National Assembly for Wales

I call Members to order.

The first item on our agenda is questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs. The first question is from Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Diolch. We are promoting our food and drink industry across the UK, and globally, using growth businesses such as Halen Môn as a brand ambassador, and showcasing Dylan's restaurant's new retail products. This, with support for Anglesey's food festivals, demonstrates a comprehensive promotion of Anglesey's excellent food and drink.

Thank you very much, Minister. I am aware that you visited Dylan’s prep kitchen in Llangefni at the end of last week. I’m certainly very proud of the economic development that has followed the growth of the Dylan’s business, which has now become a well-known brand across the north-west of Wales over the past few years. That site that you visited is a site that wasn’t built for Dylan’s, but it was a site development that was built on spec, where Dylan’s has actually developed its own business.

Now, I’ve raised with you in the past the need for sites and premises that are appropriate for food production in Anglesey so that other companies on the island can have somewhere where they can go to develop, to grow and to employ more people. I have been given some positive signals from you in the past, but, to date, there have been no developments. Can you confirm that you are still supportive of the principle and give me an update on any steps that the Government is taking, or could take, in order to ensure that premises are available for food production companies on Anglesey so that they can develop and grow?

Thank you. You're quite right, I did attend the prep kitchen for Dylan's restaurant in Llangefni. I also went to the restaurant in Menai Bridge and sampled some fantastic local seafood.

I noticed on that site in Llangefni there were also other food companies, but, as you say, it wasn't built specifically for that. And I'm obviously well aware that we met—I think it was probably about this time last year—and you brought forward the suggestion about making Anglesey a hub. I'm still very keen to do that, to have a national food and drink hub to respond to the opportunities, particularly from the major infrastructures we've got across north Wales. And, as you said yourself, Anglesey is renowned for its food and drink, not just for the couple of companies that we've mentioned.

We've obviously got Food Innovation Wales also based in Llangefni. We obviously back them, along with the other two centres across Wales, and they are a key strategic partner. I've also met with the local further education college to discuss what they're doing around food preparation. So, it is something that we're continuing to look at, and if you want to meet with me again for an update, I'd be very happy to do that.

We've been in correspondence over recent months, on behalf of an Anglesey farmer—a lamb producer—who's highlighted the potential for Welsh lamb exports in, particularly, Saudi Arabia. He's also previously worked for the Meat Hygiene Service. He says the Saudis are far more interested in quality Welsh lamb carcasses than cuts, and, clearly, this will have implications for the importance of extending shelf life. But when he attended a Farming Connect meeting in June, the presentation by Hybu Cig Cymru on exports to Saudi Arabia made no reference to Saudi culture, where they like taking whole lamb carcasses out to the desert to cook.

In one of your replies to me, you said some red meat processors in Wales who export to distant markets are able to achieve a shelf life of 42 days for Welsh lamb products, but when I chased that up, you confirmed that only the Rhug Estate in Corwen is currently able to achieve that 42-day figure. Noting that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has written to me, saying that they're working with the Saudi food and drink authority with a view to gaining market access for UK lamb, what engagement are you having not only in that engagement with DEFRA and the Saudis, but to ensure that Welsh lamb is able to meet the time period and the whole-carcass needs, which will drive access to Saudi Arabia and similar parts of the world?

You raise several important points. Obviously, shelf life is something we're having to look at very carefully, particularly in light of Brexit. You'll be aware that a third of Welsh lamb currently is exported to the EU. So, with all the uncertainty around that, we are having to look at new markets and, obviously, the middle east is one area that we are looking at, and, certainly, my officials too are engaged in relation to that. Carcasses—you're quite right, again; we are looking at the whole of an animal, and I think it's very important that these conversations are held. I was talking with a company at the winter fair on Monday around carcasses also, because, as you say, it is something that the Saudi culture likes to have. So, I just want to assure you that those conversations are ongoing with my officials at the current time. 

Responsibility for the Welsh Government woodland estate rests with Natural Resources Wales. I'm aware that larch trees infected by phytophthora ramorum are being felled at Fforest Fawr and Natural Resources Wales is managing this essential work. P.ramorum is the most serious tree disease problem to have affected forests in Wales. 

Thanks, Minister, for your response. Fforest Fawr is a well-used local walking area next to Castell Coch. Many locals are worried that NRW doesn't have any plan to replant the area following the culling. There is a campaign, which has been launched, calling for a replanting programme. Could I ask you to consult with NRW to ascertain what more might be done about the replanting?

Thank you for your question. I'm aware that there is a campaign and that a petition has been launched. Natural Resources Wales are monitoring the situation and trying to go for the best option, which is natural regeneration. But, if this doesn't happen, they will look at other ways of restocking the tree population at Fforest Fawr. 

I know that a public meeting was held in Tongwynlais, which was well attended, and that NRW did make a convincing case for the natural regeneration of the woodland, and I believe that the people who attended the meeting were satisfied. But I think it's important, as the Minister has said, that if there fails to be natural regeneration, they should reconsider whether any trees should be planted. 

Thank you to the Member for Cardiff North for her question. I know that you work very diligently day in, day out on behalf of your constituents, and I am sure you will monitor this situation, as I will be doing too. After the harvesting has taken place, NRW will encourage native species such as beech, oak, birch, wild cherry, rowan and hazel in the forest to naturally regenerate. But it will also monitor the regeneration in the forest before considering if any replanting is necessary and will also keep the local community updated with any developments. 

Can I welcome the Minister to her new responsibilities and wish her well with them?

Can I echo what other Members have said? This is such an important site in south Wales. It's so popular, within its own right but also in its close proximity to Castell Coch. I think the key thing is that, after two or three years, there's a proper assessment, and all the people that have been concerned, all the community groups, are given that information, so that they can see it, and then we can all be assured that either natural regeneration has worked, or is working, or it needs to be supplemented, or a new approach has to be taken. 

Absolutely, and, as I said to Members in previous questions, Natural Resources Wales will monitor that, and I will expect them to keep us updated, and I expect Members to also do the same as well. 

Questions now from the party spokespeople. Conservative spokesperson, Paul Davies. 

Diolch, Llywydd.

Cabinet Secretary, one of the biggest challenges facing Welsh farming is the Welsh Government's proposed designations for nitrate vulnerable zones, which, if implemented, could impose huge burdens on farmers and, as a result, force many out of business. Given that the Welsh Government's consultation ended almost a year ago, could you explain why the Welsh Government has yet to come to a decision regarding the proposed NVZ designations, and will you now commit to bringing a statement to the Assembly Chamber before the end of the year on the Welsh Government's position and explain why this decision has taken so long?

Well, I've already given that commitment several times in this Chamber, so I'm very happy to give that commitment that I will certainly bring a statement forward before the end of this term, so within the next two weeks. The reasons why it's taken so long is that we received a large number of responses to the consultations, and we also received a large number of people's views and considerations to do things differently. I saw a presentation just last week—people are still coming forward with ideas—and, as I'm very open to these ideas, I wanted to give considerable time and consideration to these views.

I'm very pleased that the Cabinet Secretary will be bringing forward a statement to this Chamber by the end of the term, and I look forward to that statement.

One of the concerns surrounding these proposals is that adhering to the slurry/manure storage capacity rules could see farm businesses burdened with large capital investments in storage facilities in order to be compliant. Indeed, the National Farmers Union tell us that the average cost of upgrading facilities is almost £80,000. If the Welsh Government presses ahead with these designations, can you tell us what funding will be put aside to help those farmers forced to comply with any new capacity rules, given that the overall funding allocation to your budget has actually been reduced?

I think there are a couple of points that we need to consider there. Already I have been having discussions around the capacity of farmers' slurry pits and I think many of them are at a level that exceeds what is required at the moment. So, I've seen that cost of £80,000; I've also seen the cost of £150,000. So, again, I think we need to be realistic and pragmatic about the cost, but I do recognise that we might have to give help in certain areas around investment in the slurry pits. So, again, it's something that I've been discussing with officials to see how we can help with funding, where required.

You'll be aware that some Welsh farmers have already been taking steps to address the issue of nitrate pollution and to improve water quality. There's evidence of some very good work being done across Wales. For example, the Wales catchment-sensitive farming demonstration project is an example of a very successful voluntary scheme that was well received by farmers. Given that your consultation didn't consider voluntary arrangements and voluntary schemes, can you tell us why the Welsh Government didn't consider implementing a voluntary approach on this matter? Will you now consider working in partnership with farmers and with the agricultural industry to adopt voluntary measures instead?

I've constantly worked in partnership with the agricultural sector and with farmers. So, again, that's been something else that we have been considering over the last year, when we've looked at the vast array of responses that we've received. We did receive over 250 responses, but I've also had many conversations on a one-to-one basis and with groups of farmers over the past years.

I had to do the review; it is a statutory requirement under the nitrates directive. But we've also seen some significant agricultural pollution incidents this year, so I've had to bring everything together, and it's about getting that balance. But, as I said to the Member at the outset, I will be making a statement within the next two weeks.

The UKIP spokesperson, Neil Hamilton.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd.

Just carrying on with NVZs, as the Cabinet Secretary knows, this is causing considerable concern amongst those who might be affected by it. I would just like to support the approach that has been taken by our colleague from Preseli. It is open to the Cabinet Secretary, of course, as a consequence of this consultation, to avoid a heavy-handed approach, if she's convinced that we can achieve the objectives of the habitats directives and environmental directives that are concerned here by voluntary means.

I'm sure she's aware of the experiment that has been undertaken in the Cleddau by farmers, which has successfully reduced nitrate levels on their farms to below those that are the limits in EU rules and regulations. They've achieved these outcomes at a fraction of the cost that they would have incurred if they'd had to install massive new vats for the storage of slurry et cetera. So, can she, without wishing in any way to anticipate the results of the inquiry, reassure us today that schemes of this kind will certainly be borne in mind so that we can reduce the cost to farmers of necessary environmental controls?

Yes, I've considered many different schemes, and farmers have come to me around what they have done around this issue. As I said in my answer to Paul Davies, I've seen figures of £80,000 and I've seen figures of £150,000. I spoke to a farmer, I think from Monmouthshire, who had done it at a fraction of that cost. So, I do want to reassure Members that I am very open to the suggestions that have come forward and that's why it has taken much longer than I did anticipate in the first place.

I'm sure that everybody wants the right decision to be made at the end of the day, and if a delay results in that, nobody's going to complain. Of course, the precondition is that we get the right decision at the end of the day. But, this particular experiment that I referred to a moment ago in the Cleddau has managed to reduce the nitrate leaches into the soil and the waterways by nearly 90 per cent. So, if that were to be extended countywide into Pembrokeshire, that would be a massive advantage to us. Schemes of this kind, I think, show the benefits of working with the industry to achieve desirable outcomes that will please those for whom environmental concerns are at the top of their agenda, without having to use a stick to force people to do what they don't want to do. This is in the best interests of farmers as well, because the National Farmers Union have developed this blue flag scheme, just like the red tractor, which would be a very useful method of marketing our products as well—that they're produced with environmentally sensitive policy. So, that's good news for farming as well as for the environment.

I absolutely think you have to work with the industry in relation to policy and strategies, and it was just last week that the Minister for Environment and myself had a presentation around the blue flag scheme. So, we are still considering everything that's come before us over the past year. And I reiterate again: I will be making a statement in the next two weeks.

It is important, of course, that environmental concerns are taken seriously, and, therefore, that the methods employed, if they're not controlled by statute or regulation, are properly audited and therefore the results can be regarded as credible. This particular scheme in the Cleddau is being audited by Natural Resources Wales, so there again, if the regulatory bodies are working hand in glove with the industry, at the end of the day, everybody is happy. And, after all, happiness is what we as politicians want to produce for our constituents. So, I hope that the Cabinet Secretary will, when she announces her result, be able to be the Cabinet Secretary for happiness in the countryside. 

Well, yes, I'd like to think I am the Cabinet Secretary for happiness in the countryside. 

I think, at the beginning of that last question, you made a very important point about the balance. I always used to say, at that time, that I was Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs, so it was absolutely imperative that I did that balancing. Now, obviously, we've got a Minister for Environment, but that doesn't mean that the environment is any less important to me as Cabinet Secretary.

So, it is absolutely vital that any policy you bring forward is a balanced approach. It's certainly been very helpful having so many responses to the consultation and having so many individual farmers—and then, obviously, the two farmers who came to see me around the blue flag scheme—bringing forward their ideas about how they've managed to reduce the nitrates, et cetera. So, yes, you're right, I will be bringing forward that statement.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Simon Thomas.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I make the Cabinet Secretary very happy by saying I won't ask her about NVZs, but wait for her statement in a couple of weeks' time? But I'll make her less happy, perhaps, by asking her this: why has her department suffered the biggest single cut in the draft Welsh Government budget, and what does that really say about the commitment of the Government to the environment and rural affairs?

Well, you'll appreciate that we've all had to make some very difficult decisions. I was in front of committee last week, having budget scrutiny, and you'll be aware that there was lots of noise around the fact that my budget had been cut by 5 per cent; it hadn't, because I transferred £35 million of waste funding into the revenue support grant. But still, I have had a cut of 1.5 per cent. I hope, again, I've balanced it. I've got a very broad portfolio, but I hope that no part of the portfolio feels that it's had cuts that aren't proportionate. 

Nevertheless, her portfolio has suffered from the same 5 per cent cuts on local government grants, which have been recycled to help social services and health. She has confirmed, implicitly, that, in fact, her department has had the biggest cut of any department within the Welsh Government in this budget. We know that there are difficulties in the budget, but it's singular that this department has been singled out for that largest cut. 

Now, the finance Secretary told the Finance Committee last week that £100 million that has been held back in reserves in anticipation of further efficiency cuts can now be made available, as these cuts are not now expected, following the budget last week. So, can I ask her, as the Cabinet Secretary: what is she bidding for out of this £100 million? Last year, with a bit of Plaid Cymru chivvying along, she got a bit of extra money for flood prevention schemes, as I recall. What is she looking to reinstate now to her budget?

When I go back to my office after this question session, I will be meeting with officials ahead of writing to the finance Minister. I think I was the first to put a bid in, so you'll be pleased to hear that. I have confirmed that my department has had the biggest cut, because it has—it's a fact. So, I'm not going to try and hide behind that, but I think we have managed to balance things so that, as I said, no one part of the portfolio has had a bigger hit. We've tried to share the pain across, if you like. I didn't come into politics to make cuts—nobody did—but we are faced with the reality.

So, as you say, there's this £100 million now. What will I be looking to reinstate? Well, again, one of my priority areas, probably shared by many Members, is around warm homes. We need to be looking at what we are doing in retrofitting our housing stock, particularly to be able to meet the low-carbon budgets that, obviously, we'll be setting. So, that's one area I'm looking at. Flooding, obviously—we had some horrendous flooding last week. When I was up in Llangefni on Thursday, Llangefni suffered incredibly, and the Member for Ynys Môn has already written to me regarding the flooding in Menai Bridge—I think that's where specifically you raised. So, I will be looking, certainly, at flooding, also. But if Plaid Cymru want to come forward with any views, I'll be very happy to do that—obviously, you supported our budget.

You're quite right, we do have a budget agreement, and I'm very pleased with some of the things that we've got from that. Some of the things you mentioned, Cabinet Secretary, however, are important, but, on the whole, they're capital. You could be using the ability of the new much-talked-about but strange capital that's come to the Welsh Government, this transactional sort of capital, to look at how that could go into warm homes, for example. So, that still leaves you, I think, bidding for this £100 million, and I look forward to seeing the impact of your lobbying on the finance Cabinet Secretary in the final budget.

But, of course, though you have been successful in paying the basic farm payments, and you announced that in the winter show this week, there are wider questions about ongoing funding as we leave the European Union. It seems increasingly clear to me that, in fact, we cannot bank the promises that have been made about ongoing common agricultural policy and farm payments beyond 2020. There's been much talk about 2022, but, in fact, when you look at the guarantees, they are rock solid, perhaps, until 2020, but, after that, they look rather shaky to my mind. So, can I ask her whether she agrees with that analysis from the Westminster perspective and whether she is now in a position to give an unequivocal guarantee, in this Assembly, that at least for this Assembly term—this Assembly term—this Welsh Government will continue the current envelope of farm payments?

Yes, for this Assembly term we will—so, until 2021. I absolutely agree with you around 2020 and 2022. We have had assurance that we will have that funding until the end of the Westminster Parliament in 2022, but then you hear different noises coming around. But, as far as I'm concerned, the Treasury has given assurance to fully fund direct payments until 2022.

I'm very pleased you mentioned the basic payment scheme. I was very pleased to announce at the winter fair on Monday that 91 per cent of our farmers will be getting their payment on Friday. That's the first day possible that they can do that. So, we'll be paying, I think, £201 million to over 14,000 of our farmers, and I would just like to pay tribute to my team who have done that. They're not a very big team, but, again I think when—I haven't seen the other countries, what figures they're bringing forward, but I would imagine we'll be way ahead of the game again.

Average levels of air pollution across Wales, including in south-west Wales, have improved over recent decades, but we still face significant challenges. We must do more to improve air quality in all regions and I have tabled a debate in December to discuss plans for cross-government action.

Can I thank the Minister for that reply? Further to that, recent data released by the Royal College of Physicians show that two areas in my region, Port Talbot and Swansea, are recognised amongst the worst areas in the UK in terms of air quality and are breaching World Health Organization guidelines at present. With Healthy Air Cymru stating that the Welsh Government needs to lead the way on reducing air pollution in these areas, what assurances can you provide that you recognise the scale of the problem, and do you agree that you need to raise the bar in terms of your collaborative work with local authorities to tackle the air pollution issues within these areas?

May I thank the Member for his question? You're absolutely right to raise this important issue, and it's something that will be high on my agenda going forward in this portfolio. We know that historically Port Talbot has a high level of PM10 pollution, and this is generally, obviously, attributed to the industrial nature of the area. I know that Welsh Government officials regularly meet with steelworks operators, Natural Resources Wales and Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council to identify potential sources of, and solutions for, the high PM10 levels. As I said, we are tabling a debate next week to discuss this. We will look at, actually, not just what local authorities are doing in terms of the clean air framework, but also what we can do across Government to meet those challenges and to create healthy, better air quality throughout Wales.

I thank the Minister for her answers, in particular about Port Talbot, and identifying the actions you're taking. However, it's not just PM10s; it's PM2.5s as well. And knowing the area, it's not just the industry and the steelworks; it's also the motorway, which is caught on that narrow strip, and the roads on the side of it. So, one of the ways you can actually look at it is to actually look at planning, and maybe talk to your Cabinet Secretary colleague about planning regulations. Look at the cumulative impact of any decisions taken upon air pollution, not just the individual project, because the more we see coming in, which creates more pollution, it adds to what's already there, and what's already there is not getting lower. So, please look at the issue so we can ensure that we do start seeing a decrease, not an increase.

Thank you, Dai Rees, for your question. You're absolutely right that we need to look at cross-government, cross-departmental working on this, and I'm sure I will speak to my Cabinet Secretary colleague on how we can actually go forward with this, not just across Government in terms of planning, but also transport, health and local government.

Can I congratulate you on your new job as well? Can I begin by saying that scrutiny has been brought to bear and, actually, the dreaded Nowcaster system in Swansea council, with which I appreciate you may not personally be familiar, is now up and running after several years of delay, and advising drivers in real time whether the air quality in that particular part of Swansea is safe enough to drive through. It doesn't tell them when the air quality is good enough, but it does tell them when it's bad. Your department has actually refused a further application for funding for this particular project. I appreciate you may not know much about it yourself, but do you think your department would be more likely to support an application to expand upon the Nowcaster system if the data collected by the machines could more widely inform traffic management in the city—for example, providing evidence for a Swansea bay regional metro, perhaps—or if it could help with the clean air framework in helping create enforceable targets for particulate reduction? Thank you.

Thank you, Suzy. Thank you for your question and thank you for your warm words of congratulations. I have had a brief—I am familiar with the Nowcaster system. You raised some very valid points there, and I think if you want to follow it up now with a letter to me—. And I think, going forward, as I said, I'm really keen to get this high on the agenda and making sure we work across Government and with local authorities and across the board on how we tackle this important issue, not just in south-west Wales, but across Wales.

I, too, wish to offer my congratulations to you. Cabinet Secretary—sorry; Minister—people living within my region have to contend with some of the worst air pollution in the UK. For a few days this month, children attending school in Margam had to contend with PM10s at twice the safe daily limit. According to Public Health Wales, this is one of the biggest public health challenges facing our nation, killing 2,000 people per year. Of course, the biggest contributor to poor air quality is transport, which is made much worse by the level of congestion we are seeing now on our roads. Minister, how will your Government ensure that new developments do not contribute to this congestion, and how can the planning system be utilised to limit congested road infrastructure?

Thank you again for your congratulations. Just to point out: I am the Minister, not the Cabinet Secretary. I don't want to upset my colleague at this early stage. Children and individuals are particularly susceptible to the effects of air pollution, and so local authorities do need to take a risk-based approach in looking at how we monitor the situation. But absolutely, I think we need to, going forward—. As I've said previously, it is a really important issue, and obviously with respect of planning, it is in the Cabinet Secretary's remit, so I'm sure we will be working together closely on this, going forward.

The Welsh Government is committed to bringing all peatlands supporting semi-natural habitats into sustainable management by 2020 and has established an integrated programme of delivery to ensure this target is met. The current programme is improving the condition of our peatlands, and we have secured funding for further action.

Can I just remind you, and perhaps everybody else, that I did congratulate you when you came to committee? So I will add a further congratulations in here, but it has already been done.

What I was going to ask is: what progress has been made towards the target of getting all peatlands in Wales into restoration management by 2020, and do you expect that to be done on a linear basis, or do you expect it exponentially or inverse exponentially?

Thank you, and thank you again for joining in with the congratulations.

Can I thank Mike Hedges for his interest in this aspect of Welsh Government work? The Welsh Government is committed to bringing all peatlands support and semi-natural habitats into sustainable management by 2020, and has established an integrated programme of delivery to ensure this target is met. We have strong evidence from our monitoring programme that our integrated approach is having a positive impact, improving the condition and resilience of our peatlands. Our land management scheme, Glastir, is making a significant contribution to this programme, with over 65 per cent of our target area already under Glastir management. And I think our EU funds are playing an important role in supporting us to improve the condition of approximately 690 hectares of our most important peatland sites.

Minister, having previously just now congratulated you, I think I should now switch into attack mode. [Laughter.] Otherwise, you will be given false reassurance about how you will be treated in this Chamber.

I think this is a really important question. Peatlands are the most important terrestrial carbon store in the UK—20 times more carbon stored there than in UK forests. You say that you have secured funding, but a lot of the funding at the moment for the management scheme is through EU LIFE funding. I just wonder what's going to happen to that. Are there any plans for 2020-1? Obviously, restoring these peatlands and then maintaining them—the maintaining bit is going to require ongoing funding.

Thanks for the question. I'm under no illusions that I should just make the most of the warm words of congratulations until we move on to real business in the Chamber.

It really is a very important area, and really important that we are able to sustain that going forward. I'm sure the Member appreciates that, being new to the portfolio, I'm still in discussions on how we take that forward after 2020. So, I'm happy to follow that up in writing to you.FootnoteLink

Thank you. Mid and West Wales conjointly encompasses high and intermediate TB areas. Here, we are focusing on developing bespoke action plans for persistent TB breakdowns, which contain measures aimed at clearing up infection. Action plans are agreed in consultation with the farmer, their private vet, and the Animal and Plant Health Agency.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for that reply. Will she agree with me that, although there is no easy answer or simple solution to the eradication of TB in cattle, one promising way forward is a greater concentration upon genetics? The Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board has put together a genetic index; it is funded by UK farmers, of course, to undertake research and development on their behalf. This will enable us to target strains of cattle that have a greater propensity to resist TB. Therefore, this must for the future be an important element in the Government's overall strategy to eradicate this terrible disease. 

You raise a very important point, and I think you're right: there is no simple solution. Just this morning, I have had a meeting with officials, and that included people who were doing research into this area. You will be aware that, as part of the refresh of the eradication programme, one of the things I promised to bring forward was a target for when I would like to be officially TB free here in Wales, and that is an element of the discussions that we've been having. So, I think it is about bringing many enhanced measures together, but certainly research and development. Going forward, we need to be looking at absolutely everything and learning from other areas and other countries also. 

I certainly welcome the new scheme to tackle bovine TB. I think we all want to see this cruel disease eradicated in both the wildlife population and in cattle. My concern is that no additional pressure is put on farmers who, for too long, have suffered the effects of bovine TB.

Now, you've already answered questions and talked about the significant cut to your budget. Can I ask, in relation to that, in relation to the draft budget, where there is a significant cut to your department, how do you feel that is going to affect how you are able to tackle bovine TB?

There won't be any cut to the funding in relation to eradicating TB. You'll be aware that in the refreshed programme, in part of the programme, one of the things was reducing compensation by 50 per cent, for example, but that's more—. We are looking at—10 per cent, I think it is, of the budget to eradicate TB comes from the EU. So, I could be losing that in the future. So, we need to look at how we can make sure we do have enough funding. But it was one of the questions I was asked last week by the committee in budget scrutiny, but I will just have to find that from the animal health and welfare budget expenditure line. So, I don't think there will be any impact on that at all this year.

One of the saddest things that one can do as a Member representing this region is to receive correspondence from farmers who are suffering as a result of TB on their farms and seeing what happens to their livestock. I received one such message over the past fortnight, talking about the herd being affected and six cows being destroyed on the farm, and they were about to calve too, and that was heartbreaking for the farmer responsible for those cattle.

But one of the things that was also very saddening for her was the fact that the tests that led to the destroying of those cattle were inconclusive tests. Now, I know that we do have to take steps, but I also know that there are more accurate tests available, which are used, for example, in North America. So, what work are you doing to look into whether now, under the new scheme that you have, we are ready in Wales, as a nation, to move towards different tests for TB that are more accurate as we deal with the disease?

I do not underestimate the distress that having a TB breakdown causes to farmers and their families, and I, too, received, I would imagine, the same correspondence that the Member has done. I met with the chief veterinary officer just this morning to discuss it, because it was indeed very distressing correspondence, and I will be writing directly to the farmer myself.

Again, going forward, we need to look at the very best testing that's possible, and if there are examples in other countries, I would want to obviously consider if they could be brought forward to Wales as part of those enhanced measures I referred to in relation to the refresh of the programme.

Steffan Lewis is not in the Chamber to ask question 6 [OAQ51352]. Question 7—Mark Isherwood.

Thank you. The Welsh Government’s planning policy for housing is set out in 'Planning Policy Wales'. Further guidance is provided in technical advice notes. 'Technical Advice Note 1: Joint Housing Land Availability Studies' provides advice on calculating housing land supply. 'Technical Advice Note 2: Planning and Affordable Housing' provides advice on the delivery of affordable housing.

Thank you. Well, commenting in June in our mutual local paper, after the First Minister had approved a planning application in Llay on the basis of a recommendation by an independent inspector, you said that controversial issues such as this will continue until a council adopts a local development plan. I recently, at the request of residents, attended a public inquiry in Penyffordd, Flintshire. I know you can't comment on that, but the concern was expressed to me that, because their local development plan had not been concluded, quote, developers were taking advantage of the situation by citing five years' supply and loopholes in TAN 1 to get the planning through.

In October the leader of Conwy County Borough Council wrote to you saying that the calculation methodology of five-year land supply within TAN 1, revised by the Welsh Government in January 2015, is undermining local development plans across Wales. And in your response, which was actually quite helpful, you said that the lack of a five-year housing land supply may be one of the considerations—one of the considerations—determining a planning application; however, applications that do not meet the relevant policy requirements may be refused by the authority and planning inspector. Could you expand on that? How should a local authority, an applicant, and particularly a planning inspector, interpret that statement in this context?

Thank you. Presiding Officer, if I could just take the opportunity—the first example Mark Isherwood gave was in my constituency, but obviously this decision was taken by the First Minister, not by me. 

In relation to the general point you raise about TAN 1, it is a very difficult situation if the five-year land supply isn't demonstrated, and certainly it's happening not just in north-east Wales, and north Wales, as you referred to, it's happening in other local authorities too. Unfortunately, if a local planning authority hasn't got a five-year housing land supply, they are open to speculative planning applications for housing development. However, all such applications should be assessed against all relevant policy considerations, including the need to increase housing land supply, and the principle of sustainable development. That was the point I was trying to make.

Cabinet Secretary, there have been quite a number of significant housing developments, or proposed developments, in the Taff Ely and Pontypridd area. One of the issues, of course, that arises during that process is the capacity in respect of local public services. In particular, I have in mind general practitioner services. Will they be able to cope with the actual additional housing in that particular capacity? 

Now, it seems to me that one of the concerns we've had—and I've heard it expressed by a number of GP practices now—is that they are not statutory consultees in those planning processes. It seems to me, with the scale of housing developments we have, that it's very important that we actually have a review as to who actually are statutory consultees, and that serious consideration should now be given to including bodies like local general practitioner practices to participate within that. It's a directly relevant part of the process and very necessary information to have, but which isn't included as a matter of course at the moment. 

Thank you. Yes, I agree—the capacity of primary care facilities is an important material consideration when considering the planning merits of a proposed development. Obviously, the local health board is responsible for providing primary care services for its local population, so I would expect them to engage in the preparation of any development plans. They know what capacity they've got. It's important that a GP surgery feeds that information through to the local health board. 

We are having discussions at the current time as to whether health boards should be statutory consultees for major planning applications.

Thank you. Food price differences between countries or blocks like the EU and global prices are driven by currency values, supply and demand, trade rules and internal market regulations. The EU Commission monitors European food prices and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations runs an international food price index of major commodities. 

And that monitoring shows that food prices in the EU are substantially higher than outside the EU. Once we leave the EU, does the Cabinet Secretary agree that it will be for the UK Government to determine the extent to which we apply World Trade Organization tariffs against imports from outside the EU, and it's up to that Government whether to apply those at all or whether to negotiate free trade deals with particular countries? Does she also accept that, in the unlikely event of there being WTO tariffs between the UK and the EU, while that would be very difficult for some sectors of the agricultural economy, notably lamb, other sectors, notably beef and dairy, would potentially have significant opportunities as imports from countries such as the Republic of Ireland were restricted?

I think Brexit—it's a massive issue. It's really threatening our industry and I think it's causing a great deal of uncertainty. It is obviously for the UK Government to have those trade discussions and bring forward a trade deal. However, we've made it very clear to the UK Government the shape that we think these negotiations and these discussions need to take. 

I think everybody accepts—I'm sure, even on this side of the house—that the political situation we've got at the moment is creating a lot of tension. We are having those ongoing discussions. Obviously, the First Minister, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and I primarily are having discussions around trade, and what tariffs will be imposed. You're quite right: I'm really fearful for the lamb sector, and some of our scenario planning is of great concern. We also know that the British Retail Consortium has suggested that, without a new trade agreement, if the UK and EU imposed WTO tariffs, the average cost of food imported by retailers could increase by 22 per cent. 

Unlike Mark Reckless, I'm not looking forward to the world of chlorinated chicken and hormone-fed beef, so I hope that we continue to have the high quality of food standards that we currently enjoy.

The messages coming from the British Ports Authority if we were to leave the customs union are not very optimistic, in the sense that whilst we currently have a free passport of goods to and from Britain, were we to crash out of the European Union this could actually bring all transactions to a horrible halt. And where we're talking about fresh produce, why would anybody bother to import fresh produce if they don't think they're going to be able to get it to market in time? I just wondered what assessment the Government has made of the impact of leaving the customs union, and the impact it would have on the food that we currently import, particularly fresh produce from the European Union. 

Thank you for that question. This forms part of our scenario planning, which I mentioned in my answer to Mark Reckless. Parts of this are indeed very, very scary. We are making our views very well known to the UK Government at every level that we should remain in the customs union. We need that free market that we've got right on our doorstep, and I would always hope that we will have a relationship with the EU. But from the discussions I had at the winter fair on Monday, people are very fearful at the uncertainty about the way the current discussions seem to be going, but we are, as a Welsh Government, particularly concerned that Brexit will drive food prices much higher unless we have a really excellent trade deal.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. 

The next item is questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Local Government and Public Services, and the first question is from Leanne Wood. 

The taskforce published a detailed delivery plan on 7 November. It identified how we will take forward actions in three priority areas: delivering good quality jobs and the skills to do them; supporting better public services; and strengthening communities. Many and most actions in the plan will positively impact the people living in the Rhondda valleys.

I thank you for your letter, Cabinet Secretary, which I received this morning, outlining how the recently published Valleys taskforce delivery plan will benefit people in the Rhondda constituency. In your letter, you talk about a number of things that you've just outlined there: improving childcare through a pilot scheme in Ferndale, supporting local builders, and

'improving public service provision through community hubs',

whatever that means. All of this is really vague, Cabinet Secretary, and I can't see how it's going to impact at all on the 33.1 per cent of Rhondda working-age population who are economically inactive. That's a figure that's much higher than the Welsh average of 24.8 per cent, and the UK figure which is 22 per cent. The reasons for this economic inactivity are historic, and the economic problems as a result are chronic. That is why the Rhondda needs specific action from your Government. The results of this plan will be determined by the number of people who end up in good jobs. Can you tell us by how much do you hope to reduce economic inactivity in the Rhondda after you've implemented the Valleys taskforce plan? Can you give us a figure, please?   

I'm sure the Member for the Rhondda will join me in being very grateful for the way that many people from the Rhondda valleys have contributed to shaping our vision for the future. I'm sure that she's read the plan that we've outlined that we published on 7 November, and I'd be surprised if she could describe that plan as being vague. There are many tens of actions there with timescales and targets that outline exactly how we'll be answering the questions that she raises.

But she does raise an important point, of course, because economic inactivity is a fundamental issue facing all communities in the Valleys, including the Rhondda constituency she represents. We have put in our plan a target for creating 7,000 additional jobs over the coming four years in order to ensure that the communities of the Valleys have the same opportunities to access high-quality work as communities elsewhere in Wales. That target is in the plan and the timescales are in the plan. I would advise the Member for the Rhondda to read it.

Cabinet Secretary, in your original speech on your taskforce activities, you identified the natural environment in the Valleys, and in particular the Rhondda valleys, as a good example of that, where large areas of common land exist at the very top of the Valleys, a hugely under-utilised asset that exists across south Wales. I'd be grateful to understand exactly, now some time has lapsed since your original identification of that environmental asset, how the Government is going to make better use of it to encourage greater economic activity within the Valleys, but, above all, a better lifestyle for people living in the Valleys by using that wonderful natural resource of the commons that exist across south Wales.

I would agree very much with the point that the Member for south Wales makes. Not only the common land, but the land across the environment of the Valleys of south Wales is a huge asset not only for those of us who were born in, brought up in, live in and represent the Valleys, but for the whole country. Through creating what we've called at the moment a landscape park in the Valleys, I hope that we will be able to maximise the potential of not only common land, but the environment as a whole, to ensure access for people in the Valleys to access the local environment, but also to protect and enhance that environment, to work with landowners and farmers and others in the area to ensure that we are able to appreciate and value the environment that we have in the Valleys, but also to ensure that we are able to deliver value for the communities that live alongside and within it. I hope that the landscape park is and will be a catalyst for action to enable all the ambitions that the Member has outlined, and which I share, to be met. 

I'm currently considering the responses to the consultation on electoral reform. I intend to make a statement on the next steps in February.

Thanks. Cabinet Secretary, I recently responded to the consultation. Question 33 stated: do you agree that it should not be permissible to serve both as an Assembly Member and councillor? Aside from that being very leading and unbefitting of a serious consultation, it's the Government's position, I understand, to ban AMs from also being councillors. I'll just point out that you're carrying out two roles: a ministerial role, which says that Ministers must keep separate their roles as Minister and Assembly Member. Effectively, they're two different jobs. Here, there are Members of the House of Lords—both a lord and a baroness—who are serving in your Government; we have a Member of the European Parliament who is unable to be here today; and we are successfully being presided over by an Assembly Member, who is also the Presiding Officer—[Laughter.]

Carry on. I'm intrigued as to where you're going with it. [Laughter.]

In terms of roles, we also have company directors and people otherwise employed. So, really, to get to the nub of the question—[Laughter.] Thank you. What is it that offends the Government so much about an AM being a councillor? And, really, are you planning to stop AMs from acting as councillors simply to frustrate democracy and do through Government and legislation what you cannot do through the ballot box?

Presiding Officer, Councillor McEvoy will hear my conclusions at the same time as anyone else. I will say this to him: I believe it is important that people who are here serve democracy by not having any conflict of interest. It is my view that serving as a local authority member and a Member of this place creates a conflict of interest.

Can I remind Members how overwhelmingly the alternative vote form of proportional representation was rejected in the referendum, and how the single transferable vote is based on 'guess how many seats you can win'? Will the Welsh Government legislate that a supermajority vote by councillors and councils of two thirds will be necessary if councils want to change their voting system?

Presiding Officer, I have already disappointed my good friend from Swansea East with my views on proportional representation; I don't propose to disappoint him again this afternoon. But, I will say to him that when we look at how we reform and deepen our democracy, I believe that we have to be bold and radical, and not conservative, and look and embrace change.

Can I welcome the Cabinet Secretary to his new role? I once named you the Minister Emeritus, you may remember, and it seems you're clearly fitting with that name. [Interruption.] I never called him a boomerang. You said that.

Cabinet Secretary, the history of local government in Wales is one of reorganisation after reorganisation, reform after reform over very many years. I was very pleased when your predecessor kicked into the long grass the idea of local government reorganisation in Wales. Are you planning on revisiting that issue over the next few years? And would you agree with me that whatever you do decide or do not decide to do with local government organisation—and the electoral system that that may entail—that what local government in Wales needs is stability, so that elected officers and councillors in those authorities can get on with the job of delivering local services for local people, which they're elected to do?

Yes, I do agree with that. I believe that we do require stability, but stability that is borne of a robust ability to deliver high-quality services. We heard from the WLGA last week that they do not believe that the current delivery of services is sustainable, and I think that we need to listen to those words. And, certainly, that is the consideration that I will be taking as I move forward with policy in this area.

An opportunity now for the party spokespeople to ask questions. Plaid Cymru's spokesperson, Adam Price.

Diolch, Llywydd. I'd like to return, if I may, to the Valleys taskforce implementation plan. I think all of us would agree that it contains, at a high level, very, very laudable aims in terms of our communities, and we thank members of the taskforce, and, indeed, all those who took part in the various consultations that occurred across the Valleys areas.

But as the Cabinet Secretary, I'm sure, will concede, the key will be in the detail, of course, of how the plan is delivered. There are 68 action points in the plan as a whole, but you refer to specific targets. Maybe I can help him out here because, actually, the plan itself, on page 46, actually shows that there are only two specific targets. After going through all the well-being indicators, there are only two. And 7,000 additional jobs, 2,000 of which will be created as a result of entrepreneurship activity. Could he say, just for clarity, are those net additional jobs—in the jargon? Are those jobs created rather than jobs created, safeguarded and assisted? Seeing as this is the only target in the plan, what budget has been set aside to create those jobs? Even if we take the standard, the £30,000 or £40,000 per job, which the Welsh Government uses, you're talking of hundreds of millions of additional funds. If, actually, we only achieve the level of job creation that we've seen in the enterprise zones—£90 million-odd in Ebbw Vale and only 170 jobs created in that case—then you're talking of billions, and yet there's no additional money set aside that I can see in the Welsh Government's draft budget.

I'm grateful for the question. The £90 million in Ebbw Vale, of course, also includes parts of the dualling of the A465 road, which was postponed by Plaid Cymru. In terms of the direct question you asked, whether it's net jobs, the answer is 'Yes, it is net jobs.' And in terms of the funding for that, the funding will be found from within the budgets of the Cabinet Secretaries that will be contributing towards that. 

What the taskforce of the Valleys seeks to do is to shape and to drive Government policy to enable us to achieve our ambitions in the Valleys. I know that you share those ambitions, and I'm grateful to you for the points that you've made in the past on that. We're currently leading a programme of seminars in each one of the seven strategic hubs to look at exactly how each hub will contribute, both to the jobs target you've outlined, but also to other targets that are outlined in the overall vision. When we've completed that task—I hope by the end of February—I'll be able to make a further statement on that.

Cabinet Secretary, I suppose you and I kind of represent the arc of the Valleys, the former coalfield area—you representing the eastern Valleys, me representing the west. I was wondering if the geography, really, of this strategy at the moment is out of kilter. As we've heard from the leader of my party, really, there are areas in the Rhondda, Cynon, et cetera, which are not represented at all in the seven strategic hubs, which, to my mind at the moment, seem to have been chosen, if not quite at random, certainly in an ad hoc way, both in their location, but also, possibly, in their sectoral focus. We did have the announcement yesterday about two entrepreneurial tech hubs, which will be in the south-western Valleys and in the eastern Valleys. And there are also the community hubs—an unspecified number of community hubs—that we'll have there as well. But, even if you look at the map, Cabinet Secretary, Ammanford is actually outside the map, and many of the other western Valleys are actually not included within the definition of the Valleys area. So, surely, shouldn't we have actually, in order to underpin the strategy, a strategic development plan looking at the geography of the Valleys, making sure, for example, that these hubs are calibrated, in terms of the new metro stations, with the areas of investment? And who's going to deliver all this? With all these hubs, surely we need a hub of hubs, Cabinet Secretary—an agency or team of people who are going to deliver these 68 action points. And what's the provision currently, and what's the connection with the city deal? Because it seems to me that the Valleys taskforce and the implementation plan are over here, the city deals are over there, and there doesn't seem to be much interconnection between the two at the moment.

Over the years, the Member for east Carmarthenshire has called for more strategic thinking in the Valleys and elsewhere in Wales, and has called for less of a pork-barrel approach to politics—I think you've made a number of different interventions along those lines, and I have always agreed with you on those matters. But, in the last few months, since these strategic hubs have been announced, I've received one letter from the Member for the Rhondda, asking for a strategic hub in the Rhondda, and another from yourself, asking for one in Ammanford. I'm not sure that always outlines the strategic thinking that you've had in mind. [Interruption.] The Member's called for strategic thinking.

What I will say to him is that each one of the seven hubs—I would be happy to consider developing a model, I have to say, but each of the seven strategic hubs is linked to the metro, is linked to public transport, is led both by local authorities, informed by the work being done on the city deals, and also by the Welsh Government. And that is why we're going through a process of seminars at the moment to ensure that we do understand what exactly we're trying to achieve with each one of these hubs.

But I will say to the Member that it is important that we do look across the whole of the Valleys region. The points he makes about the western Valleys are well made, and recognised; I accept those points. And I think we do need to look at how we constantly ensure that we're able to reach people across the whole of the Valleys regions. And I think that is a challenge that we accept, and a challenge I hope we will meet.

I was wondering—if we could step back a little bit as well—if we can ask ourselves a deeper question, which I'm not sure is sufficiently addressed yet in the plan that has been published, which is why the initiatives of the past have failed. Because the most sobering reading of all—. I urge honourable—oh, falling into bad habits there. I urge Members to read the engagement study, which is actually based on surveys with people in the Valleys about how they see things. And it's sobering reading indeed: 45 per cent saying that the state of their town centres were poor; 54 per cent saying that support for businesses was poor; 30 per cent saying that the local health services were poor; 45 per cent, poor transport services. And we have to ask ourselves why are we in this position. And unless we have a sufficient analysis and an honest analysis—and I realise that, for a Government that has been in power for the best part of two decades, that is a difficult question to ask—but, unless we ask it, then we are condemned, are we not, to repeat the failures of the past?

In many ways, the plan that I published on 7 November is a plan from the Valleys, and not simply a plan for the Valleys. It's about listening to people, talking with people, having conversations with people, about what they want to see in their communities for the future. And many of them do describe their communities in the way that you've illustrated this afternoon. I accept that fully. But what I will say to you is that it's not the role of Government simply to describe the problems; it's the role of Government to act as a catalyst to create solutions, and that is what this Government is seeking to do. 

Conservative spokesperson, David Melding. 

Diolch, Llywydd. It's now been two years since the innovative homelessness Measure and the Housing (Wales) Act 2014 were introduced, and I think it's won many plaudits for its preventative approach. I think it's been tougher to deal with rough-sleepers already on the streets, or on the verge of going on the streets, and I wonder if I can ask the Minister what the Welsh Government is doing to reduce the number of rough-sleepers in Wales. 

I thank you for that question. As you'd imagine, tackling the issue of rough-sleeping is a priority for Welsh Government and a personal priority for me, especially at this particular time of year, as we're noticing the weather getting colder and we are actually seeing increased numbers of people sleeping on our streets. So, in 2016, Welsh Government improved the national rough-sleeper count, so that we're able to capture that truer picture of the number of people who are sleeping rough on the streets of our towns and cities and other communities across Wales. And I think that that's important, that we do get a better picture of the number of people involved and the issues facing those people involved, so that we can better target those services. Also, back in 2016, we introduced StreetLink Cymru, and that's a service that enables members of the public to alert authorities when they see an individual who is rough-sleeping, and then some outreach work can be done to reach out to that individual to explore what could be done to find them temporary, and hopefully, eventually, more permanent accommodation as well. 

In terms of the budget, we're seeking to increase the amount of money that we put into tackling homelessness more generally, with an additional £4 million for the homelessness prevention grant this particular year in order to prevent people from finding themselves in that particular situation. But it is, as you, I know, appreciate, a very complex picture. People who rough-sleep do have a wide variety of complex issues and life experiences that they're dealing with, so the response really has to be a partnership approach: Welsh Government working with local authorities, providing the resources that they need, but also making sure that we have that network of support locally with all of the organisations who do a fantastic job in terms of outreach and support for rough-sleepers. 

Can I say, Llywydd, I agree with the Minister that this is an important matter at this time of year, because we naturally, as Christmas approaches, think in particular of people who are having to sleep on the streets? But it really is a longstanding problem and it occurs all around the year, and it is multifaceted, you're quite right, in terms of why people feel forced to live on the streets. You're right about data collection. It has improved, and this probably accounts for some of the perceived increase, but The Wallich recently carried out a survey and recorded a 21 per cent increase in rough-sleepers in Swansea, a 67 per cent increase in Bridgend, and a 93 per cent increase in Newport. There are some signs of real initiative and hope as well. You may have seen in today's Western Mail the homelessness charity Llamau have announced a new project and they've had a lot of support from the business community in setting up, or seeking to set up, a helpline for, particularly, young people who are on the verge of living, or who may have just gone to live, on the streets. But, because of the multifaceted nature of this challenge, I wonder if the Welsh Government needs to do something really quite decisive—for instance, by declaring that it believes a housing first approach is the main way to combat rough-sleeping. 

I thank you for that question, and certainly we are expanding our approach to housing first, commissioning new housing first projects to help people into their own tenancies and increasing access to emergency accommodation. The previous Minister did provide some additional funding to improve and increase the capacity of emergency accommodation, particularly in the Cardiff area. But I agree that housing first is the way forward, in terms of ensuring that people do have access to a warm, safe, decent home, because so much more comes from that. I know also that we need to be working particularly with individual groups that are perhaps more vulnerable, so, young people particularly. I think you were at the launch of the Llamau project, which did involve businesses in terms of tackling young rough-sleeping, particularly, and that was also attended by the First Minister, because he's made it clear that youth homelessness is a particular personal priority for him as well.

I'm also keen, building on the work I did in my previous portfolio, to see what more we can do to support ex-service people who also often find themselves on the streets. We're developing a new housing pathway specifically for veterans to try and ensure that they are able to transition well into civilian life and also ways in which we can engage with them, if and when they are rough-sleepers, in a way that's appropriate to them and has a resonance for them.

There's much I agree with in that response and, piecemeal, we see many, many good initiatives, and it's trying to combine them, and I just wonder if we need to look at traditional models that have not answered the problem to the extent that we would demand. They're basically treatment first models, usually based in hostel environments, rather than in a home that is then supported—you ensure that the person feels secure in their tenancy and in a home-based approach. But, as I said, the traditional models have been treatment first, and that's what you do before you put someone in a home of their own. 

Turning this around to a housing first model is a challenge, but already we're seeing remarkable success, for instance, in the project in Anglesey, which has been piloted by The Wallich foundation. We've seen some countries now adopt housing first, like Finland, where it's been remarkably successful. So, is the Welsh Government up to a fundamental review of the old systems—treatment first, generally—and looking at housing first?

I'm absolutely open to looking at what more we can do to expand housing first. As you do, I completely see the sense and the benefit in terms of ensuring that people have that warm, safe home and that's the building block then around which they can then start to build a life and tackle issues such as substance misuse and so on. Because we know that many people with substance misuse problems do have problems also maintaining a secure tenancy and that just compounds the kind of stresses and pressures on those individuals. I'd be more than happy to enter into some more detailed conversations. I'm very keen to look at the example in Finland and any other examples that there are of housing first and when it works well. But, to me, it makes perfect sense.

UKIP spokesperson, Gareth Bennett.

Diolch, Llywydd. I'd like to welcome the Cabinet Secretary to his new role.

[Inaudible.]

So, welcome. [Laughter.] It's a bit of a reconfigured—[Interruption.] Sorry. It's a bit of a reconfigured department that you'll be running, in that you have the local government responsibilities that Mark Drakeford used to hold and also the communities portfolio, which has come from a different department. So, it may take us all a little while to get used to what is, essentially, a new portfolio. So, my first question is: how do you think this new department will better deliver on local government and public service issues in Wales?

Can I say how grateful I am to the Member for his very kind remarks—an example to all Members, I would say?

Presiding Officer, the portfolio I now have brings together a number of functions, as has been outlined by the Member. I hope that by bringing together a responsibility for both local government and the delivery of public services across the country we will be able to pursue a programme to sustain and support excellence in all of our public services, protecting and defending the people who deliver them and ensuring that the people that all of us serve, on all sides of the Chamber, have the best possible public services that we can deliver.

You also bring with you from your previous role the job of delivering the programme of the Valleys taskforce, which we've been hearing about at some length today. I think it's interesting that we have been talking about this a lot because it's possibly a subject that—over the last 18 months, we probably haven't heard enough about the mechanics of how it will work. So, I think we do need to look at it.

One aspect that I'm interested in is the retraining issue. We live, these days, in a fairly fluid labour market. If people leave their jobs for whatever reason, they may quickly need to retrain for another sector or work, and so skills is a key issue, as you've acknowledged in the past. How will the Valleys taskforce improve retraining and upskillng, and what sort of interaction will you have here with the skills Minister, Eluned Morgan?

The former Minister for skills, who is now leader of the house, was and remains a member of the taskforce, and, at our taskforce meeting tomorrow in Pontypool, we will be inviting the new skills Minister to join the taskforce as well. So, we will have structural links across all of those departments.

I do wholly agree with the Member's analysis on the need for skills. I'm a member of the ministerial employability group, and we will be ensuring that exactly the programme that is being developed at the moment will meet the objectives that have been outlined by the Member.

Thanks for that response. I hope that there will be a joined-up approach to this very important issue.

Now, an awful lot of young people these days go to university or college, as I'm sure you're aware. But this may not be the best route for everyone, and, indeed, a significant number of young people may not want to go to college and might prefer exclusively on-the-job training. Does this approach form part of your thinking in relation to the Valleys taskforce and the other relevant parts of your portfolio? 

Yes. One of the most important pieces of work that has been driven by the former Minister for skills and now leader of the house, who is in her place today, has been to drive forward an employability programme and an all-age apprenticeship programme that will deliver skills for the twenty-first century, skills that will be required in the future and may not be available in the workforce of today. That will continue to be as important in the Valleys as it is elsewhere. How we deliver that programme in the Valleys, of course, may well be different, depending on local circumstances.

In answer to the questions from the Plaid Cymru spokesperson this afternoon, I tried to outline that we do have a number of different targets that will drive forward the creation of 7,000 new jobs in the Valleys. They will be jobs that will require skill levels that, perhaps, we don't have in the population at the moment, and we will be ensuring that we're able to deliver exactly those skills for the future.

I am considering the options for taking this forward as part of the two-year budget agreement with Plaid Cymru. Academi Wales provides support to Government and public services in the areas of leadership, governance, improvement and change, and is developing long-term relationships with key academic institutions.

As the Cabinet Secretary is aware, I believe Professor Gerry Holtham has been promoting the idea for some years that there’s an opportunity here for Wales to develop a centre that would be internationally renowned, to create an école nationale, in the words of Professor Holtham, for leaders and managers within the public sector.

There are many things that you can say about Professor Holtham, but lack of ambition is not one of them. So, why not? Why can’t we not only meet our own needs by creating a new generation of managers and leaders in the public sector, but also create a centre that will be world renowned?

I’m very pleased to say that Academi Wales has been developing a whole host of relationships with institutions and academics in various institutions across Wales and beyond our borders. I am aware of the views of Gerry Holtham and I don’t disagree with him. I know that this is something that you yourself have emphasised for some years and I am more than happy to continue that discussion with you to look at how we can make progress and work with Academi Wales to see whether that is possible for the future.

Cabinet Secretary, we all want high-quality leaders in public service. However, I'm afraid a school for bureaucrats is something that I think is completely unnecessary. We've got some excellent leadership schools already in our high-quality universities here in Wales, and I think we ought to take advantage of the opportunities that they present. Can I ask what sort of budget you have allocated from within your portfolio for this particular project and question you on whether that might be better spent, frankly, in investing in other ways?

I hope that all of us will be generous enough to see and appreciate what others are seeking to achieve, and I think seeking tabloid headlines probably undermines that ambition. I hope that Darren Millar will reflect on his contribution to this question and will reflect also on the ambition that we all share, which is to have the best possible leadership across all of our public services. That is something, actually, I believe everybody should then want to invest in.

The Valleys delivery plan covers the Valleys in the South Wales West constituency, such as the Dulais and Llynfi valleys. It sets out how the taskforce’s priorities will be delivered, who will be involved, the expected benefits and the timescales for completion.

Thank you for that answer. Clearly, we all want to see regeneration of the Valleys succeed, but residential development proposals for northern Bridgend, for example, are hardly groundbreaking visions of the future, and then there are areas, such as the Swansea valley, that are not likely to benefit very much at all, as the plan stands at the moment. In essence, many, as we've heard, believe that the delivery plan needs more work and scrutiny. So, when will the Assembly as a whole have an opportunity to scrutinise the delivery plan in detail?

I'm rather surprised at the question from the Member for South Wales West. He's been a long-standing Member of this place, and he knows that scrutiny is what is actually taking place at the moment. I'm surprised he doesn't recognise that. He can scrutinise me at questions and in committee, at the time of their choosing. I attend all committees whenever I'm invited to do so. I will say to him that perhaps he needs to look harder at the region he represents. I was in Banwen a couple of weeks ago, speaking to members of the community there, and they were fully engaged in designing the sort of improvements they want to see in their community. I would suggest that the Member spends some time with them.

Cabinet Secretary, can I congratulate you on your promotion from the middle benches to the frontbench once again? But, also, you were talking about the Valleys taskforce, and you've highlighted two hubs, actually. You've put the Neath hub in and you've put the Llynfi valley one in now. Of course, the Afan valley is in between those two—

And the Rhondda.

And the Rhondda. Thank you.

There are many of us who actually want it in our own Valleys, but the question that comes is how do you ensure you engage with those Valleys you have not identified will contain hubs and that are not in those particular areas, to ensure that those deprived communities—and they are deprived communities—are able to get benefits from these hubs and that we can see progress going across all the Valleys and not just the ones in which the hubs are located. And you're welcome to come to Cymmer any time, and Croeserw, to see for yourself.

The meeting that was held in that area, I think, was a lively meeting where you had a lot of those views expressed. We are seeking to continue to ensure that we do hold public events across the whole of the Valleys region, to ensure that we are able to listen to and to move forward on the basis of what we hear. One of the issues that we've found through the last year or so of public engagement, as the Member well knows, is that this is a plan from the Valleys and not just for the Valleys. It's something that has been designed for people in the Valleys, across the whole of the Valleys.

But, at the same time, we need to take strategic decisions, and it is simply not possible to have a strategic hub in every single valley, in every single constituency, in every single town and village across the whole of the Valleys region. That is the last thing we need at the moment. We need bold, strategic visions. We need delivery, we need investment and we need to bring people together. This Government needs to act as a leader and a catalyst, and this Government will certainly do that.

Can I offer my congratulations, as well, Cabinet Secretary?

I was slightly more excited to see that the Llynfi valley was included in your plans. But I do presume that you've already spoken to Bridgend County Borough Council about what your expectations of them are going to be, not just in terms of what they're going to do, but what the outcomes are going to be in this. I heard what you said to Dai Lloyd about there being an element of co-production in the design of this, but I think that's yet to be seen. I wonder if you could tell us who is going to be primarily responsible for the delivery of local action plans so that we know where to direct our scrutiny outside this Chamber.

Well, let me say that I am responsible for the delivery of the plan as a whole, and you can scrutinise me on that. But, let me say that Bridgend County Borough Council have been very quick to tell me what their expectations are of me as well. I don't think there was so much a sense of me telling them what I wanted from them; they were certainly very anxious to tell me what they expected of me, and I'm grateful to the Member for Ogmore, who facilitated many of those conversations and who facilitated the meetings that we had to discuss those issues. We had a very, very successful public meeting in Maesteg, where we led a long conversation with people from those valleys about how we want to see the strategic hub in north Bridgend developing into the future. I hope that Members will continue to scrutinise me on the delivery of the Valleys taskforce project and plan. I can see there's a great interest in that this afternoon. We had hoped, of course, to hold a Government debate on this matter earlier in the month, and perhaps that's something I will reschedule for the new year.

There are significant opportunities for digital to support service transformation in the public services in Wales. Consideration of digital or automated solutions should be built into the development of new policies or services.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, and can I welcome you to your new role? The most recent Public Policy Institute for Wales report for the Welsh Government predicts that a third of Welsh jobs are projected to be impacted by automation, but would the Cabinet Secretary agree that automation isn't something to try and halt; it's something to try and harness? These advances in technology present opportunities for public sector innovation and improvements in service delivery, freeing up people from routine tasks to deliver better public services. But, of course, there are private sector companies trying to tout it as a way of cutting jobs. So, to avoid hard-pressed councils from taking an ad hoc approach, would the Cabinet Secretary agree that a strategic approach is needed? And will he commit to a review of how local authorities can be supported to use automation for the improvement of public services and ensure they are equipped to meet the challenges ahead?

Can I say, Presiding Officer, I'm very happy to do that? I'm very happy to look at how our public services can deliver through digital and ensure that those opportunities are maximised. I'd be very happy to continue the conversation with the Member if he has ideas on how that might be achieved. I know he interviewed the Permanent Secretary on this matter in the Public Accounts Committee last month, and I hope that she was able to assure him, alongside the chief digital officer of the Welsh Government, Caren Fullerton, that the Welsh Government is and has a delivery plan on this matter for public services within our remit. But, clearly, if local authorities and— . Local authorities will be delivering services that they are responsible for, and if the Member wishes to continue the conversation on that matter, I'd be very happy to continue that with the Member concerned. 

Cabinet Secretary, it's clear that automation is going to extend to the professional classes as well, such as doctors and many working in the health sector, but also others giving professional advice, and advice through local authorities and the civic sector in general. I think what's important is that much of this will offer a great way to complement those services, basically allowing people to have more time with the professionals they interface with, and for those professionals to put the information—the diagnostic information, for instance—that they're getting from artificial intelligence into a context, and then the follow-up work and ensuring the well-being of that person is foremost in whatever service they're getting. So, I'm not sure it's going to devastate job prospects for everyone, but it will need new protocols and very careful training in how to use this new technology, and that's something, if we want efficient public service, we must be very much aware of.

I very much agree with the Member's observations. I will say that I see digital opportunities as a means of extending, deepening and broadening the opportunities we have to serve the public and to enable the public to access services more easily than is possible at present. I would urge all service providers to look at how they can positively and proactively approach service delivery to ensure that we expand the digital services currently available, but do so in a way that doesn't exclude those who are unable to access such services.

Presiding Officer, I understand that you have given permission for questions 6 and 7 to be grouped. Our priority is to ensure we provide effective services that meet the needs of service families in areas such as health, housing and employment. Examples of these are the housing pathway, Veterans' NHS Wales and the development of an employment pathway for service personnel leaving the forces, as well as veterans.

I'd like to thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for your answer and join others in congratulating you on your new role. RCT council recently received a gold award from the Ministry of Defence for its commitment to its armed forces community. It's the first and, so far, the only council in Wales to do so. Will you offer your congratulations to RCT, and how will you promote this best practice across Wales?

I'm grateful to the Member for her kind remarks, and I'm sure that all of us will join you in congratulating RCT council in their award. I know it's a prestigious award, which recognises the outstanding support that the council has given to our armed forces community. I'm sure that everybody is very proud of the work that RCT does, and I'm sure that we would wish to extend our congratulations.

In terms of extending best practice, I hope that the conversation that we had during the debate on our armed forces last week would be a means of delivering that sort of best practice across the whole of Wales. We do have a strategy and a programme for doing this, and I will speak to my officials to ensure that the best practice we have observed in RCT is included in that, and that others across the country have an opportunity to share in that best practice.

Cabinet Secretary, one of the recommendations in the report that we discussed last week was the suggestion that Wales ought to have an armed forces commissioner in order to identify the sort of best practice that Vikki Howells just referred to, and to ensure that that was shared widely across the country, and that people were held to account for their delivery against the armed forces covenant. I would be grateful to know whether this is something that you, as the Minister responsible for the armed forces, will consider putting in place here in Wales. I think it would give the veteran community and our armed forces family here in Wales some confidence about the continued commitment of your Government to the armed forces.

Presiding Officer, in replying to the debate last week, I gave an undertaking that I would consider all of the recommendations of the cross-party group with an open mind. I reiterate that undertaking this afternoon. I have also agreed to attend a meeting of the all-party group on the armed forces, and I reiterate again my commitment to doing that, and to continuing the conversation that we started last week on how we continue to support the armed forces and veterans community in this country.

Cabinet Secretary, may I also welcome you to your role? We owe a huge debt of gratitude to our armed forces. The best way of repaying that debt is to ensure that we look after them and their families. Servicemen and women may need additional help with financial products due to multiple postings. The families of these personnel may require additional mental health care and support. The children of serving personnel may need additional support due to a lack of continuity as a result of moving schools. Therefore, Cabinet Secretary, how do you plan to strengthen the armed forces covenant in Wales, to ensure that we support our serving personnel in every possible way, and that they and their families have priority access to public services?

The delivery on the covenant was something that I debated last week, and I'm happy to reiterate the points that I made last week. The covenant isn't simply delivered by a speech or by a gesture or by a debate. It's delivered by public service workers and the whole community, day in, day out. We ensure that we monitor the delivery of all of our commitments—the commitments that we've made in this area—and we will continue to monitor that and ensure that people are able to access exactly the services that the Member has outlined, day in, day out.

I'm grateful to all Members who took part in the debate last week. I'm also grateful for the work of the all-party group, which scrutinises Government in an informal way on this matter but also seeks to identify all the areas where there is a belief or a view that the Government needs to improve its service delivery and has further work to do. Last week, I accepted that I would look at all of the recommendations of that all-party group report with an open mind. I've already reiterated that commitment this afternoon, and I will attend another meeting of that group in order to continue this conversation.

Cabinet Secretary, one of the areas of concern I have about the support that we give relates to that of residential care. I have an ex-serviceman in my constituency who's done numerous tours in Northern Ireland and various parts of the world and significantly suffers from post-traumatic stress, but he's had no success in finding the residential care place that he needs locally, only being offered places in Shropshire and Scotland, and, again, not that those are actually funded. So, I was wondering whether there is a possibility of reviewing the provision of services in order to ensure that every ex-serviceperson who needs residential support can actually have it and get it when they need it locally or, if it's not available locally, there would be some funding mechanism to support it elsewhere.

The Member makes a very good and important point. It's a point that's also been made by the Member for the Cynon Valley. I accept the point that he makes. Current research points to community-based treatment close to an individual's home and community as being the most effective method of treatment. The Member will be aware that, earlier this month, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services announced an additional £100,000 of recurrent funding on top of the nearly £600,000 that the Welsh Government provides annually to fund Veterans' NHS Wales. This provides additional support and care for veterans, with dedicated veteran therapists located in each health board area. They offer a range of evidence-based psychological therapies for a range of common mental health problems to improve the mental health and well-being of veterans in Wales. If the Member is concerned that that isn't currently delivering for the constituent that he is referring to, then I'd be grateful if he could write to me and I'd be happy to take that matter forward.

I also congratulate the Cabinet Secretary on his new post. The thing is, in last week's debate we talked about post-traumatic stress syndrome in veterans, and also you just mentioned that mental health issues for armed forces veterans are pretty common. We have to look after them. I know you have not closed the door on the idea of creating an armed forces commissioner in Wales to co-ordinate and provide the support they need from public sector organisations. So, could I ask you to commit to making a statement on this issue early in the new year, please?

Presiding Officer, I've given an undertaking that I'll discuss this matter with the all-party group, and I will certainly make a statement to the National Assembly after I've had an opportunity to have those discussions with the group.

Cabinet Secretary, will you agree with me that there was no greater champion from this Senedd for our armed forces than Carl Sargeant? As Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children, Carl last year outlined in the Chamber Welsh Government action to support our armed forces and veterans, such as the innovative housing referral pathway to ensure that former members of the armed forces community are supported to find suitable accommodation and avoid homelessness—a devastating outcome of armed service. Keep Safe Cymru for veterans is a creative and highly valued initiative that allows veterans with specific health needs additional support from emergency services in times of crisis. Cabinet Secretary, what actions, therefore, will the Welsh Government take to build on Carl's passionate work and legacy in this area, to ensure that we continue to value our ongoing duty of care to those who have given their all—our veterans and their families—and continue to play our part in the repayment of a collective debt and duty to them?

Presiding Officer, I think Members across the whole Chamber paid tribute to the work of Carl Sergeant during our debate last week, and I was certainly very happy to add my voice to those tributes. Carl, in many ways, led the work of the whole Government on this area, and the fact that Wales is recognised as the leading country in the United Kingdom in terms of providing support to veterans and to service families and the service community is testament to the work that Carl led.

I will say to the Member that we will continue to work with the expert group that was established to ensure that we are able to respond to all the issues that are raised by the service community in this country, whether it's the health issues that have been raised this afternoon or housing issues or employment issues that have been raised on other occasions. We will work with our key partners across the community and throughout public services with newly appointed armed forces liaison officers. We will ensure that we deliver on the armed forces covenant consistently, across the whole country, throughout the whole year. 

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.

The next item, therefore, is the topical questions, and the first question is from Russell George. 

The increased expenditure is spread over three financial years between now and the end of construction. Future budget profiles will reflect these increases. 

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his answer. We've heard from businesses, of course, who will face financial difficulty due to delays. There are the obvious frustrations and inconvenience to residents. Can I ask: when did you become aware that the project would likely go into an overspend situation? What provisions were made by the Welsh Government to cover the potential cost overruns of the scheme? Also, if the Welsh Government is liable for a proportion of the total cost of the overspend, what is that proportion? If you don't know what that figure is, can I ask why not? How was a procurement contract agreed for a project of this scale without your Government protecting taxpayers from an overspend that they're not responsible for, if that's the case? In addition, I want to ask what independent technical advice was sought by the Welsh Government in relation to many of the complex challenges associated with the scheme, importantly before the tendering specification was drawn up.

I'd like to thank the Member for his questions. I've already said to Members previously that I'd welcome any referral of businesses, or indeed individuals or self-employed people, who are suffering as a consequence of the roadworks on this particular stretch to be brought forward to Government with a view to us assisting.

I can say that the moment I was informed of costings problems in delivering this hugely ambitious scheme I ordered an immediate and comprehensive commercial review, which has now reported back. I can confirm as well that officials took specialist, commercial and legal advice on these matters, and the resolution and negotiation of such issues is a confidential and commercially sensitive process. But the contract is absolutely clear: the contractor is currently exposed to a greater level of financial risk from the overspend than Welsh Government. Their financial exposure should motivate them to reduce their level of risk.

I'll outline the process by which we entered into a contract with Costain. This is a hugely significant engineering and construction project, but I don't think there's any hiding my disappointment at the contractor's overspend and programme delay. We used the early contractor involvement process and also industry standards, terms and conditions in order to ensure that Welsh Government's exposure to risk was reduced as much as possible. The ECI approach is intended to bring in at a very early stage a contractor's expertise on buildability, ability to innovate and approach to effective management of risk in order to influence design development.

I think it's fair to say that a complicated scheme such as section 2 of this project is in theory very well suited to an ECI contract. But there was also a hold point in the contract between parts 1 and 2, which enabled either Welsh Government or the contractor to terminate the contract without penalty. It enabled Costain not to enter into the construction contract without penalty should they have felt that, based on all of the information that they held, their projected outturn cost would not be realistic. That said, Costain went ahead regardless, and I am determined that we will do everything we can to protect taxpayers from the additional costs, which we are assessing currently.

I think it's worth saying that we are satisfied that we have exercised the appropriate level of management and supervision on this project. Construction has already seen 2 million tonnes of earth and rock moved, 2.5 km of retaining wall built, 44 service diversions completed, over 6,000 soil nails installed and 4,000 trees planted. And whilst significant, these short-term impacts need to be balanced against the longer term benefits of this incredible project. I would encourage Members as well to attend the public exhibitions that commenced on 27 November, and to take part in site tours, where more questions can be asked and where they will be answered. 

Cabinet Secretary, no-one would disagree that this is a very challenging engineering project and that it will be a very fine stretch of road when it's complete, but nonetheless there are concerns across Wales and within this Chamber, but certainly locally with local residents I've met, and I think some of their fears would have been confirmed by the recent revelation about the 23 per cent overspend. For a long time now, there have been complaints made to me about Costain, the contractors, operating within a slacker fiscal regulatory environment than local residents would see fit. So, I think if you could revisit this and your arrangements for Costain—. I hear what you say—that they are more liable to bear more of the risk than the Welsh Government is, and that's to be welcomed if that's the case, but currently, certainly in the local area, there are real concerns that there doesn't seem to be the sort of tight hold on the finances of this project and, indeed, on the deadlines for completing the project that we would all like to see. So, if you could review that, that would be very appreciated. 

I'd agree with the Member. I've already asked for a lessons learned analysis to be conducted by officials. I think the call for tighter regulatory controls over the costs of this project are fair. And also I'd agree with the Member that this is a particularly fine piece of road; in fact, it's going to have the biggest concrete arch of its kind anywhere on the planet. It will be a project that we can be proud of. I do sympathise with all of those people who are suffering as a consequence of delays, but it will be a major construction project that Wales will be proud of.    

It does seem as if interest in this particular scheme is coming from these benches, given that it's the biggest capital spend that the department has at the moment, and that the cost overrun running into excess somewhere north of £50 million is something that has to be managed. I do welcome the Minister's engagement today, and it is sad that the didn't give an oral statement when this first became a problem. I would ask the Minister if he could confirm whether he is confident that whatever proportion of the overspend will have to be met by his department—and he's indicated that it will be spread over three years—that additional moneys will be secured from Welsh Government reserves rather than the existing budgets having to be hollowed out to make up this overspend, because other projects around Wales—and I look at my own area, South Wales Central, which has a consultation at the moment about improving links to the M4, and also proposals around the Dinas Powys bypass—such projects, if these many millions of pounds have to be spend for the completion of the road, could be called into question. 

Can I thank the Member for his question, and just remind Members again that this huge undertaking will open up the Heads of the Valleys for further economic development and prosperity? It's our intention, first of all, to minimise exposure to the Welsh Government and therefore to taxpayers as a consequence of the excessive costs, but once the level of Welsh Government's liability has been confirmed, decisions will then be made on how best to fund any shortfall, recognising what the opportunity costs of this increase will be. Future budget profiles will reflect these increases so that the impact can be considered as part of the ongoing delivery of the national transport finance plan. 

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, and the next question is from Rhun ap Iorwerth. 

Disruption was caused to the road network over the night of 22-23 November due to flooding. We continue to work hard and invest significant resources to build resilience in the network across north Wales. 

Thank you very much. May I, on behalf of the Assembly, send my sympathy to everyone who was affected by the floods? I have visited most of the areas affected and it is heartbreaking to see the impact on homes, the pain and anxiety caused for people, many of them vulnerable, and businesses have suffered—businesses like Becws Glandwr in Llangefni, for example, who couldn't bake for the first time in 40 years. There are many elements of the floods where I'll need to be in touch with Government and its agencies in terms of flood prevention—I'll be in touch with Natural Resources Wales and so on—but I am pleased to have this opportunity to specifically discuss the damage caused to the A545 between Menai Bridge and Beaumaris, and the long-term impacts of that.

I do want to congratulate the council for responding quickly. I spoke to engineers on Friday, as they carried out emergency works in order to try and reopen that road, and that was on a very steep slope that went directly to the sea. I do very much hope that one lane of the two will be open soon, because at the moment there is no road open for all vehicles to travel to Beaumaris at all. It's possible for cars to use back roads, but I've spoken to businesses who have to travel with vans to meet lorries that deliver goods to them but can't get to Beaumaris at all because of low bridges into the town.

There have been many landslides on this particular road in the past, but they were landslides onto the road from above. This time, it's been a landslide from the road towards the sea. That is far more serious because it threatens the foundations of the road itself, of course. In the past, I've drawn the Government's attention to the fears that works need to be done to strengthen this road substantially to safeguard it for the future, and the costs are going to be significant. So, may I appeal to Government to see what financial support can be provided to the Isle of Anglesey County Council first of all, in order to put right the damage caused by these floods—that's likely to be £0.25 million—but also to do the strengthening work required for the long-term resilience? Beaumaris and the east of Anglesey can't afford to be isolated in this way, and without investment now and support from Government I fear that that is what will happen more and more often in the future.

Can I thank the Member for the previous question, Presiding Officer, and add my sympathies to those who are affected by the floods, not just the motorists who were largely featured in the media but also the many businesses and home owners who were affected by recent floods?

The Member was right to outline the A545 as the responsibility of the Isle of Anglesey council, but my officials have already met with the local authority to discuss possible ways of improving the road's infrastructure and its resilience, and I've been in correspondence with the local authority with regard to the landslip experienced on the A545. I'm pleased to be able to say that I have already confirmed my willingness to consider a request for financial support to address such problems, and I also understand that the local authority are having discussions with Beaumaris Town Council on a possible improvement that could be partly funded as well by the town council. Between all of us working together, I hope that we will be able to bring greater security to the people of Beaumaris and indeed Anglesey and ensure that future floods do not affect people in the way that these floods recently have done.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. The next question is from Darren Millar.

Any allegations of abuse are truly abhorrent, and survivors were not given the response they deserved when they first spoke out. We would advise anyone who suffered abuse to come forward in confidence and report allegations of abuse to the police by ringing 101 or to contact local authorities' social services or indeed the Truth Project on 0800 917 1000.

Cabinet Secretary, thank you for that response. Like you and everybody else in this Chamber, we were appalled and shocked at the allegations that have emerged in recent weeks of abuse by a monk on Caldey Island. Eleven women so far have come forward to say that they were abused by Father Thaddeus Kotik when they were children, and of course they are all suffering lifelong consequences as a result of that abuse. In fact, one of those women claims that a second person also abused her on that island. Who that person is and where they are we don't actually know, and we know that other cases may well come to light, and I too would encourage people to report their concerns.

We also know that allegations of abuse, of course, were brought to the attention of the abbot at Caldey Abbey back in 1990 but were not reported to the police at that time, and that since that date, a child sex offender, Paul Ashton, hid on Caldey Island for a period of seven years trying to evade justice. And I have to say, I think the whole thing stinks. It smacks of a deliberate cover-up of abuse by clergy on that island, which is frequently visited by young children, a place that ought to be safe, which hasn't been safe in the past. And I think we need answers. We need answers as to who knew what, when, and why the abbey didn't report things to the police when they ought to have done when things were brought to their attention. We also need to know when Pembrokeshire's social services department knew about these claims and what action they may or may not have taken in the past to protect young children visiting that island.

I'm appalled by this and I think that it would be wise to ask you to organise an independent inquiry into what went on, because we do need to learn lessons and we need to be confident now, particularly given that we don't know who this second person is, that young children are safe visiting that island in the future. School trips are still going on, Cabinet Secretary, and we need to be sure that those children are protected from abuse.

Thank you for those additional comments. Can I say that, in light of the recently emerging allegations and fresh allegations, Dyfed-Powys Police are currently engaged in ongoing investigations into these allegations? As such, I hope you'll understand, Darren, that it's not appropriate for me to comment further at this moment, because of the risk of jeopardising the police investigations and inquiries.

But Members will also note that the children's commissioner has written to Caldey Island abbey themselves to seek assurances, but also that she has said that it is, at this moment, too early to call for an inquiry, not least because of the detail that is still emerging and also because there is a police investigation currently live, under way. It is worth pointing out, however, that in addition to the massively transformed safeguarding environment for children and adults within Wales there is also a national Catholic safeguarding advice service. And as I mentioned, the children's commissioner has written directly to the abbey on Caldey Island seeking assurances that they are following the Catholic Church's national safeguarding policy—their own safeguarding policies as well—and their procedures on child protection.

Darren is absolutely right in saying that we need answers to this. We need to know how this happened, but also—it's often an overused phrase—to learn lessons about how we can avoid this and minimise the risk of it happening again. We have done so much in Wales in improving our safeguarding procedures, but if there are lessons to be learnt from this, both for the Catholic Church and also in terms of wider safeguarding, we will ensure that we learn those lessons. And in that respect, I fully understand the calls for the answers to the questions that have been put. But at this moment, there is a police investigation under way.

Minister, I've listened very carefully to what you have said to Darren Millar, however I do have two other points I would like to make. The first is that Dyfed-Powys Police were aware of these allegations themselves in both 2014 and again in 2016. The reason they did not move to prosecution was they said there was little point because the monk in question had since died—he'd passed away. However, there should still have been some form of investigation, because how did they know that he was the only one? How did they know that he didn't have conspirators in terms of a cover-up? How did they know that there may not be other children put at risk? I'm not overly impressed with the actions of Dyfed-Powys Police on this matter, and I would like to ask you, as the Minister, to write to them in the strongest terms for them to actually investigate how they acted and whether or not they took the appropriate action at the time, because I think that they have been found wanting on this matter. They should have looked at it and not just said, 'Well, never mind, the chap's dead, it's an irrelevancy.' And I do not think that they should be allowed off the hook on this.

The second point I'd like to talk about is the fact that I wrote last week to the abbot at Caldey Island and I asked him if he would refer himself or set up a full investigation to be carried out by another independent organisation. I appreciate that you feel that you cannot move forward because of the current police investigation, however I've thought on this further, and, as I'm sure you are aware, the Catholic Church themselves have an ongoing independent inquiry into the sexual abuse and exploitation of children in the Roman Catholic Church. I appreciate that, at the moment, they are looking at the Benedictine congregation, but I wondered whether you, in your capacity as Minister, would write to that inquiry, and ask them whether they would also look at the Cistercian Order on Caldey Island, because they do have a wider remit than just the Benedictine congregation. And I think it's very important that the Catholic Church are struggling with this issue, and that this is yet another example of where, I think, they should be looking at it to ensure that there is not systemic abuse going on within any of these organisations.

Thank you, again, for those additional comments and queries. And you're right in that there is a separate review within the Catholic Church itself of its safeguarding arrangements. We also note that the independent inquiry into child sex abuse is considering issues of failures of religious institutions, as part of the UK-wide inquiry. I can confirm that my officials have been in touch with the inquiry about the reported abuse, and we will of course not only keep a close eye on the way that that inquiry proceeds, but also seek to learn lessons from the inquiry's wider findings into religious bodies, into the investigations of religious institutions.

I will certainly consider the points that have been raised about writing further to others, but it is worth pointing out, even at this stage, whilst not saying anything in terms of the current police investigations that are proceeding—and I have to make sure that we do not jeopardise those live investigations—my officials will, under my instruction, request that both CYSUR and the mid and west safeguarding board keep me and the Welsh Government fully updated on progress so far with the investigation, but also on whether there are any current shortfalls in arrangements, and keep me up to date with that. I will certainly also write to the National Catholic Safeguarding Advisory Service to seek their assurances, both on historic matters, and on current issues as well. I will go back and speak to my officials on whether there are additional reassurances that we can give, in light of the points that the Member has raised.

In addition to the questions that have already been raised, I think it is important to underline that Caldey is a place of pilgrimage and sanctuary, which has been in the Christian tradition for over 1,600 years in Wales and people will continue to go there. And the current monks, although they're not directly involved in this scandal, are the inheritors of the tradition there and are therefore the keepers, quite literally the keepers, of the flame, in terms of the standards that need to be upheld on the island.

What concerns me from what I've heard and read in the press, and your reply today, is that even at the time that the original complaint was made, the rules in place then—even then; you've talked about the improvements since, but even then—meant that that complaint should have been referred to the police. It wasn't, and the then abbot—not the current, but the then abbot—in effect covered it up. That is a pattern of behaviour that we've seen wider, not in the Catholic Church only, but in church institutions—in all institutions, let's be honest; it's an institutional thing.

So, although in reply to other Members you've talked about the children's commissioner writing to ascertain that procedures are in place, what I'd like to hear from you today is that the Welsh Government will do that, and, ideally, that you can give assurances here to the Chamber today that you have either seen or have had assurances about the protection procedures for not just children, but vulnerable adults as well, on Caldey Island, and that these procedures are ones that are not only in place, but are actively followed, and that the right training has been put in place to ensure that the situation would be resolved if anything were to happen today. It's not just historic, it's not that the procedures were bad in the past; they weren't even followed. There was a deliberate cover up, and it's not that long ago, and we must be assured that it can't happen again.

Simon reminds us of the fact that, whilst we cannot ever rule out any eventuality of an instance of abuse—on a child or an adult—we do recognise that it is incumbent upon us as Welsh Government, not only police, not only safeguarding boards, to be active within our determination, not only to deal with the historic issues that have been raised today in the Chamber, but also to ensure that we absolutely minimise the chances of this happening. We have, indeed, across Welsh Government previously taken such action, not only in terms of changing the whole landscape of the safeguarding environment in Wales, both for adults and children with the national safeguarding board, the child and adult safeguarding boards, but also in our response to, for example, the Waterhouse recommendations where right across the piste if there were lessons to be learned and actions to be taken, we took those actions, and the same, I say to you, we will do again now.

And we're not taking a passive role in this. My officials are actively engaged, both with what is currently going on and the allegations emerging, but also what lessons can be learnt from historic allegations as well. We need to make sure that we keep to the absolute minimum the chances of this happening to any individual. He rightly points out the fact that Caldey Island, currently mired within the allegations that have come forward, also, for many people, is a place of religious sanctity. We have to make sure, and it's incumbent upon us as well as those acting on the ground—Dyfed-Powys Police, the safeguarding boards, Pembrokeshire council and others—to make sure that we put in place the safeguards, collectively, so that this cannot happen, and that we learn the lessons. But I'm afraid you have to understand that I don't want to comment further, particularly while there is a live investigation going on, but we will learn what lessons arise from this. 

Thank you, Minister, and the next question, Leanne Wood.

Llywydd, the UK Government's sectoral Brexit reports were sent to the Welsh Government late on Monday. They are now being studied to ascertain what, if any, new insights and implications they contain. We believe that these reports should be in the public domain, but that is a decision that only the UK Government can make. 

Cabinet Secretary, I'm sure that the Brexit impact assessments passed on to you were redacted or incomplete, just as they were for the Brexit select committee at Westminster. The UK Government are in contempt of Parliament, and are showing nothing but contempt for Wales. This is crucial information that needs to be revealed. We need those 58 sectors analysed fully, so that we can prepare Wales for any adverse impacts from leaving the single market or the customs union, and I hope that pressure can be put on them at both ends of the M4 for those assessments to be published in full.

Cabinet Secretary, have you been given sufficient information to conduct Wales-specific sectoral analyses? If not, what can you do as a Government to ensure that enough economic intelligence exists for Wales to be able to provide for Brexit? Can you publish your own economic forecasts for the different Brexit scenarios? And will you provide support to businesses and exporters ahead of, and following, the UK's withdrawal from the European Union?

Llywydd, the leader of Plaid Cymru is absolutely right that the documents sent to us were the heavily edited versions sent to the House of Commons select committee, despite a binding vote in the House of Commons to release the documents in full. Those documents are being studied in the Welsh Government, but I think we can already align ourselves with the conclusions of Michael Russell, from the Scottish Brexit committee, when he said in his letter to David Davis yesterday that whatever else they may contain, it is clear that these reports do not contain any actual impact analysis.

In the Welsh context, the Welsh Government has been able to conduct analysis of that sort. We published a set of annexes to the White Paper that we published jointly with Plaid Cymru in January that did set out the economic analysis that lay behind the conclusions we drew in that White Paper. Our 'Brexit and Fair Movement of People' document included extensive analysis from King's College London and from the university here in Cardiff in relation to migration and its impact sectorally here in Wales. We will publish, as I promised to the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee last week, more detailed sectoral analysis, which is currently being undertaken for us by Cardiff University, and we hope to be able to put that into the public domain in January.

I'm surprised to hear the Cabinet Secretary criticise the UK Government for lack of openness and transparency in this respect, because researchers from my office on 13 October made a similar request to the Welsh Government—to the First Minister—to publish documents relating to the Welsh Government's understanding of the impact of Brexit upon Wales, and the response that we got was this:

'The negotiations on the UK's withdrawal from the EU are ongoing with no clear indication of what the resulting situation will be. The Welsh Government is exploring a range of potential outcomes and implications for Wales and the work is in constant development as negotiations progress and is therefore incomplete. I do not believe that releasing information at this stage would be in the wider public interest.' 

So, isn't the Cabinet Secretary's response to the leader of Plaid Cymru hypocrisy of a high order?

That's just nonsensical, Llywydd, as you can tell. I've already explained that the Welsh Government has put a series of analytical documents into the public domain when they are in the developed state they need to be in order to have a proper influence on the debate.

I was asked originally about documents that the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union had originally described as containing detailed impact assessments across 58 sectors. It then turned out, in his own words, that they were no such thing. But we deserve to be in a position where we can judge that for ourselves and the sooner that they are released in full into the public domain, the better able we will all be to do that.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.

The next item is the 90-second statements, but no requests were received for 90-second statements.

That brings us to item 5, namely the motion under Standing Order 17.2, to give instruction to the Committee for the Scrutiny of the First Minister.

I call on Paul Davies to move the motion.

Diolch, Llywydd. I'm pleased to move the motion, tabled in my name.

The sole purpose of this afternoon's debate is to seek agreement that a special meeting of the Committee for the Scrutiny of the First Minister takes place as soon as possible to investigate the allegations of bullying made by former members and advisers to the Welsh Government, and to get to the truth about these serious allegations.

Members are all aware of the recent allegations made against the Welsh Government and the office of the First Minister and it's absolutely crucial that those allegations are properly investigated in an open and transparent manner. Clarity is now required from the First Minister over his comments in recent weeks, and I believe it's entirely appropriate for that to happen as part of an inquiry undertaken by the Committee for the Scrutiny of the First Minister.

Before I develop my argument and speak specifically to this motion, if I can turn to the Government's amendment, which refers to the First Minister's statement last week on the appointment of an independent adviser to police the ministerial code. Of course, that announcement was made after this debate was tabled and even though this is a step in the right direction, we still believe that these allegations should be subject to the scrutiny of the Committee for the Scrutiny of the First Minister.

Members will be aware of the cross-party motion that was tabled in my name, alongside Aled Roberts and Elin Jones in the previous Assembly in 2014, which specifically called for the appointment of an independent adjudicator in order to improve transparency and thereby increase confidence in those elected to public office. The Welsh Government rejected that motion at that time, but the First Minister has now come to the conclusion that this is the right thing to do. However, I have to say that the timing of this is very suspect and it's quite clear that it is opposition parties that have led on this, while the First Minister and the Welsh Government have followed.

Even though I welcome the First Minister's u-turn, I still believe that it's appropriate for the Committee for the Scrutiny of the First Minister to hold an inquiry into the allegations, because we don't, at this stage, know the terms of reference for the independent adviser's inquiry. At least with the Committee for the Scrutiny of the First Minister, it will be totally transparent and held in public.

The committee process will afford the First Minister the opportunity to categorically spell out the nature of the allegations that his office received and to provide much-needed detail and clarification to some of the remarks made in recent weeks.

Would the Member give way?

Yes, of course. I give way.

I wonder if the Member would also factor in the fact that whatever the decision of the First Minister to refer himself to an independent adjudicator very late in the day, we have an issue remaining about what the First Minister told this Assembly over several occasions—the inconsistencies between what he told the Assembly on several occasions—and the lack of answers that we've had to date, and we need a parliamentary process to get to the bottom of that.

Absolutely, and that's why it's essential that now this matter is referred to the Committee for the Scrutiny of the First Minister. Whilst I appreciate that there is no precedent for us to follow in this regard, allowing the Committee for the Scrutiny of the First Minister to undertake this inquiry is, to my mind, the most transparent and effective way forward. Now, the First Minister had made it clear that he is open to scrutiny regarding the allegations and how they were dealt with by his office at the time, and I, of course, welcome that. There are several legitimate questions that need to be answered fully so that the people of Wales can be confident that any allegations made are dealt with robustly and documented accordingly.

It's essential that the Assembly accepts the motion before us this afternoon so that the Committee for the Scrutiny of the First Minister can get on with the job of asking those legitimate questions as soon as possible. Therefore, I'm extremely disappointed that the Welsh Government has taken the decision to amend the motion by removing the requirement of an inquiry by the Committee for the Scrutiny of the First Minister. As I mentioned earlier, we don't know the terms of reference for the independent adviser's inquiry and whether evidence to that inquiry will be subject to public scrutiny. It seems to me that if the Government don't want an inquiry by Committee for the Scrutiny of the First Minister then it suggests that it will only accept scrutiny on this matter as long as it's on its own terms.

Indeed, the First Minister refused to rule out whether he'd even vote on this motion this afternoon when he was questioned yesterday, again sending yet another statement that scrutiny of himself and his office will only happen on the Government's terms. Whilst there is nothing in the current Standing Orders that prohibits the First Minister from voting on this motion, is it morally right for the First Minister to set the agenda regarding his own scrutiny? I would argue that there is a conflict of interest here, and I would hope—I would hope—that the First Minister will use his discretion and not participate in the vote this afternoon. I give way.

I'm very grateful to the Member. We, obviously, all welcome the creation of an independent adjudication process, but, as has already been said, that should never mean that the First Minister then does not subject himself to ordinary parliamentary scrutiny by Members of this place, and I, and probably other Members now, have received written replies back to written questions where the First Minister is refusing to answer those questions because he says they will properly be referred now to the independent adjudication. Well, that can never be acceptable. We're duly elected in this place to hold the First Minister to account, and he should not use the independent investigation as an excuse not to answer questions.

Absolutely, and I very much agree with the Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr, and that's why this inquiry should go ahead by the Committee for the Scrutiny of the First Minister.

Now, let me remind Members that a key part of this inquiry is the First Minister's response to a written Assembly question from an opposition Member. The First Minister made it abundantly clear in November 2014, in a response to my colleague Darren Millar, that no allegations had been made, and yet, in response to an oral Assembly question, the First Minister has indicated any issues that were brought to his attention at that time were dealt with. Indeed, the committee inquiry would not just consider the First Minister's conduct and that of his office, but also the First Minister's response and attitude to Assembly business. If Ministers can change their answers to Assembly scrutiny, then what does that say about our institution? Therefore, it is entirely appropriate that the First Minister faces questions from an Assembly committee and, of course, the Committee for the Scrutiny of the First Minister is the most suitable committee.

Let me also remind the Welsh Government that their own business manager made it crystal clear in the Business Committee meeting last week that she was happy to see this inquiry brought before the Committee for the Scrutiny of the First Minister as soon as possible. Therefore, it's deeply disappointing that the Welsh Government has chosen to renege on its initial position, and this sends yet another statement to the people of Wales that the Welsh Government only answers questions when it feels like it, on its own terms.

It's my view that the to-ing and fro-ing on this issue has not helped the Assembly's reputation at all, and it's now time for this matter to be dealt with effectively through our own robust scrutiny channels. If the name 'Committee for the Scrutiny of the First Minister' tells the people of Wales anything, it's that it convenes to scrutinise the First Minister. The remit of the committee, as stated on the Assembly's website, and I quote, is

'to scrutinise the First Minister on any matter relevant to the exercise of the functions of the Welsh Government.'

Unquote. Therefore, this inquiry could not meet the criteria of the remit more adequately. Now, if the Welsh Government amends this motion today by bypassing this scrutiny avenue, then it effectively tells the people of Wales that the committee only scrutinises the First Minister when the First Minister wants it to. And the view—. And the view of an unnamed Labour Assembly Member, in media reports last week, that this process would lead to a 'political bunfight' is absolutely absurd. It shows no respect for the Assembly Members sitting on that committee, which is, frankly, alarming, as every one of those Members is a committee Chair that was democratically elected to their role by this Assembly. The Committee for the Scrutiny of the First Minister is formed by not only some of our most experienced Assembly Members, but by those who are the front faces of Welsh Government scrutiny. And I can hear mutterings from the Labour benches. If somebody wants to intervene on that point, then I'm quite willing to give way. No.

Now, it's my view that, as part of the inquiry, the committee should take evidence from a range of witnesses. Those witnesses must include not just the First Minister, but also his staff and office at the time, as well as former Members and former special advisers, so that the committee can be confident that the range of evidence received is balanced and comprehensive. I also believe that the committee should prepare a report of its findings to the Assembly by February half term 2018. It's important that a focus and direction is given to the inquiry from the outset.

The remit of the committee's inquiry should also consider the points raised in today's motion. It's absolutely crucial that the allegations are thoroughly examined, as well as any action taken, as a result of bullying complaints. And, as I mentioned earlier, the validity of the answers given by the First Minister to the National Assembly for Wales in relation to such allegations is a vital reason why the Committee for the Scrutiny of the First Minister should undertake this inquiry in the first place. And so, therefore, the First Minister's response to Assembly questions must be given significant attention as part of this inquiry. At the very least, this needs to be clarified so that the people of Wales can have full confidence in the Welsh Government's operations.

The Welsh Government's amendment to this motion simply shows the First Minister's attempt to set his own scrutiny by self appointing an independent adviser to investigate his actions in the last two weeks. There's also no confirmation that that there will be any public scrutiny by the First Minister's adviser, and there is certainly no confirmation in the amendment that the First Minister's own inquiry will consider his responses to questions in recent years. In fact, it merely states that it will consider allegations made in the past two weeks. 

Therefore, in closing, Llywydd, there has been talk in recent weeks of delivering natural justice, and an inquiry that is set on the Government's own terms behind closed doors does not set that agenda. A public, transparent forum is one of the vehicles to deliver that, and so it's entirely appropriate that this motion is allowed to pass. Indeed, the Assembly has always prided itself on being an open and transparent forum, and it's crucial that we continue to operate in this manner. No Member should deny this process from happening. Therefore, I urge Members to support this motion and send a message to the people of Wales that the National Assembly for Wales is free to scrutinise the First Minister when the opportunity calls for it.

I have selected the amendment to the motion, and I call on the leader of the house to move formally amendment 1, tabled in her name.

Formally.

Formally. Formally. Leanne Wood.

Diolch, Llywydd, and I'm grateful for the opportunity to set out Plaid Cymru's position on today's motion and on the Welsh Government amendment. These are difficult circumstances, which make it all the more vital that light is shed on the events that have been raised as a concern. 

We're all aware of the allegations made about bullying within the Welsh Government dating to 2014, and the discrepancy over which specific or official allegations were made. To date, attempts to scrutinise the First Minister on this have not got to the bottom of the type of issues that were raised. The answers given by the First Minister in First Minister's questions last week had more detail than the previous week's answers, but still did not answer some basic questions. Those unanswered questions include: what issues were raised, and how were they dealt with? Was a report produced, or was a report provided? Was there civil service involvement at all? Those questions may well have answers, but those answers have not yet been provided. 

Would the leader of Plaid Cymru give way?

Yes.

Could I add further to those questions—because these are the very specific allegations made by Leighton Andrews—was a formal investigation requested of the First Minister in response to the allegations, or the concerns or issues, that he raised with the First Minister?

It would be good to have answers to that and all the other questions as part of this debate. But, failing that, they do need to be answered somehow.

Now, the Plaid Cymru position on this has been to advocate greater scrutiny. We want as many of the facts to be established as possible. We note that the First Minister has said that he’s ready to face scrutiny, yet today’s Welsh Government amendment manages to close down one route for that open and transparent scrutiny to take place, even if it does create another route.

The First Minister announced last week that he’s listened to those who have called for an independent referral process and that the ministerial code has been amended. Plaid Cymru has, of course, long called for the establishment of some kind of independent adjudicator to police the ministerial code. It simply is not right that the First Minister is police, judge and jury when it comes to Ministers’ behaviour, and it’s especially not right that he is responsible for policing his own behaviour.

We first called for this independent adjudication back in 2014, during an unrelated issue, and we called for it again in 2016. Scotland has an independent adviser in place and has had so since 2008, and the procedure has been used there six times since it was introduced. So, the change of position on this point from the Government is welcome, but it begs the question why did it take this albeit poorly worded motion to force the Government to take action. Why did it take the prospect of public, on the record, scrutiny to make this happen? And is it right that the Government, through the cracking of the whip, determines the process by which this matter is heard?

The problem here for Plaid Cymru is that the Government has placed a 'delete all' amendment, and, by doing that, the Government party gets to decide how the Government leader is scrutinised. We’ve long wanted this type of surveillance of the ministerial code, and, had the Government done this before, they may well have avoided some of the problems that they face today. But we cannot support one form of scrutiny being used to delete another form of scrutiny. We want the independent adjudicator as well as full parliamentary scrutiny. Now, it’s likely that the Government amendment will pass, and I find this regrettable. Plaid Cymru maintains that the two forms of scrutiny are not mutually exclusive. As a result, we will vote for the motion and against the Government amendment.

I’d just like the Government party to consider this: do you think it’s a good look to be seen to be looking as though you are avoiding full scrutiny? I would argue that it isn’t. If there was no bullying, and if there were no other issues that should cause us all concern in the way that the Government is run and the culture of Government, then a full and open process should not be feared. Arguments that this particular committee is too big and unwieldy are technical arguments. There’s a principle at stake here. Do we shine a public, open, honest light on these allegations, or do we allow the First Minister to decide the process by which he is answerable? Natural justice should provide only one answer to that question.  

Well, I think the leader of Plaid Cymru in her winding up in her speech got to the nub of the issue. The Government may use its majority in the Chamber of those who are present today to frustrate the desire for transparency that exists not just in this Assembly but also outside it, it may win the vote here today, but it certainly will not win the vote in the court of public opinion outside, and, if the reputation of the Government means anything, I should have thought it would have wished to at least look good to the outside world. But let's remind ourselves of what this is all about. It's not just about bullying. I think that to use the word 'bullying' in this context does a disservice to what we are debating here today.

Let's listen to Leighton Andrews's own words—and they weren't just off-the-cuff comments; they were written by him in a blog, so he knew what he was doing. He said:

'there had been deliberate personal undermining of Carl Sargeant from within the Welsh Labour Government over several years. I am not going to name names today'—

but let's hope he'll do so in due course—

'But I made a complaint to the First Minister about one aspect of this, of which I had direct evidence, in the autumn of 2014. An informal investigation was undertaken.'

I noticed that the First Minister nodded in disagreement when Adam Price a moment ago asked whether there was a formal request for an investigation. Leighton Andrews says:

'I then asked for it to be made formal.'

So, Leighton Andrews has said there was a request for a formal investigation, and we certainly do need to tell which of the two accounts is correct. He went on to say that he was told that it would be made formal. He was never shown the outcome. There was no due process, he said. 

And it's not just a former finance Minister in the First Minister's own Government who said that. Of course, there was his former special adviser as well, Steve Jones, who made similar comments, which I won't repeat, because it would be otiose.

The seven principles of public life attached to the ministerial code say that

'Holders of public office are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this.'

And where better to scrutinise the actions or inactions of the First Minister than here in the elected National Assembly of Wales? To appoint someone from outside to examine the facts, no-one can disagree with. I'm not opposed to an independent adjudicator or investigator at all. I don't see these two options as in any way contradictory; they are complimentary. We should have both. But it is we who are elected and in this place who have the right to ask the questions, and to continue to ask the questions until we get the answers. We don't know whether the investigative process that the Government has chosen is going to be in public. We don't know whether the right questions will be asked. We should be the ones to determine that. We don't know what the terms of reference of this investigation are going to be. They should proceed in tandem. And I believe that this National Assembly would be failing in its duty if it doesn't succeed in achieving what it is here to do, which is to scrutinise the actions of the Government.

Now, I appreciate there are political difficulties for Labour AMs. It's the First Minister who is under scrutiny, but not just the First Minister, because it goes much wider than that. It's the actions of special advisers, possibly other Ministers, according to Leighton Andrews at any rate. He went on to say that the atmosphere on the fifth floor in 2011-16, a much longer period, was toxic:

'minor bullying, mind-games, power-games, favouritism, inconsistency of treatment to different ministers, deliberate personal undermining on occasion.'

And he said also that Carl Sargeant was unquestionably the target of some of this behaviour. Now, what has happened to Carl Sargeant, of course, could not have been foreseen, and I don't hold the First Minister responsible for that. But the consequences of his inactions over the years may well have had that unforeseen outcome. We owe it not, therefore, only to the public outside, but especially to Carl Sargeant and his family to have a full and open scrutiny of the facts behind this affair.

I notice the silence from the Labour benches today. They are not just members of the Labour Party; they are members of the National Assembly, and it's simply not good enough to be Carwyn's terracotta army there, mute and immobile and silent in the face of what clearly has the possibility to be exposed as a major public scandal.

And so, I just ask the First Minister to look himself in the mirror and to come back with the answer to the question: does he really think that the public outside are going to be convinced that the kind of inquiry that he wants—self-appointed, by someone who he has chosen, with a procedure that we don't get the chance to question, questions that need to be put that we will be prevented from putting—whether that is likely to be regarded as a credible form of investigation, and whether it’s likely to get to the answers that everybody wants to elicit. I believe that there would be a resounding ‘no’ to that in the outside world, and that the First Minister would be doing a massive disservice to the public at large, and to the whole people of Wales, by trying to force through this amendment to this motion today.

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I want to say from the outset that anyone here who knows me knows that, as a Labour Member, I have never, ever shied away from scrutinising my own side. There cannot be a Minister in any Welsh Government, past or present, who I haven’t asked difficult questions of, and that includes the First Minister, both in his current role and when he was a portfolio holder. I would fight to the end for the right of Labour backbenchers to come here and do what is right in the interests of their constituents and in keeping with their own values and principles. That is the way I have always worked, and this debate today is no exception. I also believe it is right that the allegations that have been made are properly scrutinised, and I welcome the First Minister’s decision to ask James Hamilton to independently investigate them.

But I certainly do not believe that the motion the Welsh Conservatives have tabled, calling for the Committee for the Scrutiny of the First Minister to look at these allegations, is the right thing to do, for a number of reasons. Simon Thomas has said that using the committee would be unwieldy, and I agree with that, but I also think that a body used to scrutinising policy decisions is not the appropriate body to undertake work of this kind. Are we really expecting AMs, in a public committee, to try and drill down into the detail of what happened three years ago on the fifth floor, and to look at the detail of who said what, when and to whom? I am also concerned that some witnesses, including civil servants, may feel very uncomfortable about feeding into such a public forum, but may be willing to talk on a one-to-one basis to James Hamilton. [Interruption.] I’ll give way to Rhun.

Thank you for taking the intervention. Would you accept, though, that in the absence of an independent adjudicator, this was the only model that was open to the Assembly? Once the proposal was made to refer to the scrutiny committee, any attempt through 'delete all' to get rid of that scrutiny process can only be seen by people outside this Welsh Assembly as an attempt to duck public scrutiny.

No, I don’t accept that, because we have now an independent mechanism in place.

It is crucial that any investigation is not just independent, but is seen to be independent, and completely above party politics. Andrew R.T. Davies yesterday made much in questions of my colleague Jeremy Miles’s interview on the Sunday Politics show, suggesting wrongly that Jeremy Miles had questioned the ability of the Labour Chair and the Labour Members of the committee to undertake such scrutiny. That is not what he said. He said that he was absolutely sure that we would do the work without fear or favour, but he also made the point that it is crucial the committee is seen as independent, too. We all know here that politics is also about perception, and I seriously question whether the public would view the committee as being independent.

Now, I do not in any way doubt the ability of the Labour Chair and myself and my Labour colleagues to robustly scrutinise the First Minister on this. But it is essential that any investigation is able to complete its work and draw a line under this without questions about the political make-up of the committee undermining its credibility. I’ve been an Assembly Member here for 18 years and these are, without doubt, the darkest days any of us have known. I think all of us across this Chamber should remember that we are all, including the First Minister, grieving for a friend and colleague. I am deeply uncomfortable that this motion has been brought at this time, and I personally want no part of it.

[Inaudible.]

How dare you. How dare you. You’re a disgrace. You are a disgrace.

Lee Waters, I heard nothing. Mick Antoniw.

Presiding Officer, as Chair of the Constitutional and Legislative—[Interruption.] As Chair—

I am going to ask Mick Antoniw to continue, and I’m sure that what he’s about to say deserves to be heard.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. As Chair of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, I am automatically a member of the Committee for Scrutiny of the First Minister. At the outset—and solely in that capacity—I wish to make clear that I've decided to oppose the Conservative motion and support the establishment by the Welsh Government of a panel of independent advisers to provide a source of independent advice on ministerial conduct, as required under the ministerial code, as was set out in the written statement on 23 November.

I welcome the appointment of James Hamilton as an independent adviser and I welcome the referral to him of the allegations made in relation to the conduct of the First Minister, and the fact that the report of Mr Hamilton will be published once the investigation has been completed. Mr Hamilton is a person of impeccable character and well qualified in his former role as director of public prosecutions and as a member of the Scottish Government independent adviser panel, and a person who we can all be assured will investigate these matters diligently and without fear or favour.

As a member of the Committee for the Scrutiny of the First Minister—[Interruption.] No, I think you should wait until I've actually developed my arguments and set out my analysis. As a member of the Committee for the Scrutiny of the First Minister, I have to add that I am not at all convinced that the approach adopted in the Conservative motion is the best way of dealing with these matters, or that it is constitutionally appropriate or the correct role for this committee. I also have serious concerns about whether the composition of this committee is actually capable of satisfying the necessary rules of natural justice that would apply. It is a committee that is responsible for the political scrutiny of the First Minister and his Government, which is separated from the legislature in accordance with modern parliamentary practice and by virtue of the Government of Wales Act 2006.

However, the Conservative motion would create a role and responsibility that was never intended for this committee, it would confuse its role and it would encroach upon and blur the separation of powers intended by the 2006 Act. It would transform the committee, in this matter, into a standards and conduct investigatory committee, which it clearly was never intended to be. It would give it the status of a quasi-judicial committee or at the very least a quasi-judicial function that it is not suited for.

The rules of natural justice have been rehearsed in many cases over the years in the courts, and apply not just to judges and established courts but also to judicial and quasi-judicial functions and procedures. The most established analysis of these rules emerged in a well-known leading case where the issue of conflict of interest and, in particular, a potential for a perceived conflict of interest arose. In that case the rules were very clearly laid out: justice must not only be done but it must also be seen to be done. An appearance or perception of impartiality is unacceptable. Even though there might be no evidence that an individual would not act robustly and independently, the fact that there might be a perception of impartiality would be sufficient to undermine public confidence in the process.

Will the Member give way? 

Yes, I will. 

I'm very grateful. I am listening with great interest to what he's saying, both in terms of his previous role and his current role. What I'm not clear about at this stage is whether he's saying that the mentioned committee in the motion, which is the Committee for the Scrutiny of the First Minister—it has already been quoted that I've already said it is quite unwieldy for this purpose—whether he thinks that's inappropriate, or whether he's saying it is inappropriate for any parliamentary scrutiny of the First Minister's conduct to take place at all, because I think he's straying dangerously close to that conclusion. 

No, I'm not coming to that conclusion, because the two matters have been intertwined and have now become a matter of ministerial scrutiny, and also the separation of powers. I think I will lay it out further when I develop my argument in respect of the rules of natural justice, which I think actually also deal with the point. 

In that case, the rules were clearly laid out—justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done, and appearance or perception of impartiality is unacceptable. Even though there might be no evidence that an individual would not act robustly and independently, the fact that there might be a perception would be sufficient to undermine public confidence. I emphasise that point. The judgment in this case reiterated earlier pronouncements on the rules of natural justice where the principle was outlined. It is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done but should manifestly or undoubtedly be seen to be done. And this principle was confirmed and further clarified as follows: 

'The requirement of due process or natural justice or procedural fairness...and the importance of the absence of bias in a decision maker is in part based on the importance of appearances.'

Presiding Officer, if I am correct in what I say about the quasi-judicial status that would be conferred on the committee, it follows that these rules of natural justice must apply. The committee consists of the Chairs of committees appointed by the political parties, and the role of the committee is inherently political. I have no doubt, as was confirmed by the Counsel General yesterday, that we are all persons of integrity and would do our utmost to be unbiased and impartial. However, bias can be actual or imputed. The purpose of the rules of natural justice in this respect is to ensure public confidence in the process. The committee, no matter what its intentions and best efforts, cannot avoid the inevitable perceived conflict of interest. This would inevitably undermine confidence in the eventual outcome and conclusion of any report produced by the committee under this mandate.

Will you give way, just very briefly? Thank you. What about the perception of the bias of Government deciding how it pursues natural justice in this case?

The point is that, if we give a body a quasi-judicial function, then the rules of natural justice must apply to it and the way it operates so that perceptions of impartiality are absolutely fundamental, and that is why the issue of an independent adviser becomes such an important one. [Interruption.] No, I want to finish my theme.

The investigation—

Yes, well, you actually need to conclude.

I've taken two interventions.

You've had seven minutes now, so can you come to the end?

The investigation has to be independent, a point accepted, I believe, by all party leaders in this Chamber. The process has to be independent. The person conducting the investigation and reporting has to be qualified to carry out such an investigation and robustly independent if the outcome is to be respected and carry public confidence.

We are establishing principles and a precedent in this motion, which will be required to withstand the test of time for the future. Consequently, the proposal for this matter to be referred to an independent adviser under the ministerial code is by far the best and the most appropriate course of action. 

I find this afternoon's debate incredibly difficult and uncomfortable. There's much that I would like to say, but I think it would be wise not to say it at this time. In two days' time, we're going to be burying our colleague and friend, and I think there's something unseemly about having this nature of debate while that still hasn't happened. I find it reprehensible the way that people have used this tragedy to settle scores from their time in Government. I think the First Minister, to his credit, has set up two separate independent processes, which is unprecedented. Those need to be given time to draw their conclusions. I note what has been said about then a parliamentary process taking place and I think that that time is the right time—when there's been reflection and evidence and a passage of time—to have that debate.

I have no difficulty with the Committee for the Scrutiny of the First Minister meeting once those reports are published and for the proper process of scrutiny to take place, but today is not that day.

I was struck two weeks ago when we met to pay tribute to Carl Sargeant by the decency shown in this Chamber, and I'm disappointed by the tone that has been struck this afternoon. I was particularly disgusted by the comments of the leader of the opposition from a sedentary position to my colleague Lynne Neagle that she'd taken the shilling—

I think you've said enough, Mr Davies—

Well, he might want to clarify what he said.

He can do that in his own time, Llywydd, with respect.  I'm not taking an intervention. I'm not taking—[Interruption.] I'm not taking an intervention. [Interruption.] That's what I heard—

The Member is not taking an intervention, and the leader of the opposition is to be called at some point and he can clarify his point.

The tone of the comments—. Other Members have made reference to the whip being cracked. I assure Members of this Chamber that there is no whip needing to be applied in this afternoon's debate. We are all of one voice in agreeing with this independent process being set up and following that through and at the end of it having a full and open debate. At that time, I shall remove the bite mark from my tongue and speak more freely.

In the case of an investigation relating to a potential breach of the ministerial code, having a robust independent process is crucial, and I believe that it's right that any complaints against the First Minister relating to the ministerial code must be examined by an external independent adviser. This ensures an effective, rigorous and fair investigation. As the leader of Plaid Cymru said, such a procedure is not unique; it already happens in Scotland. In fact, the importance of an independent person conducting investigations into potential breaches of code of conduct, is already recognised by this Assembly. All Members will be aware that the Standards of Conduct Committee operates on the basis that when a complaint is reported to the standards commissioner about an Assembly Member, it's the commissioner, an independent QC, who investigates the complaint. It's not the committee that investigates.

So, I think it's absolutely right that to consider any potential breach of the ministerial code thoroughly and fairly, it's entirely sensible for an independent adviser to investigate complaints against the First Minister, just as it is for an independent person to investigate a complaint against any Assembly Member.

At the start of my contribution, I wish to place on record that I'm a member of the Committee for the Scrutiny of the First Minister. Can I also stress, particularly to the UKIP Member for Mid and West Wales, I am not a member of any terracotta army—I have my own voice and my own views.

Llywydd, there's no doubt that everyone in this Chamber wishes to see answers to the questions contained within the motion—answers that are derived from a robust and rigorous investigative process. Now, our focus this afternoon is not only to determine the process used to arrive at those answers, but also to ensure that everyone, both inside and outside this institution, believes those answers to be fair and accurate. Only yesterday, the leader of the opposition agreed that there will be an inquiry, irrespective of the decision of the Assembly this afternoon, when he asked the question during First Minister's time. So, with that agreement, surely what's important is to ensure that the process that is followed for this inquiry is rigorous and the outcome is unquestionable.

I acknowledge the actions that the First Minister has taken. As I understand, it was in response to a letter that I sent to him on 10 November asking him to undertake that investigation and set it up. But I would make the point that the terms of reference, as I understand, are specific to 2014 and the comments and remarks that have been made in the media for the two weeks that we've been in session here. It does not reflect on the wider allegations that have been levelled at the office of the First Minister and the First Minister himself by the former special adviser.

I thank the Member for that intervention, and he's answered—[Inaudible.]

I would have thought that an independent approach, in fact, would be the most obvious way to meet that requirement, and, as he pointed out, he made that request in his own letter to the First Minister, stating that the appointment of an independent third party to conduct an inquiry was an honourable course of action when the First Minister of Scotland faced similar allegations. So, we may ask: what's changed his mind? I think he's tried to highlight that point just now, but if it was honourable on 14 November for Scotland, why isn't it now for Wales?

The motion asks for the Committee for the Scrutiny of the First Minister to undertake this work and whilst the committee is independent of the Welsh Government, it is not, unfortunately, independent of this institution. Now, I'm aware of the arguments that have been raised this afternoon—that this should not be a reason for the committee not to undertake this work. And as the leader of the opposition said yesterday during FMQs, he believes in its integrity and objectivity, and I appreciate that, very much so. But, unfortunately, there are some outside this institution who would question that.

Now, as Lynne Neagle has already said, I hope Members also recognise that I often hold the First Minister and the Welsh Government to account on certain issues; I'm not afraid to be asking those difficult and challenging questions. But as we seek the truth through those answers, we must also be truthful to ourselves and recognise that questions will be raised about our independence. To that extent, I do believe that the leader of the opposition was a little bit naughty yesterday. I won't go into it further, because Lynne Neagle has already raised the points of what Jeremy Miles said, actually on the Sunday Politics Wales show, and I listened to it several times to confirm exactly that. It is important that you look at the context, and the context was that it is not hard to imagine that if the committee reached a different outcome, that would be criticised because it would not be seen as independent. That's the clear context—

Will you take an intervention? I used to work as a probation officer, okay, and can you imagine a situation where a client of the probation service was able to determine the process by which they were investigated, tried and the situation heard? Can you imagine a situation where that would be allowed to happen and that would be called natural justice? It would never happen, would it?

The Member raises one example. There could be other examples that we could raise, so I wish to continue with my answers and my speech.

This issue about the perception of independence—it's already been raised about what people say, but let's be honest, again, and be truthful to ourselves: one member of this committee actually was a Minister in the Assembly Government in 2014; one Member has recently been a member of the Cabinet; another Member's husband was actually a Cabinet Minister within that Assembly. There will always be sceptical views and voices being heard as a consequence of those issues, and it's time to get real and be honest and acknowledge that this will be an excuse used by some to put doubt in people's minds about anything other than a full condemnation of what comes out of this investigation of the First Minister. Now, we don't want that and we don't need it. We don't want the doubt being created.

Now, what the amendment seeks to achieve is the process of an independent analysis of the allegations, leading to the production of a report, and the submission of that report for public scrutiny. For those who argue the Assembly should be allowed to scrutinise the First Minister, that would become public and it will be brought before the Assembly. In fact, the amendment indicates that it will be noted by the Committee for the Scrutiny of the First Minister. So, it will be looked at.

I'm supporting the amendment this afternoon. I believe that this will give the people of Wales the most independent, most rigorous and transparent process of the outcomes that will have confidence, not just in Assembly Members in this institution, not just within this bubble, but in the people outside this institution who cannot point any fingers because of any perceived possibility of non-independence. That's what we—[Inaudible.]

I call on the leader of the house, Julie James.

Diolch, Llywydd. Thank you very much for the opportunity to respond to this debate this afternoon.

I want to start, I'm afraid, by just putting right something that was said about what I said in the Business Committee, the proceedings of which, I understand, are normally confidential. I abstained from the vote about whether this motion would go forward, on the basis that I had not yet consulted my group about it and on the basis of the likelihood that we would amend it. My understanding and the minutes reflect that discussion.

This debate is about the arrangements, which have now—[Interruption.] No. No, the minutes reflect it. You brought it up—the minutes reflect it.

This debate is about the arrangements that are now to be put in place to look into the allegations that have been made in the last few weeks that the First Minister has breached the ministerial code. Of vital importance is that whatever process is put in place to explore the alleged breaches of the ministerial code, we need to be able to draw a line under this. We cannot be in a position where the validity of any investigation is under question and continued calls for additional inquiries overtake the proceedings of this Assembly.

Clearly, it is essential that scrutiny must be effective and independent and seen to be above party politics. This is one of the reasons that we do not feel that the Committee for the Scrutiny of the First Minister is the appropriate body to take forward alleged breaches of the ministerial code. As mentioned by a number of contributors, the committee is chaired by a Labour Member and has a majority of members who belong to the Labour Party. As the Counsel General made clear and as has been mentioned many times in this Chamber today, our position does not question their integrity to act independently without fear or favour, but reflects the reality of the perception that could be had by the wider public. I, too, heard the disgraceful comment and think the leader of the opposition should withdraw it.

Llywydd, these are allegations that must be properly and thoroughly investigated. As set out by Mick Antoniw, by establishing a special meeting of the Committee for the Scrutiny of the First Minister to undertake such an inquiry, this National Assembly would be blurring the constitutional lines between the Executive and the legislature, lines that this Parliament should keep clear and lines that many from across this Chamber have long argued should be separated, as they are in the Scottish Parliament. It is the National Assembly's—[Interruption.] No, it's the opinion of an Assembly Member who contributed to this debate. It is the National Assembly's legitimate role to scrutinise the Executive, but we should not be putting Members in the position of investigating serious allegations that have been levelled against the First Minister. These are matters that can be and are more appropriately—

[Inaudible.]—on this point?

Certainly.

She seems to me to be making an argument for the dissolution of the Standards of Conduct Committee, because it could be said that all her criticisms of what is being proposed here would apply to that committee too.

Not in the least. The Standards of Conduct Committee refers allegations to an independent commissioner.

These are matters that can be and are more appropriately dealt with under the ministerial code, but they should be investigated outside the political process and by someone with relevant professional experience. The ministerial code sets out the First Minister's expectations of standards of ministerial behaviour and personal conduct. The code applies equally to the First Minister.

We acknowledge that until now—

Will you give way? I'm listening to her very carefully, because, obviously, as leader of the house, she has a wider responsibility—she is leader of the entire house. Is she suggesting that our right, our ability, in fact our duty as Members of this Parliament to ask questions of the First Minister is somehow limited, is somehow curtailed—that there are some no-go areas? Because, as I pointed out to her, I have now received written replies in relation to specific questions, as have other Members, where the First Minister is now using the independent investigation as a shield to proper scrutiny. Surely, as leader of the house, she would not want to defend that.

No, I made no such suggestion. The ministerial code sets out the First Minister's expectations for standards of ministerial behaviour and personal conduct, and applies equally to the First Minister. We acknowledge that, until now, there has been no opportunity for independent assessment of significant concerns raised in relation to the First Minister's adherence to the ministerial code.

There have been many calls—many in this Chamber—for an independent adviser to be appointed to provide a source of independent and external advice on the ministerial code, as happens in Scotland. Indeed, the leader of the opposition referred to this in his letter on 14 November, and indeed referred to the process followed in Scotland, and commended it to the First Minister.

In light of recent events and in line with what happens in Scotland, the ministerial code has been amended to allow for such referrals to be made to an independent adviser where the First Minister deems it necessary. Section 1.4 of the code now provides that the First Minister may ask an independent adviser to provide him with advice on which to base his judgment about any action required in respect of ministerial conduct, and that the adviser's findings will be published. This can apply to any Minister, where appropriate.

Thank you very much for taking the intervention. I wonder: do you accept that there may be an argument that an early parliamentary investigation, if I can put it like that, would actually be of assistance to any independent inquiry, particularly as it is likely to unearth issues that perhaps won't have been foreseen at the time that the independent investigator might have been given a remit to follow?

No, I don't accept that, actually, and I wouldn't accept that if I were subject to a referral in standards either. The point about this process is that it can apply to any Minister, where appropriate, whereas the procedure proposed by the motion in front of us would only apply to the First Minister.

The code does not prescribe the scope, format or conduct of any inquiry the adviser may be asked to undertake. It is for the adviser to determine how to act on matters referred by the First Minister, as is the case in the Scottish Parliament. 

Over the coming weeks, a panel of several suitably qualified and experienced advisers will be appointed to undertake this work, individually or collectively, for any cases referred in the future. In the meantime, James Hamilton, the current independent adviser to the Scottish Government, has accepted an immediate referral from the First Minister in relation to allegations that have been made that he has breached the ministerial code. The amendment the Welsh Government has laid to the motion in front of the National Assembly today recognises the action we have taken to strengthen the ministerial code for the future, and to start an immediate independent investigation into these allegations.

This investigation will look at the issues that have been aired in this Chamber and in the media in the last couple of weeks, and will determine whether the First Minister breached the ministerial code. We will ensure that the National Assembly, via the Committee for the Scrutiny of the First Minister, receives a copy of Mr Hamilton's report. A fortnight ago, the leader of the Welsh Conservatives, who today asked for a National Assembly committee to look at these allegations, asked the First Minister and the Permanent Secretary to appoint an impartial third party to investigate.

I think I'm speaking on behalf of everybody in this Chamber when I say that we all agree with what you have been setting out, in terms of the ability of an independent adjudicator to ask questions in depth and to conduct a useful role. But will you concede that it has been a grave error for this Government, and previous Governments, to refuse to proactively set up the post of independent adjudicator, and that now, because the Government finds itself in a difficult situation, people see this—perceive this—as I said earlier, as a means of trying to duck public scrutiny? It is too late in order for you to set up this and claim that it is something that, somehow, you always supported. You refused to do this in the past.

On the contrary. I've heard very carefully what Rhun ap Iorweth has said. What I'm saying is very simple and straightforward. There is a correct constitutional position that we are urging this Chamber to look at. I agree that we could have done it earlier. The fact that we didn't do it earlier doesn't make it the wrong solution. In fact, it continues to be the right solution. Putting a different solution in place, which isn't the one you've always called for, because the situation now warrants us to do it, is not the right response to the correct constitutional solution.

Llywydd, we have listened to the arguments of those who proposed the right constitutional solution. I accept that we could have done so earlier, but our amendment reflects the reality of the correct separation of powers. Diolch.

I call on Andrew R.T. Davies to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. If I may, before I start my contribution, I do want to take issue with the contribution of the Member for Llanelli, accusing me of making an allegation from a sedentary position about Lynne Neagle, the Member for Torfaen. I did not make that. I hold the Member in the highest regard possible, and I do want the record to show that because I know full well that you are a Chair of a scrutiny committee that holds no quarter when that scrutiny is due, and you do make sure that the Government is held to account, and I have seen that in the 10 years that I have seen you here, performing your role as the Member for Torfaen.

The debate today—[Interruption.] The debate today—[Interruption.] The debate today—[Interruption.] The debate today is quite clear. There is a role for this Assembly to play in scrutinising what has come to public attention over the last three weeks. It is unthinkable that any other organisation that had had these accusations made by senior people who worked at the heart of that organisation would not be called to account by this institution. It is regrettable that the house will divide along party lines, and I’m assuming that the party lines are being whipped from the Government’s side for the division to take place.

There are three inquiries that potentially, if this motion were to be carried forward, could happen. The first is the independent inquiry that the Permanent Secretary is working to establish with the family, and has no relevance to what we are debating here today. The second is the inquiry that the First Minister announced only on Thursday of last week, of the independent person to be put in charge of a referral by him over issues that he believes have been raised over the last 14 days. But, what is really important is that there is an inquiry of the Committee for the Scrutiny of the First Minister to look at the overall allegations, accusations—call them what you will—that have been levelled by many people, some anonymously, but by two people in particular who have first-hand experience stretching back to 2009—not just 2014; 2009—and for the entire period that they were in Government.

I will be the happiest person in this Chamber if those allegations can be disproved. There is no one person in this Chamber, surely, who stands for bullying, intimidation and any of the other accusations that have been levelled by individuals during their time in Government. I do draw Members’ attention to this fact: can you name another organisation that, if you had heard in your role as an Assembly Member—I will take the intervention in a minute—if you had heard of another organisation, where you sit on various committees and you scrutinise that organisation, that you would not be bringing forward that organisation to be held to account about the accusations that had been levelled and to take witness statements from the people who had made those accusations?

Could you just tell me what your view is as to what would be the most credible in the eyes of the public—a committee outcome of persons who are clearly members of political parties and political appointees, effectively, or an independent adviser?

You've hit the nail on the head there, Mick, in fairness, because the independent advisers I've said—and I haven't been corrected on this—will only be looking at the specific referral of the First Minister regarding the allegations that have come forward over the last 14 days. The allegations that are in the public domain about bullying and intimidation stretch back to 2009, and the point that my colleague Paul Davies made in his opening remarks was that each and every member of that committee is elected by the entire house—an important consideration. [Interruption.] We could end up having a debate between ourselves, but I will take another intervention.

No, the point was very clear. In terms of the issue of public confidence in outcome, which will have the most confidence: an independent adviser or, as you say, a committee of political appointees?

I think both are important in the public's mind. Ultimately, if an important committee—the premier committee, I would suggest, of this Assembly—of all the Chairs of the Assembly coming together and scrutinising the First Minister on allegations that have been made cannot undertake that scrutiny, then there is something seriously wrong. I will take the intervention in a minute. I do draw on Paul Davies's opening remarks. This committee is convened of the Chairs of the Assembly, who are voted on by the entire Assembly. It is not party appointees. It is not whipped, I assume, like other committees potentially can be on certain votes. As I said in my remarks, there will be no happier person in this Chamber if these allegations can be disproved. It is not a political priority or a political narrative to support bullying, intimidation and a toxic workplace environment. Surely, none of us stands for that, and we need to get to the bottom of these allegations.

I'm grateful to the leader of the opposition for giving way just on this point, because one of the things that I think we've lost focus on in some of this debate is this holding a public parliamentary process by which key questions can be asked. One of the questions I would want to ask, which I will not get to ask now in such a public forum, it looks to me, because we're going to vote a certain way, is: what was the definition of bullying used by the First Minister when he said that no specific allegations of bullying had been made? Because the Welsh Government's own dignity at work policy makes it clear that you don't need to allege bullying; it's a pattern of behaviour that should be investigated, and that's what we can do usefully in an open public arena. And we'd give assurances to the public, not only by having experts who rightly have the legal ability to scrutinise these things independently, but also by challenging that evidence in open, public fora.

I couldn't agree more. It's about understanding whether the allegations in the first instance stack up, what actions were taken when the allegations were made to the First Minister and, above all, what actions were put in place to address the concerns, if they stacked up when they were investigated. And, importantly, who investigated them? Because none of us knows the answers to any of those questions, and they have been asked.

And I ask this question again of the Labour benches: if you were sitting on a committee of an organisation you were scrutinising and senior people within that organisation made these allegations—and I use the word 'allegations', because that's what they are, allegations that need to either be stacked up and proved or disproved—wouldn't you have them before you? Wouldn't you have them before you to give the evidence? Likewise, the people involved in being accused of not doing the actions to address the concerns, wouldn't you have them in to give their side of the argument? That's what this motion is about.

I've heard what people have said about timing, and it is right: when would be the appropriate time to undertake this? We have put this motion before the Assembly today because, as I said, the investigation into the tragedy that flowed from the Cabinet reshuffle is an independent process that is going on by separate inquiry. There is now the investigation that the First Minister has referred himself to, the independent person, which he announced last Thursday. I put my letter in asking him to do that on 10 November. This motion appeared on the order paper last Thursday. I just ask you to draw your own conclusions as to why that came out on the very same day.

I do believe that the public will look unkindly on us as an institution—an institution that, in my view, is the parliament of Wales—and as the democratic representatives of Wales, not having the opportunity to make inquiries and scrutinise the First Minister through the medium of the Committee for the Scrutiny of the First Minister on allegations that have been levelled directly at his office and his actions. As I say again, I don't think that's an unreasonable proposition to ask Members to vote for this afternoon. I do hope that, on reflection, Members will vote to support this motion, will allow the committee to undertake its work and, ultimately, I hope, disprove these allegations, but if they are proved, will offer the recommendations that we need to make sure that there isn't a corner anywhere in public life where such serious accusations can stack up and people feel that they are being neglected, abused and pushed to one side.

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

The next item is the Member debate under Standing Order 11.21(iv) and I call on Mick Antoniw to move the motion.

Presiding Officer, as we approach the festive season, it is perhaps appropriate that we have a debate on an issue that, for those affected, could be fairly described as a pantomime, albeit one with a dark and sinister plot. The cavity wall insulation pantomime has few heroes, but many villains.

First, there are the energy companies. Interested only in meeting UK Government targets, they have little regard for the quality of work carried out or, by extension, whether the intended environmental benefits are being realised. Then there are the rogue installation companies, who target the poorest with aggressive cold-calling techniques, using poorly trained staff who are paid on a commission only basis. Next, we have the Cavity Insulation Guarantee Agency, the so-called ‘independent’ complaints body set up by the industry and populated by the industry and, one might say, for the industry. And, finally, the UK Government who, by setting energy companies targets for fitting cavity wall insulation without first putting a robust oversight framework in place, has encouraged a laissez-faire culture that is characterised by a lack of accountability.

Presiding Officer, cavity wall insulation misselling is no laughing matter for the thousands of people who are living with the consequences of inappropriately or badly installed CWI. The cavity wall insulation process is complex and entirely loaded against the consumer. It is routinely sold as 'government backed', a key selling point for unscrupulous installation companies. It is not government backed, and the UK Government needs to act to make this clear. As far back as 2014 the Green Deal Oversight and Registration Body received reports from police forces in Wales, Scotland and Surrey about allegations of fraudulent practices in the CWI market, including larger scale fraud operations and potential cases of money laundering.

The CWI sales person, often having received minimal training, is required to assess a property’s suitability for CWI. Many people have told me about how insubstantial this assessment is. A tick-box exercise is no substitute for an assessment by properly trained professionals. Incidentally, most people do not receive a copy of the assessment document, nor is it a mandatory component of CIGA's complaints process. A further glaring issue is that the assessment appears to ignore the property’s location. Almost all of Wales is located in a category 4 area for wind-driven rain, that is to say, exposed to severe conditions. In such conditions mineral fibre acts as a bridge for moisture to cross through the wall cavity. In 2015 Amber Rudd MP, the then Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, was asked if cavity wall insulation should be used in category 4 areas at all. In response she said:

'My recollection is that mostly it should not'.

So, why does the UK Government allow this situation to continue? They could intervene to end this abuse. For example, why does the UK Government allow energy suppliers to contract so many fly-by-night installation companies? They create a mess, then fold, only to reappear in a different guise with the same directors in place. Why doesn’t the UK Government ensure that energy suppliers and installation companies maintain an accurate register of homes where they have fitted CWI? At the moment, even Ofgem doesn't know the full extent of homes that have been fitted. 

Why doesn't the UK Government insist on a testing regime that is fit for purpose? Even Ofgem recognises that problems can materialise a year or more after installation, so surely that has to be reflected in the testing timeline. Ofgem’s requirement for a one-off inspection a few weeks after installation does not make sense. And, finally, why has the UK Government, in a statement in April 2017, meekly accepted the assurances from CIGA that all 3,663 complaints from affected homes in Wales have been resolved? I can tell the UK Government that they absolutely have not.

Now, let’s turn to CIGA. Many people in my constituency and across Wales have complained to CIGA. It is a tortuous process. In 2015, The Daily Telegraph reported that of CIGA’s 11 directors, seven are also directors of companies who manufacture or install CWI; three are involved in lobbying the UK Government on energy efficiency law. When CIGA loses a case and agrees to a cavity wall clearance, it often gives the contract to companies operated by CIGA directors. So much for independence.

It seems to residents as though CIGA does whatever it can to block claims. Until very recently it was, in some cases, operating two guarantees, one of which places stringent maintenance requirements on property owners, many of whom are older or disabled. It left people in the catch-22 position of invalidating their guarantee if they undertook maintenance or having their claim rejected if they failed to undertake maintenance. In the case of my constituent Mr Morgan it was only when he asked for a copy of his guarantee certificate that he became aware of this maintenance clause—and no wonder, as the original certificate listed seven conditions, whilst the copy contained eight conditions. The additional maintenance condition had been inserted without Mr Morgan’s knowledge or consent.

CIGA’s finances are totally inadequate to meet the scale of remedial work that is required. In 2015, it was reported that CIGA had funds to honour less than 1,000 of its 6 million guarantees. Is it any wonder that CIGA’s claims rejection rate is so high? Many of those affected are on low incomes, so it is understandable that the prospect of undertaking an independent survey, costing up to £500, kills off any thought of making a complaint. Instead, they and their children have no choice other than to live in damp and mouldy conditions and to live with the respiratory and other diseases this brings.

There is also no evidence that the alternative disputes resolution process, operated by the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution, is any more effective. My constituent Mr Gray, who is in the public gallery today, is a rare case of CEDR granting a victory. CEDR instructed CIGA to remove the insulation at Mr Gray’s home, which they did, but, in the process, the extraction work caused extensive damage to the external render. Mr Gray’s surveyor’s report recommended a full re-rendering of the property. CIGA refused to act. Mr Gray went back to CEDR, who said there was nothing they could do, and that my constituent’s only option was to take CIGA or the installer to the High Court, which as you will know, is highly expensive. It is often those with the least means that find the process so daunting, and many simply don’t bother complaining. In my opinion, CIGA is simply not fit for purpose. So, where does all this leave the consumer? As the Green Deal Oversight and Registration Body states on its website, 'There is no clear consumer redress path because of complex contracting arrangements'. 

Presiding Officer, I recognise that the motivations behind the various cavity wall insulation schemes are worth while: to provide people, including those in Wales who are in fuel poverty, with a warm home and lower fuel costs and to help the UK to meet its obligations in respect of carbon emissions reduction, but that cannot be the extent of the UK Government’s liability and responsibility. The UK Government, which plans a further 1 million installations, has an obligation to sort this problem out. It is UK Government policy that has inflated this market to its current enormous scale and size—by some measures, worth £800 million. It is the UK Government that failed to apply regulations to protect people from misselling, and it was the UK Government that failed to introduce a transparent, robust process that puts things right and compensates people appropriately.

I acknowledge the action that the Welsh Government has already taken. Ensuring that proposed installations are independently undertaken by properly qualified people will help prevent future misselling. Providing householders with guidance on maintenance will also help. I would, however, ask if there is more we can do within our existing powers. For example, a second assessment at, say, 24 months after installation would provide robust evidence to present to CIGA and remove the burden of cost on the consumer. Fundamentally, it is the energy suppliers who need to be engaged in the process and to take responsibility for the subcontracted work they have directed. They decide which measures they fund and which installer they work with, so they should not be allowed to simply stand back from the problem they have helped create. It may be that the devolution of further energy policy in 2018 will present opportunities to do this, and I would ask the Cabinet Secretary to consider what new options might actually be available to you.

I opened by profiling the villains in this growing scandal, but there are, thankfully, some heroes. Each and every resident who bravely takes a stand against the industry misselling is worthy of recognition. I would like to make a special mention of Pauline Saunders and CIVALLI, the volunteer organisation that is standing up for victims of cavity wall misselling. Pauline and a number of victims of misselling are in the gallery today, and I pay tribute to you all for the work that you do as volunteers.

But, as I said at the beginning of my speech, the process is loaded against the individual. We must be unequivocally on the side of families whose lives have been blighted by this scandal. As a first step, the Welsh Government must establish the precise situation in Wales and publish an action plan. It must recognise that the Welsh Government’s actions to date will not benefit those who have already been missold, so it must include a demand that the UK Government undertakes a full review of the industry, including the regulation of sales, the role of CIGA, the need for a fair redress and compensation process, the role of Ofgem and the responsibilities of the energy companies. It appears to many that there may be a massive industry cover-up, either deliberately
or by complacency. By supporting this motion, we recognise that cavity wall insulation misselling is a growing scandal, and we urge the Welsh Government to do all it can to help achieve justice for victims of misselling and justice for those who will discover themselves to be victims in the coming years. Thank you. 

We debate a very important subject this afternoon, and I was pleased to have the opportunity to co-table this motion, and I commend Mick Antoniw for his initiative in raising this issue. I do want to say that cavity wall insulation does remain an important tool in fighting fuel poverty, but of course it has to be done where appropriate, and it has to be done effectively.

I would like just to say a few words about the latest estimates on fuel poverty from the Welsh Government, that 291,000 households, 23 per cent, are living in fuel poverty. There is some encouragement that these stats are an improvement on 2010 data, but obviously it remains a huge challenge for us. We may be better off in comparison, say, to Scotland, where they have even higher rates of fuel poverty, but there's a huge job of work to be done, and cavity wall insulation is part of the suite of measures that we do need to have. I think it is also important to put this into the wider perspective of other measures that are taken by both the Welsh Government and the UK Government to improve access to efficient fuel and heating systems.

I think, when you come to the actual facts of cavity wall insulation, we need to remember that it's been calculated that, where it is appropriate, it can save up to £150 a year in heating bills, just from the insulation effects. That's obviously the driver for using it where it is effective. Additionally, external walls account for 35 per cent of domestic heat loss, and studies have suggested that, for every square metre of cavity wall insulation, you save a tonne of carbon dioxide over the average life of the building. So, with a typical semi-detached house, that's 80 tonnes or more during the life of that home. So, this is a major contributor, when done well, to reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, as well as, obviously, keeping homes warmer for less.

But, as point 2 of this motion recognises, there is a significant minority—it's not a small number, I concede that—of installations in unsuitable properties, and not complying with the standards of good workmanship. I won't repeat all the points that Mick has made; I think he illustrated the points with great force. There is growing evidence that demonstrates that the industry has much work to do to improve the quality of on-site workmanship. The Building Research Establishment report 'Post Installation Performance of Cavity Wall & External Wall Insulation', a key report in this area, found that not only were some installations completed to a poor standard, there was strong evidence indicating that appropriate maintenance was not being undertaken following the installation of the insulation. So, it really is a concern.

Ultimately, what is the point of promoting and encouraging homes to take up cavity wall insulation if the insulation itself is causing more problems than it's worth? And clearly some people have been led in that direction, and the public purse has been denied efficient use of much-needed resources to tackle fuel poverty. 

Just to mention some of the problems that have been caused by poor insulation practices: dampness and mould, causing unpleasant smells, crumbling plaster, stained walls and, in some cases, properties have fallen considerably in value.

So, I do agree with much of the analysis that Mick has made of this problem of what he says is misselling of cavity wall insulation. I think that it's important that we see an effective joint approach from the Welsh Government and the UK Government. It is easy to place all the blame on the UK Government. I mean, this has been a long-running policy getting on for 25 years, and obviously, there was a Labour Government for much of that time. But it is fair to say that the hard edge of all this now does cut across the work of the Welsh Government, and I do think it's important that we do have an effective survey of those homes that are having a problem, and this was one of the central recommendations of the BRE report that I just referred to. I think that is an appropriate way forward.

There's a lot more I could've said. I think Mick, in fairness, did capture the real concern that the people who have suffered poor practice feel, and I don't think any of us can gainsay that, because it's a fundamental issue. Really bad insulation is completely unacceptable and leads to great, great suffering on the part of those who are affected.

It’s a great pleasure to take part in this debate. It is a debate about fairness and it’s an issue that affects the lives of thousands of people in Wales. Cavity wall insulation has been installed in almost four million homes across the United Kingdom, but in three million of those it has caused a great deal of problems.

This kind of insulation, retrospective insulation, was promoted by the United Kingdom Government, the Welsh Government and energy companies as well as local councils. The initial aim was to decrease energy costs by about £250 a year for each home and to meet energy efficiency targets set by the Government.

In many cases in my consistency in Arfon, cavity wall insulation hasn’t had that effect. Rather, it has caused problems such as mould, damp, dry rot and damage to fixtures and fittings. The dampness in its turn has caused health problems, asthma, breathing problems, without mentioning anxiety and worry. Even though it is a significant problem, there’s no research undertaken of any kind that we can call significant, or a public call for people to come forward to acknowledge those who have suffered as a result.

Much of this insulation was installed by energy companies or by their subcontractors as part of the Green Deal and ECO schemes of the United Kingdom Government. Many people felt that they could trust such schemes that were supported by the Government. They didn’t question how appropriate their properties were for this insulation or the ability of the installers to do so properly.

It’s true to say that the compensation process through the CIGA has been unsatisfactory, with vulnerable people still suffering in damp homes. Now, the guarantee scheme of the industry has disappointed many and the installers and the agency have a history of not taking complaints seriously and rejecting or refusing to offer redress and sufficient compensation. There’s a culture of ignoring customer requests and a failure to provide full responses to simple questions and denying responsibility.

Energy companies such as E.ON, SSE, Npower and EDF are still promoting CWI, even though British Gas stopped doing this some time ago. And as we heard, the Nest programme of this Welsh Government is still encouraging people to install CWI in this country, despite the problems continuing. Many of the companies that installed CWI have failed by now. People only have the guarantee agency to turn to. People have criticised the agency for failing to respond appropriately to concerns about poorly installed or insulation installed in unsuitable properties.

In Arfon, Hywel Williams MP has been active in trying to support constituents. We’ve seen hitherto 80 or more cases and in those cases nobody has a copy of the pre-installation report that should have been completed by the installer before installing the CWI. This despite the fact that CIGA continues to state that pre-installation reports were undertaken for all properties and that insulation would not have been installed if the property wasn't appropriate. But I’m sorry to say that that isn’t the experience we’ve had in Arfon.

One constituent in Arfon has been battling with these problems for almost four years, and the installation company has since gone bust and the agency has refused responsibility for over two years. At last, they’ve offered to withdraw the insulation from one wall, but I understand from one expert in the extraction industry that withdrawing it from one wall can cause cold spots that can lead to deterioration in the long term. So, that’s not a solution at all.

Hywel Williams has been taking action for years to seek answers and fairness for constituents in Arfon and in Wales, and I know that there are others who’ve helped a great deal in Wales. I also thank Pauline Saunders and CIVALLI for their important work in this area. It’s about time for the thousands who’ve had totally unacceptable experiences as a result of CWI to receive fair play. I thank Mick and Mike and the rest very much for bringing this debate forward.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. First of all, can I thank Mick for the very detailed background to, and analysis of, actually, the issues leading to the tabling of this motion? So, I personally just want to add a few comments of my own to support what Mick has already said, particularly in relation to the impact on some of my constituents.

What became apparent to me very early on in my tenure as an AM was that I started to see a pattern emerging in my casework and in some of the correspondence that I was receiving from constituents, and it's a pattern that actually continues today, relating to people who've had cavity wall insulation work undertaken in their homes. The pattern has become relatively familiar. So, we get the promotion of insulation works, we get householders taking up the offers of insulation work only to find that, at some point after that, problems such as damp start arising, and it becomes quickly apparent that the cases coming to my attention were not isolated, which I didn't realise at that time, but formed part of a much wider pattern. I'm very grateful to Assembly colleagues as we've researched and worked together to establish the nature and extent of these problems. I'm sorry to say that it doesn't seem that this is going to be an easy situation to resolve.

There are a mix of issues in this whole problem that range from lack of preparatory surveys, which we've heard Siân and Mick talk about, by suitably qualified staff, leading to inappropriate work being undertaken on the homes and inappropriate work then being undertaken in social housing stock without the knowledge of landlords, and those landlords now having to pay to remove some of the insulation work that's been completed, a complete lack of accountability or accreditation on the part of contractors who've undertaken the insulation work, and the weakness of the guarantee that Mick was talking about in the sector. In truth, the Cavity Insulation Guarantee Agency does not appear to be fit for purpose; indeed, it appears overwhelmed by the scale of the issues that it's facing. That's why I chose to add my name to this motion.

It allows me to report on cases like the elderly constituent who had cavity wall insulation installed almost two years ago via a Government scheme and, as a result, she's now experiencing major damp problems throughout her property. The constituent has approached the contractor, and the contractor stated that, in their opinion, the damp is related to condensation and that there's nothing further that they can do. Luckily, in this case, the contractor is still trading and the constituent is now in the process of starting a claim with CIGA as she has a 25-year guarantee. Unfortunately, for many others, where the contractor is no longer in business, taking such a case is not always straightforward, leaving some homeowners facing huge bills as they have to rectify the work themselves.

This motion supports the cause of constituents like this, facing inconvenience and costs, after defective insulation work has been carried out. In almost every case, these costs were not anticipated or budgeted for, and, in many cases, are eating into valuable pension moneys or savings and, in the worst cases, are putting people into debt when they have to borrow money to rectify the work. And then there are the costs for social landlords, where they're having to spend money on corrections to their properties, money that cannot now be spent on expanding or improving their housing stock.

There is, of course, an ongoing need to understand more about the problems and to extend our understanding of how it came about, and there must be lessons to be learned—especially as we continue to retrofit older properties to become more energy efficient. But perhaps more pressing is to ensure that we have a system that is fit for purpose going forward; a system that can assist householders as consumers; a system that delivers greater guarantees and security for consumers. As I said at the start, there is no quick fix to this problem, but we must be willing to improve the situation, going forward. 

Thanks to Mick Antoniw and the other various Members who were responsible for bringing today's debate. I think we're not going to have as much media interest in this debate as in the previous one, but it is an important subject, especially to householders who've suffered from poorly installed cavity wall insulation, or CWI. Now, Mick, in his well-researched speech, which opened today's debate, highlighted many of the problems in securing compensation for poor installations, partly because of the lack of teeth of CIGA, and he hinted at possible conflicts of interest with CIGA and its connections to the industry in general. Siân Gwenllian was talking about the consequent health issues that can arise with poorly installed CWI, so I think that there is a case for us to try and push, here, for anything that would help redress the situation. So, there is a case for greater consumer protection and for better standards across the industry.

Properly installed CWI should make a strong contribution towards tackling the problem of fuel poverty, as David Melding spoke about in his contribution. He quoted a figure of £150 of savings. I've got a figure coming from the Energy Saving Trust, which estimates that £225 can be saved annually on fuel bills in an average detached house through properly installed CWI. Because of these kinds of savings, an average household can recoup the installation cost, potentially, within four years. We are keen, in UKIP, to deal effectively with fuel poverty, so this is a positive measure that we could back, and we do. Another major benefit is in cutting down on carbon dioxide emissions, so an improvement in the CWI industry would also have a positive effect on the environment. And, as you'll all be aware, UKIP is always keen on policies that benefit the environment, so we support today's motion.

I'm also pleased to take part in this debate. I thank Mick Antoniw and others—other Members—for bringing this forward. It's encouraging, to a point, that other Members are experiencing or have got constituents that have experienced the same issues as mine; I don't feel alone. I think Dawn Bowden alluded to that as well.

In my contribution, I would like to highlight the plight of one of my elderly constituents. Her only income is a state pension and she now lives in a damp 1950s property on an exposed hilltop location in Montgomeryshire. What she contends is that her home has been severely affected by damp since receiving a Welsh Government-funded grant for cavity wall insulation in 2005, which, according to her GP, is having a detrimental effect on her health. She believes that her property was one of those that was unsuitable for receiving cavity wall insulation, due to its very exposed position, located on a hilltop some 800m above sea level, which is, of course, susceptible to wind-driven rain. Two subsequent CIGA inspections found that the cavity wall insulation appeared to have been installed in compliance with system designer and British Board of Agrément specifications. As a result, and due to the lack of available evidence to the contrary, and lack of financial resource to challenge this decision further, my constituent has been unsuccessful at arbitration and is unable to seek redress. So, as you can imagine, she's greatly frustrated by this and, of course, I feel frustrated as well that I don't feel that I can give her any other further course of action as well.

A Building Research Establishment report has found that the majority of Wales is in an area of very severe exposure to wind and rain, and therefore is an unsuitable location for receiving cavity wall insulation. The BRE report also identifies concerns as to the effectiveness of the insulation guarantee mechanism that is available to residents. From the evidence obtained during the completion of the report, none of the 24 sites included as part of the study were successful with claims through the insulation guarantee mechanism. But the response from CIGA in general stated that the failure was not down to the inspection but other reasons such as lack of maintenance or occupier behaviour.

Now, I do have great concerns that my constituent’s home—and others like it—was unsuitable to receive cavity wall insulation in the first place due to its very exposed position. From my own investigation, I’ve found that—I can only assume that the penetration of the wind-driven rain, which soaked through to the cavity wall insulation and to the internal walls—. It can only be assumed, I think, that the dampness affecting the cavity wall insulation has exacerbated the deterioration of the external and internal walls, which provides the reasoning that CIGA gives for contravening the 25-year guarantee.

The Government-funded grant scheme to provide cavity wall insulation is aimed towards those with limited income and the most vulnerable members of the community. So, I am concerned that a Welsh Government grant scheme that my constituent received for cavity wall insulation has left her in the lurch and failed to help her in her time of need. So, I would be grateful if the Minister, in response to this debate, could perhaps give some advice to my constituent going forward: what action the Government intends to take to provide some redress with regard to compensation, and what plans the Government has to work with partners to review the effectiveness of the insulation guarantee mechanisms to strengthen consumer protection in this area.  

I’m very pleased to see this motion being debated in the Chamber today, and I’d like to thank the Members for bringing this forward. As Mick Antoniw says, we must pay tribute to everyone who has come forward today. My constituent, Pauline Saunders, who is in the public gallery today, is a tenacious campaigner and, I think, recognised by many of us around this Chamber. I'd like to commend Pauline for all of the work that she has done on behalf of many people in Wales and the UK.

As we’ve heard, thousands of people have been adversely affected by the poor installation of cavity wall insulation, and today I am going to focus on Pauline’s experience. Pauline’s semi-detached home had always been free from damp. But shortly after the cavity wall insulation, the wallpaper began to bubble and wood panelling became mouldy, with walls damp to the touch. Pauline contacted Mark Group, the initial installers, who sent a surveyor to inspect the property. They said that the damp issue was due to property maintenance. And having had no previous issues with the property, Pauline knew that this did not seem likely. The company offered no solution, responsibility or compensation for the problems.

Following this, Pauline requested that a CIGA surveyor inspect the property. CIGA offer a 25-year guarantee if anything goes wrong with an installation. Knowing this, she asked specifically about the rubble in the wall. It was through Pauline’s own research that she knew that cavity wall insulation should never be carried out if there is debris within the cavity. Even after insisting that CIGA conduct checks thoroughly, my constituent was told that no debris was present. It was only when her husband removed a brick from the wall that they found copious amounts within the cavity.

Eventually, Pauline received £1,750 in compensation, and the insulation was removed. But she only received this after a report that was sent to her in error. The report stated:

‘The property was and is unsuitable for cavity wall insulation and should not have been insulated.’

Now, that is scandalous. Without that report, which was never intended for her eyes, she believes that she would never have received the compensation.

Although her case has been resolved, Pauline realised that her experience had unearthed genuine concerns with how the industry dealt with their customers. She thought that many others would be in a similar position, but less able to present their claims. Many who contacted Pauline were elderly and vulnerable and they financially struggled with the persistent problems caused by unsuitable insulation. It was at this point that Pauline, along with others, formed CIVALLI— the Cavity Insulation Victims Alliance. Since then, she has continued to campaign tirelessly for residents who have been the victim of poor workmanship or installations that should never have happened in the first place.

Pauline has proven herself to be a force to be reckoned with and is an inspiration. The testimonies of people who have been helped by CIVALLI prove how much of an impact Pauline and other volunteers have had. One said: 

'She gave us well informed advice each step of the way, which has helped enormously...Without Pauline’s support and advice I don’t know where we’d be. We are so grateful. She is a wonderful, passionate and driven lady who deserves a medal!' 

And I think we all agree with that.

Pauline and others at CIVALLI did this entirely voluntarily, helping others to navigate the minefield and tortuous process, as Mick has already said. While CIVALLI have been tremendously successful in highlighting these issues and providing support to victims, it's important that we, as Assembly Members, and the Welsh Government act to protect those who have been affected and who are vulnerable from falling into this position. That's why I'm proud to speak for this motion today, firstly to pay tribute to my constituent, Pauline Saunders, for all she's done and continues to do, and secondly to urge the Welsh Government to work with and press the UK Government and CIGA to provide proper accountability and compensation for incorrect insulation. It's crucial that we strengthen our consumer protection to ensure that no-one has to go through the same difficulties as my constituent and many others in Wales.

Thank you. Can I Call the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs, Lesley Griffiths?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I, too, welcome this opportunity to discuss this very important matter, which continues to concern Members and their constituents. It's something I recognised in my written statement of 13 June, where I set out the actions we were taking to address the problem.

We are all aware of the serious hardship that cavity wall insulation failure can cause, particularly to vulnerable households who are often the priority for such measures. These are households who, with good intentions, believed it would keep their homes warmer and their fuel bills down. Cavity wall insulation is a cost-effective way of reducing fuel bills when installed correctly. The Cavity Insulation Guarantee Agency, known as CIGA, has been the largest guarantee provider for cavity wall insulation and is also a competent person scheme operator under our building regulations.

Data from CIGA indicates there have been 67,630 CWI installations carried out in Wales under their competent person scheme from its introduction in October 2010 to this month. Since 1995, CIGA have issued over 330,000 guarantees here in Wales. Their data indicates that there have been just over 4,167 Welsh complaints, which equates to a complaint rate of 1.26 per cent. Although, as a percentage, this is small, when there are problems, the consequences can be devastating, as Mick pointed out. Having effective redress where failure does happen is crucial. This is something that, clearly, from the correspondence I receive, has been brought into question, and so has been the focus of our discussions with CIGA.

My written statement identified three main areas of concern. They are: the quality of pre-installation assessments, the information given to householders, and the process for redress when things go wrong. From 1 October this year, I made changes to strengthen the requirements for building regulations competent person schemes responsible for CWI in Wales. One of the main changes now requires the pre-installation building inspection to be independently checked before the installation is carried out. This, I hope, will go a long way in reducing insulation being installed in unsuitable properties. A further change requires a more frequent surveillance regime by scheme operators. Again, this should result in fewer non-compliance installations and will also identify any bad practice by installers.

The importance of maintaining your property following cavity wall insulation is crucial. CIGA have developed a property care pack for householders, advising on the need to maintain their homes. This is encouraging, as the need for maintenance must be highlighted to the householder before they make the decision to have the work done.

Cavity wall insulation is offered to some of the poorest homes in Wales, and households must be clear on their obligations if they are to avoid the risk of subsequent failure and invalidating their warranty. I know this is something CIVALLI has recognised, and it's an area that we have raised with CIGA. 

As I've mentioned CIVALLI, like others, I too want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Pauline Saunders and the work she and her group have done over the years in raising awareness and helping households. I'm very pleased she and others have joined us in the public gallery today.

Whilst the actions I have highlighted should help reduce the number of future failures, this does not help households already faced with cavity wall insulation failure. Dealing with these legacy claims has therefore been a key point of discussion with CIGA. CIGA have made changes to their complaints-handling system and appointed a consumer champion. Whilst this is encouraging, I have directed my officials to continue to meet with CIGA and others to identify further positive action in relation to consumer redress, as it is imperative we continue to ensure effective redress is available. 

The bulk of cavity insulation is funded through Government-funded programmes, one of the major programmes being the UK Government's energy company obligation scheme and its predecessors. Commissioned by the UK Government, the 'Each Home Counts' review has led to a programme of work started earlier in the year, developing best practice on consumer advice and protection, standards and enforcement for a range of home energy efficiency and renewable energy measures. This work is eagerly awaited, if it delivers what's expected, and is adopted for ECO, drastically taking really important matters forward. 

Arbed and Nest, our two schemes, already have robust quality control processes, and I really do hope the UK Government, when bringing forward this work, adopt this. It is important we understand when this work will complete and how soon it will have an impact. I will be writing to the UK Government asking for very clear timescales. 

Russell George mentioned one of his constituents in particular, and I'd be very grateful if you wrote to me specifically about the details so I can look into it.

Cavity wall insulation may also be included as part of a package of measures installed under our Welsh Government Warm Homes, Nest and Arbed schemes. However, our approach, using a qualified assessor to determine which energy efficiency measures are recommended for each property, ensures only the most appropriate measures are installed. We also do not allow cold calling. We are further strengthening the process and the development of our new Nest and Arbed schemes, which will be delivered from April 2018. This will include strict guarantee requirements, robust monitoring and assurance and inspections of all installations. New data about the condition and energy efficiency of all types of housing in Wales will become available as part of the Welsh housing conditions survey 2017-18. We will review this data to see what it tells us about the presence of CWI and damp issues in Welsh homes, and what further steps we can take in light of this.

Mick Antoniw, in his opening remarks, mentioned about further powers we may be getting that might help us in this area. I'm not aware of any powers that will be coming to us following the Government of Wales Act 2017 next year in relation to energy that would help in this area. Most of the powers that we're getting are around consent and generation.

So, just to conclude, Deputy Presiding Officer, I and my Government colleagues will be supporting this motion. I will continue to work with those who set standards, the UK Government, CIGA and others to further encourage effective consumer protection and good practice through our building regulations, UK-led schemes and those directly delivered here in Wales. Diolch.

Thank you. Can I call on Mike Hedges to reply to the debate?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Well, we know this stretches the length and breadth of Wales. We've had Siân Gwenllian from the north, we've had Jayne Bryant from the east, we've had Dawn Bowden, Mick Antoniw and David Melding from South Wales Central, we've had Russell George from mid Wales and me from Swansea. It is a problem throughout the whole of Wales, and that's a point that I think we've managed to get across. We've had Gareth Bennett also, sorry, from South Wales Central. 

I think that it really is important that we've got cross-party support for it. Every one of us Assembly Members does our best for our constituents, and we might disagree on major policies, but we all try and do our best for our constituents. Every single one of us has been upset when we see people with mould coming through in their house, crumbling plaster, wood panelling coming off the wall, damp in the property, the drop in the property's value, dry rot and the health effects—people with asthma and anxiety, which was mentioned. One thing people didn't mention, which I'm sure we've all come across, is the tears—the absolute upset when people have their home in a state, which they thought was wonderful and they enjoyed, seeing it now no longer as it was. People who tend to suffer it are often the poor and often the elderly who seem to have been targeted, as Mick Antoniw outlined. And I think it really is serious and it falls on all of us to try and do our utmost to try and get something done. 

If the last debate may not have been the Assembly at its best, I think this is the Assembly at its best where we're all trying to work for our own constituents, who all suffer exactly the same problems. I and Mick Antoniw don't share the confidence of the Cabinet Secretary in CIGA. From what I've seen of them when I've had to deal with them, as Mick Antoniw outlined, they seem to be very good at trying to get out of making payments. I congratulate the constituent of Jayne Bryant in actually getting money, because I didn't think anybody ever had. That's the first time I've actually met anybody who's managed to get it. I know people who've spent lots of time, lots of effort, and people have mentioned it right through the debate, of trying to take it up, and I find only 4,167 complaints. I don't think that equates to the number of problems. I think that an awful lot of people aren't sure how to complain, and a lot of elderly people aren't good at complaining; they just accept it as this is how it is, and when they come along and say, 'It is your fault', they accept that as well. Why a house that has been up for 120 years without any problems, 12 months after having cavity wall insulation put in has a problem, I don't quite understand, and I'm sure that most Members here don't understand as well. 

It really is something that I'm very pleased—and I hope—we'll get unanimous support for. The UK Government has an obligation to sort this out. This is something that is not massively expensive for them in terms of the way they deal with billions here, but it is having such a serious effect, as everybody's outlined, on the lives of individuals and, in many cases, on how people spend the last few years of their life. I think it really is important that something is done.

David Melding is absolutely right. It is of benefit when in an appropriate place and done correctly, but far too often it's been done incorrectly in inappropriate places. It cannot be right that people get up in the morning and see mould coming through and are then being told, 'It's all your fault, you're not looking after it properly.' I don't believe that. I believe the majority of Members in here don't believe that. I hope people will support this, and I hope we can keep on taking this forward because I speak now on behalf of my constituents, rather than in replying to the debate, and I'm not giving up. I'm going to continue fighting, and I hope other Members in here will keep on doing so as well. Thank you.

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. 

We now move to item 7 on our agenda this afternoon, which is the Welsh Conservative debate on Betsi Cadwaladr University Local Health Board, and I call on Angela Burns to move the motion. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm delighted to be able to open the Welsh Conservative debate tabled in the name of my colleague Paul Davies. You'll see from our motion on the order paper that it can be taken in four separate points. We pay tribute to the staff, we note the Welsh Government's decision to place the health board into special measures, but we believe that those special measures have failed and we're calling on the Welsh Government to take forward some action.

We've chosen to focus on Betsi Cadwaladr because it is our largest health board, and it has been in special measures for the longest of time and I would like to start, before I do anything else, my contribution by paying tribute to the hard work that the staff, the NHS staff in Betsi Cadwaladr undertake. They're operating in a very difficult environment with straitened resources and increasing pressure, and if it wasn't for these dedicated, overstretched and often under-appreciated staff, then the situation would be far worse than it currently is. I've visited a number of hospitals in the Betsi region, and I've always left impressed by and grateful for the work of the staff and the staff themselves. 

We should remind ourselves briefly of the scale of the challenge, because the Betsi Cadwaladr university health board is the largest in Wales and provides services for close to 700,000 people and employs some 16,500. The size of the board's estate is massive—

Will you take an intervention?

You'll have to be quick.

Could I just ask, through you, that the Cabinet Secretary stops what he's doing and actually listens to the debate?

The size of the board's estate is massive. It covers three district hospitals, 22 other community and acute hospitals, 19 medical centres and 121 GP practices. And, as I've known when I've driven up there, it's in a geographically pretty diverse area and it can take literally hours to get from one side to the other.

However, we should also remind ourselves that, while recognising the challenges that an organisation of this size faces, the health board has been in special measures for nearly two and a half years now—since June 2015. This was a decision taken by the Welsh Government, and today I'm calling on the Welsh Government to provide a comprehensive update on where this health board's status currently stands. For the sake of its staff and the patients as well as the public of north Wales, we must know how close we are to seeing the board move out of special measures and what tangible improvements there are since special measures were imposed 29 months ago.

This is important because, despite being in the highest form of Welsh Government control, Betsi Cadwaladr still trails behind Wales's other six health boards on a number of major performance indicators. As well as having the highest projected budget deficit, waiting times for routine treatments have spiralled, with the number of patients waiting longer than 52 weeks for routine surgery rising by a staggering 2,550 per cent to stand at 2,491 individuals in September 2017. Given that more than an extra £10 million has been spent on keeping the health board in special measures and that its budget overspend is set to reach £50 million, I am concerned that we still haven't seen that coherent plan for improvement from the Government, from the Cabinet Secretary and from his team.

Other contributors will look more closely at some of the key issues that affect Betsi. They are local AMs who, with their families and friends, make use of the health service that the trust offers on a regular basis, and they see at their regular surgeries the problems that patients using the local health service face. However, I would like to highlight one key issue that I feel drives this message home: 100-day plans were put in place to deliver urgent improvements, but more than two years on since the improvement framework was instigated, there remain serious concerns about the health board's ability to manage its finances and to deliver safe, sustainable and timely services to the people of north Wales. This is coupled with the fact that, since being placed in special measures, Welsh Government Ministers have held more than 90 meetings or discussions with the health board, in addition to those held with Welsh Government officials, yet the boards de-escalation out of special measures seems to be lacking a coherent overarching strategic direction.

And it's not just Betsi Cadwaladr, obviously, that's under this cloud. I surely do not need to remind Members that three other boards are working under the targeted intervention level of Government support—those of Cardiff and Vale, Abertawe Bro Morgannwg and Hywel Dda health boards.

So, we talk about special measures and targeted interventions, but what do these terms actually mean for the people on the ground? Special measures should refer to a range of actions that can be taken to improve health boards in exceptional circumstances, i.e. as a last resort, and it happens when a health board or a trust is not making the improvements expected and there are concerns that the leadership and management require external support. Targeted intervention sits one level below special measures and means that the Welsh Government may take actions that include arranging mentoring for individual board or executive team members and appointing experienced individuals with the necessary clinical and/or governance skills onto the board for a finite period.

The Welsh Government's NHS Wales escalation and intervention arrangements document, produced in 2014, outlines the ways that interventions can be de-escalated. So, will the Cabinet Secretary please inform the Assembly about the de-escalation criteria for Betsi Cadwaladr, whether it has been met and, if not, when it is due to be met? I ask this question in light of a response that I received to a written question on 23 November, asking about the Cabinet Secretary's confidence that Welsh health boards are demonstrating improved financial performance. The Cabinet Secretary responded with:

'I am disappointed that Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board is not yet demonstrating the necessary action to deliver their control total. My officials have commissioned an independent financial governance review of the Health Board which is currently being undertaken.'

Cabinet Secretary, can you clarify for me exactly what is meant by 'control total'? What worries me is that you have here a health board that is under special measures yet needs to have further intervention to tackle financial problems. Surely, after all the time and money that this health board has had pumped into it during its time in special measures, it is a dereliction of duty to only now realise that an independent financial governance review is necessary. It strikes me that a financial audit should have been done at the start of this process, Cabinet Secretary, not 30 months into it. How much worse do things need to be before this situation gets the focused attention it so desperately needs? Surely this will only delay the health board emerging from special measures. And this is critical, because, whilst that health board is in special measures, its reputation is tarnished, its staff are demoralised, it's finding it difficult to recruit people, and there are a whole range of ripple effects that being under that special measures process has.

I have absolutely no problem at all with you as the Cabinet Secretary, with you as the Welsh Government, looking at something and saying, 'This is not performing well enough—we have to improve it; we will put it into special measures.' I completely get it. But what I don't think anybody else gets is what those special measures mean, because, after almost 30 months, we should have seen some level of improvement, and that level of improvement is not there. I would lay against the Welsh Government that, actually, you have this problem throughout the whole of your public service delivery, because we have seen education, we have seen councils, being put into special measures, under ministerial advisory review boards, under targeted interventions, and I do not think there's a coherence as to what special measures mean.

I have highlighted that there should be clear routes in and out of special measures, clear ways to de-escalate, and such a lack of clarity leads to real confusion for people in Wales, and, in this instance, for the people of north Wales. I think that you are paying lip service to intervention; I think there needs to be a common approach across departments, a clear and definable understanding as to what constitutes the top intervention in a health board. I think special measures should be the final option; it should mean boots on the ground, a thorough review of all aspects of a health board—not, you know, reviewing aspects when you're half way in, or, in this case, 30 months in—and we should have a clear way of how those health boards, and this particular health board, can move themselves back out. And I ask you to listen to our debate today, listen to the comments my colleagues are going to make, as they are there, on the front line, and actually come up with a clear and coherent plan that all of us can understand.

Special measures are no good if it merely means 90 chats with you and your officials. It's got to be tangible, and if that health board is struggling to such an extent that you're now having to commission a financial governance review, you really have to put experienced soldiers onto that front line, because we ain't gonna win the battle for good health and good levels of healthcare in north Wales otherwise.

Thank you. I have selected the two amendments to the motion and I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services to formally move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Julie James.

Formally.

Thank you. I call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to move amendment 2, tabled in his name. Rhun.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I speak as Plaid Cymru shadow Secretary for health, but I speak also as a representative of a constituency in the Betsi Cadwaladr region, as do other Members here, and I’m sure I’m speaking on behalf of many of those when I say that communication from constituents, my contact with constituents, show beyond any doubt the strain on that particular health board and the difficulties that health board is having in delivering the services that we expect.

It’s over two years now since Betsi Cadwladr was placed in special measures. We know what we expect when a health board is placed in special measures: we expect improvements. We expect performance to improve. But whilst not for one second doubting the Government’s aspiration to improve performance and managers’ desire to turn the corner, whilst paying the sincerest possible tribute to the staff who work so hard on the front line, there is far too much evidence, I’m afraid, that this is a health board that continues to face terrible problems. That’s not to ignore those things that have been done well within Betsi Cadwaladr, and I’m very grateful to the chief executive for contacting me and other Members yesterday, emphasising those areas where the board is performing well, but mental health workers tell me how difficult it is for them to respond to the needs of the people of north Wales, and that includes child and adolescent mental health. Yesterday, I mentioned a patient who couldn’t get an acute mental health bed and had to be transported overnight to the south-east of England.

Ophthalmic care is clearly under strain according to my inbox. The shortage of GPs is critical. When they’re not extracting teeth, dentists are pulling their hair out because of the strain that they are facing. Orthopaedics continues to be a very grave problem. A consistent flow of patients on waiting lists are coming to see me. They may be waiting for a hip or a knee in order to ensure that they can live vibrant, healthy lives, and it is quite unacceptable that they are told that waiting times for emergency surgery in some cases is 106 weeks. We know from the experiences of last winter when the capacity for orthopaedic surgery was cut—because of winter pressures, so they told us—then the situation has got worse in terms of waiting lists. Waiting over two years for emergency treatment for a new hip is scandalous. There is no other word to describe it.

So, we welcome the motion. We will reject the Labour Party amendment because I’m afraid I am not willing to note the

'significant support provided by the Welsh Government'

to the board

'to work to stabilise and recover its position',

because that suggests that they are providing sufficient support. That clearly isn’t the case. Support takes a number of forms, of course—not just financial support. I want the board also to have support in terms of a Government that is far more innovative in its attitude to delivery of healthcare in Wales, which is truly pushing the integration agenda in order to enable care and health services to work together for example.

Turning to our own amendments, you’ll not be surprised to see me introducing an amendment that focuses on the workforce and the need to train more professionals for the health workforce. I hope I can rely on the support of all parties. There’s nothing contentious in saying that we will—

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, of course.

Thank you very much for taking the intervention. I'd like to assure the Member for Ynys Môn that we, the Welsh Conservatives, will be supporting your amendment, because you make a very valid point in it.

Thank you. I appreciate that support. 

There is nothing contentious, of course, in calling for an increase in the level of training. Where there is disagreement between ourselves and the Government is on how we provide that new capacity. There is an ambition for us to develop Bangor University as a centre—or there is a general ambition, if truth be told, to develop Bangor University as a centre of excellence in the area of research and healthcare training. We have an ambition to develop the medical education centre too, and there are very real opportunities to train nurses as well as other health professionals and doctors. In saying that, I’m talking about training undergraduates from the first year, not simply securing placements for students from other colleges to spend more time in north Wales, although there is nothing wrong with that, of course. There is a lot to be said for ambition. There is a grave risk in allowing others to show ambition and not trying to catch up. Chester University is in the process of establishing a medical school. There is very real concern about the impact that that could have on Bangor University, unless a real effort is made to bring medical education there too.

I will conclude. The risk register of Betsi Cadwaladr states this:

'There is a risk that the Health Board is unable to meet its statutory responsibilities to provide a primary care service to the population of North Wales.... There is a risk that the Health Board will have difficulty recruiting and retaining high quality staff in certain areas'.

I'm concerned about that. We really need to see this Government, which is in charge of Betsi Cadwaladr, start planning for the workforce that Betsi Cadwaladr and all our other health boards need for the future, with innovation. Otherwise, the current workforce will continue to be asked to do the impossible, and both they and their patients deserve better.

The performance, be it good or otherwise, of Betsi Cadwaladr university health board affects very directly my own constituents in Aberconwy and is currently making up a great deal of casework. It is worthy of note that, within this board, the MRSA and MSSA case rates are the lowest in Wales, and red ambulance call-out times and cancer treatment within 31 days are the second best in Wales. And, where we see good practice, we want to celebrate that and we applaud it.

However, the matters raised certainly in my contribution today will highlight the continued failings and much criticism of the Welsh Government health Secretary. Deputy Llywydd, in January of this year, I raised the issue of GP shortages in this Chamber. We've seen surgery after surgery close in Aberconwy, and yet this was an area of improvement as a means of the special measures process. In February, I raised the issue of trauma and orthopaedic waiting times. Since Government intervention, the number of patients waiting over a year for surgery has risen by 2,127 per cent to 1,782. I have constituents waiting 130 weeks—that's two and a half years—for what is considered to be urgent and vital treatment, all the while facing every day with sickening pain and real debilitation.

In March, I raised concerns over support for mental health patients. I had to do it again yesterday to the First Minister. I was distressed to learn recently that a patient requiring serious psychiatric intervention could face an unacceptable waiting time of up to 18 months. I have another case where access to mental health treatment is so bad that one of my constituents has previously attempted suicide.

Healthcare issues in north Wales that I've had to raise constantly, month after month, week after week—and yet, here we are, at the end of November 2017, and, as my colleague Angela Burns has said, 30 months after interventions by your Government and by you, as the Cabinet Secretary who's responsible for delivering good-quality healthcare across Wales. 

We see no noticeable improvement, with the board now facing the highest projected budget deficit and seriously trailing behind the rest of Wales on a number of high-level performance indicators. Next year, it will be refreshing to actually see better performance and not having to keep raising issues on behalf of my constituents—for each and every one of the 3,368 patients facing a wait of 100 weeks for elective orthopaedic surgery, for my elderly constituent who has not only faced a wait of almost three years for a colonoscopy, but whose frustration was further compounded by being forced to wait five months even for just a modest reply from the health board.

Now, I do want to highlight and commend the staff working within the health board. I actually feel very sorry for them, because they take a lot of the brunt of your failing in your performance. They're working under extreme pressures and they're performing a fantastic, often thankless, task. But I am concerned at instances of clinical staff working 24-hour shifts. Studies have shown the detrimental effects of a lack of sleep on performance and concentration, and such situations seriously harm, putting patients and our staff in danger. We saw last month the number of deaths this year caused by unintended or unexpected incidents—41. More than half of those recorded occurred within Betsi Cadwaladr university health board. Deputy Llywydd, that is 41 patients, 41 families, loved ones torn apart by loss, grief and unbearable devastation.

Cabinet Secretary, I have raised this issue so many times with you, and, on occasion, when I've raised it with the First Minister, you sit there, quite often shaking your head. At the beginning of this debate—you're not even listening now. At the beginning of this debate, you hadn't the courtesy to listen to my colleague, our opposition spokesperson. Frankly, I'm not sure how seriously you take your role. It has been unclear from the start just how the Welsh Government is managing the board under special measures, so we're calling today for you to outline with some clarity what steps you are taking to ensure the financial uncertainty at Betsi board does not undermine the delivery of services, and to publish a clear action plan for returning the health board to its normal status.

The situation as it stands is unsustainable, and is actually quite unacceptable. We look across the border and we see so much better performance. Why should there be a postcode lottery? Why should my constituents, and any other constituent living in north Wales, have to suffer poor practice and a very, very poor Cabinet health Secretary who, frankly, in my opinion, isn't on top of his job?

The self-proclaimed party of the NHS really, really doesn't seem up to the job. Even using the excuse that it takes a while to turn around a health system once it's in special measures doesn't cut it, since Labour have been governing Wales for two decades now, and Betsi Cadwaladr got into its current state on their watch. Blaming Westminster is also tenuous at best, as Labour make a great play of wanting matters devolved to this place so that the Welsh Government can run them—all the recent argument over a potential Brexit power grab, and here we have an example of how this Government fails when it is given control of one of the most important public services. 

Labour keep saying that more should be devolved, but then, when they're shown up as not competent to run a service, as in the case of Betsi Cadwaladr, they try to find a way to blame Westminster. Well, this is the Welsh Government's fault, fair and square. The Government has been banging on about all the things that it is going to do to try and improve the Betsi Cadwaladr university health board, and unsurprisingly silent on the things it isn't doing.

Nowhere has Labour suggested making the members of the health boards more accountable. UKIP campaigned for elected health boards so that they would be accountable to the people of Wales. Accountability—this is on a single issue and can't be fudged, which is probably why Labour argued against this progressive idea. Whilst it is obvious that the Labour Government doesn't have the will to get rid of incompetence, I'm absolutely confident that the Welsh public do have the will, and elected health boards will enable that to happen. 

Nothing the Government has done is working, so why should we continue to let them try? The waiting lists aren't just statistics. They represent the pain and suffering of the people on those waiting lists and the stress imposed on patients, their family and front-line staff. The waiting lists are getting worse, staff morale is going down, health outcomes are taking a hit, but none of the health board have been given their marching orders and none of the mega-salaried NHS managers have been sacked. 

And there is the impact that is far wider-reaching than the health concerns of the patient. Front-line staff must be feeling incredible pressure, having to work even harder than our dedicated NHS staff already do to make up for the incompetence of senior managers in Welsh Government. Labour are also the self-proclaimed party of the workers. Are they happy with the pressure they're putting these public sector workers under? This is about a lot more than a public sector pay freeze. This is about valuing staff and their welfare. Labour also try to say that they're the party of equality, but where is the equality for those whose accident of postcode means they have to wait far longer for treatment than another Welsh or UK citizen?

Betsi Cadwaladr's problems are themselves symptoms—symptoms of a Government that doesn't seem to have the will to do what any other responsible manager would do and sack those big-salaried executives at Betsi Cadwaladr who are responsible for the mismanagement of the health service in north Wales. The Government-led failings at Betsi Cadwaladr show that Labour are not the party for the NHS, not defenders of front-line staff, and do nothing to reduce inequality in health outcomes except to impose the same mismanaged system on everyone reliant on the NHS in north Wales. I believe previous calls for a full public inquiry have been made, and I think they have a lot of merit. If that was to be proposed, I would be prepared to support it. The Welsh NHS is ill, and, unfortunately for the people of Wales, the waiting list for treatment, for when this Government in Cardiff can be replaced, is three years. Thank you.

Our north Wales Betsi Cadwaladr university health board is in special measures and overspent because Labour Welsh Government dismissed our warnings over many years. On each occasion, Labour Ministers dodged responsibility by instead accusing us of talking down our NHS when we were speaking up because staff, patients and families had asked us to do so. The board was only put into special measures in 2015 after an external investigation revealed that patients had suffered institutional abuse in Glan Clwyd Hospital's Ablett acute mental health unit. The then health Minister finally admitted that this decision reflected, quote:

'serious and outstanding concerns about the leadership, governance and progress in the health board over some time.'

The health board stated that it was alerted to serious concerns regarding patient care on the Tawel Fan ward in the Ablett unit in December 2013, but concerns about this ward went back a lot further. For example, in 2009, I represented a constituent who said that the treatment received by her husband there nearly killed him, that three other patients admitted around the same time as her husband had similar experiences, and she was now worried about the treatment others may receive in this unit.

Of course, there have been some positives since special measures. Further to my intervention on behalf of the neurotherapy centre in Flintshire, where health board funding had fallen to just £65 per person compared to £500 from commissioners in West Cheshire, the health board chief executive confirmed a framework on going forward.

When I visited fantastic staff at Wrexham Maelor Hospital this summer with the Hepatitis C Trust, they told me that there were now comprehensive treatment options. They added however that to do what the Welsh Government required would need between six and nine extra hepatology specialist nurses across the health board. We have seen patients waiting months for pain management treatment.

Only this afternoon, the health board announced yet another GP surgery closure. Although special measures saw some move from risk-averse complaints handling to problem solving via direct engagement with complainants, progress has stalled. Typical of this was a recent response to a complaint regarding a patient who died whilst receiving treatment from the health board. Although it apologised and stated that the complaint had been investigated in accordance with regulations, it coldly concluded that there was, quote,

'no qualifying liability on this occasion'.

The bereaved family were deeply distressed and told me that the response included several factual errors.

Betsi Cadwaladr is the only health board in Wales that does not commission services from the Bobath children’s therapy centre, which provides specialist physiotherapy, occupational therapy, and speech and language therapy to children all over Wales who have cerebral palsy. The cost to the remainder is negligible and the savings massive. Together with the centre, and a north Wales parent whose daughter had received its support, I met the health board twice to seek a way forward. They produced a draft report and copied it to us for comment. We each responded on the clear understanding that wider family engagement would only follow after our comments had been incorporated into the draft report. Instead, the unamended draft report was issued to parents with a questionnaire, unfairly biased towards internal provision of services, rather than the provision available from Bobath at a standard beyond which the health board can deliver.

Denied autism assessment, the parents of several daughters have told me that statutory bodies don’t understand that thinking has changed, and that autism presents differently in girls. Although forced to pay for private autism assessment, a 2017 letter from the health board said that Flintshire CAMHS had raised concerns about the rigour and conclusions in a number of private assessments, and in some cases didn’t accept the diagnosis, and that there was a requirement for these to be in line with NICE guidance. However, when I referred this to the clinical psychologist who had carried out these assessments, she confirmed that not only were she and her team NICE compliant, but also that she was a contributor to NICE guidelines.  

This approach helps explain why this health board has registered the highest number of serious patient safety breaches in Welsh hospitals, why it has the worst record for patients waiting longer than four hours in accident and emergency, and, with Wales having double England's level of patients waiting for treatment, why the number of Betsi Cadwaladr patients waiting over a year for routine surgery rose, as we heard earlier, 2,550 per cent, from 94 at the time when special measures were implemented to 2,491 in September 2017. This can't go on.

We've listened to a number of very powerful speeches illustrating the catastrophe that is the Betsi Cadwaladr health board, over which the current Cabinet Secretary, and the previous one who's temporarily left the Chamber, presided. Now, for many, many years, the Labour Party has been accustomed to saying that the national health service is the envy of the world. Well, as far as Betsi Cadwaladr is concerned, I don't know which world they're thinking of—it must be the planet Pluto, because it certainly isn't the envy of anybody in this world of planet Earth. 

Michelle Brown raised a very important point in her speech earlier on, and that is the unresponsiveness of the Betsi Cadwaladr health board towards its patients with the complaints that they've made. We've had a massive number of individual examples that have been trotted out here this afternoon, and I make no apology for returning to a theme that I have raised in the Chamber on several occasions since I was elected: the denuding of the Welsh uplands based around Blaenau Ffestiniog of any substantial health service provision. It's well over a year now since I asked the First Minister what the Welsh Government was going to do about this, given that Betsi Cadwaladr is in special measures. I said, in Gwynedd in particular, in the area around Blaenau Ffestiniog, the record is exactly the opposite to that which the Government claimed in its 'Taking Wales Forward' document's section on health, where they said, 

'We are committed to helping improve health and well-being for all.'

What's happened in the Welsh uplands is entirely the opposite. In the seven well-being areas defined by Gwynedd Council, there is a community hub hospital in every one apart from Blaenau Ffestiniog, because their 24-hour service was closed several years ago and downgraded to a 10-hour health centre, and downgraded again since then. Since 2013, therefore, we’ve seen the closure of a hospital, a loss of hospital beds, the closure of the x-ray service, the closure of the minor injuries unit, the closure of teledermatology clinics and therapy services, two rural branch surgeries have closed, and the GP practice in Blaenau Ffestiniog was supposed to have four full-time doctors, but it’s only got one salaried doctor and a variety of locums. As far as Blaenau Ffestiniog is concerned, they haven’t got a national health service; they've got a notional health service. And in the 14 months since I made that indictment to the First Minister, absolutely nothing has changed despite the special measures, and something has got to be done about it.

Now, we all know, of course, that areas like Blaenau Ffestiniog and its surrounding district pose problems. There's always going to be a tension with the provision of health services in sparsely populated rural areas, but the models that have been chosen are more related to what is appropriate for urban areas rather than rural areas. In urban settings, of course, the tendency is, for very obvious reasons, to pull services together into community healthcare hubs, but in rural north Wales it has been in the other direction. What we should be doing is pushing services into rural areas to gain the patient outcomes without too great a loss of financial efficiency. What we have seen is a very substantial expenditure of money in Blaenau recently—well over £1 million, I believe—but not a single bed is created; we've created dozens and dozens of desks for national health service pen-pushers instead. So, they closed the memorial hospital and replaced it with an office block. That is not what we expect from a health service, and the poor residents of Blaenau and district deserve a great deal better than that. 

Other countries seem to be able to manage to do this. Why can't we? In the United States, rural areas have long enjoyed support and protection from the Rural Health Clinic Services Act of 1977, and the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy and the National Rural Health Association provide a mechanism for rural health campaigners to receive significant support in their interface with Congress.  

We know that there is something called distance decay—that is, the further away you live from a hospital the worse the health outcomes tend to be, because people find it much more difficult to get to hospital so they don't go for treatment in time and regularly enough. There are problems with poverty in rural areas. People have to pay to travel to hospitals that are a distance from their homes, so they don't have a free health service because it actually costs them a great deal of money often in order to get the treatment that they deserve. 

In Scotland, there are some more imaginative models than we've got here in Wales. For example, in the Isle of Skye, they have a model of rural practitioners where the Broadford Hospital is staffed by GPs with additional skills and training in anaesthetics and trauma. The model was developed after a consultation with the local community, and the realisation that the size of their community, which was about 13,000, had a need for some emergency service but couldn't sustain a general hospital. Instead, the Broadford is now an enhanced community hospital. Why can't we do that in Blaenau? The previous health Secretary refused to intervene in the closure of the hospital services in Blaenau because it was supported by the local community health council, but, of course, the local community health council is not elected by anybody in the area that is covered by the hospital closures. That's why we need to introduce the kind of democracy to the health service that Michelle referred to. 

I'm afraid I think I'm at the end of my speech and the Deputy Presiding Officer would not allow me to accept an intervention, although I would have been otherwise delighted to do so.

So, I'm afraid that this catalogue of disaster continues, and I believe that, until we change the Government of this country, it is likely to continue further.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate this afternoon. Although obviously not from the north, through my role as leader of the Welsh Conservatives here, I obviously spend quite a considerable time going up to north Wales and seeking first-hand experience of the plight, as I'd put it, that many people feel they're in about the service that they're getting from the health board, which has now been in special measures for some 30 months. It's worth noting that, obviously, in England, for example, the average special measures stay for a similar health body would be about 21 months.

I don't detract from the fact that there are tensions and issues across the whole of the United Kingdom when it comes to health services. In particular, there is something to be celebrated in that more people are being treated in our health service across the United Kingdom. That's because, obviously, there are far more people on these islands and we're living longer as well, and so health services across the United Kingdom have a real dilemma on their hands of rising demand and an inability to attract the staff that they require to man the wards and man the primary practices.

And there's no more significant case to highlight than that in north Wales, which, for many years—virtually I think for the entire time that I've been an Assembly Member—has struggled with recruitment and retention in particular. We do focus a lot on the recruitment of new staff into the health service, but, actually, retention is a critical part of what we need to be doing in the health service, and no more so than in north Wales. It is regrettable that, if you look at the stats on staff sickness within the health board, they are some of the highest within the health service in Wales, and stress in particular is identified as being one of the most common causes, or the biggest single cause, for staff taking time out, because, obviously, of the pressure that they're under.

It has been now, as I said, some 30 months since the health board has been in special measures. The current Cabinet Secretary has been in position for now 16 or 17 months—maybe even a little longer than that—and I hope he will use the opportunity in responding to this debate today to actually give an honest and frank assessment of where he sees the health board going. It cannot be right that, after 30 months and with the health Secretary in position now for that length of time, we cannot get an honest assessment of how the Welsh Government, with all the resource that the Welsh Government has at its disposal, is not getting to grips with the waiting times, with the staff retention and recruitment and, above all, the budget issues that this health board faces; until recently, it was projected to have, for this financial year, a budget deficit of £50 million. As I understand it, the latest figure indicates that the deficit situation now has been brought down to £36 million, but, in itself, that's the biggest budget deficit as I understand it that this health board will have incurred in a single financial year.

When you do look at the waiting times and the graphic examples that have been given by Members from north Wales, and in particular from my benches here by the regional Member Mark Isherwood and the Aberconwy Member Janet Finch Saunders, of people waiting 12, 18 months, in excess of 100 weeks for treatment, that is something that, in the twenty-first century, we just should not be tolerating. When you actually look at the numbers, if you take the 52-week wait for routine surgery, it has risen from 94 patients in 2015 to, now, a figure of 2,491 in September 2017. That's a rise of 2,500 per cent. Those sorts of figures, for most people, are just incomprehensible. Most people, all they want—they don't expect instant treatment, but they expect a reasonable time for that treatment to be provided.

I do hope that the Cabinet Secretary will give us something hard and tangible that we'll be able to hang on this debate to say that the waiting time situation in the Betsi health board area is being grasped by the Cabinet Secretary and his officers in Cathays Park along with the health board to address these spiralling waits. Accident and emergency, for example, is another area of huge concern that my colleague Darren Millar has highlighted in First Minister's questions and, I believe, in questions to your good self, Cabinet Secretary, with regard to the appalling waiting times that people are having to face in Glan Clwyd, in his own hospital, which serves his constituents, where under 70 per cent of people are being seen within the four-hour target—your own target. Surely, you do not agree with that situation being allowed in a major hospital here in Wales. And so, I would ask, in your address to the debate this afternoon, that you do give us a clear route-map out of special measures that we can hang the hat of this debate on, so that Members can go back to their constituents and say what progress has been made since the health board went into special measures. I do hope that you will clarify the budget situation that the health board finds itself in, because this is your opportunity do that.

Above all, I do hope that you will give us something meaningful on staff recruitment and retention, because without the staff on the front line within our health board, whether that be in a primary or secondary environment, there is no health service. As Angela Burns touched on, they are the backbone, they are the blood that makes our health service work, and it is incumbent on you, with the levers at your disposal, to be able to offer a significant and substantial package of measures that address the chronic understaffing that the Betsi health board faces, both in primary and secondary care.

Can I now call the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services, Vaughan Gething?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'd like to thank Members for a spirited and difficult debate, with lots of criticism, and that is to be expected. I'll recognise at the outset that the Government will support amendment 2, as we do recognise the workforce challenges faced. We might have worded it differently, but I think it's wrong to try and dance on a pin about individual wording in the amendment. We recognise the central challenge that is made and recognised in the amendment.

Following special measures in June 2015, areas outlined for immediate action at the time were: governance, leadership and oversight, mental health services—the most significant area of concern—maternity services at Ysbyty Glan Clwyd, reconnecting with the public, and GP and primary care out-of-hours services. Now, special measures themselves do not amount to the Welsh Government taking direct control and running the health board. They are the highest level of intervention, but the health board are still in place and running services. There's no-one directing in Cathays Park and making choices about how to run the organisation. The intervention in place has worked alongside the board and staff to try and make progress and improve services and has significantly increased our oversight and the accountability arrangements.

I, of course, value the hard work of our staff in delivering services and supporting patients right across north Wales. When I visit north Wales, as I do regularly, I meet staff and I'm impressed by the recognition and commitment they have to delivering the improvements needed. I am pleased that people, in this debate, recognise the commitment of our staff, but I would gently say to all Members in all parties—I do not want to point at any particular person—when recognising the commitment of staff and their hard work, to then refer to the health board as being a catastrophe or in crisis does undermine that. It undermines and it affects the staff on the front line. The challenges that the health board faces are not in every single area of operation. Having that broad brush does have an impact on the staff as well as the politics in this place.

In the Government's statement of October 2015, I stated that the health board would remain in special measures for a minimum of two years and that longer plans were needed to build on this initial phase of stabilisation in order to tackle more fundamental challenges that do exist, particularly to improve mental health services in north Wales.

In January 2016, the Welsh Government published an improvement framework, setting out the progress milestones to be met under three phases: the plan, if you like, for improvement. The health board reported on the first phase in March 2016, the second phase in December 2016, and is due to report on the third phase next month, December. Healthcare Inspectorate Wales and the Wales Audit Office have undertaken a third review on progress on governance arrangements, and this was published in June this year. That review recognised the health board was broadly moving in the right direction. It noted that leadership has been strengthened, the board is working more effectively and special measures are helping to focus on areas where action is required.

Progress has been made in meeting a number of the milestones set, including a full executive being in place, including six new appointments since special measures. Time and effort have been applied to improving the performance of the board with an ongoing board development programme, and the Wales Audit Office and HIW joint review noted they had seen visible improvements to the effectiveness of the board. Complaints and concerns, as mentioned here,  are now led by the nurse director, and there's been a material improvement in responsiveness. A mental health strategy was developed in partnership with service users and staff, and agreed in April of this year. There's been a successful approach to turn around primary care services in Prestatyn, now modelled with not just interest across Wales, but further afield as well.

On maternity services, one of the most significant challenges at the time of special measures, we have seen significant progress in key areas, including, for example, reduced reliance on agency, from 50 per cent to 10 per cent. The service is now compliant with Birthrate Plus, and pre-registration midwifery students who were removed in 2015 from Ysbyty Glan Clwyd have now all returned, so that all sites across the health board are being fully utilised for training purposes. And, of course, the work on the sub-regional neonatal intensive care centre is progressing well, and I expect the unit to open in spring next year.

The HIW and Wales Audit Office review also noted continuing pressing challenges, including the need for a clear plan for clinical services, and that will require brave and visible leadership to build on and ensure progress. I am, of course, disappointed that some issues have escalated during the last six months in other areas that now require significant improvement, notably in terms of finance and performance. I have never tried to shy away from the reality of significant challenges in finance and performance, in both scheduled and unscheduled care. Due to the concerns that I have, I increased the accountability from summer this year, with increased direct contact between myself and senior officials. I meet directly with the chair and the chief executives. In fact, I have already arranged to meet them tomorrow in north Wales as part of that more frequent contact.

The Welsh Government amendment recognises the continual challenge to the health board to address its current financial situation and its unacceptable waiting times. My focus is on ensuring action and providing the support needed to stabilise and recover the position. I've already taken action and a number of steps to help do so. That's why we're trying to note the support already provided under special measures, and the additional taken action that I've taken, including the additional external advice and support for the mental health team, who have placed more staff in and around the board, and the allocation of over £13 million to improve referral-to-treatment waiting times. We expect that to improve by around 50 per cent by the end of March 2018. There's £1.5 million of investment committed to the unscheduled care programme team to transform the delivery of services and improve unscheduled care performance, with targeted support from the NHS Wales delivery unit. Direct support has been provided by the national programme for unscheduled care team.

The independent external financial governance review that has been commissioned has been provided to discuss with the board. We deliberately chose to do that at an earlier stage rather than wait for further deterioration in the health board's position. It was a proactive measure to understand the challenges they have, and then to understand what further support would be required. We've extended the time of the independent oversight panel for Tawel Fan to April 2018, to make sure their work is done properly and to ensure there are conclusions that people can rely upon. I have, this week, agreed further support for the health board with David Jenkins, an external experienced former chair of Aneurin Bevan health board, one of our more successful health boards in Wales, and he will now undertake an advisory role to support both the chair and the chief executive on the work to stabilise and recover that is required. And he will not just work with the chair and the chief executive, he will obviously report back to myself with his findings.

I will, of course, be reviewing the phase 3 report from the health board on progress, and taking on board the views of the regulators in early December. I recognise the calls that are made in this debate for a route-map out of special measures, and I would gently remind people of what we said at the time when this health board went into special measures. It went in based on the advice we received—the serious, concerning advice we received from the chief exec of NHS Wales, from the Wales Audit Office, and also from Healthcare Inspectorate Wales. So, putting this organisation into special measures was not an act of political convenience for Ministers. Coming out of special measures should not be a politically designed route-map. There will be the obvious suspicion that that would simply be a matter of convenience for myself or this Government. I will, of course, receive and act upon the objective advice that I receive about what to do and when is the right time to do it. I will, of course, review the progress against the current improvement plan and see what further is required.

My objective is to strengthen the work we're already taking to support a turnaround approach to ensure the health board makes the required improvements. There is no disguising the seriousness of the situation, or indeed, the seriousness with which I approach the task. I know very well that questions will and should be asked until there is sustained improvement in the areas where this health board has fallen behind. I'll continue to report back I'll continue to report back honestly and transparently on the progress that has been made and the progress required. I will of course update Members before Christmas following the review processes on any additional action to be taken.

Thank you very much. I call on Darren Millar to reply to the debate. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I thank the Minister for his response to the debate, which I thought did acknowledge in a greater way than has been the case before that there's still a serious need to improve things in the Betsi Cadwaladr university health board? You've heard the comments from Assembly Members from all parties this afternoon, which have spelt out in very clear terms the areas where this particular health board is failing. I think what is very concerning from our perspective is that these things have further deteriorated, many of them, since the board went into special measures. That ought to be a concern. I'm sure it is a concern of yours. You suggested that the Welsh Government was not in direct control of the board, but of course, in the immediate aftermath of special measures, you did appoint the deputy chief executive of the department for which you are now responsible to run the health board. So, to suggest that the Welsh Government was not running the health board frankly seems a little bit bizarre.

Of course, we shouldn't forget either that the journey into special measures was a difficult one. We had been calling for a long time for that board to go into special measures but it wasn't until the publication of the Tawel Fan report that the balance was finally tipped on the scales and that the Welsh Government decided to put that board into special measures. Yet, the publication of that report was some six months after it had been shared with the Welsh Government, and actually shared with that health board. The Tawel Fan report that was done by Donna Ockenden, which spelt out the horrendous treatment—the completely unacceptable treatment and the shortcomings in care on the Tawel Fan ward—was given to the health board in September 2014, and yet it still took until June 2015, which I have to say was shortly after a general election, before that report was published in the public domain and this Government decided to take some action. So, I do think there are some serious questions to ask about why the special measures that this board has been placed in have not worked to date and why you're now having to, how can I say, take more of a personal interest in turning that ship around that is Betsi Cadwaladr.

We've already heard they're in financial turmoil. When they went into special measures their deficit for 2014 was £26 million; it's going to be £36 million now—worse performance, in spite of the fact that financial performance was one of the issues it was put into special measured for. We've already heard that more people are waiting longer for their operations than ever before in the Betsi Cadwaladr university health board—some people in excess of two years from referral to treatment, particularly for their orthopaedic operations. It's completely unacceptable. It is the worst performing health board when it comes to access to emergency departments. This is a health board that is supposed to be under much more careful scrutiny than any of the other health boards in Wales. So, if that's what very careful scrutiny does to a health board, perhaps you'd have been better off not getting involved at all, because it clearly hasn't been working.

GP services: the crisis seems to be getting worse and worse and worse. Five GP practices this year so far—six if I'm to believe what Mark Isherwood has shared with the Chamber today—have so far decided to hand back their contract to the health board because they're not able to sustain and deliver that contract. It's got the highest number of GP practices that are regarded as hotspots by the British Medical Association, which suggests that things are getting even worse in the future. So, the problems seem to be accelerating on the GP and primary care services front as well.

Janet Finch-Saunders made references to the patient safety issues in the health board, which no doubt you will tell us is because they're more honestly reporting these things these days. But, to have more than half of all of the recorded deaths as a result of mistakes in that one health board—which does not account for half of the population of Wales—is irregular. It's not right. It shows that there's something more problematic taking place there. Quite rightly, we heard about some of the staffing pressures that that particular health board has faced. I'll be the first to praise the staff of that health board. They do a fine and fantastic job in the face of significant pressure on the front line, but there aren't enough of them. I visited two mental health units just last week and they were telling me that they're having to rely on agency staff all of the time. That means that you have people who do not know the patients from one day to the next, they're not regular people and, as a result of that, that causes pressure within those working teams.

So, what's been happening to date isn't working; we've got to see some significant change in that health board. The Tawel Fan families deserve to have that situation in the mental health services in particular turned around. They're not going to see any outcomes in terms of the follow-up work that has been commissioned until at least March of next year. I think all those things suggest that the Welsh Government has failed completely to date to deal with the challenges in this health board and that we need a significant change of track if we going to get this right.

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

I'm going to move on now to item 8 on our agenda, which is the Plaid Cymru debate on the UK Government budget and Wales. I call on Adam Price to move the motion.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I was going to say it's a pleasure to rise to introduce this debate, but, actually, if we look at the substance of what we're discussing, then pleasure is anything but what one must feel. I was struck when I took part in the Wales Live debate on the budget that the BBC held, and they did a montage, actually, of television reports from BBC Wales news going back over decades in response to the budget, and vox pops all over Wales. And, you know, you could see the historical continuity, the contours of Welsh economic history, opening up in front of you, because 'nothing in it for Wales' was basically on the lips of people in sepia-tinted pictures from the 1960s right through to today: 'nothing in it for Wales'. And that's not a kind of neat Plaid Cymru press release headline; I think that is the lived experience, actually, of most of our people going back over generations. Because of the centripetal nature of the political forces in these islands, that is reproduced time after time after time in the economic priorities—there is nothing in it for Wales. And so, yes, it can't have come as a surprise. It came as a huge disappointment.

Now, this golden opportunity with the tidal lagoon—we have to be there: we were at the birthplace of a few industries a couple of hundred years ago in the industrial revolution. Well, here's a chance for us to have our time to be at the birthplace of a new industrial revolution, and that's an opportunity that we cannot afford to lose. We're not asking for charity as a country, we're asking for help to help ourselves. That's what you're asking for: the opportunity to actually marshal the skills and the natural resources that we have to the benefit of our society, and yet, that opportunity is yet again denied us.

So, that continuity was there. The other continuity, which again was no surprise, but was certainly a disappointment, was the continuity of the austerian economics, I suppose we could call it. We could call it that, but there are few economists of any repute who actually would support it now—even the Austrian School actually wouldn't support the kind of austerian economics we're seeing from this Government. And there's a very, very good reason why. It's because we are entering, I think, some of the most troubling and worrying economic times that we have faced for many a generation, and the bit that was new, of course, in the budget was the downgrading of the growth forecasts. The Office for Budget Responsibility—which, actually, it's fair to say, over many years has constantly had to revise downwards its forecasts on productivity—finally came up front with a revised growth forecast, which was very, very significant, actually, because Members should know that only two years ago, the OBR was forecasting 2.5 per cent growth. So, it's actually almost close to halved that forecast. 

There was a bit of hyperbole, maybe, in Larry Elliott calling this the Suez of British economics, in that the budget was the time when we realised we were no longer the force in the world that we once thought we were. But the Chancellor himself did admit, of course, that the UK is now no longer in the top five economies; it's probably going to be overtaken by India and, I suspect, certainly by the end of the decade. And if you step back and look at the broader picture, this is a very, very pessimistic scenario. You could say that this is the equivalent of our lost decade—that phrase that, of course, came to describe the particular circumstances of Japan, following their property crash in the early 1990s. We've had a lost decade in Britain. We had the Resolution Foundation pointing out that this is, depending on how you measure it, the longest period of falling living standards, certainly for 60 years—some would argue that you can go back even further than that.

We've had an average of 1 per cent growth in growth value added terms over the last decade. You've got to remember that the long-run trend of the British economy is around 2 per cent. This is as significant as it gets. In social terms, obviously, if you're bumping along at about 2 per cent and 2.5 per cent, actually that leads to rising living standards. At 1 per cent, it leads to the kind of fall in real living standards that the Resolution Foundation is pointing out.

Will you give way?

Yes, certainly.

Thank you very much. I've noted, of course, that the economist in the International Monetary Fund last year warned that austerity policies will do more harm than good. That's coming home to roost now, as you say, with the downgraded growth forecast. But also, would the Member agree that it's increased inequality that also hurts the level and sustainability of growth and that's what the IMF has said?

Absolutely. I think there are deep structural reasons why we are in the crisis that we're currently facing and the Institute for Public Policy Research's work on the Commission on Economic Justice points to that. There's both a conventional social inequality aspect and that is also reflected in a territorial inequality. In our case, of course, they're both intermingled. Unless you address that, actually, you can't really get out of this rut that we're in.

If you look at the figures as well, we've had 1 per cent growth—a very poor level of growth—over the past decade. In every decade since the 1970s, there's been an actual recession—negative growth. We haven't had that yet. That's what we're staring into at the moment. Because if you think about it, even the 1 per cent growth that we've had has been based on increased labour resources, because of falling unemployment, a record employment rate, high—I have to say it—immigration and also people working longer hours. All of those things are either going into reverse, in the case of migration, and with working hours et cetera, there's a natural limit to the ability of the economy to sustain itself simply by adding labour input. That ship has now sailed. We are now at the limit of that.

The real leading indicator, of course, is output per hour—actual productivity. That hasn't grown for a decade. That is unprecedented for an advanced economy like the UK. So, things are bad. Certainly, I think that all the indicators are that they're going to get much, much worse, and I haven't even mentioned the 'B' word. I'm trying to be judicious and objective about this. Let's take the politics out of it. Certainly, in the short term, this is going to be a very disruptive period in the economy. There will be winners and losers and you can take your pick where you put you finger on the dial on that one. But we are in probably the most trepidacious period economically that we have faced for a generation.

What are the implications for us in Wales? well, I think what we have to do—. We cannot insulate ourselves from these broader macro-economic influences—absolutely not; that's clearly the case. But we must try to arrogate to ourselves as many levers and as much autonomy as we can within this difficult economic, and even worse political context. The late Rhodri Morgan used to talk about the way in which the Welsh economy had carved out a place for itself in a division of labour, effectively—a territorial division of labour across the UK. And in some senses, there was some kind of compact—there was some kind of territorial and social compact. There was a niche that Wales, for a period, actually carved out for itself by agreement. All that, of course, has been thrown up; we haven't had a regional economic policy in the UK, properly speaking, for over 40 years. And so that territorial compact has gone, and in those circumstances, while we can't insulate ourselves completely, we have to try and chart as much of our own course as possible.

The one bit in the UK budget, the one point amidst all the gloom—there are always some points of light—and interestingly, the one bit where, actually, it goes completely contrary to everything else in terms of the direction of travel, is the publication of the industrial strategy. So, here you have a reinvention or a reintroduction of an idea from 40 or 50 years ago, which was a sister to regional policy, and actually, there you have, for example, the biggest increase in research and development spending—about £4.7 billion increase over the period in question—that we've seen for 40 years in terms of innovation policy. Now, you've got to to remember that, in a £2 trillion economy, £4.7 billion is not going to answer all our problems. But that is an important lever, and we in Wales need to make sure, because we've been quite poor in the past, actually—we've never got our fair share of Research Councils UK's money in terms of the universities, we've never got our fair share of Innovate UK money in terms of industrial innovation policy. We have to be far smarter at actually making sure that we can take advantage of those few positive opportunities that there are on the horizon, and also make sure that we have the structures and the levers in place, so that we can use that money in the smartest and most intelligent way.

And I have to say to the Welsh Government as well, at a time when the UK Government—the one thing it is doing, which I do agree with, is vastly increasing the investment in innovation and in other areas of productivity enhancement. We are cutting, slashing our innovation budget. The innovation budget expenditure limit line in the Welsh Government's draft budget is being cut, capital and revenue together, by 78 per cent. That is surely economic madness, economic idiocy, at a time when we have to reinvent ourselves for the very reasons that I've set out, because we are entering very, very uncertain times indeed.

I have selected the two amendment to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call on Nick Ramsay to move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Nick Ramsay.

Diolch. Oh, Adam, Adam, Adam, I must say, I enjoyed your speech a little bit more than the motion itself. You did at least get to the glimmer of light at the end, which made it worth while me getting up in the morning, I suppose, and coming to work, and you did mention the budget at the end.

Look, referring to the motion itself, I do like to be positive about some aspects of motions and there wasn't much that was positive in this motion, to be fair. I don't think this UK Government would proclaim to be the best thing since sliced bread, but I do think it does deserve a little bit more credit than you gave it there, at least, and in this motion.

It's not my job to come here and defend the UK Government, even though it's my party that is in power there. It's my job to come here and represent my constituents in the National Assembly for Wales and to talk about what we can do here in this Chamber. And that's why I was a little disappointed by the tone of this motion, because I do think it rather dwells on the negative and doesn't talk about the positive: what we can do. [Interruption.]

If we can just turn to our amendments, we wish to note the £1.2 billion—[Interruption.] You'll get a mention in a bit, Simon, don't worry. We wish to note the £1.2 billion increase in the Welsh budget over four years as a result of this budget. Now, I know I'm going to anticipate the finance Secretary's response later in saying that a proportion of that money is financial transaction capital. This was mentioned by the Chair of the Finance Committee in the session we had earlier. It's a term that's reared its head and I'm not sure it is the talk of breakfast tables up and down Wales, but as the finance Secretary will probably tell us, it does make it more difficult to deploy. But, as I’m sure the finance Secretary would recognise, it is at least more money coming to us than we had before, and that’s key to this budget: there is additional money coming to Wales, so it is not all doom and gloom.

We must, of course, welcome the proportion of that additional finance that is coming to Wales as a direct result of the hard-fought fiscal framework negotiated between the Welsh Government and the UK Government. As the Cabinet Secretary has said, very fairly, it’s not an enormous sum of money in terms of the Welsh budget as a whole, but it is additional money that would not have happened without this agreement, and I pay credit to him in those negotiations, and indeed the UK Government. I’m pleased that I had a small role as well, along the way, in helping with that process.

I’m not even saying we should shut the door on future Barnett reform. I think there is still a case, which we don’t tend to talk about anymore, but there is still a long-term case, I think, to review the mechanisms that fund Wales overall. Perhaps that can be done in conjunction with the fiscal framework, because I think all of us here would want to have the best deal for Wales possible, and over time, financing mechanisms do become out of date. So, hopefully that can be discussed in future when we’re looking at the UK’s budget allocations.

Of course, our amendment also notes progress that has been made with the north Wales growth deal. We’ve called for that for a long time. It’s in this budget, so it’s good news. I didn’t hear it get a mention—I might have missed it. It didn’t seem to get a mention in Adam Price’s comments. It didn’t seem to be mentioned in the motion, either. How many times do Members in this Chamber, particularly Members from the north of Wales, stand up and say in debates that we don’t think that there’s enough going to the north of the country, and that there’s not enough going to rural parts of Wales? So, here is an example where there is a focus on a part of Wales. Adam Price is quite right, parts of Wales have been neglected in the past, and here there is an attempt, at least, to in some way rectify that.

I heard what you said on the progress, or lack of progress as you saw it, with the Swansea bay tidal lagoon, and we will continue to call for that. We believe that the tidal lagoon is a very important piece of infrastructure for the Welsh economy. Okay, it might not have been prevalent in this budget, but it is well-known that we are still calling for that tidal lagoon—and not just this party, of course, but the party opposite and the party of government. It’s very close to Mike Hedges’s heart as well, I know, so we will continue to look for progress on that.

Of course, we are getting electrification of the Great Western Railway line—to Cardiff, I admit, before you jump up. The Severn tolls are being scrapped. How long have we been calling for that? That’s good news, isn’t it? So, that’s another glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel, or at the end of the bridge, if you pardon the pun. So, that’s a commitment from the UK Government that’s going to happen. Also, of course, there’s the commitment of the UK Government to fund the future maintenance of that bridge, without that cost falling solely upon us here in Wales. So, that’s good as well. Let’s acknowledge the positives.

If I can just mention the Welsh Government amendment very briefly, I was rather bemused that it deletes point 4 of the motion and then reinstates it in a reworded format that basically says the same thing, but tries to blame the UK Government instead of blaming the Welsh Government. But I won’t intervene in private grief between Plaid and Labour on that.

Adam Price, you made some very good points—as you always do, to be fair—but I do think you could have been a little bit more upbeat about the prospects for our economy. I’m grateful you didn’t mention the 'B' word, because I think we’ve all had enough of that being mentioned over the last few weeks. But there is more than a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel, and let’s all of us in this Assembly work together to send a positive message to the UK Government: yes, give us more support in the future, but at least we’re getting somewhere.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance to move formally amendment 2 tabled in the name of Julie James.

Formally.

Thank you to Nick Ramsay for at least trying to justify the budget, but in our opinion, Wales is losing out as a result of the announcement of a budget that was designed to grow the economy of the south-east of England at the expense of every other part of the United Kingdom.

It’s a budget of austerity in every way. Not only were we promised more financial austerity from the Chancellor; we were also reminded of the poverty of ambition of the Conservatives, and their lack of compassion when it’s a matter of dealing with the most vulnerable in our society. Very few subjects have emphasised this better in recent months than universal credit.

Perhaps we need to give a cautious welcome to the Chancellor’s confirmation that a package of £1.5 billion would be released to get to grips with the numerous problems that have arisen as a result of the introduction of this very deficient scheme. But, perhaps that was an admission that the system is breaking down, truth be told.

At last, after thousands of individuals and families have suffered unnecessarily, the Westminster Government will be getting rid of that seven-day waiting period. Despite that, the budget hasn’t gone far enough for the people of Wales with regard to welfare reform. Thanks to the IFS report on child poverty, we know that in Wales we’ll be amongst the areas that will be suffering most as a result of welfare reform. Already I see far too many people being forced to turn to food banks and facing being evicted from their homes as a result of the mess that the Conservatives are making of welfare payments. When it’s a matter of safeguarding some of our most vulnerable in society, the writing is on the wall.

It’s time to devolve the administration of some elements of the welfare system to Wales if we are to safeguard our citizens from the activities of the Conservatives at their worst. This would enable the Welsh Government to vary the frequency of payments, to put an end to the waiting times and sanctions, and to ensure that individuals and not households receive payments. This is already happening in Scotland. There, the SNP Government has changed the frequency of payment from monthly payments to every fortnight; the housing element is paid directly to landlords; and Ministers have to provide support for people who have the right to receive it.

Of course, it all comes down to money and many have alleged in this Chamber that Wales can’t afford to take the reins of an element of the welfare system, but there is a valuable lesson to learn from Scotland. The funding to administer those elements that were in the hands of Westminster previously transferred directly to Scotland as part of the block grant, so there wasn’t an additional cost. So, I call on the Welsh Government to negotiate a similar settlement so that we can administer some elements of universal credit and the welfare system ourselves. Then, we can safeguard the citizens of Wales from the cruel policies of the Conservatives in Westminster. It’s time to demand the devolution of flexibility of payment and the housing element of universal credit, with the objective of ensuring a fiscal framework that can facilitate the devolution of those elements.

This is a golden opportunity to prove the value of devolution as a tool that works for the benefit of the people of Wales. We’ll show that there is a more just way, a more equal way and kinder way of governing. We’ll show a willingness to implement elements of the welfare system ourselves, to show that there is a better way of doing things for the benefit of our most vulnerable people in society.