rich kids overtake the bright poor child by the age of five, and the only way in which we can counter that tendency is by having really good quality comprehensive childcare and early education, because it has been shown in other studies that that is the way in which we beat that particular aspect of deprivation.

But I think that, looking at the obesity figures quoted, you know, one in seven children in Merthyr is overweight or obese, compared with one in 14 in the Vale of Glamorgan. Clearly, there is a link with deprivation, but we have to also look at the converse presentation of the facts, which is that six in seven children in Merthyr are not overweight or obese, and that’s to be celebrated. It indicates that it isn't a given that those who live on lower incomes are necessarily going to be obese. It is absolutely incorrect that good food costs more money than food that is low in nutritional content. One of the most important points in the report is the correlation between fast food outlets and areas of deprivation, and it refers to an English report that says that you're twice as likely to be obese if you live close to a fast food outlet. I don't think this applies just to England, because I attended an Asian caterers’ event recently at the Cardiff City Stadium, and it was made perfectly clear there that if you live or work close to a fast food outlet, you are twice as likely to be obese. It is that stark. So, it is not the fact that you are living on low incomes; it is the behaviours that lead you to go to a fast food outlet, rather than to make food from scratch, which is obviously the way in which you avoid the harmful things that are added to processed food in order to make a profit. So, I would be keen to hear the Cabinet Secretary for health’s views on the importance of the food that we give our children in school and whether he thinks that this is an aspect where we can ensure that all children, regardless of the habits of their parents, can taste and experience good, plain food, to enable them to grow up having a healthy diet.

I recently visited one of the schools in Flintshire, which are all following the Food for Life programme, and they have doubled the number of children taking up school meals, which the headteacher said most definitely reduced the number of children bringing in inappropriate food in packed lunches, which means that those children were not actually getting any nutrition during the school day. So, I would be keen to find out what the health Secretary thinks is the role of local authorities in promoting not just the ‘Appetite for Life’ guidance, but the ‘Good Food for All’ guidelines, which ensure that freshly prepared, locally sourced food is served on a daily basis for all our children. So, I think this is a really excellent report, and I think we should listen to the words of Dr Mair Parry, who’s from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, who says that Wales continues to have the worst rates for childhood obesity in the UK and that clearly more needs to be done to address these shortfalls. Concerns still remain over the number of children who eat fruit and vegetables every day and who do exercise, and there’s clearly something very important going on here.

I’ve run out of time, but I suppose the other really stark thing is how little poor communities use dentists and opticians. Of course, these are the two health services—compared with GPs, which they’re using much more in deprived areas—these are the two services where you actually have to pay for it. This is obviously one of the things we need to reflect on. What it tells us is that poor people are not able to access dentists or get glasses when they need them, and that is a very significant matter that—it would be useful to know what the Cabinet Secretary thinks.

I’d like to thank Dr Atherton for his report, and record my thanks to Professor Jones for holding the fort following Dr Hussey’s retirement. Dr Atherton makes it clear that the biggest health challenge facing our nation is tackling the health inequalities between the richest and poorest in our country. The fact that the gap in life expectancy between those living in our most and least deprived areas is growing should shock us all. We cannot stand idly by when the poorest in Wales can expect to live 11 years shorter than the most affluent.

The reasons for the existence of the social gradient in health are complex, but contributory factors include poor diet; a greater prevalence of smoking and alcohol misuse in our most deprived areas; poorer housing conditions; high-rise flats with no garden for children to play in, getting the much-needed exercise; damp conditions leading to respiratory problems; and also high unemployment rates in poorer areas. People in our most deprived areas are twice as likely to smoke as those living in more affluent areas of Wales. We need collaboration of services and partnerships to help with these inequalities.

While we are making progress in reducing the numbers of smokers overall, tobacco control measures have been more successful in reducing uptake than in encouraging existing smokers to quit. Children with at least one parent who smokes are 72 per cent more likely to smoke in adolescence, and if both parents smoke, children are four times more likely to start smoking than if neither parent smokes. Therefore, we must redouble our efforts to encourage parents to quit smoking.

A study for the British Medical Journal found that smokers underestimate the risk of lung cancer, both relative to other smokers and to non-smokers, and demonstrate other misunderstandings of smoking risks. This is put down to the fact that, as a species, we’re not very good at evaluating future risk. Telling someone that they may develop cancer in 30 or 40 years unfortunately doesn’t motivate them to quit smoking. However, we are much better at evaluating risks to our children. Telling a parent that their behaviour is encouraging their children to smoke may have the desired outcome.

We have to accept that many smokers find it nearly impossible to quit. Research by the UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies found that approximately one in three smokers in the UK currently attempts to quit each year, but only about one in six of those who try to quit remains abstinent for more than a few weeks or months. Most smokers who try to quit do so without accessing professional help, and those who use over-the-counter nicotine replacement treatments appear to be no more likely to quit than those getting no help.

However, those who switch to e-cigarettes are far more likely to quit tobacco. The Royal College of Physicians states that

‘in the interests of public health it is important to promote the use of e-cigarettes, NRT and other non-tobacco nicotine products as widely as possible as a substitute for smoking in the UK. ’

Public Health England advocate the use of e-cigarettes as an alternative to smoking and issue guidance to employers stating that they may consider allowing people to use e-cigarettes at work if it is part of a policy to help tobacco smokers kick the habit. The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency has approved a brand of e-cigarettes to be marketed as an aid to help people stop smoking.

As the chief medical officer says in this report, the NHS should not make the social gradient worse. I therefore urge you, Cabinet Secretary, to adopt a similar approach to England when it comes to e-cigarettes and their role in reducing harm from tobacco. We should be encouraging those smokers who are unlikely to quit to switch to e-cigarettes, highlighting the fact that e-cigarettes are 95 per cent safer than tobacco products, rather than focusing on the potential harms of vaping. Thank you. Diolch yn fawr.

I think this is an excellent report. I think the way it’s presented is very clear and it clearly shows the way that we should go. I particularly welcome the emphasis on health inequalities and the social gradient because the evidence is absolutely clear that there’s a higher prevalence of illness and early death in more economically disadvantaged areas. We know in Cardiff itself the difference between two wards, where perhaps you can get to them within 10 minutes, is nine to 11 years of longer life in the more affluent area. That cannot be acceptable. It also can’t be acceptable the number of childhood deaths that take place in disadvantaged areas compared to those more affluent areas. Again, that is something I think that we have to work at and we have to challenge.

So, I welcome the emphasis on the health inequalities. I also welcome the very clear priority on the first 1,000 days of a child’s life and of those days being absolutely crucial. I think that is an area where we have to put our emphasis on. The information about adverse childhood experiences I think should really dictate how we carry on our policy in this Assembly, because the evidence is so strong about what happens later if you do experience, say, four or more of those adverse childhood experiences. So, I think all the information is there on how we need to move. Obviously, establishing good, healthy eating habits and exercise very early on is very important.

The only thing I was surprised that wasn’t in this report, and I may have missed it, but I don’t actually believe I saw any reference to breastfeeding at all. I do actually think that that is one of the crucial areas that we need to take into account because, if we just look at the overweight issue, we know that there’s evidence to show that children who are breastfed are much less likely to have overweight children. We know that the World Health Organization recommends breastfeeding exclusively for the first six months, and there’s also evidence to show that breastfeeding decreases the risk of babies getting infections. For the mother, there are health benefits too, including reduced risk of breast cancer and ovarian cancer and osteoporosis. It’s absolutely vitally important. So, I am surprised that there is nothing in this report, unless I’ve missed it, that says, when we work really hard at the first 1,000 days, ‘Breastfeeding is one of the paramount things’, because it builds the bond with the mother, and we do know, looking at health inequalities, that breastfeeding is less taken up in areas that are poorer. It is absolutely vitally important that we put an effort in to ensure that mothers can be encouraged to breastfeed.

We know that health professionals are under pressure and it takes time and effort to try to help mothers to breastfeed, because sometimes it’s not easy and you need to spend time with new mothers. I know that there’s also evidence that shows that young mothers in particular—the breastfeeding rates for young mothers is lower than the average. So, I think, again, that is something that we need to tackle. In Wales, the highest breastfeeding rates are in Powys Teaching Local Health Board, at 72 per cent, and the lowest are in Cwm Taf, at 50 per cent. Looking at the babies leaving the neonatal units, I met, as I think others did, with the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, and they highlighted the different rates of breastfeeding across the UK when women leave the neonatal units. The highest percentage was 85 per cent, and the lowest was 43 per cent, and Wales was at 43 per cent. So, I don’t want to take anything off this report, because I think it is a brilliant report, and I think this is the way that we should be tackling these issues, but I do think that breastfeeding is a bigger mission, and there’s no emphasis on breastfeeding in the report. It helps, at the earliest stage possible, to establish that bond—and we know the value and the nutrition of breast milk—but you do have to make an effort to make it happen, in some situations, and I think we should be putting more resources into that. And I know that it is difficult, sometimes, for particularly young mothers to feel able to breastfeed when they feel there is a social stigma. Only recently, in my own constituency of Cardiff North, there was an incident in a local cafe—we keep hearing about them every so often, this sort of thing happens—where somebody was abusive to someone who was breastfeeding. So, that climate is still there. So, it is an area we need to work at, and I think it is an area where we can make a difference to the long-term chances of children.

I, too, welcome the CMO’s report and its emphasis on creating a health service, rather than an illness service, which is something we’ve spoken about for quite a long time, and also its emphasis on socioeconomic status, which again is something that’s been debated and discussed for quite some time, but perhaps with a new emphasis in this particular report. It also emphasises the importance of lifestyles to differences in life expectancy and healthy life expectancy, and I think there are a number of things that Welsh Government can do to help address those issues and their socioeconomic bases. For example, there’s a lot that can be done to encourage healthy eating. We could have a traffic-lights system of food labelling, for example, I think, to inform people far more clearly as to what are the healthy foods and what are not. We could have a sugar tax, or a fat tax, for example. Obviously, there are issues about what’s devolved and what’s not devolved, and some of it, no doubt, will be a matter of trying to pressurise UK Government, but some of it may be looking to further devolution and, indeed, what we might be able to do within current powers.

I think it’s very, very important, as we often talk about, Llywydd, that we instil good attitudes and behaviours in our young people as early as possible. I very much agree with the emphasis on the first 1,000 days, and I know there’s a building amount of evidence as to the importance of those early years. We’ve got healthy school networks, of course, and I think there’s some very good practice there. We have new opportunities, I think, to drive improvements to physical literacy, following Tanni Grey’s report, and around the curriculum review, and I very much hope that we take those opportunities.

I would like to say a little bit about what we’re doing locally in Newport, Llywydd, which I have mentioned more than once before. I think we’re making progress in pulling together some key players in public health, from the health board, Aneurin Bevan; Newport Live, the providers of leisure services; the sports clubs; Newport City Homes, and other housing associations; Natural Resources Wales—a host of players have been meeting locally for quite some time to discuss how we get a more physically active population and how we get healthier behaviours more generally. We have made progress. Organisations have committed to a day a month of staff time to pursue this agenda. They’re looking at actions they can commit to and how they can do one more thing. They’re looking at examples from across Wales and locally in terms of how you get change on a wider scale, rather than something that’s very localised. So, I do believe that we are trying to do something important locally in terms of the issues highlighted in the CMO’s report, and I hope as well that other areas in Wales look at how we can build the partnerships, bring key players together and have new collaboration. So, I do hope, Llywydd, that Welsh Government is looking carefully at what’s happening across Wales and also looking carefully at how it might support these initiatives, perhaps through some pilot schemes, for example, which could support, build and strengthen the work that’s taking place. I hope that the Minister can address that in his closing remarks. Diolch yn fawr.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I’m grateful to Members for taking part in today’s debate—a very consensual debate in many ways, with similar concerns and an expression of similar challenges that we know that we all face in different communities in pretty much every part of the country.

I want to start by dealing with issues raised in the amendment and in the contribution from Rhun ap Iorwerth, but every Member mentioned lifestyle challenges. I think there’s a challenge for us here in not confusing blame and responsibility. It’s right that we don’t blame people, but we do have to find a way to have a conversation about people taking more personal responsibility and how we get alongside them to help them to make different choices, and that’s got to be a conversation that we are prepared to have in our own roles, as well as expecting healthcare and other services to do so as well. Of all the different challenges that we recognise in public health—diet, exercise, alcohol and smoking being the big four—in each of those, people make choices. It’s how we equip people to make different choices and then how we equip people and empower them to make more healthy choices later down the line if we can’t prevent them from undertaking risky behaviours in the first place. In fact, alcohol, as Rhun mentioned, is the one example where you can demonstrate that, actually, it’s more middle-class people who have a problem with drinking—not so much binge drinking, but regular overuse of alcohol.

I recognise a number of the points that were made and I’ll try and deal with them before I conclude, Llywydd. A number of interesting questions and points were made by Angela Burns. I want to start by saying that I would be very happy to have a grown-up conversation about what we measure and why within our health service—the different measures that we have, the way that they’ve been generated and whether we can have something sensible, like is what we’re measuring sensible, is it helping to drive the right behaviour and whether it’s telling us something useful about the performance of our health service, but also about the way in which the public engage with the messages from that health service as well. We can look at things like the public health outcomes framework development, looking at outcomes and not just activity, and I do hope that, through the parliamentary review process at the end of that, we can continue to have that debate in the part of this term when, frankly, we can have it, because I don’t think we can have that same debate in the last 12 months of this term, if we’re being perfectly honest.

I’m pleased to hear you make mention of the dental process of contracts; I’m actively interested in them and I’m looking forward to the learning we get from those pilots and to look at what we could potentially adopt system-wide. Actually, oral health is an area in which we’ve had some success here in Wales. Designed to Smile has been successful. It isn’t the only thing to do and we do recognise that in general dental services there are still challenges for us to address and deal with. I think there’s a link here between dental services and pharmacy services, because there’s something not just about rewarding activity and volume, but a thing about how you reward quality. Because in pharmacy, which you mentioned, and I know other Members have mentioned in different debates here in the past—I think there’s a really exciting time in community pharmacy here in Wales, not just because we’re investing in an IT platform to enable pharmacy to do more, not just because our partners and colleagues in the British Medical Association are actually in a different place; it’s about recognising the value of pharmacy as part of that wider primary care team. The opportunity is there to try and understand what more pharmacy can do to take people away from general practice when they don’t need to be there, to be part of the team, but also to look at quality payments for the future, not just about volume and activity in dispensing, but, equally, I think there’s a really important piece of work already in place on the hospital discharge process. There’s much more we could do for community pharmacy, the individual and the hospital pharmacy service as well.

Would you take an intervention? Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Of course, the other thing is that a lot of the people we’ve talked about today who struggle to access a number of these services do go to the chemist. They go to the chemist on a regular basis to get the medicines that they’ve been prescribed because of their lifestyles, and that gives us a really great chance for the pharmacist to perhaps get hold of them and to help them make better decisions about their way forward. So, we can use the pharmacist as a consultant in terms of lifestyle and behaviours.

It’s exactly the reason why we’re investing in our community pharmacy network, and it’s why we’re rolling out extra investment in that IT platform and expecting them to do more. Now, that’s an open conversation we’re having and I’m generally pleased that there’s not just a pharmaceutical committee, but the role of Community Pharmacy Wales being genuinely open-minded about the future. It’s a real positive, and it’s a helpful contrast between Wales and England. I think everyone in every part can take some real pride that we’re taking that approach here in Wales.

A number of people mentioned education and the importance, not just of the new curriculum and the health and well-being aspects of that, including relationships, but this whole point about childcare and early years education. I know Jenny Rathbone mentioned this as well. It’s definitely part of the agenda of this Government not just to improve our childcare offer, but to think about how we add a real quality element to this, so it’s not just volume but the quality of that intervention too. Because we do recognise that talent is not the reason why wealthier communities outperform poorer ones, both in terms of educational outcomes and indeed economic ones at the end of it as well. There is much more to it than that. I’m happy to recognise the points that both Julie Morgan and Angela Burns made about adverse child experiences and their impact on people’s outcomes later in life, but in particular the really important ones are the first 1,000 days, and the priority that we pay to that as well.

It isn’t explicitly mentioned in the report, but as part of the Healthy Child Wales programme and the focus on the first 1,000 days, there is no letting up on the importance of breastfeeding as well. There’s something about: is the message still ‘breast is best’ or ‘breast is normal’? Because actually we need to renormalise breastfeeding because, you’re right, there are still far too many examples of the way that people react poorly or offensively when someone is breastfeeding. It’s an entirely natural process and it’s good for the child and the mother too, as you’ll recognise there’s a lot of research for that as well.

I’m glad to hear that John Griffiths didn’t miss the opportunity to tell us about the Newport update as well, but I want to address perhaps one of the points that Caroline Jones made. In the report, we recognise the differential rate of smoking and its real impact on health outcomes. I don’t quite share your enthusiasm for e-cigarettes as the way forward as almost a panacea for smoking. There is evidence that is contrary at present. Some of the proponents of e-cigarettes as an alternative, there’s alternative evidence both from the British Medical Association and also the World Health Organization as well. I think we’re doing the right thing keeping an open mind, but a precautionary view on e-cigarettes as a potential tool to help people to give up smoking, but they are not a harm-free substitute for smoking. There is still harm associated with e-cigarettes. We want to monitor and understand that evidence before we reach a definitive conclusion.

On the point that Jenny Rathbone made about obesity and diabetes in particular in children and young people, and the importance of food and nutrition in schools and in wider communities, there’s a real challenge here not just about what goes on in schools, because I’m proud of the work we’re doing across schools right across the country, in having a really clear healthy-eating message and the food that people are provided with in a school setting. There’s more that we can always do, but it has to be working with that whole-school community so that parents and carers understand the choices they make outside the school gates and the impact they have, because actually that message is more important than the one that children get in school.

Llywydd, I’m really pleased with the debate we’ve had here today and the recognition that health inequalities arise because of inequalities in society, both in the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work and age and in the structural drivers of those conditions—the unfair distribution of power, money, resource and opportunity. Professor Sir Michael Marmot, a recognised expert in the determinants of health and health inequalities made recommendations for action to reduce health inequalities in his report, ‘Fair Society Healthy Lives’. He’s highlighted the majority of steps required to address health inequality and a social gradient to take place outside of the health service.

I’m delighted to have taken part in a helpful and constructive debate and I look forward to working with Members across the Chamber over the next few years as we look to take forward not just the message in this report, but how all of us have a contribution to make.

The proposal is agree amendment 1. Does any Member object? Amendment 1 is therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12. 36.

The proposal is to agree the Motion as amended. Does any Member object? There are no objections. Therefore, the Motion is agreed.

Rŷm ni nawr yn symud i’r cyfnod pleidleisio. Oni bai fod tri Aelod yn dymuno i mi ganu’r gloch, rwy’n symud yn syth i’r cyfnod pleidleisio.

We will vote therefore on the debate on the older people’s commissioner’s annual report. I call for a vote on amendment 3, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 36, four abstentions and 11 against. Therefore, the amendment is agreed.

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

Open the vote. Close the vote. For 41, 11 abstentions and none against. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

That brings today’s proceedings to a close.