National Assembly for Wales

I call the National Assembly to order.

At the outset, I'd like to welcome Mariam Jack-Denton, the Speaker of the National Assembly of the Gambia, leading a delegation visiting the National Assembly today. So, a warm welcome, Speaker, and to your delegation.

The first item on our agenda is an emergency question. I have accepted the question under Standing Order 12.67, and I call on Adam Price to ask the emergency question.

Although we expect that the liquidation of Carillion will have little direct impact in Wales, the Welsh Government will do everything within its ability to assist Carillion staff who are affected here. Welsh Government officials continue to assess any further impacts in a situation that continues to develop swiftly.

I'm grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for that response. I hope we can get a little more detail on some of the specific projects.

Can he say whether any of the Welsh Government contracts awarded to Carillion were awarded after July, the time of the first profits warning issued by the company? After the second and third profits warning, in September and November last year, did the Government discuss contingency arrangements with Abellio, in relation to Carillion's role as the nominated contractor as part of their rail franchise bid? And can the Cabinet Secretary further advise us whether there's now a material risk that Abellio's bid is effectively null and void, as it is in effect naming a nominated contactor that no longer exists, and therefore rendering it liable to legal challenge? Finally, is the whole Carillion experience, which has left so many smaller sub-contractors and their employees carrying the can, effectively, for a large company's mismanagement and, indeed, reckless profiteering, does it give us pause for thought in our over-reliance, still, on externally owned contracting conglomerates for civil engineering work? There must surely be a better way going forward.

I thank the Member for what I take to be three main questions. In relation to contracts that the Welsh Government has, there is one contract—the contract in relation to the design phase of junctions 15 and 16 on the A55, which was awarded after the original warning about Carillion in July of next year. At the point that that warning was issued, the procurement process was paused, further assurances were sought from the company. Those assurances were received, and risks that might have been involved were mitigated. No other contract has been awarded since July of last year.

As far as Abellio is concerned and the franchise arrangements there, I think there are a number of points that I should make. First of all, directly in answer to Adam Price's question, Transport for Wales, having seen the developments in July and during the autumn, have been involved in making sure that the necessary financial underpinning of bids is reliable, and they have been in discussions with Abellio on that basis. In the immediate aftermath of events earlier this week, the Cabinet Secretary has taken legal advice so that we are clear as to whether there are any impacts from these developments for the franchise process. The company itself is taking action to make sure that it is in a position to go forward with a bid, if it chooses that course of action. And the Welsh Government remains committed to a final outcome in the tender process that leads to the improvement in services that people in Wales wish to see secured.

The third question that the Member raises is the broadest one, of course. He will have seen, I'm sure, a piece in the Financial Times today called 'The Problem of Bigness', in which the author teases out the difficulties that occur for public contracting organisations in a market where there has been radical consolidation and the number of players in the field doesn't necessarily give rise to genuine competition. So, that inevitably does come to the fore in the Carillion experience, and he is right to point to the fact that all public authorities that are involved in securing necessary services through going out to contract will want to review this experience, learn the lessons from it and make sure that public funds are not exposed unnecessarily in the future. 

Cabinet Secretary, can I ask you about any work you've done or you're going to be commissioning on the consequences of this company going into liquidation in terms of the wider economic conditions that this is going to bring to the Welsh economy, and especially small businesses? Adam Price has raised questions about the rail franchise, but can I press you a little bit more about the projects that may well be affected in Wales? You said there'd be little effect on projects in Wales, but could I just press you a little bit more on that for some further clarification on which projects may well be affected? Can I also ask about projects in Wales that are perhaps about to be started or are in the middle of construction that are being perhaps operated or project managed not by Carillion but by another company? I think of Newtown bypass in my own constituency as an example. It is managed by Alun Griffiths contractors but may well depend on suppliers for steel for bridges or have other project management consequences as well. And what conversations may you have had with them in terms of how projects in Wales may be affected or potentially delayed? 

Well, the Member is right that, while the direct exposure of the Welsh public service to Carillion is modest, that does not mean to say that there aren't businesses and subcontractors in Wales who, in the other aspects of Carillion's work, may well now find themselves exposed as a result of Carillion's demise. So, officials of the Welsh Government are carrying out the necessary work to try to identify where those difficulties may lie. We are in discussions both with the Federation of Small Businesses and the Confederation of Business Industry about that and using the networks that the Welsh Government has across Wales, so that if there are difficulties that emerge of the sort that the Member has identified, we are alert to them and are able to offer such help as we are able to in those circumstances. 

Cabinet Secretary, there are obviously ethical and very practical issues, both of which I'd like to address. We know the history of Carillion. We've debated it in this Chamber in terms of its anti-trade unionism, its blacklisting and its attacks on terms and conditions of worker,  and that's a model that's obviously contributed to its current downfall. I'm sure you will agree with me that it's a welcome sign that the UK Government is now investigating the Carillion directors. I'm sure you'd agree with me also that that investigation probably needs to go further, to the bankers who speculatively backed the company and, indeed, the Government Ministers who appear to have been so keen to line the pockets of the shareholders and the directors with goals and with contracts when there were clear warnings out. Would you agree with me that the most important bit is this: we have a number of Welsh companies, many of whom actually trade in England as well, who will now potentially not be paid and will now potentially be at risk of going under, and there are workers who have had their pension funds also robbed, and that we need to examine the impact on the Welsh economy of those particular companies and in particular what support we can give?

But in terms of the ethical question, isn't it a fact that we have an economic model that is basically about squeezing profits for the few, robbing the workers' pension funds and expecting the public, at the end of the day, to bail them out, and that we can be so grateful that the Welsh Government has not gone down this particular road? 

Wel, Llywydd, successive Welsh Governments have not been prepared to follow the model that Mick Antoniw has just outlined. We have always been alert to the dangers of a way of conducting business in which profit is privatised and risk is socialised, and that's exactly what you've seen in this example. Here is a company that, from public money, has been giving dividends to its shareholders, and is prepared to go on paying its senior executives well beyond the point where that was a sensible course of action to take. And when it all goes wrong, when their friends over there go wrong, what happens? What happens then? You expect the public purse to step in. You expect the public to pay for your mistakes, and in Wales—[Interruption.] In Wales, that's a course of action we've never been prepared to follow. That's why we don't have and won't have in Wales the sort of handing over to the private sector of public services that ought to be publicly provided and publicly paid for. That's why we don't have fire service personnel delivering meals in schools in Wales today. Yes, there are lessons to be taken from Carillion. Luckily, in Wales, we'd learnt them well before the party opposite.

Back to my lovely constituency of Aberconwy, and thank you for making reference to junctions 15 and 16 on the A55 and the removal of the roundabouts. Those works have been long promised by this Welsh Government, so it's understandable that now, with Carillion having gone into liquidation, many of my constituents are asking me what's going to happen where those works are concerned. Cabinet Secretary, is there a chance that I can go back to my constituency and tell my residents, our motorists and our visitors that you will actually look at getting on with these works, and, maybe, why don't we look towards more local procurement? I cannot see why these works could not have been carried out. We have local companies in our area that could have carried out these works, but will you, please, look at getting on with these works, because the hold-ups on the A55 and the terrible problems we have—. Carillion has gone now into liquidation, but we still have that situation on the A55 that is really affecting our motorists and our residents, so anything you could do would really be appreciated. Thank you.

Well, I fully appreciate the points that Janet Finch-Saunders has made. Carillion was contracted in the design phase only, so far, of junctions 15 and 16 of the A55, and there would have been about 12 months of that design work still to go. The Welsh Government will look to see whether there are ways in which we can respond to these difficulties in a way that does not lead to that timetable being elongated. These are very early days, but, just to give her an example of the sort of actions we will look to explore, there are subcontractors in that contract actually carrying out the work. Maybe it will be possible for one of those subcontractors to become the main contractor, to carry on that work and to complete the important developments at that junction, which I know matter to her constituents and to others who use that part of the A55, without further delay.

Llywydd, I ought to apologise to Russell George for failing to have answered the first part of his question. If I could very briefly say to him, there are two other contracts that we have. There is the contract at the Llanddewi Brefi section of the A40, where the design phase is more or less complete and where we will now have to think about how we take forward the second phase of a three-phase contract. Then there was section 3 of the A465, which has been completed, which is already open, where there is a small-scale landscape contract that would have lasted for five years with Carillion beyond the opening of that section 3 of the Heads of the Valleys road. We're halfway through that five-year period. We will now have to find another way of fulfilling the remaining two and a half years. But that is the full extent of the exposure of the Welsh Government to Carillion in the contracts that the Member mentioned.

Thank you for your response to questions today, but I have to say that I was surprised to hear that a contract had been awarded in north Wales on the A55 once you had heard about the news about the status of this company, because that of course is exactly what Jon Trickett was criticising the Conservatives on very harshly in the Commons yesterday—giving contracts once the problems had been uncovered in the business pages of the Financial Times and elsewhere. So, I do think the Government need to reconsider how they deal with the remains of Carillion now, and particularly what's implicit here in terms of the franchise and Abellio's bid for that rail franchise.

But to refer to the question that you just referred to on the improvements to the A40—. Well, we won't mix up the different Llanddewi—. Penblewin, let's say. Carillion is supposed to commence that work this summer, as I understood things. Now, will there be any delays in this project, and what specific steps are the Welsh Government taking now to ensure that important works that, in turn, lead to economic consequences in those areas will not be delayed for too long, for the benefit of those travelling on our roads and for economic development in Wales?

I thank Simon Thomas for those additional questions.

Just to be clear in relation to junctions 15 and 16 of the A55, the whole business of awarding a contract had been completed before the profits warning on 10 July, but contract letters had not been sent out to the company. So, at that point, the sending out of award letters was withheld, and a further set of investigations were carried out with Carillion plc to determine if they were risks that needed to be identified. So, there was a further period of due diligence, in which formal assurances were sought and obtained from the company. Officials who were responsible for carrying out that assessment believed that the necessary assurances had been obtained. There was an equal or different risk that, had the award not been made, the company itself may have sought to have had that decision reviewed, because the ordinary processes had been properly completed and they had won the contract. So, there was a risk that they themselves would have sought to take action, giving rise to a further set of delays of the sort that Janet Finch-Saunders mentioned earlier and that, understandably, local citizens would have been keen to avoid. So, there was a balance of risk to be drawn up. It was very purposefully and thoroughly investigated. 

Turning to his point about the Llanddewi Velfrey to Penblewin section of the A40, that is a three-phase contract. The first phase is more or less completed. There will be choices to be made, which the Minister responsible will now want to weigh up. In this case as well, there are substantial subcontractors involved in the scheme, and it is possible that one of them may be in a position to become the main contractor, and the advantage of that would certainly be that it would reduce delay. But the opportunity is there, if the Cabinet Secretary prefers, to go out to tender for the next phase of that contract, to see what the market has to offer and to secure the best value for Welsh public expenditure. The downside of that is that it inevitably involves a delay. In the very short period of time since the Carillion collapse occurred, officials have been identifying options, and no doubt they will put advice to Ministers, and Ministers will then decide between them.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, and may I apologise to the Cabinet Secretary if I was too eager to call the next supplementary question? It was entirely unintentional on my behalf, and I apologise for interrupting your response this afternoon.

So, the next item on our agenda is questions to the First Minister, and the first question is from Joyce Watson.

During business questions last week, the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs agreed to issue a written statement on mobile animal exhibits, including circuses, before the spring half term recess.

I thank you for that answer, First Minister. I think the whole tenor of my question leads you to believe that I think that we ought to ban wild animals from use in circuses, and I look forward to us bringing that forward. It is the case, of course, that England have announced that they're moving in this direction. They've only announced—let's not get carried away—a move in this direction, but at the same time, Scotland have actually moved in this direction. So, I do urge the Government to send a crystal clear message to travelling circuses—because we don't have any resident circuses in Wales—that if they have wild animals on board, they are not welcome in Wales and it's an outdated practice that needs to be stopped. So, whilst we're going through the process—and I welcome the fact that we are making a move in this direction—at the same time I hope we'll send that message in the interim.

Well, it's clear, following the recent consultation on licensing of mobile animal exhibits, that there's widespread support for a ban on the use of wild animals in circuses, and officials are considering how to address this issue. It goes without saying that the way that we treat our animals is an important reflection of the values of our society. The consultation closed on 9 October, and I know that the Minister is actively considering now the best way forward.

First Minister, there are some very real concerns that the proposed definition of mobile animal exhibits in the recent Government consultation is too broad and would put at risk any system in terms of licensing being disproportionate or impractical. So, can you tell us how the Welsh Government will tackle these concerns so that any progress in this area is proportionate and truly leads to a ban on the use of wild animals in circuses in Wales? Because that's what I think the people of Wales want to see.

Well, that will be part of the consideration that is given to this matter by the Minister over the ensuing weeks. We want, of course, to ensure that we have a scheme that has a permanent impact on animal welfare standards in order to, of course, ensure that we improve the standards of animal welfare in Wales.

What concerns me on this issue is that Wales could become a haven for circuses using wild animals. Scotland has banned their use, Westminster is considering a ban, but Wales is falling behind in this area despite the fact that the UK leader of your party is in favour of a ban. So, what exactly is holding you back, and wasn't it a mistake to confuse two things in this consultation? Isn't it a simple matter of introducing a ban on wild animals in circuses, and then looking at what needs to be done in terms of mobile exhibits in rural areas and so on?

No. I believe that what has been done in the consultation is correct, and we don't wish to be a haven. Can I just say that to the Member? We don't want to be a haven where wild animals can come to Wales while there is a ban in the other nations of the United Kingdom, and even in the Republic of Ireland. So, that is not the intention. What we're considering now is the best way forward in order to ensure the welfare of these animals.

Yes. Our priorities for the NHS in Monmouthshire are the same as they are for the whole of Wales. We'll continue to protect investment in the health service and deliver the range of commitments set out in 'Taking Wales Forward'.

First Minister, if I can I ask you about dementia care, there's deep concern in and around Chepstow at the planned closure of the purpose-built dementia ward at Chepstow Community Hospital and the relocation of services to St Woolos Hospital in Newport. Aneurin Bevan local health board have cited staff shortages as one of the reasons for this. This is at consultation phase at the moment. If this goes ahead, it will represent the loss of Monmouthshire's entire in-patient dementia provision, and a combined reduction in provision in Newport and Monmouthshire from 29 to 14 beds. Will you urge the health board to reconsider these flawed plans to protect Chepstow hospital's valuable resources and to find a more sustainable solution to the problem the health board is currently facing?

I am aware of the changes that have been made. I am also aware that the health board has undertaken a 12-week public consultation. That's still open, and I'd encourage all views to be fed into that consultation. I'm also aware that the health board has discussed options for the future development of Chepstow Community Hospital and has established a working group to develop proposals for the future of the excellent local facilities, and I further understand that the health board is expecting an initial report to be presented in the spring.

Questions now from the party leaders. Leader of the UKIP group—Niel Hamilton. 

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. The First Minister will agree with me that in order to secure value for money in public contracts, it is desirable that there should be a reasonable spread of credible bidders. It wasn't entirely clear to me from the answer that the finance Secretary gave to Adam Price earlier what the legal impact is going to be of the collapse of Carillion in relation to Abellio's bid. There are only three bidders in the contest at the moment. If Abellio is removed from it, that means, of course, that there are only two bids. What are the implications of this for that general principle of securing value for money by having credible competition for these big contracts? This is a contract that affects not just the Wales and borders rail franchise, but also the electrification of the Valleys lines as part of the metro project, and this contract will be let for 15 years. So, it has long-term consequences. I wonder if the First Minister could give us a little more clarification on this point.

It's no secret that our preferred scenario would have been to be able to run Welsh railways via a not-for-profit, arm's-length, Welsh Government-owned business, but we were prevented from doing that by the Conservative Government in London. They're happy to let Scotland do it, but as far as Wales is concerned, they're not happy to let—[Interruption.] He's groaning away, the leader of the opposition, again, not supporting this, of course—but the reality is that we were prevented from doing that. But that, nevertheless, was our preferred option. We were stopped from doing it.

He asked the question about Abellio. Transport for Wales has the appropriate expertise in place to deal with this. We are in discussions with Abellio Rail Cymru about the complex situation—and it is complex—that arises from the announcement. Whilst the difficulties encountered by part of one of the consortium bidders is disappointing, it is important we remain focused on the evaluation to keep procurement on track. I can say that Transport for Wales continue to evaluate the competitive bids received whilst ensuring equality of treatment of the bidders in line with procurement law.

Well, with what's happened this week, whilst it couldn't have been predicted with confidence, there was clearly a high possibility that Carillion was going to get into difficulties from which it couldn't extricate itself. After all, we had the first profit warning in July. In September, the shares in Carillion fell by 60 per cent in two days. Three weeks after that, there was another profits warning. On 17 November, Carillion warned that it was on course to breach its banking covenants, which must have gone to the heart of the credibility of that part of Abellio's bid, and considering they were the preferred construction partner, this obviously had immense implications for the credibility of that bid.

Was there any action taken by Transport for Wales, or any involvement by Welsh Government in the period after July to try to protect the bidding process against the possibility of the collapse of Abellio's bid? Because, if Abellio had been able to obtain some other construction partner, or to keep one in the wings in the meantime, that might have been able to save this element of the bidding process.

I think there are dangers in Transport for Wales engaging in that way with a bidder. There has to be distance between Transport for Wales and the bidders themselves. It is a matter for Abellio Rail Cymru to put themselves in a situation where they are confident that their bid can move forward, and discussions will continue along those lines in terms of how that can be done. We know there was a profit warning in July. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I don't think anybody, let alone the UK Government, could have known the scale of the problems within Carillion. Clearly, they were unprepared, and I think that many would have found themselves in that situation. I think the feeling might have been that Carillion was too big to fail, but, unfortunately, we know that isn't the case. Nevertheless, we are talking about a part of one of the consortium bidders. It's a question now to see whether that part can be replaced.

Well, it's clear that the answer to my question is that both the Government and Transport for Wales sat on their hands during that period, but I'll leave that there.

Does the First Minister share my amusement that Philip Green, the chairman of Carillion since 2014, was an adviser on corporate responsibility to David Cameron and Theresa May as Prime Minister, and that the previous chief executive of Carillion, Richard Howson, was allowed to leave the company a few months ago with a 12-month payoff of £660,000 in salary and £28,000 in benefits whilst the company has been making small firms wait for up to 120 days for payment on their contracts? The Welsh Government has a policy on social responsibility with the companies that are contracting with it. Surely prompt payment is one of the essential elements in that. The Welsh Government has a policy of paying all invoices on time, and when the Welsh Government receives bids from firms for large contracts that it's going to award, or agencies like Transport for Wales, what protection is going to be given to small firms who are now left, as in this instance, probably, high and dry, and lots of them will not be paid? That could be pivotal in the question of whether small businesses themselves, as a ricochet effect from the collapse of Carillion, also go out of business. 

Cash flow is all to a small business. It's not clear yet what the extent of Carillion's collapse will be on small businesses in Wales. I know that the Cabinet Secretary is looking to obtain information on that, but of course what we can't do is govern the way in which large businesses fund themselves. There are many issues there that the leader of UKIP has rightly highlighted—moral issues. It seems to me that quite often, in some businesses—not all, of course, and not even most—bonus payments are made regardless of performance, and also that people are paid off with substantial sums of money in order to go away even where performance is well below the standard expected. There are issues there.

There are issues in terms of how empowered shareholders are. They hold the board to account, of course, but in terms of knowledge and expertise, it's not quite as easy as that. I think there are, as a result of what we've seen from Carillion, lessons to be learned in terms of looking again at company law and the way in which companies govern themselves. Is there sufficient governance in larger companies to ensure that this kind of situation doesn't happen? We've seen from Carillion that the answer to that is 'no'.

The leader of Plaid Cymru, Leanne Wood.

Diolch, Llywydd. First Minister, today's independent report on health and social care highlights the importance of staff well-being and says that there should be a sharp focus on staff engagement and well-being. Now, all political parties regularly praise NHS staff, and that's quite right. It's well deserved, because without them the NHS would be nothing. Do you think enough is being done to support the well-being of NHS staff?

These are matters primarily for the local health boards, but, again, I join with the leader of Plaid Cymru in offering a tribute to that incredibly hard work that's been done by members of staff. I know that the director of health and social services has been around the different accident and emergency departments around Wales, listening to their experiences. We know the situation is easing compared to what it was a few weeks ago, but, yes, we'd encourage local health boards, of course, to make sure that there are the right mechanisms in place to ensure that staff feel supported beyond the words that we as politicians express.

First Minister, in recent weeks disclosures have been made to me by workers in our NHS about serious problems with staff morale and well-being. People serving on the front line claim to be at breaking point as a result of some of the pressures that are being put upon them. Now, I've only had permission to refer to one of these disclosures so far, but the person's asked me specifically to raise it with you in Government.

First Minister, a serious allegation is being made that, at times of high demand, ambulance service prioritisation is putting people at risk. In the past few weeks, it's alleged that patients categorised as suitable for a 20-minute response have had to wait up to six hours for an ambulance. I'm told that these include patients who have had a stroke, heart attacks and breathing problems. The person revealing this information to me is currently off sick with stress and cannot speak about their job without breaking down into tears. First Minister, how can this situation be defended, and what are you going to do about it?

Without knowing the full facts it's difficult to give an answer today, but there is sufficient there for me to investigate, in my mind, and I will write to the leader of Plaid Cymru, putting to the ambulance trust what she has said today, and when I get a response from them I will of course share it with her.

Thank you for that, First Minister. I would urge you as well to ask your health Secretary to assess the well-being of staff in the NHS, as the letter that I received mentions that counsellors from a charity have had to be brought in to speak with ambulance control staff, such is the level of that stress. If that is true, that is a really shocking situation and it's an emergency within our public services. Can you confirm that counselling has been offered to NHS staff? And when it comes to ambulance resources, can you assure us that prioritisation will be under review and that responding to red calls is not putting anyone classed as an amber call at risk of death or further injury?

That, again, needs further investigation. If the leader of Plaid Cymru will allow me, I will investigate those further matters as well, and when a response is received, I will of course share that with her.

Leader of the opposition, Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. First Minister, the Government, before Christmas, brought out their new economic action plan, 'Prosperity for All'. This is the fourth action plan that the Labour Party have brought forward since devolution started. The first one was 'A Winning Wales' in 1999, 'Wales: A Vibrant Economy' in 2005, and 'A new direction' in 2009. If you actually look at the document, it doesn't offer much hope as to how the Government are actually going to increase wages here in Wales, which are significantly below other parts of the United Kingdom. In the 20 years that you've been in Government here in Wales, or the nearly 20 years you've been in Government in Wales, gross value added has only increased by half of 1 per cent. It doesn't offer much hope as to exactly how you're going to get a real momentum behind GVA here in Wales. How can we have confidence that this document will be any different to the three predecessors that it had?

First of all, if we look at unemployment, unemployment is low in Wales, and is often lower than the UK average. In 1999 it would have been fanciful to claim that. We were perpetually above the UK average and that is something that shows the success of what we've done to encourage business and investment.

Secondly, there is a challenge in terms of increasing GVA per head. How is that done? To me, there are two ways. First of all, you ensure that, when you look to secure investment, it's investment that pays highly. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the policy pursued by his party was to replace well-paid jobs in coal and steel with badly paid, unskilled jobs. So, although the unemployment rate did not necessarily increase, GVA went down because the jobs weren't so highly paid. We saw, at the end of the 1990s and the early part of the last decade, many of those businesses leave Wales because they were going somewhere where wage rates were even lower.

We are not prepared as a Government to sell ourselves to the rest of the world on the basis that we are a cheap wage economy—which is what the Conservative Government did in the early 1990s, on the basis of, 'Come to Wales because it's cheap'—no more. We see the fruits of that. We see, of course, the investment from companies like Aston Martin, we see the further investment in Airbus up in the north, we've seen investments recovered in Pembrokeshire around the port of Milford Haven, all of which are much better paid than jobs that used to come here. That's one part of it.

The second part is training. The question we get asked more than any other when we speak to businesses that want to invest in Wales is: 'Have you got the people with the skills that we need?' They're not interested in cost, they're interested in skills. Increasingly, we can answer that question positively. So, it means working with further education colleges, in terms of apprenticeships, and we have our commitment to 100,000 all-age apprenticeships in the course of this Assembly. It's by raising people's skill levels that we can make sure they can put more money in their pockets, and thus increase GVA.

First Minister, you raise the issue about wages. If you take Scotland as an example, back in 1999, a Welsh worker and a Scottish worker took home the same take-home pay. Today, a Scottish worker takes home £49 more in their pay packet each week than a Welsh worker does. That's a fact. In this document, wages are only mentioned twice. Taxes, business taxes, are only mentioned once out of 17,000 words. Automation, which is the huge challenge we face, where potentially 35 per cent of the workforce could lose their jobs or have their jobs remodelled over the next 29 years, has a bare mention in this document. There doesn't seem to be any answers around the real challenges that we do face in the next decade or two.

This document, I presume, is the driver for economic policy coming out of the Government for at least the next four to five years, depending on the mandate, and yet again I go back to this point—it is the fourth document that has come out of the Welsh Labour Party in Government here in Wales, and I highlighted the poverty in wages here in Wales as opposed to other parts of the United Kingdom, and this document doesn't have that solution. Give us some inspiration as to what we can look at in 2021 on wages, on wealth here in Wales, and above all on companies re-establishing themselves here in Wales.

Well, it's already the case that we know there are challenges with automation. Indeed, my colleague Lee Waters, I think, has got a short debate on this tomorrow, on automation. He is somebody who has been very keen to make sure that we look at the fourth industrial revolution, as it's described, and I know it's something that the Cabinet Secretary is very much aware of.

Hope—the hope is this: Wales is a place, a destination where companies from all around the world want to come; that Wales is a place where people are seen as being innovative, as being entrepreneurial; a place where people have the skills that are needed to survive, not just in the next five or 10 years but beyond, to meet the challenges of automation; a place where there's not a fragmented education system, but one that works together in order to make sure that people have those skills that are required; a country where there's a Government that works closely with businesses, goes out to different countries and encourages businesses to come to Wales and to invest in Wales—that's why we have the highest figure for foreign direct investment for 30 years—but also a Government that understands that it's not a question of securing overseas investment, it's a question of ensuring that our small and medium-sized enterprises continue to be established and grow.

One of the issues we face in the Welsh economy is that too many of our SMEs grow to a particular level and then sell—the owners sell to a bigger company. There's always been that issue of how we encourage those people to actually grow bigger, to have more companies listed on the London stock exchange, listed on the alternative investment market, because we're under-represented on them and want them to grow rather than say, 'Well, I've done my bit now. I'm going to sell the business.' We have the entrepreneurs, there's no question about it. I see it with younger people: they have a drive and a confidence that we didn't have, because we were put off it actively when I was in school. Harnessing those people, making sure they have access to business support and advice, making sure they have access to support through Finance Wales, making sure that they have the skills that are needed to prosper in the future—that's the key to the Welsh economic future that I want to see and I believe the people of Wales want to see. 

I've had it put to me that that's the 'ladybook' analogy of what you want for the economic future, First Minister, because, in fairness, there are 17,000 words in this document. I had hoped that you would have given us something firm, a road map, which would lift Welsh wages. As I've highlighted, over the 20 years, a Scottish worker is taking home £49 more in their pay packet than a Welsh worker is taking home, and GVA has increased by half of 1 per cent over the 20 years. That is hardly a record to be proud of. I want to see Wales thrive economically just like the picture you've painted, but I had hoped that you would have drawn something out of this document that was brought forward by the Cabinet Secretary, because this is the blueprint that you're basing your economic model on, and it doesn't offer much hope when taxes are mentioned once, when wages are mentioned twice, and automation is only mentioned six times.

And if I could ask you on taxes in particular: do you believe that the tax environment the Government is putting forward will make Wales a more competitive tax environment to attract businesses into Wales? I've had representations brought to me by businesses on the land transaction tax, the LTT, that show that Wales will ultimately be at a disadvantage. I know the Cabinet Secretary for Finance has met with industry leaders on this particular issue—who are really concerned that the write-downs that businesses are going to have to put into their balance sheets because of the higher tax environment that your Government is putting forward. So, do you believe that the tax environment that you will be creating here in Wales will put Wales at an advantage in attracting some of these new jobs and new enterprises that will help us tackle the automation generation that is coming our way?

Well, I think he means 'Ladybird' book, rather than 'ladybook'. I trust that is the case.

But he asks the question: 'Am I confident in the land transaction tax and the tax environment it creates?' The answer to that is 'yes'. Am I confident that what we're doing as a Government adapts—. You mentioned the fact that there were four different plans—well, of course there are. If we'd still got the same plan from 1999 we'd be ossified in the past. In 1999 I remember Dr Phil Williams standing up in the previous Chamber and telling us all about broadband, and none of us knew what he was talking about, and he acknowledged that, in fairness to him, but he was ahead of the game. He was ahead of the game. In 1999 nobody talked about broadband. Now, of course, it's a fact of life.

So, we have to adapt, and the fact we've had different approaches over the last 20 years is a sign that we have adapted to make sure that we deal with the difference circumstances that the world throws at us, and I have to say, I am more than happy to defend our record as a Government on the economy, to defend our ideas, to defend the fact that we are a proactive Government. We take stakes in businesses where we believe businesses are going to be successful. We put our money where our mouth is. Where are his ideas? Where are the Welsh Conservative ideas? I have absolutely no idea what their economic policy is, and judging by the blank looks on the faces over there—their heads are all down—I don't think they do either. By all means, let's have a debate on economic ideas, but let's hear what yours are first.

Standards can best be raised when partners work together. This year, £60 million has been provided via the integrated care fund to support health and social services to deliver a wide range of integrated services in response to their population assessments. 

With the parliamentary review of health and social care in mind, I've been approached by constituents who've raised concerns about continuity of care for children moving into adulthood. Aneurin Bevan Local Health Board tell me they're working with their five local authority partners in their area to try and move towards a pooled integrated service provision, but this has proven a challenge, partly because of the range of bodies, but also because of the often difficult transition into adulthood for children requiring continuity of care.

Would the First Minister therefore agree to a review of the 2012 children and young people continuing care guidance, issued by the Welsh Government? I think it needs updating in the light of social care delivered by local authorities and other partners, and therefore we can then make sure that those transitioning into adulthood have a good chance of continuity of care. 

Can I thank my colleague for that question? First of all, if he wishes to write to me with further details, I will look at the individual case more closely. Secondly, he asked particularly about the guidance. I can say that that process has begun. We are setting up a group to consider the provision of continuing care for children and young people, and to look to produce new guidance to replace the existing guidance, taking into account, of course, developments since then. 

First Minister, a key finding of the parliamentary review into health and social care found that there was a plethora of national boards overseeing work programmes outside of organisational structures, and a clear recommendation was that these boards should be streamlined in order to ensure more effective delivery of public services. Notwithstanding the changes that might be coming along to health and social services, this is a concern that has arisen in other areas of public services: there's lots of reporting, not so much doing.

Will you consider looking at a review to streamline the boards that we have throughout the whole of the public sector, to ensure that the collaboration boards that we do have in place, and the programme boards that we have in place, are effective and do work together really well, and to get rid of those that do not, so that we can really focus on delivering the transformation we all desperately need to see?  

Can I say that I'm aware, of course, that the review itself is a cross-party review? And I think the review deserves full consideration by all parties, with a full response. What I can say to her, though: she makes the point, obviously sensibly, that we want to see borders removed. I know that the review laid out a vision of seamless health and care without artificial boundaries between primary and secondary care, health and social care, and that is entirely consistent with what we want to see as well. So, getting that done is the next step in terms of considering what the review has found.

I drew to the attention of the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services the problem of ambulance taxis being cancelled at the very last moment—something that causes distress to patients who have been waiting a while to go to hospital. In a response I received on 8 January, the Cabinet Secretary said that he was disappointed to hear of these concerns, that a transformation programme is being implemented to make improvements in this area, and that collaboration with local government is part of the solution. But, when can I tell my constituents that they can expect to see this important part of the health service being stabilised, because to date, despite the programme, it's clear that it's not working?

Well, I will ask the Cabinet Secretary to write to the Member in order to ensure that a full response is given to his question.FootnoteLink

First Minister, sadly we see the results when our health boards and local authorities fail to work together effectively: patients forced to stay in hospital far longer than necessary, or patients discharged without a care package in place. First Minister, I have been contacted by numerous elderly patients that have been left to fend for themselves after being discharged from hospital. What is your Government going to do to ensure that everyone who is discharged from hospital has adequate care in place during their recuperation?

That shouldn't happen, of course. It's a matter for all local authorities to ensure that doesn't happen. The integrated care fund is designed to ensure that the barriers that stop people leaving hospital in order to return home are reduced, and indeed removed.

I can say that the latest published figures on delayed transfers of care do record a reduction of 0.7 per cent in the number of delays across Wales, compared to the October 2017 period—and that total was 6 per cent down on the same period last year—and lower than the totals reported in the equivalent period in the preceding two years. To me, that's a sign that the integrated care fund and the money we have invested in that are having a positive effect on so many people's lives. 

Information on the introduction of Superfast Cymru is available on the Welsh Government website, and providing effective information will be on a key requirement of any future project.

A constituent from Talwrn contacted me recently, not that he was angry because he didn't have any superfast broadband, but that he's now found out that it has been available for some months and he wasn't aware of it. As it happens, I'm in the same situation, where a neighbour told me that we could access superfast broadband and have been able to do so for a few months.

This is very frustrating for people who have been waiting a long time, and I think it's part of the terrible lack of communication that's existed between Openreach and the public in terms of the roll-out of superfast broadband. So, will the First Minister give a commitment to put pressure again on Openreach to inform people when connections are available? Waiting for the connection can take long enough, and when you find that it has been available but you weren't aware, that's very frustrating indeed.

It has not been adequate. There was a campaign over the past three years, going on until next year, in order to promote the use of superfast broadband, and we are reconsidering how we can improve the communication on this, so that the people who have this service can receive it and understand that it's there. It's one thing that the infrastructure is available, but it's another to ensure that people know that they can use it. So, this is something that has been said to us too, and we want to consider the way in which we communicate in order to ensure that they are informed.

First Minister, can I say I think the Superfast Cymru programme has been a public communications disaster? Certainly my constituents have been repeatedly promised fibre broadband only to be told that the upgrade has been delayed, on several occasions. And now they find that they've been left in the lurch because Openreach has run out of time. In a letter to me on 11 January, the leader of the house said, and I quote in the letter: 'The provision of superfast broadband connection, under the Superfast Cymru project, was never promised to any area or community, only scheduled.'

That, to me, is a complete cop-out. Households have been promised repeatedly that they would receive an upgrade by the end of 2017. So, can I ask what is your message to these households? What lessons have you learned, and can you give any assurance that premises that were previously in scope will now be included in any successor scheme?

First of all, we're in the hands of BT in terms of the physical works that are taken forward. What I can say is, I do understand that there are people who now feel, because the contract has come to an end, therefore nothing else will happen. Can I say to the Member that we are considering what further steps we can now take? I understand. I've heard stories around Wales that, literally, structure has been left half finished as a result of the contract finishing. I'm well aware of that. It would seem a great shame if that were to happen. So, I can say to him and his constituents that we are actively considering how best to ensure that more people are connected, and we're looking again at how we can help to connect many more communities and households beyond the end of the contract at the end of last year.

First Minister, because of Welsh Government investment, there's no doubt that thousands of households across the Llanelli constituency now have access to superfast broadband. But in the community of Bynea, just outside of Llanelli, they've been treated appallingly by BT Openreach. They were told they'd have access by the end of the year, they've appalling speeds, and just before Christmas were told that because they've reached their target, they'd have to wait until any future successor scheme. This clearly isn't good enough. 

My colleague Nia Griffith held a meeting with residents and with BT on Saturday morning, and they were told that they'd now have to cobble together a community bid. They are very frustrated by this, so can the Welsh Government make sure that, as it communicates the next phase, these left-behind groups are now reached and reached quickly? 

Well, I can well imagine the concern, if not anger, that people in Bynea feel. I think, from the Member's tone, this was part of the Superfast Cymru contract rather than a commercial contract, over which, of course, we have no control, but it is something that we'll continue to address with BT with a view to looking again at communities that were promised, or appear to have been promised, to have services but have not had those services delivered, with a view to delivering those services in the future. So, we are very much aware that there will be communities and premises around Wales who feel that they should have had access to superfast broadband who've not yet received it, and we are now looking at ways to try to ensure that they do receive it in future.

Our financial inclusion delivery plan sets out our work with partner organisations. This is improving access to affordable credit, financial services and financial information, and improving financial capability in Wales.

Thank you. There's a broader market for credit unions in other developed nations. We look at Ireland, where there's been 77 per cent in the last year and 50 per cent in the United States, and the figures for Wales in terms of credit union membership: 69,000 members here, but 561,000 in Northern Ireland alone. So, I wonder whether the Welsh Government could do more to facilitate the development of credit unions in Wales, given that the larger banks are withdrawing from local communities. Is it possible to create a national network of credit unions that could be successful and could replace the high-street banks that are withdrawing from our communities, in order to ensure that those services remain in place for people in Wales?

I sympathise greatly with what the Member is saying. May I pay tribute to her for the work that she has done in order to ensure that people get the help that they need—

There's a first for everything.

—and aren't, of course, in a situation where they have to borrow money from people who would charge them a great deal for borrowing that money?

It is true to say that there is more potential in credit unions. It's true to say that in Ireland, where they've been for much longer than in Wales, the credit unions there can lend a great deal of money when compared with the credit unions in Wales. People can get mortgages from credit unions there, for example. As regards the network of credit unions, I think that is something that is well worth considering, and I will ensure that the Minister will communicate with her in order to see how we can strengthen the presence of credit unions in the communities of Wales, bearing in mind that the banks are withdrawing from so many communities, in order to give people the opportunity to control their financial lives in a way that benefits them.FootnoteLink

Although children who gain experience of budgeting, spending and saving from an early age are more likely to be able to manage their finances as they take on financial responsibilities as they grow older, research from the Money Advice Service on the financial capability of children, young people and parents in Wales, launched during last November's Financial Capability Week, found that many young people about to turn 18 in Wales are ill-prepared for dealing with adult financial responsibilities. Just 35 per cent of children between seven and 17 had learned about money management in school and only 7 per cent had talked with their teachers about money.

Will you therefore encourage your Government to revisit the recommendations of the 2010 Communities and Culture Committee report on financial inclusion and the impact of financial education, which made clear recommendations in these areas? And can you also confirm what role, if any, the Welsh Government will be taking in UK Government proposals for a breathing space scheme, to provide individuals in debt with up to 6 weeks free from interest charges and enforcement to give them time to seek financial advice, hopefully—and I declare an interest—from independent third sector bodies, such as those two of my daughters work for, providing this impartial advice to people?

Firstly, I agree entirely with him about the need for young people to be financially educated. I think part of the problem is that money, despite what happened in 2008, still appears to be freely available in a way that it wasn't when I was younger, when loans were not as freely available as they are now. In the days when—well, my first car loan carried an interest rate of 29 per cent; I remember that very vividly, and painfully. For many people, they found it very difficult to manage—they'd not been shown how to manage; sometimes people learn through their families, sometimes people don't have that ability to learn, and don't have an example that they can follow. It is part, I understand, of the curriculum, of the new curriculum, so it will be there, to enable young people to be able to manage their—to help them them to manage their—finances in the future. Because the point is well made: how do you as a youngster cope with all the—? Quite often, money is being thrown at you—or debts thrown at you, for many, many people—without any kind of help available to you. That point is well made, and it's included in the curriculum.

In terms of the issue of breathing space, I know this is something that has been raised. It is something that we need to consider, as to how we—if we look to take it forward, how we take it forward, whether it's on a Wales basis or working with other countries in the UK. But, to my mind, anything that enables people to have a respite from debt, and particularly continuing debt, which people often find on their shoulders, must be a welcome thing.

Question 6—oh no, sorry. Rhianon Passmore.

Diolch. First Minister, following the Tory UK Government's hollowed budget at the end of last year, the Welsh Government's budget will be once again lower, in real terms, in 2019-20 than it was in 2010-11. The Welsh Labour Government has repeatedly asserted that, for the Welsh economy to grow, which will consequently improve the financial security for the Welsh people, it is critically important that the UK Government commit to important infrastructure projects in Wales. First Minister, what representations and actions have the Welsh Government made to ensure projects like the Swansea bay tidal lagoon, electrification of the London Paddington to Swansea railway line, and the much-needed further investment in our railway infrastructure, become a reality?

Well, we've made representations very strongly. We get 1.5 per cent of railway infrastructure investment—1.5 per cent. On a balanced share, it would be over 6 per cent, but that's not what we get. And still the UK Government refused to devolve railway infrastructure plus a Barnett share of that spending to us. We still have no decision on the tidal lagoon. We made the point last week. We have put our cards on the table as a Welsh Government. We have said that we are prepared to make a financial contribution, take a stake in the lagoon. We make no apologies for that. Silence as far as the UK Government is concerned, silence from the Conservative benches—silence from the Conservative benches. This is a major project—[Interruption.] This is a major project, which needs a decision. Twelve months have gone by since the review was put in place to assess whether this project should go ahead. It has said the project should go ahead; still we have no response at all. [Interruption.] Oh, I'm being told by Darren Millar my attitude doesn't help, as if I was a schoolboy. I'm the First Minister of Wales; I've got every opportunity and right to represent the people of Wales in regard to the UK Government, and the UK Government isn't actually making progress. [Interruption.] I'm sorry, we have had 12 months of reasonableness, and nothing has been delivered. It is about time that we saw the commitment from the UK Government that the Welsh Government has made, and a commitment that is made to creating up to 1,000 jobs in Wales and a sustainable green energy sector. We stand ready to work with the UK Government, but we need the UK Government, and the Welsh Conservative Party, to be vocal in support of the lagoon.

Now question 6—Leanne Wood.

Well, public spaces protection orders are a matter for local authorities.  

Labour-controlled Newport City Council are seeking to amend their public space protection order to include a blanket 'no begging' restriction, as part of a crackdown on aggressive or intimidating begging. It's the view of homelessness charity Wallich that aggressive begging is already prohibited under the existing PSPO and that shifting begging off the streets will only make it harder to provide support for those people who need help with homelessness services. Although the hands of the Welsh Government are tied in terms of preventing local authorities from imposing these restrictions, can you please give us your view on such blanket bans on begging, and can you issue guidance to local authorities, urging them to seek a much more compassionate response?

One of the things I noticed in the late 1980s, when I first went to London, was that there were people begging on the streets—numbers of them. And I remember thinking, 'Oh, I wouldn't like to see this in Wales.' But it happened, in the 1990s, and it's still there now, as we know. At the end of the second world war, begging largely disappeared from the streets of the UK. It re-emerged under a Tory Government in the 1980s and 1990s.

From my perspective, I think there are two issues here: first of all, there is no doubt that many people find aggressive begging intimidating, but the answer is not simply to say, 'Well, just get rid of them and that's the end of it', because there has to be a twin-track approach. Yes, people don't want to—. Many people do feel that they don't want to see people begging on the street, but there has to be an alternative where people can go, where people don't feel they have to beg, where people get the support that they need, where they're given a roof over their heads and get that support. We're not in the days of the Vagrancy Act 1824, where people were effectively criminalised because they were homeless. It does need a compassionate approach, she is right, and that means ensuring that where there are plans to deal with the issue of begging on the streets there are places people can go in order that they feel they don't have to do that in the first place. 

First Minister, for the reasons that you have mentioned and others, we do have a worrying level of rough-sleeping and begging on our streets and I think that's been very visible and noticeable to all of us and the public in general. We do need constructive responses. So, I wonder if you would agree with me that Newport business investment district, representing city centre traders and businesses in Newport, together with partners such as Newport City Council, are providing that sort of thinking in looking at a diverted giving scheme, which is proposed at the moment, which would involve people donating to participating shops rather than giving to those begging on the streets, with that money then going to provide additional services and support. I wonder if you would join me in welcoming that proposed initiative in Newport as a way of dealing with the very practical issues and making sure that vulnerable people are better supported. 

Well, it is an example of what I was saying. I thank my friend for the question. It's an example of what I was saying earlier on. This is not a question of Newport saying, 'We're going to get rid of beggars', it's a question of saying, 'Look, is there a better way, a more humane way, of helping people?' That's exactly what you said: people donating money to organisations, I think such as the Wallich as well, to help people who are homeless to create a fund of money for organisations that can help individuals. That to me represents a very effective way of dealing with what can be public concerns—I've had them expressed to me—but also dealing with individuals who are at risk in a humane way. 

The planning system plays a vital role in the delivery of new homes by identifying the land necessary to meet the housing requirements of communities, which are determined by local planning authorities in their local development plans.

Thank you for the answer, First Minister. The Welsh Government requires local planning authorities to maintain a five-year housing land supply to meet local demand for housing and to monitor this on an annual basis. However, Caerphilly County Borough Council's local development plan has failed to ensure sufficient deliverable land has been made available to meet the needs they have identified for their local communities. Caerphilly's housing land supply position is being hampered by the failure to make progress in replacing their LDP following a review, which began in 2013. What action will the First Minister take to ensure that Caerphilly council meet the requirements regarding housing land supply set by his own Government?  

Well, first of all, it's important that local authorities do have a five-year supply of land. Secondly, it's important to have an up-to-date LDP, because the alternative is a free-for-all and that's something that all local authorities will want to avoid. That said, I have to say it is hugely important that Caerphilly and other authorities are able to work together to bring forth strategic development plans, because it is an artificial divide to say, 'Well, you know, anybody who wants to live in Caerphilly has to work in Caerphilly' or that somehow people don't work in Cardiff from Rhondda Cynon Taf or vice versa. The reality is that housing demand is not determined by local authority boundaries. So, I do want to see—and I know it's something that is felt strongly by Members who represent constituencies where there's pressure on housing—local authorities working together and saying, 'Look, the reality is Cardiff, Caerphilly, Newport, RCT', just to give some examples, 'they're part of a similar urban area'. Housing demand will be the same in all local authorities, so it does make sense then to work together to deliver a strategic solution to housing demand rather than, as has historically been the case, simply looking at demand in one local authority area. That doesn't represent economic reality and it's hugely important that local authorities, as they have been given in the planning Act, are given the flexibility to work together to deliver housing solutions outside of their own boundaries.

And, finally, question 8—Dawn Bowden.

Merthyr Tydfil local authority has £19 million earmarked for band A of the twenty-first century schools and education programme in the five years to 2019. The Caerphilly authority, which, of course, she represents part of, has £56.5 million, of which over £8 million is earmarked for Rhymney. Further investment is planned from 2019 when band B begins.

Thank you for that answer, First Minister. I recently had the great pleasure of officially opening the new refurbished buildings at Ysgol Afon Taf in my constituency and I saw, at first hand, the benefits of the investment by Welsh Government in the future of young learners there. I'm sure you'll agree that such a development shows the clear benefits of our capital investment in education. Would you therefore agree with me that the new administration in Merthyr Tydfil council needs to build on this record of success and that a decisive and objective decision now needs to be made about the new school investment proposed for Ysgol y Graig in Cefn Coed so that future funding of this project is not put at risk?

Very good work has been done in Merthyr in terms of—she mentions, of course, Ysgol Afon Taf. I was there, of course, to open the new college in Merthyr as well—a substantial improvement on the original building. It is hugely important that local authorities continue the momentum that has been established in order to see schools replaced and refurbished across Wales, and, again, hugely important that decisions are taken in good time so as not to jeopardise funding. It's in nobody's interests for that to happen.

Thank you, First Minister.

The next item is the business statement and announcement and I call on the leader of the house, Julie James, to make the statement—Julie James.

Diolch, Llywydd. There are no changes to this week's business. Business for the next three weeks is shown on the business statement and announcement found amongst the meeting papers that are available to Members electronically.

Thank you, leader of the house. Could I ask for two things today, please? Last week, I raised with you the issue around residents who were facing traffic blight in their area around the northern access road in St Athan, and you kindly indicated that the Cabinet Secretary would be in touch with my office and also engage with the residents locally. I'd be grateful if you could get me a timeline for when that engagement might start, because this is a pressing issue for the residents in particular, who have grave concerns about the access to their site. Regrettably, following on from business statement last week, I haven't had any communication yet from the Cabinet Secretary. I appreciate that there is the goodwill there to do that—I make that as an observation—and it would be beneficial if I could have some idea of the timeline.

Secondly, I received a written answer back from Rebecca Evans, the Minister, in relation to the regeneration investment fund for Wales and the ongoing investigations around the RIFW sale. She indicates that she'll be making a statement shortly on the progress around the legal action that the Welsh Government has taken. I'd be grateful—as leader of the house, are you aware when that statement might be coming forward, as there is considerable public interest around this particular issue? It has been some considerable time, now, since various committees of this Assembly looked into this particular matter, and certainly an update position, as the Minister has indicated she's prepared to give, would be most welcome, but a timeline as to when that might come forward would better inform our ability to scrutinise progress on retrieving money to the Welsh taxpayer from this sale, if that money can be retrieved, and also the legal actions that the Welsh Government is undertaking in this particular case.

Thank you for both of those. On the first one, absolutely, I will speak with the Cabinet Secretary and make sure that he contacts you and gives you a timeline for that. The Minister is here to hear your remarks and I'm sure she'll be able to let you know as soon as possible when she is going to bring that statement forward. It's not in the business timetable for the next three weeks.

I wondered whether we could have a statement with regard to the childcare offer. I've had communication—from not constituents; in my capacity as portfolio holder—that the Welsh Government funding guidelines relating to the childcare offer have now changed to mirror those in England, meaning that registered child minders will no longer be able to offer funded childcare places to a relative. Previous regulations stated that, as long as care for those under 12 was carried out mainly or wholly outside the home, a relative, as a child minder, could provide that childcare. It's meant that families with long-term private childcare arrangements with child carers are having to make different arrangements, potentially at a significant cost and disruption to continuity of care. The ban on related children in Wales is unique to child minders. Individuals working in or owning a nursery are still allowed to claim the entitlement for related children, as are those in receipt of child benefit. So, if I could have a statement from the Minister on that, that would be great.

The second request that I have is in relation to a response that the First Minister gave to David Rees with regard to the letter from the MOJ in relation to Baglan prison. The First Minister said he'd written to the MOJ and, because of not having a satisfactory response, the Welsh Government was not currently minded to sell the land at this time. I was wondering whether the Welsh Government could release that letter to all AMs so that we could all see it and understand the rationale for the First Minister saying that.

Thank you for both of those important points. On the first one, the Minister was here listening to your remarks. I think if you wrote to the Minister and asked him those specific points, I'm sure he'd be able to answer those queries, and perhaps you could indicate in that letter whether there's a wider interest across, other than in the instances you're speaking about. 

In terms of the FMQ response, again, I'd be asking you to write to the First Minister asking him to release that letter. I don't think that's a matter for a statement, but I'm sure if he is minded to do so, he'd let you know.

I call for two statements. Firstly, would it be possible to have a statement from the relevant Cabinet Secretary about how the Hunting Act 2004 is being enforced in Wales? I think it's almost 13 years since this Act came into force, and I'm really glad that the Prime Minister has now, finally, dropped plans to repeal it. However, foxes do continue to be killed on a regular basis on so-called trail hunts, and hunt hounds are often out of control in public, sometimes on major roads and railways. Does the Cabinet Secretary support calls from the League Against Cruel Sports and others for a more rigorous enforcement of the ban? That was the first statement.

On the second statement, I refer back again to the victims of the contaminated blood scandal. Would it be possible to ask the health Minister to make a statement on whether he's had any more information at all from the department of health in Westminster, because victims of the scandal were promised an inquiry in July by Theresa May and were promised that a chair would be appointed by Christmas? We still haven't heard who this chair will be and, in the meantime, those affected continue to wait and, of course, some of them are dying.

Well, thank you very much for raising both of those very important points. The Member will be very aware that the Hunting Act is not a devolved matter, and the enforcement of it is a matter for the police. However, I completely concur with her that the vast majority of people find foxhunting both abhorrent and extremely cruel. We do hope the UK Government will take account of that in its enforcement. But I think the correct course of action is to ensure that the local police commissioner makes sure that it's a top priority for the police force in enforcing the current Act, and I'd be more than happy to facilitate the Member speaking to the Cabinet Secretary about engagement with the police commissioners on that important point.

In terms of the contaminated blood matter, my understanding is that the chair is not yet appointed. The Cabinet Secretary will reaffirm his expectations for the inquiry to the chair as soon as that chair is appointed. I'm sure that the Cabinet Secretary, if the chair isn't appointed in the very near future, will be making his displeasure about the tardiness of that appointment very plain indeed.

Can I call for two statements? The first is an update on Welsh Government proposals for Gypsy/Travellers in the light of two outstanding consultations, the first being the consultation on the draft circular for the planning of Gypsy/Traveller and show-people sites, which closed, I believe, on 23 May, almost eight months ago; and secondly, the draft circular on enabling Gypsies, Roma and Travellers, which closed on 22 December, just before Christmas. The Gypsies and their supporters and friends I met in Conwy last Friday had been told by Welsh Government that the first of those consultations would see the final report being published before Christmas 2017. They told me that unless a local authority has planning approval for a specific site, it can't apply for grant funding, but that no north Wales local authority is presently in a place of preparedness and planning approval to submit grant funding applications. They further told me that when they met Welsh Government representatives in Llandudno Junction, they were grappling with what action the Cabinet Secretary could take against a local authority that failed to submit planning approvals and grant applications for sites and that they judged currently that the purchase on local authorities for Welsh Government was fairly modest. Therefore, I would be grateful if you could, or Welsh Government could, make a statement reflecting those two consultations and the concerns being expressed, certainly to me last Friday, by members of the community in north Wales.

Secondly and finally, can I call for a statement on local bus services? This follows the announcement on 16 December, Saturday, that Acrefair-based bus company D. Jones and Son were ceasing trading, two months after being the subject of scrutiny by the Traffic Commissioner for Wales public inquiry. No doubt like others, I received concerns from affected residents who had lost local bus services, asking for help in replacement of bus links. I submitted a written question to the Cabinet Secretary two days later, on the following Monday. I'm still waiting for a reply to that. I also contacted Wrexham council's lead member for environment and transport, who told me that officers were continuing to look at options; that this is difficult, as a number of operators have ceased across the region; that despite the Cabinet Secretary's bus summit, they'd seen no tangible actions coming forward; and having attended two of the three bus workshops, this was most certainly a wider issue across Wales. The Cabinet Secretary held his bus summit a year ago, in January 2017, stating that this was to halt the demise of the industry, following the collapse of Ruabon-based GHA coaches the previous summer. So, given the concerns being raised not only by affected residents, who often are on commercial rather than on commissioned routes, and given concerns being expressed that, still, no tangible actions are coming forward from the bus summit and subsequent workshops, I would welcome a statement to reflect their concerns and hopefully give them some assurance that they're being listened to.

Thank you for both of those. On the first one, I'm the Cabinet Secretary responsible for the Gypsy/Traveller sites, and I am planning to bring a statement before the Easter recess to the Senedd in order to update people on where I am since I took over the portfolio on a number of issues. However, the Member did mention some very specific issues around particular sites that he has an interest in and I'd be more than happy to meet with the Member to go through some of those very specific issues. I have made arrangements to visit some of the sites in question as well, so it would be good if the Member made an arrangement to speak to me about the very specific issues. But, on the more general points, I will be bringing forward a statement in the near future.

In terms of the local bus services point, he raises a very important point. He did say he was awaiting an answer to his written questions, and I would suggest that the Member waits to see what the answer to the written question is, and if there is a more general point that he then wishes to raise with the Cabinet Secretary that would be of interest to the entire Senedd, I'm sure that the Cabinet Secretary will be prepared to look at that, since it is a year since the bus summit took place.

Can we have a debate in Government time on Government policy on opposition motion debates? I probably need not remind the leader of the house that, last week, the Government lost a vote for the first time in this Assembly. Now, in response to that, a Welsh Government spokesperson said, and I quote, 

'Opposition day votes are... meaningless. They aren't binding and don't have any bearing on government policy or delivery.'

Now, when the Westminster Government made similarly arrogant remarks recently, the shadow Labour leader of the house at Westminster said that those comments made a mockery of Parliament. Now, doesn't she agree that the comments made by the Welsh Government last week make a mockery of this Parliament? They're demeaning to this institution. They're disrespectful to all those who have fought so hard to create a Welsh democracy where, in contrast to the days of the Welsh Office, the Government has to submit itself to the accountability of an elected parliament, no matter how undoubtedly inconvenient that sometimes may feel.

Well, thank you for raising that very important point. I don't think it's a suitable thing to bring forward a Government debate in Government time on at all. I do think that it's a real shame that the consensual way in which this place has always operated, including allowing Government pairing, for example, to have important Government business conducted, has broken down, and I do think that there are obvious consequences for the way that we conduct the Government as a result. It's an important matter that needs careful consideration, and the Government is currently giving it careful consideration.

Could I ask for a statement on the impact of Tory police cuts on crime in our communities? Since last year, we've seen an 18 per cent increase in violent crime, a 14 per cent increase in knife crime in south Wales, but a 25 per cent increase in knife crime across the whole of Wales, an increase to 84,000 crimes unsolved, which was an increase on the previous two years, and, since 2010, Wales has lost 682 police officers. Now, policing may not be devolved yet, but certainly the consequence of those police cuts on our communities is significant, and it seems to me that it would be appropriate for the Government, in its own time, to have a debate on the impact of these Tory police cuts.

Well, thank you for raising that very important point. Community safety is, of course, a top priority for the Government. The Member is obviously aware that policing itself isn't devolved, despite the various representations that have been made to Westminster on that point.

The Cabinet Secretary for Local Government and Public Services announced the provisional police settlement on 19 December 2017, and, as in recent years, the Home Office has again decided to overlay its needs-based formula with a floor mechanism. This ensures that all police forces in England and Wales can expect to receive a cash-flat settlement for 2018-19 when compared on a like-for-like basis with 2017-18. The total support for police forces in Wales will be £349.9 million. Within this, the Welsh Government's contribution to police funding for 2018-19 is £140.9 million.

We've also agreed to protect the budget for the 500 additional community support officers for 2018-19. That's £16.8 million earmarked in the budget for next year for the continued delivery of that important commitment.

The Cabinet Secretary for Local Government and Public Services is very committed to working with the police and crime commissioners and the chief constables to ensure that the reductions are managed in ways that minimise the impact on community safety in Wales. He, along with his officials, will be very happy to meet with all of the policing bodies to discuss finance and other matters to ensure that the important issues around community safety are properly covered off.

It's been very difficult to have some of these decisions, with pressures on budgets. I've seen some very good things, in my brief time in this portfolio, around some of the multi-agency work that the police have done in order to maximise the resource they have on the ground, But the Member is right that it is a most important matter, and I'm sure we can have a debate in the very near future about the importance of that matter to Wales.

Leader of the house, may I ask for a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for health on payments by Welsh NHS trusts in damages and legal fees for medical negligence? According to research, in the last five years, four of the seven local health boards paid out over £200 million. It's a striking figure here, Minister, and, basically, this could be used to eradicate child poverty, homelessness and food banks in Wales. Aneurin Bevan Local Health Board paid out the highest amount, of £67 million, over the period, although £2 million was for the historical mistakes relating to incidents before 1997. Can I ask for a statement from the Cabinet Secretary on what action he intends to take to address these huge sums for medical negligence in Wales, please?

Well, that's a very important issue indeed, and because it's so important, the Cabinet Secretary does report annually on those figures. I'm sure he's heard your remarks today and will take those into account in his next report on the subject.

The leader of the house was very generous last week in responding to requests from me, and I'm hoping she will be as generous this week too. May I start by welcoming the fact that there's been a written statement this morning from the First Minister on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, stating that unless something happens by the end of the month, it's the Government's intention to introduce their own continuity Bill? I welcome that, but I would ask the leader of the house just to go two steps further today if possible. My colleague, Steffan Lewis, will be here tomorrow to propose his own continuity Bill in the slot that he has as a backbench Member. Will the leader of the house, as Chief Whip, state that the Government will support, in principle, Steffan Lewis's proposal tomorrow? I'm sure he'd like to hear that today. Secondly, will there now be a positive step in publishing the Bill in draft form, so that it's possible for us all to see what the Government has in mind? Not to be tabled formally, but in draft form, so that we can see that and use that as a means of encapsulating the need for the amendments that the Government wishes to see in the House of Lords.

The second thing I'd specifically like to hear is whether it would be possible to have a statement from the Minister for Environment explaining the situation in Cardiff, and in particular Roath brook and Roath park. It's not in my region, but many people have been in touch with me over the past few weeks, very concerned about the way in which the consultation took place in the Roath park area and the work that is now progressing in that area. I'm concerned that some of the figures used in the consultation were inaccurate, and I'd also like to ask whether there are any lessons to be learned here at a national level. I think it would be good to have a statement explaining what happened there, what the work done by NRW was and the advice received by Government, and why the work proceeded in the way that it did. It has certainly caused distress to many people in that area.

The final thing, if I may—and I don't even know if this is really for the business manager, perhaps possibly for the Presiding Officer, perhaps possibly for us all as an Assembly, but I think it's important to raise it. As Chair of the Finance Committee, I have for the second year in a row tried to get the Secretary of State for Wales to come to the Finance Committee to give, in open, public session, his account of how the devolution of tax powers is happening in Wales. The Cabinet Secretary for Finance was there last week, we've had the Welsh Treasury there, we'll have the revenue authority there this week, and I think that, as the joint holders of tax devolution set out in the Wales Act—it's clearly defined that it's for the Wales Office and the Welsh Government to produce annual reports on how tax devolution is undertaken, and therefore, they are joint stakeholders and holders of this devolution process—I would like to see the Secretary of State give his time to a committee of this Assembly to explain how this is happening. He has pleaded, on two occasions now, diary commitments. Last week—because social media is a wonderful thing—as we were meeting, I saw that the Secretary of State had to pass us in order to go to Swansea to do his engagements. We would have made every arrangement, as I'm sure you are aware, business manager, to accommodate him on his way to Swansea. So, I think there is a message here that we would like to see, when appropriate and when constitutionally responsible for these actions, the Secretary of State making himself available to a committee of this Assembly.

Well, thank you for those three very important points. On the continuity Bill, we are very much looking forward to Steffan Lewis's debate tomorrow. The Government is supporting it and there's a free vote for the backbenchers. We are very much of the view that it would be better if the UK Government put the right position in its own Bill and made the right amendments and carried out the right set of actions, but, in the absence of that, we are making it very plain—and I'm sure this will come out of the debate tomorrow—that we are prepared to do it in their stead and to co-ordinate with other devolved administrations in so doing. So, I'm very happy to say that we are exactly in the same space and we're very much looking forward to that debate tomorrow.

On the Roath park matter, this is a matter that's been raised with a large number of people over the course of the flood prevention scheme. The Minister will be answering questions as part of the Cabinet Secretary's question time tomorrow, and I'm sure the Member will take every advantage of that. And if he has very specific detailed things he'd like to put to her, perhaps he'd be so good as to write with some of those very specific things. She's here, listening to some of his concerns at the moment.

In terms of the Secretary of State, I completely concur with the Member's analysis of it. I don't think it is a matter for me, actually, but it's clearly the case that the Finance Committee needs to get the very best possible evidence and completely understand both sides of the devolution settlement. So, for what it's worth, I agree that it would be very good indeed if the Secretary of State would be kind enough to give us the benefit of his presence here. And I can't resist—I'm sure, Llywydd, you will forgive me for doing this—but the next time he's in Swansea, perhaps he'd be so good as to announce the underpinning of the tidal lagoon at the same time.

Can I call for two statements from the Cabinet Secretary for Education, please? It was reported widely in the media yesterday that, last year, teachers from 16 of the 22 local authorities had reported incidents of racism. I'm sure you would be very concerned about that, leader of the house. Also, there's been quite a spike, of course, in religious hate crime that has been recorded in Wales. I think lots of schools are trying to do a good job in educating young people about different ethnic groups and religions, but of course, clearly we're not tackling the problem as effectively as we could be. I know there are some trial lessons that are being conducted in Cardiff, Swansea and Neath Port Talbot schools, which I think is a very positive thing, and I just wonder what assessment the Cabinet Secretary for Education has made of the shape of the new curriculum to come, and whether that is being properly informed about these latest trends so that we can make the changes that might be necessary to that. So, I would appreciate a statement from the Cabinet Secretary on that particular issue.

Can I also request a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for Education on online resilience and the support that's being given to young people in schools? There was quite an alarming report from the children's commissioner in England that was published in the new year, which showed that young people are using social media that is designed for older children and adults, and as a result of that, many, particularly when they get to high school, are jumping from a transition where they're primarily playing games on their devices to suddenly being immersed in quite an intense social atmosphere on social media, where they're looking for social validation through likes and responses to some of their posts in an unhealthy way, and they can often have an unhealthy image of the world, particularly if they're following lots of celebrities trying to keep up appearances. It's quite clear to me that this trend is growing, it's becoming an ever-increasing problem in our schools, and we heard in the Children, Young People and Education Committee that self-harm, anxiety and mental health problems—lots of them have their roots in some of the social media that young people are engaging with. So, I think it would be helpful to have an update on some of the work that the Cabinet Secretary for Education has been doing across Wales in encouraging schools to get this online resilience situation sorted so that our children and young people can be protected from these potential harms.

The Member raises two extremely important points, both of which, as it happens, overlap with my own portfolio, and on which I'm working very closely with the Cabinet Secretary for Education. So, on the first one, in terms of reporting racist hate crimes, faith hate crimes and so on, I think actually it's me who'll be bringing forward a statement in due course on that. I don't have a timetable for that at the moment, but we are in the process of talking, the Cabinet Secretary and I, about some of the major issues around that, and when we've got something to report back on this very important topic—. I think it will be me, I'm not absolutely certain, but one of us will be bringing forward a statement to say where we've got with that. That will include a number of things, not just the curriculum and teachers' issues, but the wider issue in Wales, which is very important. And, of course, the educational sector sits within that wider sector and is very influential in it. So we'll be looking at both of those.

In terms of online resilience, the Member also raises a very important point there. The Welsh Government has done an enormous amount of work in primary schools, actually, with the internet rangers, I think they're called, in some schools. There are internet guardians—there was one primary school I visited where they were called the internet guardians. Basically, they're primary school-aged children supporting each other to understand what the effect will be, particularly in year 6 and in the transition into secondary school. Because the Member's absolutely right; he identifies the change in tone and so on there, and I know that's very much part of the new curriculum roll-out, and very much part of the Hwb resources that we've put in place as well. Again, the Cabinet Secretary and I are working very closely together in terms of how we do that as we go forward into the digital age as part of my portfolio: how we make sure that, again, not only schoolchildren—although it's very important for schoolchildren—but actually also things like small and medium enterprises and entrepreneurs, people who are running small rural businesses and so on, absolutely themselves stay safe online, make the best of the internet opportunities, but actually do things like protect their intellectual property properly, have the right resilience, cyber security resilience, and so on. It's all part of the same picture as we move forward. So, the Member I hope will be reassured that we are in discussions about that, and again, in due course, when we've got something to report back about where we are, we will be doing so.

May I ask for a statement from the health Secretary on the impact that cuts to the all-Wales school liaison core programme, or SchoolBeat, will have on the important work that that programme delivers? I know that in north Wales, it employs 16 officials who visit all schools and convey important messages to the children, from the youngest at age four up to those at age 16, on issues such as learning about the dangers of the misuse of drugs and substances, safety online, sexting, domestic abuse and so on and so forth. Cutting that budget, as far as I understand it, would mean that that service could be left with only eight officials in north Wales, which would mean that they would only visit secondary schools. Now, given the emphasis of the Government and many of us here on the need to tackle adverse childhood experiences, wouldn't cutting this service be a retrograde step in terms of tackling some of those problems? Of course, it would undermine an important means of conveying very important messages directly to the young people who could be impacted by them. So, I would appreciate a statement on that.

I would also ask for antoher statement. May I be one of the first to welcome the written statement released within the last hour and a bit on additional capital funding from the Government, particularly, of course, the additional element in terms of twenty-first century schools? We as a party have been eager to see a specific element for encouraging Welsh-medium education, and I recognise the fact that the Government has allocated £30 million this year and £30 million for ensuing years, and has stated in that statement that that is a priority that you share with us in Plaid Cymru. So, given that, can we have an early statement from the Minister for Welsh language to outline the criteria that she will use for distributing that additional funding? And also to endorse the fact that we shouldn't see that additional £30 million as the provision for Welsh-medium education, but that there is a clear emphasis in terms of twenty-first century schools in its entirety, still having to operate proactively to promote Welsh-medium education, and that that £30 million is additional and offers additionality to that too. I think it's important that that message isn't lost.    

Well, thank you very much for that. That's very important. In terms of the first one, we have a large number of very difficult decisions to make in terms of resourcing and so on, but one of the things that's really good about where we are in schools' resilience is the fact that we have now got Hwb out to every single school and pupil across Wales. And although it's not quite the same as hearing somebody in person, we can now get a lot of those resources onto Hwb and make sure that, actually, all schools have access to some of that material. I'm sure the Cabinet Secretary's looking very carefully at that, and if Llyr would like to write to the Cabinet Secretary and outline some of the very specific concerns, I'm sure she can address that in the light of some of the developments that we've had. I've been having some discussions with her where it overlaps my own portfolio about how we can use those resources in just that way to make sure that all schools benefit from some of the things where it's not possible to get individually around all of them.

In terms of the Welsh language additional funding, I'm told that it frees up the additional £13 million for future years, so the Member should be reassured about that. And, again, in terms of the very specific issues, I think the Minister is taking those into account, and she is due to come forward with a statement. I'm not quite sure what the timescale for that is, but I know she is due to come forward with a statement on where she is with some of the revisions for the Welsh language policy, and I'm sure she'll take that into account when that statement does come forward in due course.

Leader of the house, I was very pleased to host the exhibition in the Pierhead this afternoon to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of the passing of the Abortion Act 1967, but I think Assembly Members present were all somewhat shocked to hear just how little progress has been made in this last half-century in dealing with the inequalities of abortion access in Wales. Because we seem to be in a much worse position than in other parts of Britain, and, as a result, women are having their access to abortion artificially delayed by being forced to see their GP before they can access the gynae services that they require, and many of those who are being referred to the voluntary sector are having to pay £600 themselves because of these delays, and also having to have surgical abortions because it's too late for them to have a medical abortion, which obviously is much less invasive. So, I wondered if we could have the Cabinet Secretary make a statement on how he would be able to address this. I think there is an outlier, Gwent, which is very good at referring people who they can't accommodate themselves to the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, but other health boards do not have a good record. I think, across the Chamber, there should be alarm about this and we need to know how we're going to deal with this in the future.

Well, thank you for raising that extremely important matter. The Cabinet Secretary for health is here listening to your concerns and I think he's indicating that he'd very much welcome a meeting with you to discuss those concerns further and see what we can do to take them forward.

Leader of the house, I'm delighted to announce to the Chamber that the Freshwater Habitats Trust have appointed me as the Assembly's new species champion for the freshwater pearl mussel as part of their #ShowTheLove campaign, a role that I am going to relish, I'm sure. I'll be raising many questions on protecting that species with the Cabinet Secretary when I bed into the role—on the sea bed. [Laughter.]

In the meantime, on the broader issue of the marine environment, in the news at the moment is, of course, the problem of plastic pollution. We know that the UK Government and the Scottish Government as well—. Supermarkets such as Iceland, in particular, have said that they plan to eliminate plastic packaging from all of their brands by 2023, I think it is. I wonder if we could have a statement from the Welsh Government, or a debate even, on how you intend to support moves such as this.

I think that supermarkets such as Iceland, in making these bold moves, do deserve support. I think it would be good if we could encourage behaviour like this across the board so that our marine environment can be cleaned up from this awful plastic pollution as soon as possible, so that wider species than the freshwater pearl mussel can appreciate the clean oceans and clean seas and aquatic environment they deserve.

The Member raises an extremely important point, and I cannot resist taking the opportunity to say that I'm the species champion for the native oyster, as it happens. I see he and I have a very similar view about delicious species in order to be their champion. Swansea bay has recently been reseeded with the native oyster, so the issue about plastic pollution in our marine environment is extremely important.

Of course, Wales has done extremely well in its recycling. We're second only to Germany. I'm sure that the Cabinet Secretary has the ambition to be top as well. We have done extremely well—that's not to say that more can't be done. It's a very important point that the Cabinet Secretary takes extremely seriously. I think the Member has done very well to raise it. But we can be proud here in Wales of the recycling that we've already done and of how encouraged we are by the individual action both by Welsh companies like Iceland and also by Welsh individuals who take very seriously their personal responsibility for trying to limit the number of single-use plastics and so on.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I'm sorry to ask for this indulgence, but if I could just recommend to Members that they all look into using bamboo toothbrushes and not having plastic straws in their drinks, then I for one would think that this business statement had a very good outcome.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

The next item on our agenda this afternoon is the statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services on the parliamentary review of health and social care in Wales, and I call on Vaughan Gething.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The establishment of the parliamentary review into the long-term future of health and social care in Wales was a key commitment in our programme for government, 'Taking Wales Forward', but this of course came from an early agreement with Plaid Cymru to establish the review. That commitment was further emphasised in our national strategy, 'Prosperity for All'.

I announced the setting up of an independent panel of experts in November 2016. That came on the back of cross-party agreement, both on the terms of reference and membership of that independent panel. Their interim report was published on 11 July last year. The panel has had 12 months to consider evidence and use their expertise to come to their recommendations. The final report, with those recommendations from the panel, was published earlier today.

The independent review panel has been chaired by Dr Ruth Hussey, a former Chief Medical Officer for Wales, and has consisted of a range of national and international experts, indeed, in the field of health and social care. I'd like to thank Ruth and her fellow panel members, and moreover everyone who has engaged with and given evidence to the panel for their time and commitment in producing this important report.

The terms of reference and scope for the review and its time frame were challenging. But, as we know, the challenges facing us need to be addressed urgently. The panel was asked to provide a report and recommendations on: how the health and care system might deliver improved health and well-being outcomes for people across Wales; how to reduce existing inequalities between certain population groups; and how best to enable the whole health and social care system to be sustainable over the next five to 10 years.

This review has been supported by all parties throughout the period. I know that the chair and panel members have continued to engage with opposition spokespeople, and the Chair of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee throughout the review. I welcome the cross-party support for the review and the maturity of the constructive engagement between all parties and the panel.

The case for change was set out very clearly in the interim report. I haven’t heard anyone disagree with the need for change in order to meet the challenges facing us now and in the future. In fact, I've heard enthusiasm for making progress to tackle the combination of issues that face us. What is clear to me is that we need change and need to get started on that change sooner rather than later. We need a system that meets the needs of our population going forward, and one that is financially sustainable.

The panel has engaged with that wide range of stakeholders, including health and social care workers, clinicians, members of the public, and the third sector. There have been face-to-face meetings, citizen panels, focus groups, written evidence, meetings with specific groups of people—for example, older people’s groups—and direct questions and answers on social media with the panel.

The report recognises that front-line staff and decision makers want to move forward and make changes that improve both the quality of experience and outcomes for people. It also recognises there are lots of examples of good work in health and social care, including joint working together to deliver a seamless service to people. Perhaps most importantly, the report also says that in Wales we have the very real potential to overcome the challenges that we face. And the challenges we face continue to be ones that I and others have mentioned before: on funding, on the pace of service change and service performance, including my own desire to develop new clinically based outcome measures.

The expert panel has set out the vision for a seamless service for citizens, with new models of care underpinned by a new quadruple aim. Those aims are: to improve the population's health and well-being, with a focus on prevention; to improve the experience and quality of care for individuals and families; to enrich the well-being, capability and engagement of the health and social care workforce, and to increase the value achieved from funding health and care through improvement, innovation, use of best practice, and, of course, eliminating waste.

The goals of that quadruple aim are compatible with, and work alongside, the goals of both the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 and the principles of prudent healthcare. The panel recommends that each of those four goals should be pursued simultaneously. The new models proposed by the report are based on characteristics set nationally, but delivered locally, taking account of the views of citizens in their care, and using technology to improve access to services.

National standards are, of course, important, as is joined-up local decision making to meet the specific needs of local populations, taking account of, for example, the Welsh language or rurality as examples of factors. The report itself makes 10 key high-level recommendations across health and social care. Those recommendations cover people working in services and people using services, systems, innovation and technology; leadership, learning, culture and behaviour; and, of course, progress and pace at the heart of a future system.

The Welsh Government, NHS Wales, local government, housing and the third sector need to respond with pace and action. There will, of course, be hard choices as well as real opportunities over the coming months to transform the system that we currently have. However, we should not lose sight of the fact that this is an opportunity to shape the health and care system for the years and decades ahead. I hope that we can continue to work across services, across sectors, and, of course, across parties to secure the future of health and care in Wales.

I welcome the report from the review panel, and I will of course be considering the recommendations in more detail over the next few weeks. And in the spring I will publish a new long-term plan for health and social care that will take account of the recommendations in this report.

I, too, would like to welcome this report today. I found it to be an energising and enlightening read, and I'd like to thank Dr Ruth Hussey and the members of her team for all the hard work they've done, but also for the engagement that they have offered to me and to my Welsh Conservative colleagues in bringing forward ideas and thoughts, and recommending people to go and talk to to get to the truth of the matter. 

There's no doubt that health and social care faces some enormous challenges over these coming years—increasing demand, new drugs and technology and to have a better and more holistic understanding of what well-being is, and we have to combat all of that in the face of rising expectations from the general public. The case for change is compelling, and this is a very welcome analysis of the challenges we face. It pulls no punches and agitates for reform at pace, and I think one of the reasons we need to do this reform, Cabinet Secretary, is that I think it's very clear that we do not have a current vision for the NHS, and that there hasn't been sufficient attention on how to achieve that vision, how to achieve change and how to make best practice common practice. 

I note you intend to publish a long-term plan in the spring, and I would absolutely urge you not to be sidetracked by what I call the 'low-level stuff' and the lobbying that I'm sure you're going to start getting, because this is about the strategic direction of the health service going forward. Would you be able to tell us how long after the plan is published you intend to commence a programme of transformation? Anyone who's been involved in change throughout business will know that change cannot last for too long. Transformation programmes do need to be pushed at pace. Will you commit in the plan to reviewing the periods of maybe every year, every couple of years, every five years, to make sure that we are on track and are doing what we need to do? 

I think the report tackles the area of competence, and I think there's a real concern emerging by the panel and other stakeholders that we do not have enough people with the relevant experience and skills to run such an ambitious change programme. How do you intend to address this, Cabinet Secretary? Will you start recruiting for those people soon, otherwise any change programme that you may put forward in the spring is going to take even longer to get off the ground? 

In health, we have an independent sector, namely GPs. In social care, we have an independent sector, namely our valuable care home providers. We see the tensions today between the public sector and those independent sectors. Cabinet Secretary, how do you intend to address that in putting together your strategic plan and bringing those people on board to ensure that this is a whole NHS and a whole healthcare sector engagement? 

How will you be intending to bring on board the general public? Much was made of the general public in this review by Dr Ruth Hussey, and I'd like to understand the weight that you put down on that. 

Proceeding at pace is going to be a difficult thing. We need to bring on the health and care staff. We need to ensure we have training and a clear path forward for those people to understand how they are going to be engaged in building their and our NHS. Do you intend to put in place a strategic—I'm sorry, this is my last question, Deputy Presiding Officer—do you intend to put in place a strategic transformation team of experienced individuals with cross-cutting and collaborative skills, who will have the authority to drive the transformation across all of our health boards, and will they also eventually be able to look at the critical question—the elephant in the room that no-one can talk about or has talked about—which is how we are going to fund all of this, because the money is incredibly important? I do understand it wasn't part of the review, but without understanding how much money we have going forward to spend on health and social care, it might be very difficult to achieve some of these excellent objectives. 

Good review, Cabinet Secretary; please don't let it just sit on a shelf somewhere in Welsh Government and go nowhere, because this is good, good stuff. I'm very pleased to see it. 

Thank you for the response, and I'll try and respond briefly to each of the eight areas of questions that you've raised. And, of course, at the outset we agreed not to publish a new vision to replace 'Together for Health' because we're going to have a review. It would have been odd if I had said, 'Here is our view for the future of the health service, and then let's have the parliamentary review.' There's a trade-off in doing that. And at the outset I indicated there would be some things that we'd have to get on with and do before the review, and other things we'd need to wait for the review. I think it's that first point about when a programme for transformation will commence. Some things are already happening, but the review itself has recognised that it wants to see more of—. So, some of that transformation is in train. The challenge is perhaps the pace and the scale of that transformation. And as you'll know from having had a chance to read the report, they recommend having a transformation team in place for at least a year, to try and drive that change.

In terms of when we'll review that, well I do expect to review the report, both during the construction of the long-term plan for health and care that I've said we expect to be able to publish at the end of spring. That's a pretty tight timescale, but I think we need to maintain the momentum, so it doesn't sit on a shelf within the Government, or other people's libraries. And we'll need to think, as we publish the plan, about what timescales we'll then look at to measure our progress. An obvious one will be in a year's time, and we'll think about other waypoints to check on our progress. That goes into your point about both recruiting people to deal with transformation, and having a strategic transformation team.

We'll need to look at the current skills we have, both centrally, here within the civil service, and centrally, a leadership team in both the health service, but also the social care system as well. When you think of the people who we currently have, and how to drive that transformation, if we accept the recommendation about having a team, who are those people, where do we get them from, and where do the costs come from to actually pay those people to do the job, and their authority to properly engage with the service to drive improvement? Those are real issues for us to consider, as we deliver a plan, and then look to take that forward.

I take seriously your point about the engagement of health and care staff, and their training. That's obviously something that we need to look at. Innovation and improvement—well, certainly, the improvement activity often comes from training, from recognising that best practice needs to be standard and common practice, and how we look to have a learning environment, and a rich learning environment. And that comes into one of the key recommendations in the report as well.

On public engagement, I had a number of conversations with Lee Waters, and others, about whether the public would be genuinely engaged in the review. And they took that seriously: they had citizens panels and they took the opportunity to listen to and talk with the public. Part of our challenge is how we engage the public in a more regular conversation about health and care in any event, and in some of this, the social care sector is further ahead than the health service, and people are being more engaged in their choices. There's something about how the health service catches up with that, and equally how we have a more general debate about health and care, which doesn't rely on either a point of crisis or a point of real anxiety and controversy locally. Lots have been getting engaged in either their local service or a hospital service about something they disagree with or are concerned about. We need a broader and deeper engagement. To be fair, some of our health boards in Wales are better at doing that on a regular basis than others. So, again, that's a key point of learning and driving through, otherwise having the citizen be a more equal partner in making health and care choices is unlikely to happen, let alone the design of services.

And I think I've tried to deal with your point about staff training and engagement. I want to come back to your final point about money. We agreed across parties, in the terms, not to address money in this review. Because, if we'd done that, we could have easily spent a whole year just looking at how to fund and what to fund. These are controversial choices, and we all have different views on how we shall fund within a reducing resource base, which is objectively the case. The Government has a reducing resource base in real terms. The percentage of health and care spend continues to rise, as in our vote on the budget later today that puts more money into the health service. Our challenge must be: what is the long-term funding settlement going to be, and the requirement to do that? There's a different debate to be had there, about what individuals do to contribute to social care, for example, the funding of social care, the work that Gerry Holtham was doing with Mark Drakeford, my department, Huw Irranca, in looking at the long-term funding for social care. So, those questions can't be parked.

What we have to do is, to come up with a final point in the review and the quadruple aim: how do we nevertheless derive greater value from the Welsh public pound that we invest in these services? But, we'll continue to have to debate funding, what we expect to deliver from that, and what we're prepared to do in not spending that money in other parts of public services, if we choose to invest more of our funds in the health and social care system.

I'd also like to place on record my thanks to Ruth Hussey and her team for the way they conducted this review. And I think it has been a very timely look at the state of health and social care in Wales. I would say that, in that Plaid Cymru pushed the agenda on having this parliamentary review, and we've been only too pleased to play our part in being part of a discussion panel, every now and then, as the work progressed, to get to the point where we have now this report, which is food for thought. And I'll keep my questions fairly brief. I won't ask a long list of questions today, because I think the publication of this parliamentary review report is the start of a process. Now that we have the fruits of the labour of Ruth Hussey and her team, we have things and yardsticks that we can hold to Government to see how Government responds.

I think the central strength of what we have here is that statement in this report that we do not have a vision for the future of health and social care in Wales. And it's not overly egging a political point in saying that it is implicit, in that that there's an indictment of a governing party that has controlled the NHS in Wales for the best part of 19 years and still we don't have a vision. The urgency is shown in the timescale that Ruth Hussey wants to see the Government responding in. She wants to see now a consultation and a vision being published within a matter of three months.

So, the first question is: could you give us an idea of the level of consultation that Government will engage in in order to bring forth that vision? There are some specific elements where Ruth Hussey says she would like to see the patient voice being heard much clearer in decisions on the future of healthcare. The second question: how does that and the idea that the patient experience must be measured very, very well and carefully tally with proposals that Government has made on the abolition of community health councils, which is the body that measures patient experience specifically? Will you, therefore, put those plans on the shelf, because we have in this report a clear, clear suggestion that patient experience must still be measured in future? 

On workforce, I will make the comment that whilst here we have a call for a new vision, that new vision will involve implementing things that many of us have long called for, for example, making sure that we train adequately enough doctors. Therefore, I'd be interested in your comments on whether you now will be accelerating moves, for example, towards the establishment of a medical training centre in Bangor, because we have in this report emphasis on the need to make sure we have adequate and well-trained workers.

On money, yes, the financing of the NHS was not part of the remit, but I do remember Plaid Cymru being ridiculed before the last election for suggesting that £300 million-worth of savings, if you like, could be made through better use of technology and innovation within the NHS in order to re-invest in spending that money better within the health service. So, I'd be interested in your comments on that. 

So, this is a starting point, and I look forward to being told also by Government how we can measure whether Government is succeeding in responding to this important report. What will be the measure of success? 

Thank you for those questions. A couple of comments, and then I'll try and address, I think, your five specific areas of questions. I want to start by recognising, of course, the role of Plaid Cymru in this review coming into being. We tried before the last election to have cross-party agreement on a health and care review and there's something about timing in all of this and recognising timing, because actually within the last year of the last Government, it was difficult to get parties to agree to do it. And it's understandable why. There's no criticism of individual parties, but a year before the election it's difficult to get people to say, 'Let's be cross-party and work together.' We've taken that opportunity at the start of this term to start this process of having an independent review, agreeing on the terms and agreeing on the membership. We now need to make choices together as well. 

The challenge for all of us, in Government, of course, as well—. I quite enjoy having the responsibility of being in Government and I've got a responsibility to make choices now and in the future as well. But there is a central challenge to all of us as political representatives in what we choose to do and how we have the debate and how we make choices together about the future, because if we stop choices being made that is a choice in itself, and the report tells us that, in many ways, that is the biggest danger for the future of health and care. We've got to have the space, the vision, the ability and the willingness to make some difficult choices about the future, and that was a choice we made at the start, but not, as I said to Angela Burns—. We did not replace 'Together for Health' at the start of this term, because we were going to have this review instead, and that was the right choice to make and that's the comment the panel are making about having a vision. We need to have that vision—that is the long term plan that I've talked about for health and care—by the end of spring. That is what we want to provide, that vision for the future, to take forward the review and not, as Angela has suggested, leave it on a shelf in the Government.

And I guess on that point about engagement ahead of the long-term plan—your first question—we do expect to engage openly with stakeholders, within the health service, with different staff groups and different royal college representation as well. It's interesting how royal colleges themselves are actually welcoming and agitating for more change as well. That can be difficult for them and some of their members, as well as our broader trade union colleagues representing workers in the health service, but much more than that of course, our partners in local government and beyond. This has been deliberately a health and social care review. This isn't simply about the health service; it is about how health and social care are part of a broader system, with colleagues in housing as well. I expect them all to be interested in that future plan and, of course, the public as well. We want to have an open public engagement and voice within that long-term plan for the future.

In terms of your point about measuring patient experience, again, it is, of course, important as part of the quadruple aim about understanding how we measure patient experience and enhancing and valuing it. We need to find some measures that are useful to add real value to what we're measuring. Otherwise, the danger is that we simply measure numbers, and that always gets you back to activity, the volume of activity, the time in which something is done rather than the quality of what's done and someone's experience, and that's a bit more difficult. But I think it's more valuable in doing that as well.

I would politely disagree with you about not abolishing community health councils. If we wish to have a citizen voice, advocacy across our health and social care system, we actually need to have a new legislative footing for that group. You can't simply do it the way that CHCs are currently constituted, so you have to find a new way to constitute a new body. The discussion is about what powers and what responsibilities they have with the new system. You can paint it as abolition, but they're going to be replaced with a new body to work across the whole health and social care system, and I think that is the right thing to do. Indeed, the national Board of Community Health Councils in Wales agree that that's the right thing to do as well.

On workforce, we've been clear previously in our response on your specific points about medical training in north Wales, and I will of course bring forward a statement on the work that the three universities are already doing on how we equip more people more generally across the country to have a career in medicine and in particular how we deliver more medical training within north Wales.

On technology-led innovation and the figures, again, there is a range of people, both within this Chamber and outside, who recognise the real potential and, indeed, the real need to gain more from technology in delivering innovation and improvement that will deliver real value. It's not just about shaving a few pound signs off, but actually recognising the way that people live their lives and make choices. Actually, the health service needs to catch up with that. Again, there are some parts of social care where, working together, we've got to design systems that actually work together and can talk to each other to again make it easier for the citizen. We should not expect an individual who has health and care needs to navigate their way through a complex system. We have to make it easier for them to do so.

Finally, on your point about measures, I've indicated that we need to take seriously the review and respond to it properly, but there will be a need, and I recognise that now to come back, at the very least within a year, to look at the progress that we've then made, as well as being open to scrutiny, not just in the normal way in the Chamber and through the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, but from a Government point of view to think seriously about the recommendation in the review that, each year, we provide an annual update from the Government and the health service and the social care system on where we think we are, the challenges we still have and what else we need to do. I think that's a worthwhile suggestion that we do need to give serious consideration to, because I think that would provide some of the clarity that you yourself have suggested we should look to provide.

Can I first of all thank the Cabinet Secretary for his statement on this very important report, the recommendations of which are welcome to those of us who have worked in and with our health and social care system over a number of years? I'd also like to add my thanks to Ruth Hussey and her team for the work they've put in to delivering it. I'm going to try not to repeat a number of the points that others have made. There are just two short points that I want to make.

Firstly, the recommendations of this review have, without a doubt, placed a huge responsibility on this whole Assembly to rise to the challenge that's been set. The report makes it clear the scale of the challenges that we need to face. In truth, it's a daunting responsibility, because every Member of this Assembly understands, or should understand, that changes in the service are needed, but attempting to make those changes can be difficult when local opposition arises to changes and when political opportunism overtakes the objective consideration. We've already heard in this debate a couple of cheap political shots. I have to say, Rhun, I don't think that was necessary in terms of the consensual way in which we were trying to have a discussion and debate about this particular report. 

But changes are needed and they're needed against the backdrop of ongoing financial pressures, so it's incumbent on all of us to ensure that the services are delivered more effectively and possibly in a very different way. 

Angela raised the point about the funding for all of this, but I think we need to be very clear that there's no more money coming out of this. There's no more money coming down from Westminster for us to fund the services that we have or the services that we want, going into the future, but we can't continue—we can't afford to continue, sorry—investing in models of health and social care that don't respond to the future needs that are and have been well known and understood for a very long time. 

My second point—

Are you coming to a question?

Yes, I am. I am, yes.

[Inaudible.]—questions. It is a statement and therefore it should be questions.

I've got a series of questions that—

Well, no. You've got questions now, or, you know—

Okay. Well, my second point is about the process of negotiating necessary change and the need to involve the staff in that. I know from my own experience that that change does require patience and persuasion and communication, but, most of all, it involves taking people with you, because to resist change does lead to stagnation, both for the people the service has to deliver to and the people who work within it.

What I would ask, Cabinet Secretary, because we've heard a lot about the vision in this report, and I would say that the report, actually, is the vision, it sets out the vision, so would you agree that we all need to be clear that this is our vision and direction of travel and that we must be unwavering in our commitment to that? And would you further agree that if we are to achieve the quadruple aim for all, as set out in the report's recommendations, then staff who work in the service must be involved in the change and their voices must be listened to if we are to achieve the objectives of the review?

Thank you for those points. I recognise someone who was previously on the other side of the table as the former Unison head of health—other health service trade unions are, of course, available. But you were right that this is a challenge for all of us, for all of us in this place. Because, as I said, choosing not to do something is still a choice, and I think it's a really important point that the report really highlights and follows through from the case for change, and you said it yourself, that this is about delivering services differently and sometimes delivering different services. And, to do that, you can't invest in everything that we do now, as you said. That does mean that we need to do things differently, and that's difficult, because most people want to be able to add to things as opposed to saying, 'You've got to decide, within the financial envelope, what are we not going to do, as well as what are we going to choose to do and to enhance what we do in the future.' That will be difficult and we need to understand that that's difficult for people in the services, difficult for some local communities that are attached to services—people do get very attached to bricks and mortar. Even though they say they're not, the reality is that people do. You can understand some of that emotional attachment to long-running services and to people they trust, but if we can't get through having a programme for change and transformation as the report sets out then we will manage a declining service, and that can't be acceptable for any of us in any party.

On your specific points about the direction of travel and the quadruple aim and staff, I think the report does set a direction of travel for us and it's about how we deliver that and how we choose priorities within Government, with the service, with local government partners and others as well, to deliver against the very real challenges and the direction that the report sets out. It is crucial, in doing so, that we do take seriously the part of the quadruple aim that is about the engagement and enriching the way staff do their jobs. People who enjoy their jobs tend to provide better care in health, social care and other services and sectors too. And that's not easy, given the pressure on workers in health and social care, especially—we rarely talk about it, but social care workers, who are not paid a significant amount of money to do jobs that are difficult, demanding and very physical, often, and the credence we give to those people, and the way we hardly ever talk about them—. And when we do, actually, there's still quite a lot of stigma around the social care sector as well, so the work that Rebecca Evans started off leading on, which Huw Irranca-Davies is now taking forward, on raising the esteem of people within that sector, is crucial to delivering the aims within this report and, in particular, that point you make about the quadruple aim and engaging staff in the future of the whole service.

Thank you for your statement, Cabinet Secretary. I would also like to place on record my thanks to Dr Ruth Hussey and the panel for the excellent work they've undertaken for their report and their recommendations. The report starkly lays out in black and white the actions we need to take if we are to deliver sustainable health and care now and in the future. Dr Hussey and her team have done their job admirably. It's now up to us to do ours. We know the challenges, and the parliamentary review has outlined the direction of travel, so, therefore, we have to deliver the necessary changes. It won't be easy, as change is never easy, but we can't continue to deliver NHS services in the same way as we did 70 years ago. We all acknowledge the need for change. It is the task of each and every one of us here in this Chamber to have an adult conversation with our constituents on the need for change, to push forward the principles of prudent healthcare, and to support clinically led changes to services. Cabinet Secretary, it is your job to ensure that the necessary changes are actually delivered on the ground. The need for change is clear, and the NHS cannot afford to wait five, 10, 15 years for these changes to come on stream. The NHS and social care need to adapt now if we are to have any chance of meeting future demand for the services.

Cabinet Secretary, investment in staff is one of the biggest challenges facing us, particularly if we are to focus on local care delivery. Do you have any plans to increase the primary care workforce, particularly the number of GP training places in the immediate future?

Digital technology will have a key role to play in future delivery plans. How do you plan to transform the way IT is delivered to the NHS? We have to ensure that the money we invest in our NHS is actually used to deliver these services. We, therefore, have to eliminate waste, and this week we have learned about the extraordinary level of fraud taking place with the European health insurance cards, with other EU citizens claiming free healthcare using fake EHIC cards. Today, we learned of the level of damages and legal fees paid out by NHS trusts for negligence over the last five years. Cabinet Secretary, what is your Government doing to eliminate fraud in our NHS and to reduce the level of medical negligence?

I look forward to your new, long-term plan for health and social care and working with you to deliver an NHS that is fit for the future. Thank you.

I thank the Member for most of what she said. There were some points where we'd have to part company on agreement. I don't actually think that fraud related to the European Union and EHIC cards is a big issue that will undermine the future of the service. The challenge that we face in both need and demand, in having a rising and ageing population, in the challenges over money, I do not think are ones where we can say that European citizens, whether legitimately or otherwise, are going to undermine the future of the service. It's not covered in the report, it's not been a significant area of interest, but, of course, I would not want the service to be taken advantage of. There's a difference between saying, 'I don't mind; people can do what they like,' and saying that that's the biggest challenge we face. So, I expect them to play by the rules. Where people don't, I expect the appropriate action to be taken.

On your point about medical negligence, well, this is a constant challenge for any and every health service. Actually, the response is how we improve the quality of care that is delivered, how that improvement action is a real part of what the service does and not just a fig leaf. That's why we need to look again at our own improvement programmes—1000 Lives has done significant work in improving the quality of care and decision making across the health service. We need to look again at that as an improvement programme, the challenge the report sets us, and the quadruple aim, and look at delivering greater value. So, those are things that we absolutely do need to do.

In terms of your point about transforming IT delivery, I think that's been covered in other comments and questions. It's a key challenge for the health and care system, how we take greater advantage of what technology allows us to do and actually catch up with the way citizens currently live their lives.

And your final point about increasing the primary care workforce—we are in a better place than other parts of the UK, in some ways, because we've actually met our numbers and we've overfilled the places we had on the GP training numbers, which you mentioned specifically. The challenge now is to understand what more do we need, and that isn't just a question for the Government. It's also part of the reason we set up Health Education and Improvement Wales—to try and get that broader based understanding of planning for a future workforce, making sure we have the places available, and then the difficult choices about money. Because, if I had the opportunity and ability to, I would invest more money in the future of the health and care workforce. But I have to live within the means that this Assembly votes for me to be able to do that, in the budget that this place will, I hope, choose to pass later on today. So, funding is always a challenge, but we cannot avoid the reality: we need to deliver greater value than the resource we put into our whole system.

Cabinet Secretary, there is some very useful, high-level analysis some very useful, high-level analysis in the report, but I think what's most helpful are the detailed recommendations in the annex section, in particular recommendation 7, on innovation, technology and infrastructure. I was very pleased to see the role of digital woven right throughout the report, and its potential to release resource and improve the patient experience. My question is, having read last week's report by the Wales Audit Office in conjunction with today's report, there are a series of direct and indirect criticisms of the National Health Service Wales Informatics Service, NWIS, and I have real doubts about their ability, both in terms of capacity and capability, to deliver this radical agenda—not least the finding from the Wales Audit Office that they've been partial and overly positive in reporting progress to the Welsh Government. So, I just ask for your reflections on the nature of the criticisms in both reports, and whether or not you can now have confidence in NWIS, as currently constituted, to deliver this agenda, and what you can put in place to make sure we achieve the potential of digital.

Thank you for the comments. You've been consistent in taking an interest in this area, both formally and informally in conversations that we've had. I think the first point that I'd make is that, for all the criticism that's made of NWIS, they have actually delivered a number of things that we're really proud of. If you think about the response in terms of security, the differential where we invested in a system that they've delivered, if you think about Choose Pharmacy, their creating of that and then delivering in partnership with the service, that will make a real difference, and, actually, be directly in this space of making better use of information between healthcare professionals, changing the point of focus where people can go and get that advice and support as well.

So, even with the positive things they've done, it's fair to reflect on where we think they could do better. I recognise the comments that are made in the report and in the Wales Audit Office report and in other suggestions as well, about does it have the capability and the capacity, as it's currently constituted, to do all that we need it to do. Well, I don't think it would be fair to say that it does, because we would place unfair, I think, expectations on NWIS, as it currently is, to do all that we want to do in terms of investing in and releasing the capacity of IT to transform the way that we deliver services and the way that citizens themselves engage in health and care services.

And I also recognise the points about governance and thinking again about whether it's in the right place, whether we could do more, and thinking about how that governance is released. I've indicated previously that I intend to do this, and the report has helpfully not said we need to do something different, in that we do need to carry on looking at that capability, that capacity, and where we find it: how much should be in-house within NWIS, how much should be working with other partners, and how much should be a formal partnership. Because we can't pretend that we can do all of that in the one place. If we try to do that, I think we'll fail. It has to be a different partnership, and we're going to have to set those ambitions and set ourselves a priority, and that may mean we need to look again at the resourcing we put into this area, as well, of course, as the governance and oversight, both for Members, people in the health service, in the care system, and of course here in Government as well.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary. Thank you.

The next item on the agenda this afternoon is the debate on the final budget for 2018-19, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance to move the motion—Mark Drakeford.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I propose the Welsh Government's final budget proposals for 2018-19 onwards, as tabled before the National Assembly for Wales on 19 December. I would like to pay particular thanks to members of the Finance Committee and the Chair, Simon Thomas, for their careful work in scrutinising this budget. This is the first time for many centuries that we in Wales have taken responsibility for raising a proportion of the funds that we spend on public services. I was very pleased to be able to respond yesterday to the committee's report on the draft budget and to be able to accept virtually all of their recommendations in full.

Despite the challenges that arose as a result of the conflict between the timetable for our budget and the budget of the UK Government, I do believe that the new processes agreed and followed this year have been successful and have been appropriate for scrutinising our use of our financial responsibilities. I look forward to working with the committee to see how these processes can be further improved in the future.

I should also thank the other committees who have published scrutiny reports on the budget in their own areas of responsibility. I would like to officially thank Steffan Lewis for giving his time to meet and to consider the final budget, and Adam Price for continuing with those negotiations more recently.

Deputy Presiding Officer, the wider context for the budget is well known. As the economies of the eurozone and the United States move back towards historic growth levels, the economy of the UK continues to be damaged by foolish austerity policies—policies that have failed. As others grow, the most recent forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility here demonstrates an economy that is slowing down, not only next year and the following year, but also beyond then, into the future: less growth in production, less development in business, less growth in gross domestic product, less growth in employment and less in tax receipts. The Chancellor, Philip Hammond himself, stated that in his budget speech on 22 November.

Dirprwy Lywydd, that budget quite certainly did not produce a windfall for Wales or go far to put right eight years of resource starvation. Our budget, when financial transaction capital funding is excluded, remains 7 per cent lower in real terms than a decade ago. This Government's job is to use every lever available to us to protect our citizens and services from the damage that austerity brings, and to invest, wherever we can, in creating the conditions of a successful future. That is why, in this final budget, you see for the first time the 105 per cent Barnett multiplier negotiated in the fiscal framework between ourselves and the UK Government. It adds nearly £70 million otherwise unavailable to us.

The progressive but proportionate use we have made of our two new taxes—landfill disposals tax and land transaction tax—is forecast to add another £30 million to our revenue resources over the period of this budget. That is £100 million to help us with the vital priorities of investing in our schools and colleges, creating the health service of the future, building an economy with a real social purpose of providing prosperity for all.

Would the Cabinet Secretary give way? I'm grateful for what he's just said and, of course, this is the first time we're looking at a budget that has income generation as well as expenditure within it—and that's a positive change for the development of this place. But has he made any estimate of what would have happened on the expenditure side had we not had those seven years of austerity since the election of the coalition Government back in 2010, and what would be the rough shape of the Welsh budget if that hadn't happened?

Well, I can offer the Member two estimates. Had our budget simply remained the same, in real terms, today as it was nearly a decade ago, with no growth at all in the resources to us, we would have £1.1 billion more to invest in this budget than we see today. Had our budget simply grown in line with growth in the economy—something that every Government from 1945 to 2010 achieved, through all those years of Mrs Thatcher, where growth in public services never fell below growth in the economy as a whole, and growth in the economy has been sclerotic since 2010—I believe we would have somewhere between £3 billion and £4 billion more to invest in public services in Wales today than this budget is able to provide.

Llywydd, I want to briefly outline for Members those changes that the final budget has in it, compared to the draft budget I was able to lay in October of last year. The final budget of 19 December shows that, over and above the extra £230 million in 2018-19 and the £220 million beyond that in 2019-20, the NHS in Wales will have a further £100 million, £50 million in each year, to support the work of my colleague Vaughan Gething as he implements the recommendations of the parliamentary review, which have just been discussed here. The final budget also shows additional allocations of £20 million in 2018-19 and a further £40 million in 2019-20 to support local authorities in delivering the services on which we all rely. We are building on the £20 million for homelessness announced in the draft budget by providing an extra £10 million focused particularly on youth homelessness in 2019-20. A further £36 million has been allocated to portfolios in support of ‘Prosperity for All’ commitments, and Ministers are currently working through where this funding will make the most difference.

Throughout the scrutiny of the draft budget, Dirprwy Lywydd, Members have expressed concern about the impact of Brexit. The First Minister recently announced a £50 million European Union transition fund that builds further on the additional £5 million announced in the draft budget for Brexit preparedness as part of the budget agreement with Plaid Cymru. The final budget includes £10 million revenue funding over two years as an initial additional investment in this fund. The fund will run from April 2018 and we will work with partners to develop detailed programmes of support covering a range of interventions.

Llywydd, I will now turn to capital. I’ve been discussing the capital consequentials, including financial transactions, further with Ministers. I’ve also continued to discuss matters of mutual interest with Plaid Cymru. Today, I would like to set out some early decisions on immediate capital priorities that will be formalised in supplementary budgets. Thirty million pounds will be allocated this year in the second supplementary budget to the twenty-first century schools and education programme. That money will be used to support our shared ambition across different parts of this Chamber to create a million Welsh speakers by 2015. It means that an equivalent £30 million can be released from the programme in future years to support capital projects dedicated to supporting and growing the use of the Welsh language in education. Beyond that, and to accelerate the highly successful band B of the twenty-first century schools and education programme, I will allocate £75 million over the next three years in additional capital to the MEG of my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Education for her to be able to take that programme even further and faster than otherwise would have been the case.

Seventy million pounds in additional capital goes to the NHS across 2018-19 and 2019-20 to allow the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services to press ahead with his consideration of a range of clinical priorities, including the continued support for the new Velindre cancer centre and investment in neonatal services in both Glangwili and Singleton hospitals. Llywydd, in the autumn budget, we received £14.6 million for 2018-19 to 2020-21 for air quality. I’ve already allocated the additional revenue for air quality in the final budget. Today, I can say that we will use that £14.6 million as capital expenditure to assist the Cabinet Secretary with responsibility for this very important area here in Wales. I’m also discussing proposals for a road refurbishment scheme of up to £30 million with the Welsh Local Government Association, which will provide vital new investment in our local roads.

Llywydd, I will make further announcements alongside the publication of the new iteration of the Wales infrastructure investment plan later this spring. This will include funding, supporting 'Prosperity for All’, for the Valleys economic hub as a key part of the Valleys taskforce plan, something that has featured in discussions with Plaid Cymru. Llywydd, this final budget has the services that people in Wales rely upon at its heart. It provides extra investment in our health service and in local government. It takes head-on the challenges we face today in homelessness and in improving air quality. It creates new opportunities for the future by investing in education and in our economy. It does so through the careful and detailed management of our resources, by working with others to identify common ground, and always to pursue the progressive priorities that animate this Welsh Government. I commend it to the National Assembly this afternoon.

Can I thank the Cabinet Secretary for Finance for his statement, and also for the co-operation he has given, both to me during the budget-forming process and with the Chair of the Finance Committee and the members of that committee?

I have to say that I did find your speech a rather strange mixture, Cabinet Secretary, and I would say that it was a little bit like the budget, good in parts and not so good in other parts, in that you did speak about the negative effect you think that the UK Government and its programme has had on the Welsh budget. And whilst I accept that there have been cuts over the last number of years—and we won't go into the whys and wherefores of those cuts—I do have in front of me the written statement by yourself, issued today, I believe, where you speak about the consequentials that have come to the Welsh Government from the UK Government as a result of that budget, which are increasing extra spending within Wales, and which you have allocated in a way that you would expect Welsh Government to do. So, I do think that the overtly negative tone of your contribution was probably more political than it was realistic, but I suppose we are in a political Chamber, so you would expect that.

Now, I don't want to go over too much ground that I set out in the draft budget debate before Christmas. However, back in December, I did pose the primary question, 'What is the Welsh Government budget seeking to achieve?' Is it simply trying to allocate funding to different budgets or is it trying to do more than that to address longer-term challenges and to seek a fundamental economic change to the economy? Now, given the new fiscal powers that Simon Thomas mentioned that are coming to the Welsh Government—borrowing, and, indeed, tax power devolution—I would have thought that the latter should be our goal, as I believe the Chair of the Finance Committee believes. Sadly, I think that this budget falls short of this. Now, I appreciate that it is still early days and those powers are still in the process of transferring, but I would expect the Welsh Government to be looking at ways that those powers can be utilised, and given that by the time of the next budget the Assembly and Welsh Government will have significant extra financial powers, I think that this budget has fallen short in making use of those.

If I can just refer to some of the points that were made by the Finance Committee report on the draft budget, there have been ongoing concerns around transparency, and these are key to some of our concerns. The links between the budget allocations and the programme for government simply aren't strong enough. From 2019 to 2020, we know that there will be a single grant for a number of projects, including Flying Start and Supporting People, and the Finance Committee took evidence from a number of organisations. I think Cymorth Cymru were strongest in their concerns in saying that it becomes increasingly difficult to track the funding that is currently coming through Supporting People under the new regime, and that is a source of concern. Things seem to be going backwards in some areas in terms of transparency, rather than forwards.

If I can turn to the big part of the Welsh Government budget, the health service, which you mentioned additional funding for—as a result of UK Government consequentials—in your written statement today. Of course, we all welcome any additional funding for our NHS. Welsh Conservatives have, of course, been calling for this for a long time—back, in fact, when there were some real-terms cuts being made to the Welsh health service budget during the last Welsh Assembly. However, I do agree with points that have been made by Mike Hedges and others that you do have to strategically plan where that money is going and the sort of benefits that you're going to get out of it. And there's no doubt at all that there is certainly a perception, at the very least, that money that has been funnelled into the NHS over the last months and year or so—is that going to actually develop proper transformational change within the NHS or is it going to be absorbed by some of the budget holes that our health boards have been suffering from? I think that the general consensus out there is that currently the latter is probably more likely to be the case. So, that won't lead to the sort of transformational change that we want to see.

Prevention hasn't been mentioned, and yet it is mentioned in many debates that we have in this place about the health service. If, at the same time, you're saying that prevention is a very important part of keeping future health costs down, it doesn't seem to make sense that local government is facing severe cuts, which will then impact on leisure centres and will impact on sport, the other part of the health brief, which, ultimately, is going to lead to a problem with promoting prevention—it's not going to improve it. So, as I said at the start of my contribution—

Would you also agree that removing the ring fence for things like Supporting People and the Welsh independent living grant will also further risk damaging prevention and intervention?

I do, yes. I think that a lot of things that the Welsh budget aspires to do, and says that it wants to do, are good, but when you look into the greater detail, that simply isn't there.

I realise I'm running out of time, Presiding Officer, but at the start of my contribution I did say that I thought that this budget should be one that looks at creating a transformational change. I think we want something that is positive, that creates a vibrant economic situation moving forward, and makes those proper links between the new Welsh Government fiscal powers and the ability to develop the economy in a way that we need to, particularly with the challenges we face over the months and years ahead. I don't think that this budget meets those criteria, and the Welsh Conservatives don't either. That is why it will be no surprise to the Cabinet Secretary that we will not be supporting this budget.

It's a requirement, of course, in a Parliament where the Government doesn't have a majority—that was true for the majority of the period that we were discussing—to come to an agreement. That asks for an element of humility and it also asks for a constructive attitude in terms of the opposition parties. That's part of a robust democratic process in a mature Parliament. I have been very pleased to make my contribution to that process, but may I also thank Steffan Lewis, as the Cabinet Secretary has done, for his contribution?

May I quote a few examples of the range of positive, innovative policies that the party has succeeded in getting as part of the Government's programme through that kind of collaboration? The Cabinet Secretary has already talked about the preparatory fund for Brexit, and Steffan had been pushing that for a long time after seeing the impact that the same kind of scheme was having in the Republic of Ireland. The Government has now, of course, decided to build on the foundation that was established with the draft agreement with a much more ambitious programme.

Steffan had also been making the case for a long time for creating a specialist clinic for perinatal mental health, and he succeeded, through the medium of the agreement and budget negotiations, to change policy and to change minds. Isn't that also an example of positive, constructive politics?

Ultimately, why do we all come into this place? It is to make Wales a little bit better than the condition it was in before we came here. That's the truth. Of course, there is a role for opposition. I did my fair share of that for nine years in Westminster, and there were many important things to oppose. But the reason that I came to this place, rather, was to build and be constructive—not just to oppose, but to be constructive, and that means that opposition parties have to act responsibly—where there is common ground, that we try to build on that common ground. That doesn't mean that you don't state clearly where the Government is wrong. There are things in the budget that we don't agree with, and that's why we are abstaining. But through the negotiations, we have been able, for example, to have the largest ever investment for the Welsh language. The Cabinet Secretary announced today two tranches of £30 million for schools, and £20 million of revenue funding as well in the draft budget: the largest ever investment in order to meet the aim for the middle of this century.

There are local, regional things—getting rid of the tolls on the Cleddau bridge, which is very important for that area. Transport—having the first commitment with regard to the metro for Swansea bay and the western Valleys; extending the metro in south Wales to areas such as the Rhondda Fach, which doesn't have modern public transport at the moment; and, of course, investing in our roads as well, which is very important: for example the A487, and the A470. We are seeing investment in all parts of Wales. When I saw the announcement yesterday about a transport hub worth £180 million for Cardiff—several parts of Wales would like to see that kind of investment. We have to have investment throughout Wales, investment in national institutions—the football museum for Wrexham, which is a part of Wales that doesn't have a national cultural institution. There hasn't been one since Edward Owen, who, after the First World War  for some years, ran the heritage commission from his home in Wrexham. Since then, there hasn't been a major cultural institution in the north-east, and that's not healthy for our nation. I'm pleased to see the commitment in terms of capital for the football museum, so that we can give a clear message to all parts of Wales that we are a one-nation Wales. We need to reflect that in our priorities.     

I don't begrudge Plaid Cymru the opportunity to laud their influence on the decisions made by the finance Secretary at all. I totally agree with Adam Price's statement that, where one can agree with other parties, it's very desirable that you should do. And, of course, I've spent a fair share of my years in politics opposing very vigorously the policies of Plaid Cymru and the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats, but I'm very happy to work together on various things too, and that's a good thing.

This budget is the first one that begins to join the dots and connect, therefore, revenue raising with expenditure, and that will lead, I hope, to more responsible Government and to an enhanced reputation for this Assembly. I strongly support my Plaid Cymru friends' work over the years to bring about more devolution of taxes in Wales. I'm very much in favour of that because that does give us, then, the opportunity to have real budget debates in this place where priorities will differ between the different parties.

The debates in the past have all been about how we spend the money that we're given. We can't influence the size of the pot in the first place. The tax policy in future will increasingly inform these debates, which is an excellent thing. I said in the last debate that, actually, what we're talking about here today is quite a small portion of the total budget, because most of the budget is not discretionary, it has to be spent on health, education and big budget items. Plaid Cymru have managed to secure their priorities for about £500 million of it, and I very strongly support the things that they want to spend the money on, particularly on the Welsh language. I think that's a vital necessity to help to achieve the Government's objective of 1 million Welsh speakers by 2050.

But there is a certain air of unreality about these budget debates that the finance Secretary again perpetuated today by starting off talking about austerity. Anybody would think that the Government at Westminster has actually been cutting the amount of Government spending in the last seven years, whereas the truth of the matter is that Government spending has doubled in total in the last seven years. The national debt is now approaching £2 trillion. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to provide the money for a very large party for us all when we do actually hit that £2 trillion figure. It would mean that we could all celebrate it with him. The idea that this Conservative Government has pursued a policy of austerity is absolute nonsense. The Chancellor has recently relaxed the date yet again when he aims to balance the budget. Between now and 2021-2, Government spending is planned to rise by £30 billion over the plans that were laid out just a few years ago.

Of course, we could all follow the policies of the Governments of Zimbabwe and Venezuela, by taking the brakes off spending altogether and spend as though tomorrow never comes. But the trouble with socialism is, eventually, you run out of other people's money to spend, which has been the excuse of the Wilson Governments in the 1960s and the 1970s and the Callaghan Government—[Interruption.] I give way, of course, to Mike Hedges.

All I would say, of course, is that Franklin Delano Roosevelt did exactly that: the New Deal that got America out of the recession.

Yes, well, what brought America really out of the recession, of course, was the war. There are various ways in which you can raise economic activity, but I don't think that war is necessarily the most attractive of the options.

But tomorrow does eventually come. We're spending £50 billion to £60 billion a year on debt interest in the UK. If we take Wales's proportion of that, that may be £2 billion a year. Would we rather spend £2 billion a year extra on the health service or on the holders of national debt? Actually, what the Government has done is to nationalise a great part of the national debt in the last few years, because the Bank of England has actually been buying the bonds from the private sector. Monetisation of the national debt of that kind cannot continue indefinitely without the same kind of inflation implications that have consumed countries like Venezuela or Zimbabwe.

Although I think the Government is wrong nationally in Westminster in many of its priorities, its overall policy on public expenditure, in my view, has been lax not austere and they've been stoking up problems for the future. We make a great song and dance in this place about the future generations Act. I think it's a very good thing, in principle, to think of the impact of our decisions today upon the generations to come. What we're doing, of course, is to shuffle off the cost of repayment of the debts that we are incurring today on future generations, and I don't think that future generations will thank us for that. But, of course, they don't have votes today, so we don't need to worry about it, and we won't be here when they do vote—at least, I won't be; it's unlikely.

I think an air of responsibility is one that we should have in any budget debate. Sadly, I fear for the future if the kind of speech that the finance Secretary has made today, when the Welsh Government really does have the ability to raise taxes and to make spending decisions and to make borrowing decisions over a much greater area, as it now has the power to do, falls to be made, because that way, I think, lies the kind of economic ruin that has consumed so many Labour Governments in my lifetime.

I'm speaking today in support of the final budget as laid down by the finance Secretary last month. This budget shows the commitment of the Welsh Government to invest in the vital public services communities across Wales rely on. This achievement is rendered even more remarkable when we remember the damaging impact of the current UK Government's policies. The Tory obsession with their failed austerity agenda, supplemented by their economic mismanagement and their bewildering approach to Brexit has inflicted lasting damage on our economy. The consequence of this has been a decade of decline in the money available to Welsh Government for investment in Welsh public services. Tory decisions in Westminster mean that this has shrunk in real terms by 7 per cent between 2010-11 and 2019-20. That's over £1 billion less for Welsh schools, hospitals and communities. If we explore some of the detail of this Welsh Government budget, the contrast is further strengthened.

As a former teacher, education spending is important to me. I welcome the maintenance of the pupil development grant, which I know first-hand strengthens interventions to support both looked-after children and those eligible for free school meals. Similarly, the Welsh Government is putting its money where its mouth is, not just talking about school standards but earmarking £50 million to drive this up. The extra £40 million for twenty-first century schools is also an important badge of the Welsh Government's commitment to our young people. I'm proud that Cynon Valley is the constituency that has benefited most to date from this policy, with wide-ranging improvements to primary and secondary schools, including many new builds and also a brand new further education college campus. Some may say that schools are just bricks and mortar, but learning environment really does impact upon achievement, and will allow our young people every opportunity to aspire to achieve to their best.  I'm sure I do not need to remind Members of the vandalism caused in England by Michael Gove when he scrapped Building Schools for the Future. Two different paths in Government, two different stories of investment in education.

Similarly, the Welsh Government has allocated additional funding to deliver infrastructure improvements and policies that will strengthen our economy and ensure Wales can compete in the years ahead. The £173 million from reserves for the south Wales metro offers us the potential to transform our public transport network. The creation of the Welsh Development Bank and extra capital investment for Superfast Cymru is also crucial to our economic performance. In contrast, the Tories in Westminster are again failing Wales, as shown, for example, by their inactivity on the Swansea bay tidal lagoon and their reneging on railway electrification. 

I also want to take a moment to talk about the interventions included in the Welsh budget for Supporting People. I know there's been much discussion around this grant, so I welcome the Welsh Government's commitment to continuing this funding. I met with a service user group, organised by Supporting People national advisory board just yesterday, and I've visited several projects in my constituency, so I know just how crucial this line of funding is. 

Would the Member give way on that point? I'm very grateful, and I agree with her; I've met also with Supporting People projects, and I think we share a similar value in ensuring that the money is available. She'll know there's been some confusion or discussion, at least, around how the money gets spent. Does she at least agree that we need to monitor now how the money is spent to make sure that it is being used for the purpose of tackling these real issues in our communities?

Well, what I would say in reply to that is that we're currently doing an investigation in the Public Accounts Committee, and we've taken evidence from members of the Welsh Local Government Association who say that removing this ring fence will actually allow more flexible levels of support. So, I do think it's something that we need to really keep an eye on, but I don't think there's undue cause for concern at this stage.

Elsewhere, interventions around homelessness, domestic violence and childcare are important social policies. The impact of the UK Government's economic incompetence and calculated callousness, caused by policies like universal credit and the public sector pay cap, have led to social problems such as the spike in food bank usage. Again, the Welsh Government and Welsh Labour are choosing to do things differently.

I want to close by commenting on what I feel are some of the most exciting elements of the budget. These are the new land transaction and landfill disposals taxes. With both, it is good to see the Welsh Government seizing the chance to use its newly devolved powers. In particular, proposals that will mean 65 per cent of all homebuyers in Wales will pay no land transaction duty are a real boon to working class communities across the country. I look forward to the future detailed work from the finance Secretary on additional taxation proposals over the coming period.

The Welsh Government, in developing these budget proposals, have demonstrated their commitment to getting the best deal for Wales, to supporting Welsh citizens, Welsh services and the Welsh economy. I'm proud to support this budget today.  

Whilst supporting the Welsh Government budget, I acknowledge that the budget is inadequate for the needs of Wales. As the Cabinet Secretary said during his speech, there is between £1.1 billion and £4 billion less in expenditure than we actually should have if we'd even just stayed level, in one case in cash terms, and the other one in terms of real-terms increases in line with the movement in the economy. So, we can either move with the economy or we can be just moving with the way things are going. We haven't and we're short of this money. It would be an entirely different budget today if the Cabinet Secretary had somewhere between £1.1 billion and £4 billion to distribute. 

We'd have a better debate because we'd be saying, 'Should we increase health by more or should we increase education by more, or should we increase social services by more?', which I think is a debate we'd all enjoy having, instead of saying, 'Well, we're going to give more money to health so we're going to have to take money off local government.'

Of course, I understand why opposition Members are making this point—you may have a right to make it, and they certainly have every right to—. [Interruption.] Sorry—wishful thinking. And certainly, Plaid have every right to make it. But, you know, Labour fought the 2010 manifesto on pretty much the same financial projections that are accepted by the Conservative Party. You did fight the 2015 election on a slightly different basis, but not radically different in terms of the amount that's spent. Now, in 2017, obviously, you did fight very differently. But, you know, we wouldn't be in a radically different position if there'd been a Labour UK Government re-elected in 2010, so this point is a little odd, in my view.   

Well, I think if we'd had Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell elected in 2017, I don't think there's anybody in this room who doesn't think we'd have a radically different budget.

The block grant from the Tories in Westminster is inadequate. As the year progresses, I expect the Conservatives to call for more money for health, more money for education and to oppose any cutbacks that are being forced upon local authorities by the reduction in their block grants, whilst facing increasing need for social care and children's services. Austerity has failed as an economic policy. It's always failed as an economic policy. It's been tried many times; it's failed every time.

We talk about history—Neil Hamilton was. Let's talk about what happened in Chile when we had the extreme right-wing Government there. What did they do? They followed the Chicago school. They did exactly what they said in terms of cutting back and they took their economy to the brink of extinction. It's an ideology to shrink the state sector, reduce public expenditure, reduce public services and make people who can financially afford it use the private sector.

Again, we don't distinguish between capital and revenue. Capital expenditure is good. It's good for the economy, and it's what people do in their own lives. That's one of the issues that we used to have Margaret Thatcher telling us about: you have to run the economy like a housewife. Well, people do: they borrow for cars, they borrow for their mortgages on money they can afford to pay back. Why we have not got, as a Welsh Government, the same powers that exist with every local authority in Britain, including Rutland, to borrow prudentially—. Our limit is set by the Chancellor. The rules we work under are more severe than those of any local authority in England, Wales or Scotland.

I think that we need additional money. The health service needs additional money. But it keeps on having additional money and because we don't have additional money into the system—. Michael Trickey of the Public Policy Institute for Wales recently identified when it will get to 60 per cent of the total expenditure in Wales. I asked him if he'd tell us when it would be 100 per cent. He didn't, but it's sometime around about 2050. 

More people in hospital is treated as a sign of success. We need to reduce demand. We need to promote positive lifestyle choices: no smoking, increased exercise, reduced obesity levels and drug taking. We also need to improve housing quality, improve diet and increase social care. That will help. I'll just take one thing like type 2 diabetes, where one of the major causes is being overweight or obese. We need a campaign driven by primary care professionals to actually try and get people, if they've got type 2 diabetes, to go on a diet in order that they can get their weight down and stop having it.

Finally I'd like to highlight just one thing: Natural Resources Wales—is it adequately funded? Is it funded enough to be able to carry out all the functions it's being asked to? If it isn't, then we have two choices: give it more money or ask it to do less.

Llywydd, in the draft budget debate, I commended the Welsh Labour Government's support for social care over the past eight years of austerity and reducing budgets, and I'm glad to start by focusing on that priority again today. I think it's worth recording again today, and reminding Members, that health and social services spend in Wales is 8 per cent higher than in England. I think in the context of this final budget debate today, it has been useful to have the report and statement on the parliamentary review of health and social care, showing opportunities for transforming our health and social care provision in Wales. It was good to hear the positive comments from the review team. Wales has got good things happening: prudent healthcare and the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 as examples.

I have spoken of my support for the integrated care fund, which actually was crafted by parties across—certainly three parties across this Chamber. The ICF stands at £50 million. It's sustained in this budget with an increase in capital. This fund actually, I think, does help to provide the seamlessness that is needed at the point of using services, which, of course, the review is talking about.

I just want to mention the involvement of the third sector in the delivery of the integrated care fund, clearly contributing to the preventative agenda, as shown in Glamorgan Voluntary Services.

Thanks, Jane, for giving way. I agree with what you say about the future generations legislation. I think, in principle, it's a great piece of legislation, but the Finance Committee did have major problems in proving how, actually, the budget was really being affected by the future generations legislation and vice versa. I know that, if Steffan Lewis was here, he'd probably be making that point, so I make it for him, but would you agree with me that that needs improvement?

Well, it was very helpful, when we met with the future generations commissioner, that she looked at very practical examples of, for example, the preventative agenda, and pointed to the integrated care fund, as part of that, fitting very well into the aims of the future generations Act.

But I just continue to say that, as a result of third sector engagement, we've got co-location of a third sector service, with the Vale Community Resource Service at Barry Hospital, and that results in the streamlining of referrals and social prescribing. Of course, those are the examples that we need to give, which also will help respond to the review.

It is very important that we address the question of who pays for social care, and I was pleased that the Cabinet Secretary included Professor Gerry Holtham's proposal to explore a levy to support social care as part of the four new tax ideas. I hope that this will be pursued, even if it isn't a new tax option that will be tested with the UK Government. Gerry, of course, commented recently on this in the context of increased spending on the NHS and the pressures.

The Cabinet Secretary made housing a priority in his draft budget plans, approved by the Assembly, of course, and in the draft budget, there was of course additional capital and revenue investment, including £20 million to tackle homelessness, and I do welcome the additional £10 million to target youth homelessness. Again, a clear priority of this Welsh Labour Government. This budget is about priorities and principles and I'd like to commend the finance Secretary on his approach to our new fiscal powers. It's good to learn that the impact of these new fiscal powers provides an additional £17 million revenue as a result of the permanent funding floor, and £30 million as a result of decisions taken with regard to income from devolved taxes. Capital spending will also receive a boost as a result of our extended borrowing powers and also, of course, we have that welcome capital injection announcement today.

When we received evidence from the Office for Budgetary Responsibility director, Robert Chote, in the Finance Committee in December, he commented positively on the approach taken by the Welsh Government in setting the rates and bands of the new land transaction tax. Of course, following the announcement by the Cabinet Secretary that more homebuyers will benefit from his changes to land transaction tax, with people buying homes in Wales for less than £180,000 paying no tax under the changes to LTT and the taxes devolved in April, Robert Chote reflected on Wales nudging the system more in a progressive direction. This is consistent with the Cabinet Secretary's aim to make tax fairer and contribute to a more equal Wales, and I welcome this evidence of putting principles into practice with our important new tax fiscal powers in Wales.

So, I want to finish by adding to the statements made by the Cabinet Secretary and colleagues today on the fiscal impacts of austerity. It's disabled people, single parents and women who've been amongst the biggest losers under seven years of austerity. And since the coalition Government imposed austerity in 2010, of course, we resisted those very early cuts, but those cuts have risen to over £1 billion over the past eight years. This Welsh Government has provided a shield in Wales to mitigate against austerity and the cuts. So, the Cabinet Secretary has unveiled a new budget for Wales, reflecting the Welsh Government's new tax and borrowing powers. He's using these new powers to deliver the priorities that will benefit health, social care, education and housing, and underpin the economy in a fair and robust way, and I commend this budget.

I've already made it clear that I'm voting against Labour's broken budget. This is a budget from a party that is out of touch and needs to be out of Government.

We've all seen, over the past few months, the kind of party that you are. Our proud nation is being dragged through your mess and it has to stop. You like to try to convince people that you're a party of kinder, gentler politics, but what am I being asked to vote for here? More green fields around Cardiff to be trashed; more trees to be chainsawed in Roath Brook in unnecessary flood prevention; more environmental sites around Newport to be tarmacked over; and more millions being lost on very questionable—questionable—land and business deals.

With this budget, can we go to the people in Blaenau Gwent, in Gwynedd, Merthyr and the Rhondda and say that this is a real and serious plan to improve living standards? It seems everyone else has forgotten those areas since the Conservatives pulled the rug from under their feet. Are we finally going to do something about it with this budget? Can we take this budget to Welsh-speaking communities and say that this is going to celebrate and protect our language properly? Can we take this budget to entrepreneurs and say, 'Be creative, make your good idea happen, grow into successful companies'? The answer is 'no'.

This is a broken budget from a broken Government. It doesn't fix the genuine problems people have. It won't lead to an end to the housing crisis. It won't put food on people's tables. It won't end talented people having to leave Wales to make their fortune. If we had a sovereign Parliament, we could have a Government making laws in all areas for Wales and in the interests of everyone in Wales. That's the real solution—a sovereign Welsh Parliament legislating in the Welsh national interest. When that day comes, we'll really see change. Diolch yn fawr.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance to reply to the debate—Mark Drakeford.

Diolch yn fawr, Lywydd. Well, budget debates are always interesting for the way that they expose ideological differences across the floor of the Chamber. I think we'll remember Neil Hamilton's contribution, a man for whom austerity has not nearly gone far enough, who regards the UK Government as lily livered and living in an era of gross overexpenditure, and in which every investment the Government can make becomes a drain on future generations. I wish he could have met the pensioner who came to my surgery in Ely just before Christmas to explain to me that the house she lived in had been built 100 years ago by a Government after the first world war determined to build homes for heroes to live in, that the road that she used to get back and fore to it was a road created by public expenditure, that the electricity, the gas and the water that she relied on were only there because earlier generations had decided to invest in the infrastructure that allowed her to go about her daily life, that, when she'd been ill before Christmas, she'd been treated in a hospital that earlier generations had laid down, that, when she'd left hospital and had been told that she needed to take exercise, she was able to go to a leisure centre built by a Labour council here in Cardiff 30 years ago, and that, when her grandson will go to a secondary school in Ely, it will be to a new secondary school produced by this Government. For all of those things, the future of her children will matter. For Mr Hamilton, every one of those things was a waste and something that is a drain.

If the finance Secretary is giving way, that is a complete perversion of the argument that I made in my speech. It's not that any of those things are undesirable, it's just that we have to live within our means in the real world, and you can't forever and a day borrow to pay for things that you can't afford.

But, Llywydd, everything that I have mentioned was created by borrowing. All of those things relied upon the willingness of previous generations to borrow to invest in the future that we enjoy today, and we have a similar obligation to do that for the people who will come after us.

Now, I don't suppose that Nick Ramsay, for a minute, goes along with the arguments that Mr Hamilton put out, but he doesn't know how to respond to the investment that this Government makes in the health service. He can't make up his mind whether he wants to welcome it, or whether he wants to say that the money isn't being used wisely. He wants to complain about severe cuts to local government in Wales, when in fact budgets in local government are going up under the budget that's in front of this Assembly this afternoon. He asks us to celebrate the investments made by the Chancellor on 22 November, and, of course, we're determined to use every penny that we get from the Chancellor as wisely as we can. But the capital money that came to us on 22 November leaves us only 20 per cent lower than we were a decade ago, rather than the third lower than we were before he stood up.

Thank you for giving way. I welcome the money that has come in to the Welsh Government from the UK Government, as you did yourself in your written statement. So, I was just pointing out that your speech was overtly negative. I'm all for a sense of balance, and I know you agree with that, Cabinet Secretary, but also I would appreciate that you recognise the difference between real-terms increases and cash-terms increases; they're quite different.

Of course, Llywydd, I welcome the fact that we are only 20 per cent worse off rather than 30 per cent worse off, and that's why we're determined to make the best use we can of every penny that we have.

On the other side of the Chamber, of course, I welcome the comments made by Adam Price. Of course, we are here to work together in a constructive manner when we want to make a difference for the people of Wales. That's the way that people with ideas for the future can come together and work on those areas where we can see the impact that they will have in the future. I look forward to having future discussions with Steffan Lewis on the details of the Brexit preparedness fund, and to working collaboratively to see how we can use that funding in a more effective manner.

Can I also welcome, of course, what Vikki Howells, Mike Hedges and Jane Hutt said, each one of them illustrating the fact that what this budget sets out to achieve makes a difference in the daily lives of people in all parts of Wales? It's a budget, as Jane Hutt said, for priorities and principles: the progressive principles of this Government, the priorities of the people here in Wales. It's a budget that I hope this Assembly will endorse this afternoon.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will defer voting under this item until voting time. 

The next item is the Non-Domestic Rating (Multiplier) (Wales) Order 2018, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance to move the motion—Mark Drakeford.

Thank you very much. I move that we approve the Non-Domestic Rating (Multiplier) (Wales) Order 2018. The Order sets the non-domestic rating multiplier for the purposes of 2018-19. I recognise that there has been limited time for Members to consider the Order. This was necessary because of the timing of the announcement of the Chancellor in the autumn budget to proceed with processes to increase the multiplier in England using the CPI, the consumer price index, rather than the retail price index, the RPI.

Llywydd, the UK Government had previously set out its intention to change the measure of inflation used to calculate the multiplier in England from RPI to CPI from 1 April 2020. These plans were brought forward to 1 April 2018 in the autumn budget. The Welsh Government was not informed of this change of plan ahead of the announcement, and we've had to consider fully the costs and implications of adopting a similar approach for Wales before making a decision to change the basis for calculating the multiplier in Wales, preparing the necessary instrument and bringing it before the National Assembly this afternoon.

The Order needs to be approved before there can be a vote on the local government finance report, and the debate on the local government finance report had already been scheduled for today. I'm very grateful to the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee for its early consideration of the multiplier Order, which has enabled us to debate it today. The committee noted the short time frame for the consideration of the order, but also noted that it was quite short and straightforward. If I could have avoided the tight timescales, Llywydd, I would certainly have wished to do so.

The committee also raised a merits point relating to a figure cited in the explanatory note to the Order and the Order that is not referred to in the explanatory memorandum. I apologise, of course, for this omission, and accept the view of the committee that a fuller explanation would have been helpful in describing the overall effects of the Order. A delay, however, in approving the Order, would mean postponing consideration of the lcoal government finance report, with obvious consequences for the budget planning of local authorities. It would also result in avoidable uncertainty for non-domestic rate payers in Wales, giving them less time to prepare for their plans for next year.

The Non-Domestic Rating (Multiplier) (Wales) Order 2018 will set the multiplier for 2018-19, using the consumer prices index rather than the retail prices index as the basis for calculating the multiplier. This will have the effect of limiting increases in all non-domestic rates bills for the next financial year. Businesses in Wales will benefit by £9 million in the coming financial year, and £22 million in 2019-20, as we intend to adopt the same approach for future years, bringing forward an Order for the Assembly's consideration in 2019-20.

Presiding Officer, non-domestic rates have been devolved to a large extent. This brings responsibilities and opportunities. Otherwise, using the CPI rather than the RPI to calculate the multiplier would add to the bills that taxpayers would face. The change will give a boost to businesses and other taxpayers in Wales whilst maintaining a stable flow of tax revenue for local services. The change will be funded in full by the Welsh Government. There will be no impact on the funding available to local government as a result of the lower bills for non-domestic properties. So, I would ask Members, therefore, to approve this Order this afternoon.

I call on the Chair of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, Mick Antoniw.

Diolch, Lywydd. The Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, as has been mentioned by the Cabinet Secretary, considered this instrument at our meeting on 8 January. We reported two merit points identified under Standing Order 21.3.

The first point considered by the committee is that the Order was laid before the Assembly on 4 January 2018. The committee usually has 20 days from the date of laying the report on the statutory instruments. The committee was asked, in correspondence by the Cabinet Secretary, to report on the Order before today to allow for the Order to be approved by resolution of the National Assembly ahead of the Assembly's consideration of the local government finance report for the financial year beginning on 1 April, as the Cabinet Secretary has reported.

In effect, due to the committee's meeting schedule, this meant that we only had four days after the Order was laid to consider this instrument. We do, importantly, acknowledge the time pressures on the Welsh Government as a result of the delayed autumn statement and the action needed to get to this point before the Assembly is able to agree the local government finance report by the required deadline. We are also aware of the serious consequences should this not happen. However, this has meant a greatly reduced timescale for the committee to consider and report on this instrument. As the Order was relatively short and straightforward, we were able to meet the Welsh Government's request. Nevertheless, I would encourage the Government to give the committee as much notice as possible where it would like us to scrutinise statutory instruments within a shorter deadline than is provided for in Standing Orders.

Secondly, the Order specifies the new multiplier figure, and is explained in the explanatory note. However, this number is not referred to at all in the explanatory memorandum, which is a separate document intended to explain the intentions of the instrument. Given this figure is so crucial, it is our view that the explanatory memorandum accompanying this Order could have been more helpful in explaining the effect of the Order.

Plaid Cymru has some sympathy with the technical content of this Order, to a great extent, which is the intention to change the inflationary measure that's used to calculate the non-domestic rating multiplier—changing to CPI rather than RPI. We have been calling for that for some time. But, looking at the bigger picture, when we look at the explanatory memorandum—which is monolingually in English, by the way—you explain that the purpose of the Order is to support economic growth and to reduce the taxation burden on businesses and other non-domestic ratepayers in Wales. You also say that you intend to ensure that businesses in Wales aren't under a disadvantage as compared to other parts of the United Kingdom.

Well, the situation is, of course, that small businesses in Wales are at a disadvantage as compared to other parts of the United Kingdom because whatever inflationary measures are used, the existence of a single multiplier for all businesses, large or small, means that small businesses are under a disadvantage. In Scotland and England, there's a different multiplier available with regard to business rates for large and small businesses, and that means then that there is a way to ensure a greater element of fairness in the system for taxation. So, because of that, we will be symbolically voting against this Order.

We feel an increasing frustration with the speed of policy change in this area where, forever and a day, Assembly Members are aware of the frustration in the business community with a tax that dates back centuries and that isn't fit for purpose in the current era. I look forward to continuing those constructive discussions with the Cabinet Secretary in other fora in looking at amending in a radical way with regard to abolishing this. We do need to look at alternative models, but while we are still discussing the current framework, which is insufficient, then I'm afraid that, in this particular instance, Plaid Cymru will have to oppose this Order as a symbolic vote.

I wasn’t going to speak in this debate, because, as the Cabinet Secretary knows, the Welsh Conservatives will be supporting this instrument. However, I’ve been inspired to do so by the comments made by Adam Price. Whilst I do have a measure of sympathy for the comments that you’ve just made, Adam, in terms of your long-standing commitment to change the whole business rates system in Wales and a desire to do something different here, I do feel that we are where we are in terms of the current system, and if, as I understand it correctly, we are talking about following the model across the border and moving from retail price index to CPI in the same way as is happening there, then I cannot see how—. If you avoid doing that, you’re going to inevitably cause a disadvantage for businesses here. Just because you feel they may be at a disadvantage at the moment, Adam Price, it doesn’t therefore mean that they wouldn’t be at a greater disadvantage until the system was changed. So, on that basis, Cabinet Secretary, you have the support of the Welsh Conservatives in this. But I would at the same time urge you to look further at greater measures—

Would the Member give away?

I have two more words to say, but go for it.

This is a strange case of role reversal, given the positions in the earlier debate. But, surely, what would happen, if the Government were to lose this vote, is that they would have to take it away, listen to the comments that were made and bring it back, and address the particular issue of the split multiplier that I referred to.

No, I think that we're talking at cross purposes here. I think that in terms of the wider issue of business rates and an unfairness that currently exists in Wales, I agree with that. However, we do have the situation of a change across the border. There is, I believe, a Barnett consequential that is going to come here—well, perhaps the Cabinet Secretary can say what that consequential will be that will come here—which is then going to be used in Wales to support businesses. I think that's the situation, and that is certainly one that the Welsh Conservatives will support. However, I was going to finish, before your intervention, Adam, by saying that I do hope this doesn't stop you looking at the broader issue of business rates and greater ways you can support businesses in Wales, and also taking into account the views of Plaid Cymru that perhaps, over the next few years, you could look at coming up with a radically different system. But, in the interim, I want to see that financial support through a Barnett consequential coming to support Welsh businesses in Wales, and I think that businesses would want that as well.

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

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Can I repeat my thanks to the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee for its work? We've accepted the merits points made in its report, and I'm grateful to the committee for recognising the time pressures, which are not of our own making and are a direct result of the awkwardness we discussed during the debate on the final budget of having a major UK fiscal event halfway through our own budget-making processes.

Of course, I agree with Adam Price that it is important to take a more fundamental look at the way in which money is raised in this part of our budget, and he will know, because we've discussed it, that there is work in hand inside the Welsh Government to test in a practical way whether there are alternative ways of raising revenue of this sort in the Welsh context. Does that mean that it is right to vote against the proposal in front of the Assembly this afternoon? Well, I don't think so, of course. My belief is that, if the vote is lost, the effect is that businesses in Wales next year will see their bills rise in line with RPI not CPI, because we have to get on and make the local government budget. We wouldn't be able to come back with alternative proposals in time for next year. Would I be tempted to come back with alternative proposals that included a split multiplier? I don't think I would, Llywydd. It's one of the advantages of our system, businesses tell us, that they don't have the complexity of split multipliers, particularly when the split multiplier would apply to a very small number of large businesses and would not, I think, raise revenue of a sort that would make a material difference to others.

What we do plan to do, and what we have proposed to the National Assembly, is that we do not place Welsh businesses in a different position than the businesses across our border who will see their bills in this area grow more slowly than they would in Wales if the vote today were not to be supported. I confirm for Nick Ramsay that there was a consequential in the autumn budget that comes to Wales. We will apply that consequential to pay for the change that we are proposing to you today. Welsh businesses using that consequential will be £9 million better off next year than they otherwise would be, and £22 million better off the following year than they otherwise would be. You can vote symbolically if you like, but for Welsh businesses, the price of your symbol is to be £30 million worse off than they otherwise would be.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will defer voting under this item until voting time.

Which brings us to item 6, the debate on the local government settlement for 2018-19, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary for local government to move the motion—Alun Davies.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I'd like to continue in the same tone and approach that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance has adopted over the debates this afternoon in rooting our budget for local government in our values, our principles, where we stand and the approach that we wish to take. Presiding Officer, this is a budget that is rooted in a belief in local government. It is rooted in the belief that local government is valued by both this Government and by people across Wales. We want to work alongside local authorities to protect and enhance public services, to value public service workers, and to ensure that the place of local government in our budgets reflects these values and these principles. The finance Secretary, in introducing the Government's budget earlier this afternoon, outlined how austerity has undermined our ability to protect these services, but within this context we will continue to invest in local government and in local services.

Next year, local authorities in Wales will receive over £4.2 billion in general revenue funding. This is an increase of 0.2 per cent compared with the current financial year, and the second increase in the settlement for local government in as many years. Presiding Officer, we believe that this is a realistic settlement that will continue to protect local services from significant cuts against a background of reduced funding. The Welsh Government has protected funding for local government in recent years, and this settlement is no different. As a result, current spending on local services in Wales has increased by over 4 per cent between 2010-11 and 2017-18 in cash terms. In England, it has decreased by 12 per cent, and that is the real example of how this Government seeks to value public service, value public servants and value local government.

The distribution reflects the most up-to-date assessment of relative need, based on a wealth of information about the demographic, physical, economic and social characteristics of every authority in Wales. In preparing the final settlement, I've given careful consideration to the responses I received to the consultation on the provisional settlement, which closed on 21 November. This settlement provides councils with a robust basis for their financial planning for the coming financial year. Compared with the provisional settlement announcement, the final settlement includes an additional £20 million as a result of the Welsh Government's final budget allocations. Also, the final settlement includes a further £7 million to support the increase to the capital limit in charging for residential care to £40,000 commencing in April 2018. In addition, the final settlement provides an additional £1.3 million of funding to local authorities for them to use their discretionary powers to provide targeted relief to support local businesses that would benefit most from additional assistance. 

Within the settlement, we are prioritising funding for essential public services such as education and social care. Whilst there is no ring fencing on any specific element of the settlement, I am prioritising funding for schools, through £62 million in 2018-19 and a further £46 million in 2019-20 within the settlement to provide and to maintain the Welsh Government's contribution and enable authorities to maintain core spending on schools at current levels in both those years. Similarly for social care, I am prioritising funding, through £42 million in the next financial year and a further £31 million in 2019-20 within the settlement, to maintain the Welsh Government's contribution and to enable local authorities to maintain core spending on social care at current levels in both those years. This reflects our recognition of the need to invest and to continue to invest in social care.

As well as the funding I have already highlighted, this settlement provides an additional £6 million to support the delivery of local services to meet homelessness prevention duties, on top of the £6 million built into the settlement in the current financial year. Alongside the settlement, we are providing £600,000 to support local government to stop charging for child burials. This recognises and builds upon the positive steps already taken by many councils in Wales and puts in place a fair and consistent approach across Wales. Finally, over £800,000 of additional funding outside the settlement has been included to ensure that no authority sees a reduction greater than 0.5 per cent compared to the current general revenue funding allocation. Local government has continually asked for dehypothecation of specific grants and, in line with the direction of travel of previous Ministers, I have sought to continue this trend and will be looking to transfer further funding into the settlement in the future.

The settlement reflects over £92 million worth of transfers into the baseline previously paid to local authorities through specific grants. This includes £35 million from the waste element of the single revenue grant, £27 million of funding previously provided via the Welsh independent living grant, £19 million to support the social care workforce grant, £8 million to deliver the looked-after children programme, £3 million for carers' respite care grant, and £391,000 additional funding for social care for prisoners in the secure estate.

Would the Cabinet Secretary give way?

Of course.

I'm grateful. You mentioned the waste transfer grant. Of course, that was taken from the portfolio of his fellow Cabinet Secretary and given directly to local authorities. It could be said that that's been one of the most successful direct grants of Welsh Government in driving very high recycling targets and has been quite rightly praised by the Government itself as being one of the great successes in this field. What is he going to do to ensure that, although the principle of hypothecation is going, these successes continue? Because there does seem to be some work to be done with some councils.

I am familiar with that point. Let me say this: it's been a success because local government and Welsh Government have worked together. I think, in many ways, this has demonstrated the power of a partnership that is a real partnership working together, both in terms of funding but also in working together to look for different solutions to ensure that we do continue to meet the recycling targets that we have set ourselves. I see no reason for that partnership not to continue. The fact that we are providing the funding in a different way shouldn't affect the results of that partnership and should enable us to continue working but to do so in a way that also provides local government with the flexibility they require. The Member will know of my personal commitment and the commitment of the Cabinet Secretary on these matters, and we will continue to work with local government to ensure that those targets are met in the future. I can give you that undertaking today. But we will also ensure that the total annual funding of over £285 million has been transferred into the settlement since 2011-12. 

Alongside the settlement, Presiding Officer, I have published the latest information on Welsh Government grant schemes planned for 2018-19. This will assist local authorities in preparing their budgets for the next year. The most up-to-date information on local authority capital funding has also been released. Overall for next year, there's once again been no reduction to the general capital funding, which remains at £143 million. While the unhypothecated settlement is the largest single source of funding available to authorities, it is not the only one. In setting their budgets and council tax levels for next year, I expect every authority to take account of all of the available funding streams, and to consider how to secure the best value for Welsh taxpayers through effective and efficient service provision.

We offer considerable flexibility to authorities to exercise autonomy and responsibility in managing their finances. This is a fair settlement for local government within a very challenging circumstance, and within a sometimes difficult context. The finance Secretary this afternoon has expressed, I think, his own frustration with the situation that we find ourselves in, and the Welsh Government does not share the views expressed by the leader of UKIP this afternoon that austerity hasn't gone far enough, or achieved all of his ambitions. For us, there is a value in the public estate, public services and public service workers. We want to ensure that we provide excellence in public services for people across the whole of Wales, wherever they happen to be. We will continue to work with public service workers, with local government and other partners to ensure that we're able to do that. We will do it on the basis of mutual respect, and do it in a way that is rooted in our values today and in the future. Thank you very much. 

The Welsh Conservatives, of course, were delighted recently to welcome the announcement that Welsh local government revenue funding will receive an extra £31.5 million in 2018-19, and £61.7 million in 2019-20 as part of the Conservative UK Government's announcement of an additional £1.2 billion to Wales over the next four years. Wales is also benefiting, of course, from changes to the fiscal framework, meaning that for every £1 spent in England, at least £1.20 will now be spent in Wales, something that 13 years of Labour rule in Westminster never achieved. 

However, we have seen no let-up for our hard-pressed council tax payers or squeezed local government budgets, which now face real concerns over the lack of clarity over a number of funding streams. The Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee report on the draft budget called for greater transparency in funding presentation. Welsh Government claims of an increase to social care budgets to £42 million in 2018-19, rising to £73 million in 2019-20, and, allegedly, an extra £62 million, increasing to £108 million, in funding support for school services have been challenged by the Welsh Local Government Association, claiming it is already existing within the settlement, whilst the standard spending assessments has only gone up by just £35 million—pure rhetoric and spin by this Welsh Labour Government. 

Further, the Children, Young People and Education Committee revealed that the so-called additional £62 million in reality amounts to just £1.5 million when taking into account the initial calculation for 2018-19, and the final allocated figure. 

Our committee, the ELGC, further calls for the Welsh Government to outline how it intends to monitor spend and outcomes in areas previously in receipt of grant funding, now incorporated into the revenue support grant. Reductions of around £70 million in the cost of administering hypothetic grants are welcome and, to be fair, on these benches we've called for a less complicated and less bureaucratic way of funding local government. However, Cymorth Cymru have voiced concerns that without a distinct budget line, the Welsh Government simply cannot be held to account over how much actually is going to be spent on the Supporting People programme. Likewise, Bangor and District Women's Aid have stated that without ring fencing, they will not know how much is being spent on violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence. Clearly, there is a balance to be struck here between reducing hypothecation and retaining a transparent audit trail. So, therefore, I will be interested in the Cabinet Secretary's ideas for how this can be achieved. The Welsh Government have stated that information will be collected through a suite of expenditure returns in the interests of transparency, scrutiny and accountability. So, therefore, Cabinet Secretary, if you could advise as to when and where this data will be published and how you will report to the Assembly on this—.

Since 2013-14, local authorities have seen cuts of nearly £0.5 billion in real terms. Cabinet Secretary, you've said before that you've never seen an alternative to the funding formula, yet we've been calling for years for a fundamental review and improved consideration of a number of particular areas. Demographics: particularly the needs of older people, given concerns raised by the Health Foundation in terms of future social services pressures, and the need for adult social care funding to rise by 4 per cent in real terms each year to cover this. Rurality: again, our rural authorities have been badly let down. Why is the Labour Government not prepared to help our rural authorities? They have borne, yet again, the biggest brunt of your cuts, with real term losses of 14.5 per cent to Powys even before today's proposed settlement. Rural isolation and access to services are only partially addressed by the current sparsity factor. Therefore, again, we call for increased attention to be given to this element of the formula also.

Finally, we do need to look at how local authorities are actually managing their finances. We can't dictate how they budget, but we can enable better public and democratic scrutiny of local authority spending and use of reserves. The Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee has called for a review of the implementation of the guidance on local government reserves, a call disappointingly rejected by this Welsh Government. Whilst our residents continue to face hefty year-on-year council tax rises, potentially 12.5 per cent in Pembrokeshire, and high increases across Wales, whilst usable reserves have risen 7 per cent since 2012 and represent 86 per cent of total reserves totalling over 1.4 billion, there is a clear mismatch, Cabinet Secretary, and I actually think that you have some sympathy with my thoughts on that.

Clearly, Cabinet Secretary, we do look to you now to bring some sense to this ludicrous situation. Rhondda Cynon Taf alone has usable reserves of almost £150 million. A council tax increase for our residents of 187 per cent since Labour came into power in Wales shows that Welsh Labour are more than happy to burden our householders, many on fixed incomes, rather than balance their own books here in Cardiff Bay.

Since 2010 local authorities across Wales have been working in a very difficult financial climate as a result of the destructive austerity policies of the Conservative Government. This means that local services have been lost and the most vulnerable in our communities are being affected most. Following years of cuts to local government budgets in Wales—a cut of 1.4 per cent in 2016-17 and 3.4 per cent in 2015-16—as part of the agreement for the budget last year, Plaid Cymru did ensure an additional £25 million to fund local authorities. As a result of that agreement, in 2017-18, a number of local authorities in Wales saw an increase in their budgets for the first time for some years. But despite this additional investment, following other factors such as inflation and increasing pressure on greater services with regard to social care, despite that additional investment, that settlement was a real-terms cut to some local authorities.

And that's the truth for this year as well. The final settlement includes increases and reductions in funding for different local authorities, with nine authorities facing a cut, and 13 authorities seeing an increase of some kind in financial terms. Local authorities have saved more than £700 million since the beginning of austerity in 2010. But, truth be told, this settlement still doesn't give sufficient funding for councils for a number of the Government's priorities, including a pay rise for public services and local authorities. And this means that it will be more difficult to employ in the care sector and services across the board.

So, even though this settlement is less damaging to authorities than previous ones, the Government has to look to the future and think about building resilience into the system, and a more sustainable system in the way that they fund local government. For example, the Government announced last week decreases for council tax relief, which is worth £244 million a year. Council tax relief schemes are vitally important for the vulnerable people of Wales. But, by introducing a fairer taxation system in the first place, we could be in a situation where such a relief scheme wouldn't be needed, or such a wide-ranging one as we currently have. If we could introduce a fairer taxation system, we could save money in that particular area, and this could release greater funds that could be used for front-line services within our local councils.

Of course, we all recognise and appreciate that these are vital services. We also acknowledge the tireless work being done by staff in local councils. We often in this place laud the staff of the NHS, and clearly we have to do that and we need to do that. But we also have to recognise that workers in the care sector and other sectors within our local authorities also work under continuing pressures, and the tireless work that they do is to be praised. Their commitment to the services that they try to provide for the people of Wales must be appreciated by all of us. But seeing the increasing pressure that is on the staff is heartbreaking, and it's also heartbreaking considering that it is the most vulnerable people in our society who are dependent on these services, and that it's them, ultimately, who will be hardest hit by all of this.

Yes, we have to put an end to austerity—of course we have to put an end to austerity. It's clear that it isn't working, despite all of the impact that it has on our communities. But also, this Government needs to take responsibility and to accept responsibility for working on new ways of creating systems that are balanced and sustainable for the future. Thank you.

I agree with Siân Gwenllian that we need to look at new ways of dealing with the austerity budget that the UK Government hands down to us, but I want to just focus on the particular problems that Cardiff faces as a result of the way in which the education improvement grant has been absorbed into the overall rate support grant.

Not only is our local authority having to cope with a reduction of 11 per cent in the education improvement grant, it is of great concern to me that the money that this local authority and other local authorities, like, for example, Swansea and Newport, used to get for Travellers and minority ethnic pupils has disappeared in a puff of smoke. That is of huge concern, because Cardiff is a dispersal centre for refugees, so we obviously are very pleased to accept a significant number of children who have absolutely no English when they arrive, but we obviously need to put in place the services to integrate them into our mainstream schools.

So, what was a modest 0.9 per cent increase in the education improvement grant, bearing in mind that we have an increasing population of young people in Cardiff, has turned into a small reduction in the overall education improvement grant, with the increasing numbers in the population of schoolchildren we have. That translates into a massive £4 million gap in Cardiff's education budget, and in one particular school, in Fitzalan in Mark Drakeford's constituency, £400,000 will be lost. In other schools, it's going to be 6 per cent or 7 per cent of their total school grants. So, I do hope that the Cabinet Secretary for local government will give us some assurances that this money is going to be for those local authorities that actually are educating ethnic minority children, not for local authorities where there are almost no minority ethnic and Traveller children. So, I'd be grateful for some clarification on that.

Mike Hedges.

Oh, diolch, Llywydd. [Laughter.] That came as a shock then.

Two major areas of Welsh Government expenditure are health and local government. The downside of extra money for health has obviously been less money for local government. Local government finances are under pressure. Local councils have been forward thinking and innovative in dealing with real-term cuts to their budgets, and that's councils led by every different party: they've had to work hard to deal with incredibly difficult financial positions.

Whilst real-term reductions in Wales have been substantially less than in England and less than in Scotland, they have created difficult decisions for councils to make. As I've stated regularly, social care is under greater pressure than health in terms of finance. Without adequate social care, we end up with patients unable to be discharged from hospitals. We see that in England, where it has been stated that, at one time, one hospital had more delayed discharging than the whole of Wales. Also, in England, we have seen the wholesale closure of libraries. The English education system has become fragmented and chaotic.

We in Wales have avoided this. In the provisional settlement, the Welsh Government guaranteed that no local authority will have to manage a reduction of more than 1 per cent. The final settlement is better and ensures that no local authority in Wales will have to manage a cut of more than 0.5 per cent in cash terms, although, of course, if it's 0.5 per cent in cash terms, it's going to be a far larger cut in real terms.

The final settlement represents an additional £28.3 million in funding for local authorities in Wales compared with the provisional local government settlement. We've got to be happy with that. We're moving in the right direction: £20 million is for general use and £7 million is a manifesto commitment to increase the capital limit when charging for residential care and raising that to £40,000, commencing from April 2018. I wonder how many people will be voting against increasing the limit for charging to £40,000. When you vote against this, that's what you'll actually be doing. Then, an additional £1.3 million funding for local authorities to use their discretionary powers to provide targeted relief to support local businesses that would benefit from additional assistance.

An issue my local MP Carolyn Harris has campaigned on for most of the last two years has been free child burials, and there's £600,000 for that, which has allowed councils to do that. It is not a huge sum of money, but it'll make a difference to people's lives and for those people who have the huge misfortune to lose their child, they won't face the huge financial cost that will come alongside the tears and the upset of the death of a child. The death of a child is severe enough for a family, one that most of us hope, or perhaps even all of us hope, will never happen to anybody we know or any of our family. When that has happened to somebody, giving them a financial pressure as well, I think, is something that—. Ending that is something the Welsh Government deserves a pat on the back for.

The local government formula can be easily changed. You just change the percentage numbers. But with no extra money, every local authority that gets more money will mean some other local authorities getting less. And while the formula may need—

Will you give way?

Yes, certainly.

How can you justify a situation where, for example, Flintshire in nineteenth position gets £368 less per head in revenue for local government than the best funded authority? Wrexham is eighteenth. Conwy is fifteenth, despite it having the largest oldest people population in Wales. Even Anglesey, the poorest or least populous part of Wales, is the eleventh lowest funded. That is an unsustainable formula, surely.

If Mark Isherwood is asking, 'Can we fund every local authority by exactly the same amount per head?', on behalf of Swansea, I say, 'Yes, please.' And I think there'd be people in Cardiff who'd be ecstatic about it, and there'd be problems in other parts of Wales where they'd be less happy.

The formula means that it's driven by population, and population demographics, with additional money for sparsity and deprivation. One of the problems with some of the local authorities who have been losing money is that their population, relative to the rest of Wales, has been decreasing. Cardiff has done well this year because its population relative to the rest of Wales has been increasing. And all those people who say, 'We don't want any building in our area; we don't want any development', well, you're going to then have the corollary of that, which is that you're not going to get as much money in local government settlements.390

Can I just say that, no, Cardiff and Swansea do not get a penny for the regional services they provide? The settlement will leave local authorities with difficult decisions. Can I—? I'll leave with two requests. One is for the Welsh Government, and that is: can they free local authorities to set their own charges for planning applications? This is something that is set centrally. Some local authorities would want to charge more, some would want to charge less, and some would want to make planning a situation where it washes its face in terms of income and expenditure. The other one is: will people in this Chamber stop complaining when local authorities make the cuts that we are forcing upon them by our real-terms cuts in their expenditure, when they've got the huge pressure they've got on their budgets, especially social care? People are going to vote against the budget today, but how many will be voting against the budget because they think more money should be going to local government and less to health?

Not so long ago, Cardiff's Labour council closed my local youth centre. So, now, if you walk around my area, you'll see—[Interruption.] Some people to my right in the Labour group are actually laughing at that statement, which is shameful. If you come—. I'll declare an interest; I'm a Cardiff councillor. If you walk around my community, you will now see youngsters out on the streets when at other times, previously, they would have found themselves in the youth centre, which the Labour Party closed.

If you walk around the city centre, you will see more and more homeless people—more and more. The administration of which I was a deputy leader introduced taxi marshals because of the number of flashpoints and violent confrontations that arise out of disputes over taxi ranks. We hear, this week, that in this city now, taxi marshals will be abolished. The city centre will therefore be a less safe place, and it's going to be particularly difficult for differently abled people to catch taxis, and they already have a very, very difficult time.

Services are more and more squeezed, and what's on offer? More of the same. More of the same—year in, year out. Local government is not respected enough, and it's certainly not funded enough. I look at these debates in this Chamber. I look at how the Government's spending its money. The black routes, making consultants wealthy, almost, with the number employed. The waste from this Government is, and has been, enormous. And yet, councils will suffer.

We won't let councils completely off the hook, because if you look at many of the councils in Wales, they pay huge salaries in excess of £100,000 to officials. Look at commissioners in Wales. The well-being of future generations, for example. That whole department spends millions. On what? I don't think anybody really knows. And there's a whole drive of outsourcing from the Labour Party—especially to private charities—who will not fund local government, with democratically accountable councillors. Every single year. Every single year, this Government condemns councils up and down Wales, and it simply isn't right.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Local Government and Public Services to reply to the debate.

I'm grateful to you, Presiding Officer. I am grateful to all Members who have taken time to contribute to the debate this afternoon. It's always important to consider how we structure the funding and financing of local government, and also the relative priority given to local government within the overall Welsh budget.

Can I just say this? There is not simply respect and mutual respect for local government in this Welsh Government—and, I believe, across the Chamber, in fact—there is also a wish and a want to work together, to collaborate together, to work in a real, not a pretended, partnership together. The question from Simon Thomas during my opening remarks spoke to an area where we've been successful in achieving our ambitions. We've been successful, not because local government succeeded or the Welsh Government succeeded, because we succeeded together and we worked together. That is what I want to see today and in the future.

Can I say, Presiding Officer, I do listen to, particularly, Conservative spokespeople talking about the formula, and talking about its relative weaknesses? But let me say this: Mike Hedges is absolutely right in his analysis; the formula can be changed. It can be changed. I've heard many Conservative Members here arguing for a change in the formula. What I haven't heard is Conservative councillors arguing for that change in the formula. You know, I will say to the Conservative spokesperson, we had a meeting of the finance sub-group on 14 December, where we met with local government to discuss this settlement and that formula, and they weren't proposing changes to it. I'll give the Member an opportunity now. We have a meeting next week. If she wishes the Conservative Party to propose changes to the formula, you have a meeting next week—I believe it's next Wednesday or Thursday: propose those changes. Let's see what the changes are. Let's see what you want to see. Let's see how you believe the funding should be distributed. And then let's see if you can find a Conservative councillor who'll propose it. Because when I talk to Conservative councillors, what they aren't talking to me about is changing the formula. They're just saying they're very grateful that their councillors in Wales are not councillors in England, where they've seen their own Government contemptuously not just dismissing local government, but systematically dismantling local government. [Interruption.] I'll give way to the leader of the opposition if he wants me to. I give way to the leader of the opposition.

Do you stand there and feel ashamed of the record increases in the council tax that have happened since the start of devolution here in Wales, and the little respite you've given, in particular, to rural authorities to meet the demands of extra services you've placed on them? 

I look forward to the leader of the opposition's letter coming to me this week or next week with the changes he proposes to the formula. [Interruption.] I'll put it in the Library, with his permission. But I gave him the opportunity there to defend local government and to say how important local government was. What he did was to attack the decisions of local government and to attack the decisions of locally elected councillors.

One of the points that was made by Mike Hedges in his contribution was about the difficulties facing local authorities in balancing the books and delivering excellence and services. Let me say this: I absolutely agree with the points that he made in that contribution. Being a local councillor and a local authority leader today is one of the hardest and most difficult jobs in Welsh Government, and we should be thanking local government leaders for the work they do and not condemning them, as the leader of the opposition has done, for the decisions that they take.

We have an excellent track record in supporting local government in Wales and, Presiding Officer, I hope, and I'm confident, that that will continue. We know that, since 2010-11, in England, in real terms, local government has been cut by 22 per cent. In cash terms, a 12 per cent cut in local government in England. In cash terms, over the same period, we've seen an increase of 4.4 per cent in Wales. We know that spending per head in Wales is £527 per person higher than in England. We know that we are investing in local government, and we know that we're seeking to protect local government.

But the points made by Siân Gwenllian are also absolutely right. There is a crisis of public finances in this country. It's caused by a failed austerity project that was established in order to pay off the deficit, but has doubled the deficit. It was established in order to pay off the debt. It hasn't succeeded in doing that. What it is doing is leading to a dismantling of local government in England and a decline in the ability to deliver public services. That is not something that I would ever be proud of.

Let me say this to other Members who took part in the debate: the points made by Jenny Rathbone, I think, are absolutely right for her to raise. I will say to Jenny: Huw Thomas, the leader of Cardiff council, raised these matters with me last week, and I'm also aware that the leader of Swansea has written to the Cabinet Secretary for Education. I know that the Cabinet Secretary will be replying to the leader of Swansea, and we have asked our officials to work with both the leaders of the councils you've named, but also with the WLGA, to try to resolve the issues that you raised. It's absolutely fair and right and proper that we raise those issues.

But let me say this in closing, Presiding Officer: it is the easiest thing in the world to come to this Chamber and to make a speech. You can condemn either the decisions of this Government or condemn the decisions of local government, and different people have taken the opportunity to do that this afternoon. But let me say this: this is a Government that respects local government. It's a Government that wants to work with local government. It is a Government that will seek to protect local government, public services, and public service workers. It's what we're doing this afternoon, and I would ask Members in all parts of this Chamber to support the Government in doing that today. Thank you.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will defer voting on this item until voting time. 

That brings us to voting time. Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will proceed directly to the vote. The first vote is on the final budget. [Interruption.] Oh, okay. I call—.

Three Members? Yes, okay. Oh, definitely three.

That brings us to the vote, and the first vote is on the final budget for 2018-19. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Julie James. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 28, eight abstentions, 18 against, and therefore the motion is agreed. 

The next vote is on the Non-Domestic Rating (Multiplier) (Wales) Order 2018. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Julie James. Open the vote. [Interruption.] Is it showing up now? [Interruption.] Yes, you have voted, Dafydd. We won't tell you how you voted. [Laughter.] Close the vote. In favour 45, one abstention, eight against and therefore the motion is agreed. 

And the next vote, therefore, is on the local government settlement 2018-19, and I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Julie James. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 33, eight abstentions, 13 against, and therefore the motion is agreed.

That brings today's proceedings to a close.