National Assembly for Wales

I call Members to order.

It gives me great pleasure to announce that, in accordance with Standing Order 26.75, the Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Act 2018, and the Abolition of the Right to Buy and Associated Rights (Wales) Act 2018, have been given Royal Assent today.

The first item on our agenda this afternoon is questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, and the first question is from John Griffiths.

Diolch, Llywydd. Despite the pressures on our capital budgets, the Welsh Government will deploy almost £5 billion in support of infrastructure priorities across the whole of Wales, including, for example, building 20,000 affordable homes, delivering twenty-first century schools and protecting the future of our environment.

Cabinet Secretary, Coleg Gwent plans to relocate its Newport campus to the city-centre riverfront, which could be transformative for further education in Newport, would involve collaboration with the University of South Wales and their city-centre campus in Newport, and is also very much backed by Newport City Council in terms of wider regeneration plans. In general terms, I wonder whether you could tell me what sort of Welsh Government capital funding is available for that sort of project, in terms of direct Welsh Government capital funding and also, perhaps, in terms of alternative, not-for-profit models of providing necessary finance.

I thank the Member for that supplementary question. I'm very familiar with the University of South Wales's riverfront presence at the city-centre campus in Newport, which is highly successful, and I'm aware of the other plans to which the Member has made reference. The Welsh Government has a strong record of investing in education in Newport, alongside the city council. We are investing over £50 million in the twenty-first century schools programme in the Newport area, and the Welsh Government is funding £25.5 million of that. And all of that, as the Member will know, is against a background in which our capital budgets are £400 million lower in the coming financial year than they were in 2009-10, with all the impact that that has on our ability to fund important schemes. We are pressing ahead with the mutual investment model in Wales. That will make a contribution to the twenty-first century schools band B programme, and I've no doubt that, as the scheme that the Member refers to moves forward, we will look to see whether there is anything we can do, through conventional capital or through innovative ways of funding, should that scheme come to our attention.

You would have heard me yesterday asking the First Minister about the M4 relief road around Newport, Cabinet Secretary. Obviously, in the committee's inquiry last week, there was indication there was substantial cost increases to this particular project. As the Finance Secretary, and having responsibility for capital budgets, where do you believe the tipping point for this scheme is, with the cost overruns that are currently projected? Because the Cabinet Secretary for economic development did indicate, when questioned by the Member for Llanelli, that there was a tipping point. So, what assessment have you made of this scheme and the ability for this scheme to actually go forward?

Well, Llywydd, a decision of that sort would be a policy decision; it would be for my colleague Ken Skates to take the responsibility for that. As the finance Minister, my approach to the M4 relief road has always been to respect the independence of the local public inquiry, not to make allocations directly to the department for the M4 relief road until the outcome of that local public inquiry is known. I do hold money in central reserves, sufficient to go ahead with the project, but until we know what the local public inquiry will say, I think it is a more sensible course of action to hold that money centrally and to make allocation decisions in the light of the inquiry's report.

Of course, the cost increases are mainly due to the fact that £136 million extra has been allocated to meet the concerns of the port in Newport, and that presumably, as Cabinet Secretary, is something that you have approved of, or at least signed off. Now, you've mentioned the money that you have in the budget next year. As I understand it, you have £150 million in capital reserves and the ability to borrow another £125 million, so that makes a total of £275 million that could potentially be used next year as capital money towards the new M4, as we should call it. Can you confirm that you are not able, and will not seek, to spend that money, yes, until the public inquiry has reported, but also until there's been a vote on a supplementary budget in this Assembly? 

Wel, Llywydd, as the Member heard me say, I intend to allow the public inquiry to report before I make allocation decisions. Those allocation decisions would have to be reported to the National Assembly in the normal way and, where they need the approval of the National Assembly, that approval would have to be sought. 

Well, may I thank Siân Gwenllian for that question? The Welsh Government is committed to exploring new approaches to deterring tax evasion, artificial avoidance and improving compliance across all the Welsh taxes, including local taxes and the new national taxes, which will be coming into force in April 2018.

I wanted to raise the issue of taxing holiday homes and second homes. Steffan Lewis and I sent you a letter before Christmas, noting concerns about the issue of second homes transferring into the holiday home category in order to avoid paying council tax. There are 500 properties that have been transferred from council tax to business tax in Wales, leading to a loss of over £1.7 million to the public purse. You responded by saying that some action had been taken in order to tackle the problem, but how confident are you that the rules that you have introduced into the system are going to tackle this problem in full? Doesn’t far more need to be done, if truth be told?

Well, Llywydd, may I thank Siân Gwenllian for the information that she has given to me and the correspondence that we’ve received from both her and Steffan Lewis? I have received advice from my own officials. At present, I believe that the rules are there in order to deal with the situation that Siân Gwenllian has outlined. We are not yet in a position where we can be confident about how things will turn out. I’ve replied, today, to the Member, after receiving her second letter, to tell her that, having considered her words, I have changed the new policy on the taxes that I will be publishing, hopefully, in February, in order to include this issue in the work programme and to do more over the years, working with the Valuation Office Agency and the local authorities. And, so, we shall see. Ultimately, if we see from the evidence that there is a big problem, then we will have to take action. However, if the current measures are robust enough to deal with the problem, the data that we'll be able to collect over the coming year will reflect that also.

Does the Cabinet Secretary agree with me on the importance of ensuring that all Welsh income tax payers are identified prior to income tax being partially devolved and that we don't want the same difficulties that occurred on income tax devolution in Scotland, where a number of people were misallocated? 

Well, this is a very important question and thanks to Mike Hedges for raising it. He is right to say that, when income tax responsibilities were devolved to Scotland, there were some teething troubles, which Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs experienced in correctly identifying those individuals who were now to be liable for Scottish rates of income tax. HMRC tell us that they have learnt through that experience that they are better placed to make sure that, as Welsh rates of income tax become a reality as of April of this year, they will be able to avoid some of the difficulties that they experienced first time round. There are advantages, as Members will know, in going second in some of these things. However, the executive who has primary responsibility for these matters at HMRC is coming to the Finance Committee on Wednesday of next week so that he can be scrutinised on these matters. I will be meeting him on the same day, and I will certainly be looking for further assurances from him that, as Welsh income tax responsibilities become a reality, HMRC will be able to deliver on their side of that bargain.

Questions, now, from the party spokespeople. The Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. In the absence of our finance spokesperson, I hope that the Cabinet Secretary will forgive me for mentioning health. But don’t worry—it’s in the context of budgetary allocations.

Cabinet Secretary, how does the Welsh Government, in allocating funds to large public bodies such as the health service, ensure that those funds are spent in a way that is consistent with the principles set out by Government?

Well, Llywydd, that is essentially a matter for the Cabinet Secretary with responsibility for the health service, but I am familiar enough with that field to know that he will have very direct ways in which, through his contacts with chairs, and then with chief executives, he will be keeping a direct track on the way in which the money that we are able to provide for the health service in Wales is then properly applied by those large organisations, as Rhun ap Iorwerth has said—that they apply the money we're able to provide for them in the most effective way. I meet monthly with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services so that, from my responsibility as managing the overall budget, I'm able to keep in touch with the way in which he is managing that very significant slice of the Welsh Government that falls to him.

Thank you very much. I do consider that to be a useful answer. It is an ambition of Government to enhance healthcare services in the community, but it’s difficult to check whether that’s happening in terms of where the funds are going because we get only a single budget line from you as Cabinet Secretary. Don’t you believe that there is scope to provide some sub-budget lines, in order for you as a Government to check whether the health service is doing what you expect them to do, but also to make it easier for us, as Assembly Members, to hold you, as a Government, to account?

Well, Llywydd, I am familiar with the point that the Member makes, and in the process of creating the budget for this year, we have given more detail on a lower level than previously in the second phase of the new process. And where we are able to do more to give greater detail in order to assist the Members to scrutinise as a Government, we are very happy to collaborate with the Finance Committee and others in order to see how best to achieve this. I do believe that we have made progress in the new process that we’ve used over the autumn.

There’s a responsibility on you as Cabinet Secretary to ensure that public funds in Wales are spent as effectively as possible, and I appreciate, from your earlier answer, that you do hold meetings with Cabinet Secretaries in different areas in order to assess whether things are going in the right direction. To give one specific example, we know that expenditure on primary care has reduced significantly over the past years: it's some 7 per cent of the total healthcare spend now, as compared with 11 per cent years ago. I believe we should go back to 11 per cent and your colleague the Cabinet Secretary for health says that we do need to strengthen primary care. But how do you, as the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, actually put pressure on your colleagues in the Cabinet in order to ensure that primary care in this context does receive the support that we hear it needs and that that support is provided in financial terms?

Llywydd, the Member was careful to make a distinction, but it is an important distinction, between the proportion of the budget that goes to primary care and the absolute investment in primary care, because the absolute investment in primary care has gone up over the years, albeit that as a proportion of the total budget it has taken less. Now, I know that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services is very keen to address that issue. That is why we fund primary care clusters directly. That is why we have preserved the integrated care fund again this year.

But I put this point to the Member, that one of the reasons why, as a proportion of the health budget, primary care has not had the share that other parts of the health service have had is because of the way in which public debate and debate here too focuses so heavily on hospital services, and we talk far less about primary and community services. So, every time there is a debate about services that might be altered in a hospital setting, we have huge debates. When changes happen at primary care level, there is far less attention to them. Partly, the reason that hospitals have taken a larger share of a growing budget is because of the way in which debates around the future of the health service are conducted. 

Conservative spokesperson, Nick Ramsay.

Diolch, Llywydd. Finance Secretary, yesterday, the First Minister didn't fully answer the leader of the opposition's question on an upper funding cap for the proposed M4 relief road. Are you prepared to give details of a cap, or is the Welsh Government happy for the costs simply to spiral?

Wel, Llywydd, I tried to say earlier it's not my responsibility to have the policy decisions in relation to the M4 relief road. My responsibility is to manage the budget and to make sure that there are finances available to pursue key priorities. In this case, the new M4 is being considered through an independent local inquiry, and until that inquiry reports I will not make direct allocations, because the need for allocations will be dependent on what that inquiry concludes.

Diolch. I don't disagree with what you've just said, finance Secretary, and I appreciate that there's currently an ongoing public inquiry looking into the different possible solutions and routes for the M4 and that should be allowed to take its course. I also appreciate that there's a policy issue to be debated here, and you're not the Secretary to do that with. However, I'm asking you specifically about the financing of the scheme, and, as finance Secretary, you do have an overall view for achieving and securing public value for money for the taxpayer. As I understand it, the current estimated cost is in the region of £1.4 billion. However, apparently, this doesn't include estimations of VAT, inflation, or future maintenance costs. Have any of these been factored in and what is your current estimate of the total cost of the M4 relief road?

Well, Llywydd, the way in which costs for the M4 relief road are presented to the Assembly are entirely in line with the conventions that are used across Governments in reporting such sums. So, there's nothing unusual in the fact that we report the sums in current prices, rather than in prices as they may be later on. What I can report to Members is this: where there is a need for funds for taking forward the public inquiry, for example, this year, and some enabling works that have been required, I am in a position to provide those funds to the Cabinet Secretary involved, and I remain confident that, should the scheme get the go ahead as a result of the independent local public inquiry, I will be able to use the levers available to me to be able to put the scheme into practice.

Thank you, finance Secretary. I'm getting increasingly concerned, because once again today there appears to be a distinct lack of figures. It wasn't that long ago that the Welsh Government told the Assembly that the cost would be less than £1 billion. I think a guarantee of some form was issued to us, whether it was that word or not, back then. But it now seems that this was grossly underestimated. Now, if you look at examples of other large road schemes in Wales, such as the A465 Heads of the Valleys widening—and, again, policy issue aside on that—that has been subject to many delays and is currently costing an estimated 25 per cent over the original budget. So, you can understand the public's concern about these kinds of projects. The M4 black route will, if chosen, run through sites of special scientific interest and across wetland, making it more complex than many other road schemes would be. Do you not think that, aside from the public inquiry, it's time for a full review of the potential costs of this project to ensure value for money for the taxpayer? 

I don't think it's possible to separate the two issues in quite that way, Llywydd, because the costs will be contingent upon the conclusions that the inquiry comes to. So, I don't think it's possible to separate matters in quite that way. Let me say in general to the Member that of course I share his concerns always that spending plans right across the Welsh Government are implemented in the most efficient and cost-efficient way, and that would apply to this scheme in exactly the same way as it would apply to all other ways in which capital investment available to the Welsh Government is paid out in practice.  

UKIP spokesperson, Neil Hamilton. 

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. We're all awaiting with interest the Cabinet Secretary's decision on the shortlist for new taxes to be published shortly, but does he agree with me that, whilst no tax is ever going to be popular, there'll be greater acceptability amongst the public if they can directly relate the costs that they will incur with the benefits that they will receive? Some of these taxes, of course, embody that principle better than others. Given the pressures on public spending and the inevitable increases in costs that will come about in the area of health and social services in the years ahead, the proposal for a social care levy could be promoted, as long as the scheme that goes along with the tax is a sensible one, in such a way as to maximise the degree of public support for a tax. 

Well, I understand the point the Member makes, and hypothecation in the sense that people can see what they get for what they pay does have an influence on public acceptability. He will know that successive Chancellors at the UK level have always had antipathy to hypothecation in that way, but where I think the Member is right is that, in the scheme that Professor Gerry Holtham has put forward, and is the basis for these discussions, he does draw on the issue of public acceptability elsewhere, and he uses the example in Japan where there is unhypothecated tax towards social care, but you don't start to pay it until you're 40. Now, I suppose in crude terms you could say that people up to the age of 40 don't believe they're going to get old and don't think this is ever going to be them. Once you turn that corner, you begin to realise that investment in these services may be something that you yourself will have an interest in before all that long, and, in fact, in the Japanese model, as I remember it, the amount you pay towards the tax goes up as you get older. So, the closer you get to the point where you may benefit from it, the more acceptable making a contribution to it appears to get. So, in that sense, I think the Holtham work tends to bear out the general proposition that Mr Hamilton made.   

The Cabinet Secretary, like myself, is perennially youthful—we're seeing the horizon recede further from us as we get older—but I accept the general point that he makes. Given that adult social care costs are, on the Health Foundation's predictions, likely to rise by 4 per cent per annum for the next 20 years, and that costs should rise probably to about £2.5 billion by 2030, clearly there is here a potential massive funding problem for the Welsh Government. And therefore it's essential, in my opinion, if there is to be such a levy, that a fund should be created that can't be raided by Governments for other purposes. The Cabinet Secretary will remember that the National Insurance Act 1911—not remember because he was there at the time, but because he's a student of history—the whole basis of that scheme, which created national insurance in Britain, was to create a national insurance fund. Sadly though, that has been regularly raided ever since by the Treasury and the whole contributory principle has been undermined by Conservative Governments as well as by Labour Governments over the years, I think to the lasting disfigurement of the funding of social insurance in this country, and it would be a lot better if we were to hypothecate for a specific purpose. I know the dead hand of the Treasury has precluded this at Westminster but I hope, as a result of devolution, that the Welsh Government will be more enlightened in its consideration of these issues.  

Well, Llywydd, it was Marx who said, 'The older I get, the older I want to be'—but, of course, that was Groucho Marx rather than Karl Marx. The Member is absolutely right when he says that the national insurance fund became a fiction in around 1957, when the Macmillan Government of the time decided to dip into it and to pay for current expenditure out of the receipts that had built up in the fund. Ever since then, national insurance is, in fact, a pay-as-you-go system rather than an insurance-funded system. Professor Holtham's report is very clear that the scheme that he wants to advocate would be one in which money that Welsh citizens might pay for social care purposes in future would have to go into a dedicated fund outside Government, in which there were strong assurances for members of the public that Government couldn't reach into it in times of difficulty, and where there would be strong governance arrangements around it to give people the confidence that, if their money is being paid over for these purposes, that money would be there to be drawn out for these purposes in the future. 

Another way in which the national insurance fund has been described, of course, is as 'the world's largest Ponzi scheme', as it has developed. I hope we will never recreate something in that image here in Wales. What we have the opportunity to do here, I think, is something similar to what Norway has done, for example, in relation to the windfall that it obtained when North Sea oil came on stream and they created a sovereign wealth fund, which is now producing vast dividends for the Norwegian people, on the basis of which their very high standard of living and social insurance and health provision and so on is substantially funded. We don't have wealth of oil but we do have the wealth in the creative abilities of our people. If we could isolate a small portion of national income for a sovereign wealth fund of this kind then we could perhaps help to square the circle of funding of the growing needs of an ageing population and of a health system that is going to be able to cure so many more conditions that, in the past, have led to early deaths. So, either way, part of the growing prosperity of a nation is in the health and well-being of its people and this fits in neatly with the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 and consideration of taxes with that Act, I think, is absolutely vital if we're to make a success of devolution in this particular sphere. 

Well, Llywydd, can I thank the Member for his questions this afternoon? When we published our shortlist of potential taxes under the Wales Act 2014, it was exactly in order to generate a debate about the way in which these potential new powers for Wales could be used for important purposes that matter to people in Wales in the future. Some of the issues that the Member has raised this afternoon I think help to create that sort of debate and have done so in an area, which we all know, given the age structure of our population and what that means for public services in the future, is a debate that is unavoidable if we're to prepare properly for that future.

Question 3 [OAQ51607] is withdrawn. Question 4—Angela Burns. 

I thank the Member for that question. The budget allocation for the health and social services portfolio next year stands at record levels, with £7.3 billion-worth of revenue and £294 million in capital.

Thank you for that answer, Cabinet Secretary. I'm actually seeking clarity on the process that you use to determine budget allocations. I listened to your previous answer to the spokesman for Plaid Cymru. I'm not so interested in how you measure the outcomes that the Cabinet Secretary for health is so obviously responsible for, but rather how you yourself will actually determine the percentage of the Government's overall budget. What assumptions do you use? For example, do you simply say, 'Last year, you had x billion pounds; I'm going to add in an inflationary percentage and that's what you get', or do you look at the business case that has been built financially from the ground up and then assess on that balance? And, if you do, are those assumptions in the public domain?

Llywydd, the way in which allocations are determined across the Government begins with a series of bilateral discussions between me and all other Cabinet colleagues where colleagues make proposals to show how the key priorities of the Government can be met and what the financial implications of doing so would be. It's then my job through those discussions to try and make the sum of money we have, which as the Member will well know on this side of the Chamber we regard as insufficient to meet the needs of the Welsh population—how we can make the very best of the money that we have. Specifically in the health and social services field, we look to meet the commitments that we have made as a Government. That's why we have a new treatments fund; the Cabinet Secretary was able to explain the success of that fund earlier this week. That's why there is £7 million in the budget next year to press on with our determination to lift the capital ceiling in relation to residential care to £50,000.

And in the general health budget, we look to meet what we call the Nuffield gap. The Member will be familiar with the report that was published in the last Assembly that demonstrated that, provided the health service itself went on making the efficiency gains we have to ask of it, there would still be a need, because of demographic pressures and the fact that new treatments become available, for a £200 million additional investment from the Welsh Government. We will have met that in every year of this Assembly term and have gone well beyond it.

Cabinet Secretary, can you confirm that the PFI debt in Wales is around a fifth of the cost per head of the UK as a whole? And would you agree that the Welsh Government decision to use our public capital programme to invest in health and social care over the last 18 years has been a principled and responsible way forward for the building of new hospitals in Wales, including Ysbyty Ystrad Fawr, Ysbyty Aneurin Bevan, Ysbyty Cwm Cynon, Ysbyty Cwm Rhondda and Ysbyty Alltwen in Tremadog, and can you again indicate your preferred way forward for funding the health and social care estate in Wales?

I thank the Member for the question. She is, of course, absolutely right that we have a far smaller exposure to PFI schemes in Wales than any other part of the United Kingdom. The average annual cost per head of PFI schemes in Wales is well under £40 per head, and that's around a fifth of the cost per head for the UK as a whole. Where administrations took a different view, there is, inevitably, a consequence that they have to make provision for. In Wales, the annual charge for PFI liabilities is below 1 per cent of our budget. In Scotland, my colleague the finance Minister has to find 5 per cent of his budget annually to meet PFI liabilities. I well remember, Llywydd, in the very early days of the Assembly the difficult decisions that my colleague Jane Hutt had to make in the PFI field as a result of inheriting schemes when the Assembly was very first established.

I've explained to the Finance Committee previously that I have a hierarchy in mind always in capital expenditure. My first recourse, always, is to use public capital, because that is the cheapest money that we will ever have, and I will always use that first. There are then other means that we are able to deploy—borrowing powers that we now have, funding local authorities and housing associations to borrow in the way that Jane Hutt established, and then, beyond that, the mutual investment model. But, as far as possible, we use public capital in the health field as our first resort, and where we are unable to meet all the needs that we know are there in Wales, as, for example, in our determination to create a new cancer centre at Velindre, then we will use other means to ensure that people in Wales get the services they need.

Question 5 [OAQ51629] is withdrawn. Question 6—David Melding.

6. What was the major change in the 2018-19 budget round that was determined by the priorities set out in the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015? OAQ51613

8. How did the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 influence the Cabinet Secretary's budget allocations? OAQ51612

I thank the Member for the question. Presiding Officer, I understand that you've given your permission for questions 6 and 8 to be grouped together.

Amongst the changes brought about in the 2018-19 budget, the additional investment of £30 million for homelessness over two years, including £10 million specifically for youth homelessness in 2019-20, demonstrates the impact of the Act, and the five ways of working that it sets out, including involvement and prevention in our budget planning.

Cabinet Secretary, I wonder if you realise that there's widespread feeling, I think, on all sides of the Assembly, that we should be more demanding of how this information is presented and therefore scrutinised and connected to the well-being goals. You'll be aware of what the future generations commissioner said to the Finance Committee—and I quote:

'Instead of feeling that the WFG Act had made an impact on the draft Budget, it was closer to resembling last years’, but with a few extra words around it.'

We must be much more dynamic, mustn't we, in how we use this Act, and mark where it has affected decisions and there have been moves into the budget or increasing the budget and items that have moved out of the budget. That's really what this Act demands.

I certainly share the Member's ambition and have taken advice from the Finance Committee on ways in which we can do more to demonstrate the impact of the Act on our budget making. That is why, in this budget round, in those bilateral discussions that I mentioned a few moments ago to Angela Burns, I ensured that there was a member of staff with responsibility for the Act always in the meeting, so that there was somebody there with the specific brief to ask those questions and to challenge Ministers where necessary as to how their proposals could be seen to bear the imprint of the Act. It's why we agreed with the commissioner three particular areas that we will pursue during this budget round to allow her to be able to see where the Act was making a difference, or where she felt that there was more that we can do. Llywydd, I've always got to say that the Act, inevitably, is something that will be evolutionary in the way that we are able to embed its principles in our budget planning. I accept that there is more that we can do and I look forward to playing what part I can in making that happen.

I also accept that it's work in progress, but I think we need to be more ambitious, really, for the future, and in doing that, send a signal to the whole public sector that this could be the breakthrough opportunity to at last see joint working and pooled budgets in operation. I've been a Member of the Assembly since 1999 and it's been a constant call that we need to multiply our effort by having this common approach to public expenditure, and this silo mentality is very, very damaging. The Act could be used by the local service boards, for instance, as a very dynamic tool to ensure this type of effective spending of the Welsh pound.

I accept what the Member says—that there is a leadership role for the Welsh Government in showing that the way in which we are deploying the Act can be an example for the ways that others can take those lessons as well. I'm sure the Member will find a bit of time to look at one or two of the well-being assessments that the public service boards have produced and the practical plans that they are now deriving from those assessments. As ever, they demonstrate a span of quality across a range of different aspects of those assessments, but the good ones, I think, are already showing the way in which the goals and the five ways of working are impacting on decisions by local players, and in particular, in the way that David Melding suggested, are enabling them to combine resources, to pool efforts and to make a difference in the way that the Act would suggest.

I think it is still true to say that the well-being of future generations Act is like a shadow in terms of the influence it’s had on the budget to date. Now, I know that the Cabinet Secretary is very willing in answering questions such as this—and I don’t want to tempt him, because I do know that he has a list of projects that meet each of the goals of the Act. I don’t want to tempt him into that. But I want to ask him specifically, as the commission for future generations had been involved in aspects of this year’s budget, working specifically on one issue, which is decarbonisation, and also as there’s an intention to introduce carbon budgeting under another piece of legislation, the Environment (Wales) Act 2016, how would we expect next year’s budget to reflect the determination involved in that work?

Well, that’s perfectly true, what Simon Thomas has just said: I have a list here that I can use to demonstrate the impact the Act has had to date. But on the subject that he has raised, I have met, over the past fortnight, with Lesley Griffiths to begin the process of planning how, over the ensuing year, we will be able to bring the process of creating the budget together with the process of carbon budgeting, as we call it. And so, that work or that process has begun, and the civil servants are working on the detail. I have a meeting with the commissioner next week to discuss the same subject. Yes, we are eager, as a Government, and I know that Lesley Griffiths is eager, to do more to unify the two processes, assimilate them, and to have an opportunity to report back to Assembly Members on how we can bring the two elements together and have greater impact by so doing.

7. Will the Cabinet Secretary make a statement on the Welsh Government's policy on business rates in Wales?

Llywydd, a permanent small business rate relief scheme will be implemented from 1 April 2018. Plans for the further development of non-domestic rates include reviewing the appeals system and tackling fraud and avoidance. 

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. I was actually very pleased to see included within your budget £1.3 million for local authorities to use to provide targeted relief to support our local businesses. However, the similar scheme in 2014-15 that should have provided similar support to our businesses actually did support some businesses at a total cost of £2.765 million, yet this represents just a 79 per cent take-up of the overall package of £3.5 million. This has been put down to the fact that there was complexity of guidance and tight timescales for application for these needy businesses. Going forward this year, how will you ensure that the time frames for local authorities and businesses to then be allowed to apply for those grants will be reasonable so that we can actually see 100 per cent take-up of this money that is specifically allocated for those businesses in need?

I thank the Member for the question, Llywydd. I was pleased to be able to provide what I know is a small sum of money in the grander scheme of things, £1.3 million, to local authorities to bolster their ability to provide discretionary relief to businesses in their own areas. The way in which I've tried to answer the dilemma that the Member has posed is in making that money available for local authorities to apply in that discretionary way with their own knowledge of local needs and circumstances. I think local authorities are in a better place to be able to use that very targeted amount of money to respond to businesses whose circumstances aren't captured by the larger schemes that we have in the non-domestic rates field and by not tying the money down with a lot of extra rules and regulations to give local authorities the flexibility, I hope, to be able to respond rapidly and sympathetically to businesses where there is a proper case for doing so. 

9. What additional financial provision has been made to the economy and transport portfolio to support the development of the south Wales metro?

Llywydd, the 2018-19 budget includes an additional £173 million in capital allocated to the economy and transport main expenditure group to support the development of the south Wales metro. This brings the total allocated in this term to £433 million towards the total expected project investment of £734 million.

Cabinet Secretary, we're aware that, of course, the funding of major infrastructure projects is going to be very adversely affected by the uncertainty over Brexit funding we might have expected in terms of structural funds, and also issues such as access to the European Investment Bank and sources such as those. What steps have been taken to actually either find an alternative for sources of funding, and what longer term steps have been taken in terms of the longer term funding of the metro project, which was originally estimated in terms of around £3 billion?

Well, Llywydd, the Member is right to say that the sums of money that I have outlined—the £734 million, which is planned investment in the south Wales metro—include £106 million expected through the European regional development fund, and the Welsh Government is working very hard to bring that expenditure within the guarantees provided by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as we leave the European Union. I continue to work with officials, and with the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport, to make sure that we are able to use every penny that we are able to draw down from the European Union while we are in a position to do so.

There is £125 million beyond that that comes from the UK Government, which we have had guarantees we will receive, and £503 million of the £734 million will come directly from the Welsh Government. Provision for that has been made in this Assembly term, and the remainder of it will be required beyond it.

The Member is, of course, right that, as we leave the European Union, we argue very strongly that that should not mean that Wales is unable to benefit from key European institutions, which have done so much good in Wales. The European Investment Bank is certainly in that category. The United Kingdom has been a major contributor of capital to that bank, and we argued that we should remain a subscribing partner to it. I do know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has also said that he wishes the United Kingdom to go on having a strong relationship with the EIB, and if a subscribing partnership isn't possible, then he will look for other ways in which we can continue to have a productive relationship.

10. Will the Cabinet Secretary make a statement on the use of structural funds to promote prosperity in the northern valleys?

Llywydd, we continue to maximise available EU structural funds to support our objectives for growth and jobs across Wales. That includes, of course, the northern Valleys. So far, we have invested over £1.4 billion for that purpose, and that supports a total investment of £2.6 billion.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. The Industrial Communities Alliance have suggested that a new UK regional development fund should be central to any post-Brexit regional policy. However, they've also pointed out that this needs to be managed on a devolved basis, and that any moneys allocated should be above and beyond that due via the Barnett formula. Getting this right is key to the prosperity of the northern Valleys, so does the Cabinet Secretary agree with me that promises made during the EU referendum campaign, that Wales wouldn't lose out on a penny, need to be honoured?

Well, absolutely, Llywydd. Those promises have to be honoured. It would be a very strange irony indeed if those people who voted to leave the European Union found that Wales does less well out of its membership of the United Kingdom than it did out of its membership of the European Union. That's why the money that has come to Wales from the European Union—money that, you will remember, we get because we qualify for it under the rules—must flow to us after we leave the European Union. I've made a case to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury as to how that could be done. I will be restating that case when I meet her on Friday of this week. We believe very firmly that regional development is a devolved responsibility of this National Assembly, that we are best placed to make sure that we can go on doing that successfully in the future, but we need the money that has come to Wales for that purpose while we've been in the EU to continue beyond it, and we look to the UK Government to ensure that that takes place. 

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.

The next item is questions to the leader of the house, and the first question is from Simon Thomas.

Thank you very much for that question. I intend to carry out a procurement exercise shortly, with a view to the new project starting in spring this year. I'll be making a statement later this month to set out more detail about the new scheme.

Thank you very much for that response. I do welcome the fact that there is to be a scheme, because we know that the predecessor scheme, which is coming to an end, hasn’t reached all parts of Wales. I know that you don’t have the full facts and the full report as yet, but there are numerous villages that have reported back that there are cables still hanging from poles and that the work hasn’t been completed, and that there are parts of Wales, which were never going to be reached under the previous scheme, that may need a different, smarter solution in order to deliver for them.

So, two questions, if I may: I think you’ve mentioned in the past £80 million for this—is that the figure that we still have, and do you think that that’s sufficient, or will you need to add to that? And how much real opportunity is there for another provider to come in to help in this process, because I do fear that putting all our eggs in the BT Openreach basket has brought us to the current situation where, quite simply, we can’t actually make an omelette from those eggs?

Simon Thomas makes a number of good points that he's made on a number of occasions to me about the way superfast has worked. I think it's fair to say that the Superfast Cymru scheme has been a hugely successful scheme for those people who've received superfast from it, and they are an enormous number of people across Wales. It's in the nature of the beast that we're not inundated by letters from people who are grateful to have received it. Instead, we receive a lot of correspondence from those people who find themselves at the other end of the project, and that's very understandable.

We won't know for a number of weeks yet whether the contract was completely fulfilled, but we have good indications that they did very well, and we're very hopeful that they did in fact fulfil the contract. But the contract did end on 31 December, at midnight, and therefore, obviously, if the work wasn't done by then, the Welsh Government isn't paying for it. So, that leaves people in a very frustrating position.

I will be making an announcement early next week, so I'm going to avoid the temptation to steal my own thunder by pre-announcing it, but we are very aware of the predicament of communities who've been left there, and of the number of people who were promised superfast under the first scheme and who fell off the end for various reasons. We very much have those people in mind when we're looking at the announcements that I'm hoping to make early next week, as it happens.

Please don't pay BT for Princes Gate. During the time I've been told on numerous occasions that Princes Gate will get fast broadband. In fact, last year, the head of Superfast Cymru—I won't name him—wrote and told me that a second pass would see Princes Gate be upgraded to superfast broadband by the autumn of 2017. The response from the leader of Openreach:

'The infrastructure serving your community forms part of a programme we were running which ended on Sunday 31 December 2017. This is a hard stop'— 

we're not doing anymore. And it's not just Princes Gate. Cynwyl Elfed, Hermon, Lawrenny, Martletwy, bits of Pembroke—they've all got this. They had the promise, they were told categorically—and Llanpumsaint—they were going to get it, and now they're not. I don't actually hold you personally responsible, Minister, because I know that you really believe in the delivery of this, but I would like you to talk fairly strongly to BT and to Openreach. They cannot make promises to people and then just basically say, 'Tough luck. It's finished. Too bad', because these people have lives to live, businesses to run, kids to educate. Broadband, superfast, is today's universal provision we all need, and I fail to see why my constituency should be so disadvantaged.

I think the Member has made a number of points that are well worth considering. As I said, in considering what we're going to do for the successor schemes, we are of course very mindful of the people who have had promises made to them in various circumstances and , for various complex engineering reasons and so on, haven't been able to be met under the first scheme.

Angela Burns will be the first person to say that I shouldn't be paying for something that is outwith the contract, and of course there has been an end to the contract, and we've been very certain about that end, because, of course, we have to behave in an appropriate financial way with regard to the contract and so on. But our primary intention here is to connect people to broadband—this isn't a financial exercise, it's an exercise in getting the infrastructure out there. So, we've had a number of conversations with Openreach BT about where the infrastructure build has gone to, and bear in mind, they are investing their money in that—they are not paid until those premises are connected. So, they have invested money in building out to those premises and it's in their commercial interest to make sure that people are connected as much as anything else.

We've had some considerable conversations with them about people in the position that you mentioned, for a number of your constituents, and indeed people across Wales who are in the 4 per cent of people who are at the end of the contract. I will be making some announcements next week, which I think may bring some comfort to some of the communities that you mentioned.

Does the leader of the house, with her responsibilities for broadband and for equality, agree with me that marriage equality actually has very little to do with the superfast broadband roll-out? Does she also concur with me that the comments from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, quite flippantly connecting the two, are little more than just another demonstration of how crass, insensitive and out of touch the Tory UK Government is?

I think the remarks made by the Secretary of State are really quite shocking, actually. Quite clearly, marriage equality is not the same thing as being connected to broadband, in any regard. Obviously, being an LGBT+ community member is a protected characteristic and ought to be treated sensitively as such.

The whole issue of marriage equality in Northern Ireland is of course not one for this devolved Government, but to equate the thing with an infrastructure roll-out is clearly highly insensitive and not something that we would want to see done in any circumstance.

I have asked officials for advice in relation to a domestic violence offender register. The UK Government is not planning to introduce a stalker and perpetrator register but is looking to improve multi-agency public protection arrangements and domestic violence disclosure scheme arrangements instead.

Thank you, leader of the house. In September last year, I was encouraged by Carl Sargeant's response to me regarding the creation of a domestic violence offender register. Carl was a passionate campaigner and champion for ending violence against women. The statistics on domestic abuse are stark: it's estimated that more than 75 per cent of us know someone who's a victim of domestic violence, one in five women are stalked, one in four are sexually assaulted or raped, one in four are suffering domestic abuse, 10 women a week are committing suicide as a result of abuse, and two UK women a week are murdered by abusers. 

Since I last raised this issue in the Chamber, the first annual report required by the Violence against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act 2015 has been published, and an objective identified in this Act is an increased focus on holding perpetrators to account. What assessment have you made about the benefits of a domestic violence offender register and what other mechanisms could play a crucial role to ensure information is shared between organisations and individuals to prevent and safeguard against convicted domestic violence offenders reoffending?

That's a very good question. There is no specific register for stalkers and domestic violence perpetrators in Wales at the moment, as the Member is well aware. The domestic violence disclosure scheme, also known as Clare's law, allows the police to share information about a person's previous violent offending where this may help prevent domestic violence or prevent someone from being involved in that sort of situation. We've got some really good services and processes in place in Wales, and we continue to work to raise service standards for victims and for survivors. But we are also looking at the Welsh Government's Strengthening Leadership series for public services, and we've published an awareness raising video, What is stalking?, which highlights actions to minimise risk and to support and protect staff and clients with whom an organisation is working.

There's a number of other things that we can also look at. I very recently, in the last week or so, visited the MASH in Cardiff central police station, which is the  multi-agency safeguarding hub—an arrangement between all of the agencies working across Cardiff and south-east Wales, looking to share information and data on exactly this. I had a really good meeting there about how that's worked and how effective it's been and how it's reduced offending, and it's helped survivors as well. And the whole agency set-up there is—if you haven't managed to visit it, I highly recommend it, and for anyone else in the Chamber who hasn't seen it. We had a long and interesting discussion about how we might roll some of that out across the rest of Wales, which will be ongoing, and, as I said, I have asked officials for advice as to where we are in terms of both legislative competence and the efficacy of introducing such a register.

Well, clearly, measures such as these, and pre-custodial perpetrator programmes, can contribute to the early intervention and prevention agenda. Welsh Women's Aid have emphasised the importance of financial investment in prevention and early intervention by health boards and public health regional leads, given the cost to the NHS of picking up the pieces after domestic abuse and sexual violence has happened. However, they raised concerns with me in December that, whereas they received from the Welsh Government department for health and social services over £355,000 in 2016-17, towards specialist violence against women, domestic abuse, and sexual violence services, that figure had fallen to just over £34,000 in 2017-18, where they understand the Welsh Government has instead passed the funding to regional health boards for allocation, but they say this hasn't happened, and the funding's been lost to the specialist sector.

How, therefore, do you respond to the concern expressed to you in the letter from the Chair of the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee on 11 January, stating that the Welsh Government's response to their 2016 report on the implementation of the Violence against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act 2015 said that guidance would be published in relation to local strategies in July 2017, but this does not appear to have been published? And finally to post-legislative scrutiny, which indicates that Cardiff and Vale's well-being strategy doesn't contain mention of domestic or sexual abuse and how to tackle it, nor does Betsi Cadwaladr's strategy for the future, and Hywel Dda's strategy plan only mentions domestic abuse in relation to homelessness, and makes no mention of the Violence against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act 2015, nor how the health board plans to implement its aims.

Well, we're doing an enormous amount of work in this area, with Welsh Women's Aid, and I've had a very helpful meeting very recently with Eleri Butler to go through a large number of issues around this agenda. It's very important, of course, as the Member highlights, that we work across the piece in Welsh Government, and we have a number of cross-Government initiatives in this area. We are working very closely with both health and with housing, and with local authorities, to make sure that we have a regional and seamless approach to these services. In the process of reviewing some of those regional arrangements, we have regional co-ordinators in place, for example, across local authorities, who are doing really good work on the ground in co-ordinating services. I have a number of meetings—I've either just had, or have arranged meetings—with a number of the sectors, to make sure that we do have better co-ordination across the piece in this regard.

What we really need to do is make sure that we build on some of the excellent services and processes we have, but we continue to work really hard to raise standards for both victims and survivors, and in concentrating on those two issues, we don't lose sight of the fact that we need to work right at the beginning of life, with the whole issue around gender and gender stereotyping, and some of the issues that arise very early on in our lives. Because there is an undoubted connection between sexual violence, domestic violence and gender stereotyping, and all of the problems that we have culturally in that regard. But the Member's highlighted a number of issues across Government, and I can assure him that we are working very hard; the Cabinet Secretary and I will be meeting very shortly to discuss this, and a number of other issues in this area.

I was just wondering, you mentioned you were meeting with the Cabinet Secretary, but what other Ministers you are engaging with. I'm wondering specifically on detecting early intervention, and signals of behaviour in somebody who would abuse an animal, for example. I've raised this before with the environment Cabinet Secretary, because there is research to show that, if they abuse an animal, they can then go on to abuse adults and humans in future. So, will you be giving evidence to the task and finish group that the Cabinet Secretary has put forward via the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to try and work with that sector on alleviating the problems that they are finding with abused animals, which could then subsequently help people such as the police and organisations that help women and others who are suffering from domestic abuse to really get to grips with stopping these events happening, before it gets to a very serious attack or a serious incident of domestic abuse?

Yes, I think Bethan Jenkins makes an excellent series of points there. As I was saying in response to Mark Isherwood, one of the things we've got to look at is just that the trends in somebody's life—. I've been working very closely with all of our Cabinet Secretary colleagues, because this agenda cuts right across the Welsh Government's work, to make sure that we address in that holistic way those sorts of behaviours and so, for example, we pick things up in schools, we pick things up through the youth protection engagement framework and we pick things up from a number of agencies that all share information correctly in order to be able to get both the prevention agenda and then the protection and survival agenda to work more harmoniously. So, I have a series of bilateral meetings arranged. I'm not sure that I'm actually down to give evidence in the way that she suggests, but perhaps if you write to me I can make sure that I am. 

Questions now from the party spokespeople. Conservatives' spokesperson, Russell George. 

Diolch, Llywydd. Minister, how many households who were previously in scope for an upgrade under the Superfast Cymru programme, and expected to receive an upgrade by the end of December, have been let down?  

Well, that's not how I would put it. As I said, we've got the target for 690,000 premises to have been included in the first project. As I said, in response to an earlier question, I'm not yet in a position to be able to say categorically that that target was met. I hope to be able to do that within the next few months. We obviously monitor this very carefully. BT Openreach don't get paid until they have gone through the vigorous testing process and then we will know whether they've met the target. We know how many premises there are in Wales. So, by a process of elimination, we know how many are not then included, and those are the people that we will be looking at for the successor projects. But I don't hold the information in quite the way that you suggest. 

Well, you answered a question, but it wasn't the one I asked, okay. I asked how— 

I don't hold that information in that way, I'm afraid. 

I did ask how many people have been let down and you should know the answer to that, because you will know that many people were checking last year, and they were told that their property was in scope by 31 December. Now, on checking, they receive a different message saying that they're exploring solutions. So, it shouldn't be that difficult to work out how many people have been let down and work out what that number is.

I have to say, from a communications point of view, the Superfast Cymru project has been an absolute disaster. I have to say that there are plenty of examples of you writing letters to people, or them writing to you, asking, 'When am I going to be in scope?' You then write back and say it's going to be by a certain date. They don't get it, they write back to you, you write back and say, 'Sorry about that, it's now going to be this date.' They don't get it by that date, they write back to you, you write back again and say, 'Sorry about that, it's now going to be by 31 December 2017.' In January, they don't get it, they write back to you, then you write back and say, 'Sorry, the project's ended.' Well, that really is not good enough and that's what's been happening. So, can I ask you, what lessons have you learnt from this contract for designing the next, especially when it comes to communications?

I share the Member's frustration, as he well knows. I've been doing my tour of Wales and I've heard a lot from members of the public who are very frustrated by the scheduling letters that they get. I don't want to indulge in semantics, because it just irritates people, but obviously we don't promise it. We're talking about scheduled works and there are a number of complex engineering reasons why sometimes that doesn't work.

The reason I don't know everybody who was in that schedule and then didn't make the deadline is because I only know the people who have written to me and there may well be others who I'm not aware of. So, I could give you a subsection, but we don't hold the numbers in that way. I'm not trying to get out of it; we just don't hold the numbers in that way. What I will be able to tell you is how many people were in and, therefore, how many people are left. It's the people who are left that we most want to concentrate on. As I said in response to Angela Burns earlier, this isn't about the money, except that obviously we don't want to pay for something we haven't had; this is about using the money to get people connected. 

I completely accept the issue around comms. There were complex reasons for that, which are to do with the fact that we did this on the basis of postcodes, and not all postcodes and people are connected at the same time, and there are complex reasons for that, which I won't go into, but which have led to this really very frustrating position.

When I make the announcements about the next phase, you'll see that we're actually targeting individual premises. We won't have this issue about a pool of people, some of whom get connected and others of whom won't. We'll have a range of responses to that to make sure that we are fairly confident about where we can get, and that we're having good conversations with people where we think that there may be more technical difficulties. 

I'm grateful for you acknowledging the communications issues that have taken place. The open market review, which, of course, you conducted, identifies the premises for the next scheme. Those premises that were part of the Superfast Cymru scheme and have been let down would not be included in that analysis because, of course, they were told that they would get an upgrade by the end of last year. So, that's a factual statement; tell me if that's correct, in your view. But can I ask, and I've asked this a number of times, and I'll ask again: can you provide a cast iron guarantee today that those premises will be automatically transferred into the new scheme and prioritised? 

No, I can't, because until I know what the engineering difficulty or other difficulty was that prevented them from being included, I'm not able to give you a cast iron guarantee that we will be able to overcome those difficulties. I can tell you that they're absolutely the top priority for us—people who've been in that situation—and we're working very hard to make sure that we can overcome those, but there are a large number of reasons why. So, for example, we know that we have a large number of premises stuck behind wayleave difficulties. So, I'm not in a position to be able to say that we are able to sort out the wayleave difficulties in time to be sure that we can connect people, but I can tell you that we're working very hard to do so. 

There is an issue around the way that the UK Government deals with some of this, which the Member will be very much aware of, and that's to do with how we regard broadband. And I'm afraid it's still regarded as a luxury, despite the conversations about the universal service obligation. Because it's not a utility, we don't have the right to cross people's land and we don't have the right to insist that they allow wayleaves, and so on, and that is causing difficulties in a large number of areas. That's one of the reasons—not the only one—why I cannot give that cast iron guarantee. Would that I could, but we don't have the powers to enable me to do that. I can, though, say that we are very aware of the problems that the Member is mentioning, and everybody else is mentioning, and we are working very hard to make sure that we get to as many of those people as we possibly can. 

UKIP spokesperson—David Rowlands. 

Diolch, Llywydd. Following on with theme explored by some earlier AMs with their questions, does the leader of the house think that the intervention agencies dealing with domestic abuse in Wales are robust enough to deal with this pernicious crime? 

As I said in response to a number of other Members, there are a number of initiatives that are really interesting across Wales. They're all tied up with a number of complex initiatives around data sharing and protocols, but I did visit the multi-agency safeguarding hub in Cardiff central police station very recently, and was very impressed by how the agencies there had come together to overcome some of the technical difficulties, right down to actually having a social worker sitting beside police officers, where they had separate systems on two different screens so that they could make instant decisions, and so on. It's a very impressive arrangement, and if the Member hasn't visited, I would highly recommend a visit to be able to see the good work that can be done. 

I thank the leader of the house for her answer, but latest figures show that reported incidents of domestic crime rose in the police areas of Dyfed-Powys, Gwent and north Wales by 23 per cent, and a massive 48 per cent in the South Wales Police area. Whilst much of these rises may well be attributed to police recognition and growing confidence in reporting such crime, does the leader of the house not feel that these are a troubling set of statistics? 

Yes, of course, all the statistics on domestic violence are troubling, and it's a scourge in our society, and we have to have a range of options for preventing this and for tackling both the victims and their perpetrators and their various issues. For the first time in Wales, we've got standards for relevant authorities set on training related to violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence. The national training framework raises the profile of these issues, and upskills the public service to respond more effectively to those experiencing violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence. Over 70,000 people in Wales have accessed the training under the national training framework, so that's 70,000 more professionals who are more knowledgeable, more aware and more confident in responding to those experiencing this sort of violence. So, we're working very hard to make sure that we raise standards for professionals right across Wales. I've already mentioned some of the other things we're doing around multi-agency work, and so on, but the Member raises a very important point and we're working very hard to make sure that we get all aspects of that agenda correct here in Wales.    

Again, I thank the leader of the house for that comprehensive answer, but Welsh Women's Aid, one of the excellent agencies—I'm sure you alluded to it earlier on—dealing with domestic crime, and part of whose remit is the provision of refuges for victims, are hugely concerned with cuts to funding, citing the fact that 388 survivors of domestic abuse could not be accommodated in 2016. These refuges are often a critical element in giving victims of domestic abuse the courage to leave the abusive partner. So, how can a cut in funding for these agencies and property provision be in any way justified? The figures above show a growing desire with victims to seek intervention. Surely, leader of the house, we should be increasing funding for refuge provision not cutting it. 

And I couldn't agree more. What we've done is we've looked to see how we can manage our own decreasing budget in this area—as a result of the austerity policies of the current UK Government—in order to best make use of that. We're doing that by increasing the flexibility of our local service partners to use their grant in more imaginative ways and to collaborate better on a regional scale. We fund the regional co-ordinators specifically to enable them to do that. I absolutely understand the concerns of the organisations, including Welsh Women's Aid, that provide the refuges. We're going to be working very hard with local partners to make sure we get the very best out of the funding that's available to us.

Thank you. Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Siân Gwenllian. 

Thank you very much. As you are responsible for issues of equality, can you explain how you ensure that all departments within the Welsh Government, and the bodies that you fund, do take equality issues seriously?

I'm having a series of bilaterals across all colleagues in the Government, which began when I took up this post only a few weeks ago, though it seems a bit longer. That's the purpose of the bilaterals: to make sure that the equality agenda, which clearly touches every part of Welsh Government—both Welsh Government as an employer, Welsh Government as an organisation and Welsh Government as a government—are properly incorporated into all of the work that we do. 

You will have seen over the weekend that the British Medical Association Cymru has expressed concerns about the behaviour of officials and health boards in relation to the development of sexual identity services for Wales, which was part of the first budget deal between your party and mine. A recent report by Stonewall has found that 36 per cent of transgender people in Wales haven’t been able to access the healthcare that they need—a figure that’s higher than in England in Scotland—and that half of trans people say that health staff don’t understand their specific medical needs. So, how concerned are you about these attitudes and alleged behaviours within the health service, and what steps will you take, along with the Cabinet Secretary for health, in order to eradicate discrimination against trans people within the health boards?

That's a very important point that the Member makes. As I said, the Cabinet Secretary and I are due to have our bilateral on these issues. I will say—and I'm going to steal my own thunder a little bit here—that next week I'll be launching the This is Me campaign, which is designed entirely to talk about gender stereotyping and treating individuals as individuals. It's a very hard-hitting campaign to make people see the person inside the skin that they see on the outside on a range of issues, including transgender. I think, when the Member sees it, she'll see what we're trying to do with it.

This is all about, as I said before, gender stereotyping. It's the root cause of a large number of the issues that Members have raised today and it's something we absolutely must tackle from the earliest point in people's lives. I have a major soapbox, which the Deputy Presiding Officer is watching me take out at the moment and knows I can go on for about an hour and a half on the subject—for example, on the Let Toys be Toys agenda and the way that people are shaped in their gender actualities really early on for no apparent reason whatsoever. The whole campaign will be designed around letting people be people, letting people be who they are and what they want to be without fear of discrimination or maltreatment. So, I will be having those bilaterals across the Government and we will be launching a hard-hitting public campaign next week.  

Thank you very much. I’m pleased to hear every word of that. Of course, we are now talking about how decisions by public bodies can have an impact on services for trans people, but there are also examples of decisions having a negative effect on other groups, which perhaps wouldn't have happened if we had more diversity among senior management in the public sector. You will be aware that the Equality and Human Rights Commission has noted this clearly, having identified that there hadn't been a general improvement in representation in senior roles and that women and people from ethnic minorities continue to be less likely to be in senior positions. Despite the fact that the number of women in senior positions has improved in some sectors, such as education, it has deteriorated in others, such as the health service and the police. So, what are you going to do in order to improve diversity within public bodies in Wales, particularly the health service, in order to ensure that we don't find ourselves in situations where officials and managers are preventing the development of services for minority groups. And more generally, do you support equal representation in terms of gender on public bodies in Wales?

So, the very simple answer to that last question is 'yes'. In fact, I've just commissioned a piece of work jointly with my officials in Chwarae Teg to see how we can make sure there is good gender representation—half and half, not 40 per cent—on all public boards sponsored by the Welsh Government in this Assembly term. I'm hoping to be able to report back when they've done that small piece of work to get that agenda running. The reason that's important is because those are the governing bodies of many of the organisations you've just talked about, and we know that having better gender equality, better diversity, on those boards, drives some of the behaviours that we want.

The Member's rightly identified that agenda. It will be part of the bilaterals that I'm having with all colleagues, including my health colleague, but there is a huge issue about making sure that the leadership of organisations properly reflects the population that it serves, including for gender but for other diversity issues as well, and that that drives the behaviour of the organisation. So, I share that aim with a very large number of my Cabinet colleagues, and we will be pushing that agenda very forcibly into the future.

We continue to implement our national strategy, which sets out our action to tackle domestic violence. Survivors’ voices are absolutely at the forefront of our work. In recognition of this, a national survivor engagement framework is currently being developed.

I thank the leader of the house for that response, and I very much welcome the announcement earlier this month of the appointment of two new part-time national advisers on domestic violence. I'm sure they will bring a wealth of experience to this job, but, of course, there has been a six-month hiatus and they'll have a big task now in pushing through the legislation.

I know that the UK Government's forthcoming domestic violence Bill is planning to have a domestic violence and abuse commissioner, and I wondered whether you saw there being any liaison between our advisers and the new commissioner when appointed.

I very much join Julie Morgan in warmly welcoming the recent appointment of our new national advisers, Yasmin Khan and Nazir Afzal. I really think we've done very well in securing the services of two such excellent people. They are, between them, full-time, not two part-time people, so it's a job share, which I'm very happy about as well. In fact, the previous adviser, Rhian—her contract didn't end until October, so it's been a three-month gap between her going out of office and this, and that three months has been taken up in organising the appointment of the new advisers and making sure that the job share arrangements can work. So, I'm very pleased with that. I think we're very happy in Wales that we've got two such excellent prominent advisers in place. They're very happy to work together to determine priorities and approaches to the role, drawing, obviously, on their own individual strengths and experiences, which is why we're so delighted to have them. They will be working with the Home Office to discuss the proposals for the new UK commissioner role, and we'll aim to influence the developments in the UK to reflect the Welsh context, because I think it's fair to say that we are ahead of that game here in Wales and we're very anxious to make sure that the rest of the UK takes advantage of our experience.

Leader of the house, domestic violence is one of the most abhorrent things one could think of. I'm lucky enough to represent the region of South Wales Central, which is most probably one of the most ethnically diverse areas of Wales. For some families, neither English nor Welsh is the first language, and the translation service is vitally important to give confidence for people to come forward and actually report domestic violence and seek sanctuary from the abuse that they are being put under. Have you had a chance, in the very recent appointment that you've been put into, to make an assessment of what translation services are available for individuals who might find themselves on the receiving end of domestic violence, where English or Welsh is not their first language, and language might well prove a barrier to them getting out of that situation?

Andrew R.T. Davies raises an extremely important point. I have not yet had any extensive discussions on that. I've had a lot of discussions about English for speakers of other languages courses, and making sure that people who come to live here in Wales have access to English as a second language tuition.

It is on my agenda to have that conversation. I'm very aware, as well, because I represent the centre of Swansea—so, a very similar ethnic make-up—and this will be of resonance to those of us who come from Wales, that we have a large number of people in Wales who speak the secondary language of their country and not the primary language. So, we have a particular issue in the translation services around making sure that people who don't speak the primary language of their country but actually speak a secondary language also are served by that. I'm having quite an involved conversation with various people in my own constituency about how we might best serve that, and I plan to bring some of those experiences to this role when I have those conversations, which I'm due to have shortly. 

Our priority in Aberavon, as in the rest of Wales, is to ensure that people gain maximum benefit from the life-changing opportunities that digital technologies can offer, thereby securing improved economic, learning and health outcomes across all our communities.  

Thank you for that answer, leader of the house, and I appreciate the work that's already been done, but it could all be undone if we're not careful. Clearly, digital inclusion includes reference to accessibility, and accessibility is twofold. One is infrastructure, and you've already answered questions on that, so I won't address that one at this point. The other one is actually accessibility to the technology. Very often, in our disadvantaged communities, that was done through community centres and libraries. Many of those public services, as a consequence of the ideology of the Tory Westminster Government of austerity, are actually now under threat or have gone, or some might have been transferred to communities, and opening hours are reduced as such.

So, what are you going to do to ensure that people in those communities are able to access the technology so that they can be included, they can gain the skills? Because everything is moving towards digital technology, and if we can't offer them the ability to go somewhere and actually get access, we're failing those people.

I think the Member makes an extremely important point. We are very aware of the problems of closing community facilities, and so on. As a result, we've been working with Digital Communities Wales to support organisations that specifically work with excluded groups to engage with specific sets of clients. I'm sure the Member is very well aware of the Get NPT Online partnership, for example, in his own constituency, which encourages people, community groups and enterprises to make the most of technology in Neath Port Talbot. It includes technology taster sessions for social housing tenants and sessions in libraries where they are seeking employment. 

What we've been doing, as that initiative shows, is looking at alternative ways of reaching people who are digitally excluded. So, we've been working, for example, with registered social landlords to make sure that tenants in particular housing communities have access, and we've got a very successful one up in Merthyr, where we introduced a number of refurbished Welsh Government laptops, expecting the demand to be relatively low and the demand was absolutely enormous. We've extended that arrangement there by another 20 or so laptops and two more supporters. But we're heavily reliant as well on volunteers and young people coming forward, so I'm really pleased with the initiative we have, where we have 500 digital heroes who are young volunteers to support older people to get online and to get their skills, and we can do that in a variety of settings, including health settings, because these are very important agendas.

We spend £4 million at the moment in Digital Communities Wales, supporting other organisations—so, a train the trainer model—in order to get some of these skills out there, and we have a variety of different arrangements in place to try and get to people where they are.

But the Member raises a hugely important point and I'll add another to it: one of the difficulties we have is that, sometimes, our volunteers are prevented from volunteering for the hours they want to volunteer because it interferes with their own universal credit arrangements. I've had some very robust discussions with the Department for Work and Pensions about why on earth we're stopping people volunteering because of some of the rather more onerous requirements for job seeking online, and so on, that are imposed upon them. So, I agree that some of the austerity programme is impacting on this agenda, but we are doing our very best to be creative in getting around some of those difficulties.

Yes. We are determined to do all we can to make Wales hostile to slavery. We are working with our multi-agency partners to raise awareness of slavery, providing multi-agency training, supporting victims and assisting in bringing perpetrators of this heinous crime to justice. 

I thank the leader of the house for that answer, but Wendy Williams, HM inspector of constabulary, has said:

'While modern slavery cases can be complex and require significant manpower, many of the shortcomings in investigating these cases reflect deficiencies in basic policing practice. We found inconsistent, even ineffective, identification of victims',

which led to investigations being closed prematurely.

'As a result, victims were being left unprotected, leaving perpetrators free to continue to exploit people'

as nothing more than commodities. Can you please give us assurances that this is not happening in Wales, given that the Wales anti-slavery group tell us that there are 10,000 anti-slavery ambassadors in Wales, and yet we have the stark statistic that, to date, there has only been one prosecution across the whole of Wales?

Well, we're the first and only country in the UK to appoint an anti-slavery co-ordinator, and we've established the Wales anti-slavery leadership group to provide strategic leadership and guidance on how we tackle slavery in Wales. The Member will be very well aware that slavery is a very complex ground to investigate and prosecute, which is why we've worked with our partners to develop a joint-training provision for law-enforcement senior investigating officers and crown prosecutors and crown advocates. Working with our partners in 2017, we delivered a consistent standard of anti-slavery training to almost 8,000 people across Wales, and I'll take this opportunity, Deputy Presiding Officer, to urge anyone with information about slavery to report incidents to the police, as all reported incidents are investigated and previous reporting has led to people being brought to justice or disrupted the activity entirely.

Yes. As I said earlier, I'm very delighted that Yasmin Khan and Nazir Afzal have been appointed as the national advisers, and I'm very much looking forward to working with them. They bring an enormous amount of experience and they'll be advising Ministers and working with victims, survivors and other stakeholders to improve our services and to report on our progress.

Thank you, leader of the house. As we mark the fortieth anniversary of Welsh Women’s Aid this week, will you join me in acknowledging the history, impact and value of the third sector in Wales, including not only Welsh Women’s Aid but Bawso, Hafan Cymru, Llamau, local and regional women's aid groups, Atal y Fro? These organisations provide vital services for victims of domestic abuse, but they also work with the statutory and criminal justice agencies who have the power in statute to make changes by implementing the law and making domestic violence a priority. What more can the Welsh Government do to ensure that there is united effort—with the backing of this Assembly; I think this has been demonstrated this afternoon across this Assembly—to prevent the next 40 years continuing the statistics that one in three women in Wales experience violence and abuse?

I very much join Jane Hutt in acknowledging the history, impact and value of the sector in Wales and, indeed, her own long history in this sector. I'm very grateful for organisations such as Welsh Women’s Aid and all the others who've made a stand to eradicate this sort of abuse in our society. They absolutely offer vital support to victims and survivors. I'm very pleased to say that I'm speaking at the celebration tomorrow of 40 years of Welsh Women’s Aid. 

We're very much working with organisations and survivors to understand their experiences and how the system can be developed to prevent violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence. This is helping to achieve the objectives set out in the national strategy. I'm looking forward to the national advisers' input into this strategy, and we recognise the invaluable contribution made by a range of organisations, including public services, independent specialist service providers and wider voluntary sector organisations. The Member very rightly asked what else we're doing to look to see what we can do, and we're working with relevant authorities set out in the Act—local authorities, local health boards, NHS trusts and fire and rescue authorities. We also recognise the need to work with the police, police and crime commissioners, the education services, housing organisations, third sector specialist violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence services, survivors and the non-devolved crime and justice agencies.

So, it very much is an absolutely multi-agency approach. We're also incredibly sure to make sure that the third sector organisations are clearly engaged throughout the commissioning process to contribute constructively to the design, delivery and review of the commissioning process and to make sure that we have proper regional coverage and collaboration across the sector. The sector's always been very good at this, and I'm sure they'll continue to co-operate with us as we look to put our commissioning guidance out in the foreseeable future, but I absolutely do pay tribute to the 40 years of history so far. I can't say I look forward to the next 40 years, because I very much look forward to not needing these services, but I'm sure that, as long as the services are needed, organisations such as Welsh Women's Aid will be there to meet that need.

And, finally, question 7—Hefin David.

Yes. Under the Superfast Cymru project we've provided access to fast fibre broadband to 27,206 premises in Caerphilly. At the last time of data checking, the average download speed for premises deployed under Superfast Cymru is 64.4 Mbps in Caerphilly.

I'd like to thank the leader of the house for the heroic efforts in which she's engaged to get the broadband issue sorted in Castle Reach and Kingsmead estates in Caerphilly. She has worked incredibly hard and I'm very pleased to see that it's happened. But I wanted to—[Interruption.] Of course, contrary to what Russell George said earlier. I wanted to raise the issue of the delivery plan for 'Our Valleys, Our Future' and the fact that broadband isn't actually mentioned in the delivery plan, but it will be vital in connecting businesses across the Caerphilly constituency. I'm concerned that there's no specific mention, so would the leader of the house give assurances that she'll be working with Cabinet colleagues in order to deliver the 'Our Valleys, Our Future' plan and particularly ensure that those businesses that are based in and around industrial estates in the northern areas of the Valleys communities benefit from broadband provision?

Absolutely. It's not mentioned because it's just a fundamental part of the infrastructure. I'm a member of the Valleys taskforce board. We're working very closely together. A very large part of the economic plan for 'Our Valleys, Our Future' is based on that sort of infrastructure development, and I think it's actually part of where we're going with this, and it's just becoming part of the furniture. So, large parts of the Valleys communities are already well-served by the infrastructure. The big issue now is to get the services that run on the infrastructure up and running. So, it's not about the widgets; it's about the increased service provision that we can use the widgets for. So, the Valleys is very much part of using infrastructure appropriately now that it's in place. So, where it isn't in place, which is not very many parts of the Valleys, we will, of course, be looking at the successor projects to fill it in. So, the estates that the Member has mentioned, we will be looking very much to see that we get to industrial estates and other developments of that sort in the successor projects I mentioned earlier, and that will be very much part of the Valleys plan where they're in the Valleys, and, of course, part of the roll-out where they're not.

Thank you very much, leader of the house.

Item 3 is questions to the Assembly Commission. Question 1 is to be answered by Caroline Jones, the Commissioner for security and Assembly resources. Question 1—Simon Thomas.

Diolch, Simon. Thank you very much for that question. The Commission is committed to minimising waste, including reducing plastic on the estate, and we are proud to have achieved our commitment to reduce the amount of waste sent to landfill to zero by 2018. We are working to reduce single-use plastic on the estate, switching to compostable alternatives where possible within the next six months, as well as working with suppliers to seek alternative solutions.

Can I thank the Commissioner for that positive response? Clearly, the Assembly has taken some steps in the recent past, for example getting rid of disposable coffee cups here and going over to ceramic cups, which is something that the public is now very interested in. So, we were ahead of the game there. I'm concerned that we stay ahead of the game. We still use one-use plastic knives and forks and so forth and also, just looking at the shop here, some of our goods are still in plastic containers that you look at and think—well, they don't need to be, really; it's just something that we've fallen into the habit of. So, I'm pleased to hear that you have a six-month plan, that you're trying to eradicate as much of this is possible. It's something I think we can all join together. I will, on Friday, be visiting Aberporth, which is one of the plastic-free communities in Wales, but it's not the only one now. Many communities are saying they want to set themselves up to be plastic free, and I think it's important that we in the Assembly—not the Government, but we in the Assembly— set the standard and set some leadership as well.

I thank Simon for acknowledging the positive work, which is ongoing. We have water filters and fountains around the buildings, cutting down on the need for bottled water. We provide extensive recycling facilities across the estate for most materials, including plastic, and we have clear signage and communication initiatives to raise awareness of the recycling facilities and we encourage their use. Improvements over the last few years have included removing some general waste bins from desks to maximise the use of the recycling options. Thank you for acknowledging the use of plastic cups, which is no longer happening. Thank you. 

On this matter, I was disappointed to see that, at the GP briefing breakfast, which you also attended, there were plastic straws provided for eating yoghurt, and I wondered if you can change that to make them paper, because we need to ban plastic straws; they are one of the worst offenders. In addition to that, the canteen is no longer serving vinaigrettes in bowls or jugs, but they've now got these silly little plastic containers, individually sized ones. That is just adding to the amount of plastic on the estate. This is completely ridiculous and not sustainable. I wondered if you could do something about it.

I thank the Member for her questions here. I would like to assure you that the work is ongoing and all the points that you've raised we will be taking note of and dealing with them. Thank you.

Questions 2 to 5 are to be answered by Joyce Watson, the commissioner for equalities and the Commission as the employer of Assembly staff. Question 2—Darren Millar.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer.

The Commission has no plans to establish chaplaincy services. However, we do provide quiet rooms in Tŷ Hywel and the Senedd for prayer, contemplation, or just quiet time on a multifaith basis—

I'm sorry, I can't hear.

The Commission’s employee assistance programme also provides emotional and practical support and is available to all Members, their staff and Commission staff.

Thank you for your answer, Commissioner. The cross-party group on faith recently held a discussion on the topic 'Faith-based chaplaincy, is it worth it?' and we heard from people serving as chaplains within public sector organisations and we heard from individuals who've been recipients of the benefits of chaplaincy services, which, of course, are helping to reduce disputes and disagreements between public sector providers and service users, they're bringing comfort to people in times of crisis and, of course, they're able to offer pastoral care, regardless of people's faith, beliefs, or whether they've got any faith at all. We felt that these were important benefits that might be of use to Assembly Members, to Assembly Members' staff and, indeed, Commission staff here on the Assembly estate. Notwithstanding the good work that's being done to support staff and Assembly Members here in the National Assembly, I do think that there's something quite unique in terms of the pastoral care that chaplaincy services can offer, and I wonder whether this is something that the Commission could discuss in depth to see whether there might be an opportunity to develop a chaplaincy service, which I certainly would welcome and I know that some other Assembly Members would welcome too, particularly given the sort of trauma that the Assembly suffered in the last three months of last year.

Members might be aware that, historically, there has been a Cardiff Bay chaplain, most recently Reverend Peter Noble. However, it came to an end in the summer of 2017, and we're informed that the group of churches involved here have no intention of or funding to replace the role. Should members of the cross-party group on faith wish to arrange chaplaincy support themselves at no cost whatsoever to the Commission, arrangements could be made for them to make use of a room within the Assembly estate for that purpose. This is permissible under the rules for the cross-party groups.

The Senedd is already recognised as a welcoming place, and it has received awards for the efforts made to cater for the needs of different audiences, including changing facilities. The cafe is now breastfeeding friendly, and there is a sign near the menu that highlights that. There is also a sign on the scanners as you enter the Senedd. A nursing chair has been purchased, and we're evaluating, with service users, the most suitable location for that. Staff always aim to make the experience a positive one for all visitors, including families with children.

I thank the Commissioner for that response, and I'm very pleased to hear about the purchase of the breastfeeding chair. On 3 May last year, I did ask a similar question about what progress was being made to make the Senedd more friendly towards children and families and, in particular, breastfeeding mothers—and particularly breastfeeding mothers who want to feed in a private space. I wondered what progress had been made in terms of identifying such a place. I was concerned that the family room had been turned into a meeting room, and I know the only place for private breastfeeding to take place at the moment is in a toilet, which does not seem appropriate. So, I wondered whether places like the old press room could be looked at, which is not used at all at the moment, from what I can see, in order to really go out of our way to encourage women to feel that they are free to breastfeed here. Because, obviously, breastfeeding rates in Wales are low, and this is our opportunity to give an example.

I actually welcome your interest in this, because it would be to the benefit of everybody if as many people as can actually breastfeed their children wherever they wish to go. As I've said, we've looked at the location of that chair. It hasn't been decided. That's happening in consultation with those people who will want to use that. I think, as part of that consultation, it will necessarily follow that we will look at the room provision that will go alongside that.

The Commission has been an accredited living wage employer since December 2012 and requires that all staff employed directly are paid at least the living wage. We also do all that we can to ensure that all staff employed via contractors are paid the living wage as a minimum, by making this a contractual obligation. Our contractors are required to provide evidence that they are up to date with the latest living wage rate.

Well, thank you for that answer, and I very much welcome the work that has been done in terms of directly employed employees and the payment of the living wage—the real living wage—but there is still considerable concern with regard to those who are indirectly employed, because it is very clear that there are those who are not paid the real living wage. I wonder if it would be possible to have perhaps a statement circulated giving us information about precisely how many people there are that are on these indirect contracts that are not being paid the real living wage, and what the timescale might be for the actual achievement and the assurance that that situation changes. Because it is a matter of considerable concern. We are here promoting the real living wage; we are putting ourselves forward as exemplars. I know the Assembly doesn't employ, but we have direct accountability for the Assembly Commission, and it seems to me that we haven't quite yet achieved the laudable objective that we have set that everyone who is employed directly or indirectly should be paid the real living wage.

Before I took this post—the reason for taking this post was because I am really very keen on driving forward equal opportunity in work, whether that's through pay or any other means. I have not actually received any reports that say that we are not paying the living wage. So, if you have a particular case that you want to bring to my attention, I will welcome that. What I have done—and we've been working towards it—is arrange meetings with people who are both directly employed and who are agency or contractually employed staff so that I can meet and discuss with them personally, or their representatives, their terms and conditions, because I think that, as politicians, it is really, really important that we demonstrate real commitment towards those who we employ, especially when we're in receipt of awards and we're trying to set ourselves up as exemplars. 

The Commission is committed to ensuring access for all to the Assembly estate and we do continuously review accessibility to all buildings. Equality impact assessments are made before any refurbishment or improvements are carried out, and we always observe legislative requirements and strive for best practice.

Thank you, Commissioner. In 2015, the National Assembly committed to becoming a dementia-friendly organisation. This commitment sent out a strong message to people with dementia and their carers that they are both warmly welcome and able to visit this estate. It stated that Dementia Friends sessions would be delivered to all public-facing staff, equipping them to respond to external visitors living with dementia. Further to this, I believe that 21 Assembly Members and their staff have become dementia friends. But I believe we should aspire to be the first dementia-friendly Parliament in the world, if all 60 Members were to complete the training. Can the Commissioner provide an update on progress towards ensuring the Assembly estate and staff are actively fulfilling its role as a dementia-friendly Parliament?

I can, but I can't make people sign up. So, as Commissioner I will join you in your plea for Assembly Members to become dementia friendly, because I think that will not only help us here, but it will help us when we're engaging with people, wherever that might be. There has been a conversation that has started with the Commission's diversity and inclusion team. They've engaged with a dementia engagement and empowerment project to look at developing a guide for visitors with dementia. It's a similar guide to those that were already produced for visitors with autism. It's about being aware. For example, the scanners that beep might be a little bit disconcerting to some people who might not understand that. So, they're quite excited and they're very, very engaged in trying to look at what it is that they can do.

There has been, of course—the diversity and inclusion team have delivered Dementia Friends information sessions highlighting what it feels like to live with dementia, and the small ways that people can help, and how to turn that understanding into action, because that's really what we want to back. The sessions, as you know, are advertised to all Assembly Commission staff, Assembly Members and Assembly Member support staff each year during the Commission's diversity and inclusion week. So, we are moving forward. I'm sure that there is progress that we can make, and I'm sure that we will take any advice that people are able to give us to help us achieve our aim of becoming a dementia-friendly organisation with all the Members, hopefully, signed up.

Thank you. The next question is to be answered by the Llywydd, Elin Jones, as the Commissioner for communications and engagement. Question 6, Mandy Jones.

The Commission delivers many initiatives to engage the people of north Wales in the Assembly’s work. People of all ages participate in events, committee consultations and workshops to improve their levels of understanding. We are also proud to have an office in Colwyn Bay that provides a public space for Members and Commission staff to deliver our work in the region, and I understand that you took your oath at that office when taking your seat in this Parliament.

Diolch, Commissioner. Commissioner, I was quoted in the press on my return as an Assembly Member as saying that, generally, people in north Wales think that the Welsh Assembly should not exist. [Interruption.] Calm down. This view is expressed by many constituents on different campaign trails. Now I am here, I can see first-hand the impact that the Assembly has on the lives of the people who live in my region. Commissioner, what additional steps will the Assembly Commission take to show the people of north Wales what the Assembly does, the difference it makes, how they can get involved, and encourage more than a 43.5 per cent turnout at the next Assembly elections?

Thank you for that supplementary question. The Commission and, I’m certain, every Member in this Chamber is very aware that there is a continuous challenge to ensure that people in every region of Wales understand fully what is devolved to this Assembly and the powers that lie elsewhere. In response to that challenge, the Commission decided to commission a piece of work that was led by Leighton Andrews and a panel to look at how the Commission, on behalf of this Assembly, may communicate our work better to every community in Wales. There are opportunities, of course, to communicate digitally these days, in every part of Wales—hoping that the broadband reaches every part of Wales, of course. But there are interesting and innovative recommendations in that report from that commission, and we, as an Assembly Commission, would hope that we would be able to realise those recommendations as we wish to communicate with the people of Wales—that’s true in every community, not just north Wales—and that we communicate an understanding of the work that we do in this Parliament on behalf of the people of Wales.

I agree that communication is crucial, of course, but there’s nothing that can beat actually getting out there and engaging directly with people. I do applaud the initiative of Senedd Newport in 2016, and Senedd Delyn, which had to be deferred because of sad circumstances. That model of intensive engagement in different parts of Wales is something I think we should do more of. May I ask, therefore, whether the Commission would be willing to consider not just having one every year, but actually having that intensive engagement targeting specific areas every month? Because that’s the best way, I think, of educating people on what we do.

I appreciate the point that the Member has made. Certainly, our experience, having undertaken Senedd@ in various communities—I’m thinking of the most recent one, Senedd@Newport—demonstrates that there is real value to the work of the committees, the work of the Members, and the work of the entire Assembly in engaging with specific areas, improving Members’ understanding from every part of Wales of that specific area, and also vice versa. So, we are looking now, following the fact that we had to unfortunately defer Senedd@Delyn, at how we can plan this programme of intensive activities in specific communities throughout Wales for the rest of this Assembly term.

You might recall that, when we used to have the regional committees, they were extremely popular and well attended, particularly in north Wales—even when that wasn't necessarily the case across the whole of Wales. Since their demise, the cross-party groups I chair largely meet annually in north Wales, and when they do there's huge popular engagement with them, from organisations and people interested in the key areas who see those groups as the face of the Assembly in the absence of any other direct interaction that they can take part in. How might you and the Commission therefore be able to consider how you might work with the cross-party groups on that agenda at least, notwithstanding the fact that generally they fall outside the definition of being a formal Assembly body?

I've noticed that you've been particularly proactive as leader of your cross-party groups in ensuring that there are meetings outside of Cardiff Bay, and in the north in particular for your cross-party groups. I think that that's a model that I'd want to encourage and facilitate and want to see the commission supporting. I'm as keen also to provide the support for committees, as they undertake to meet outside of Cardiff Bay. That logistically can be very challenging for those committees, because many Members are also members of other committees, and that makes it quite difficult to meet in different parts of Wales. But the principle of encouraging the work that we do to take part and take place in other areas of Wales is one that I wholly endorse and would want to see the commission seek to facilitate across party groups and committees as well.

Thank you, Llywydd.

Item 4 is topical questions, and the first topical question this afternoon is from Angela Burns, to be answered by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services. Angela.

Hywel Dda university health board is currently testing and narrowing down options for its transforming clinical services programme. A shortlist of options will be released publicly in the spring, followed by a formal public consultation, which will inform any final decisions of the health board.

Thank you for that, Cabinet Secretary. I listened very carefully to the answers the First Minister gave to the leader of Plaid Cymru yesterday, and also the comments made by my colleague Paul Davies in the business statement. And I tabled the question today because I was absolutely appalled by the supercilious arrogance with which our concerns were dealt with.

Do you accept that the public have the right to express their worries to their elected representatives, because your backbenchers—a number of whom seem to think it was highly laughable that people in Pembrokeshire, Carmarthenshire and Ceredigion may be concerned about proposed changes? Do you accept that this, the parliamentary review, does not say 'close Withybush hospital'? Do you accept that the history that has been engaged in Withybush hospital, with botched consultations since 2006, has left people in Pembrokeshire very, very sensitive to this subject? And do you agree with recommendation 4 of the parliamentary review, which says, 'Put the people in control', and talks about openness, honesty, transparency, and engaging with the public in the shape of their future services? Could I please ask you, Cabinet Secretary, to urge Hywel Dda to make sure that their consultation is open, honest and transparent, because skitting around the west Wales area, holding meetings in very small village halls, and then not letting people take the papers out, does not strike me as being honest, open or transparent, nor does contacting the political representatives when the proverbial hits the fan, and there's a leak, seem to be open, honest or transparent.

Could you please give me a comment on what effect this latest series of events might have on 'A great place to work'—recommendation 5—and what damage that might do to our recruitment issues that we have in west Wales? I'd be interested in your comment following recommendation 3. And the reason why I reference this is because I'm particularly angry at the way the First Minister, in my view, traduced the work that I, my colleagues in the Welsh Conservatives, and, to be fair, the other opposition Members, have put into treating with honesty and maturity your efforts to support the panel on their review of health and social care delivery in Wales. Yesterday, he lost pretty much all of my goodwill, because this review is about how we talk to people, how we engage with people, how we take people with us, how we deliver a sustainable future, and how we try to take some of the battle out of the NHS. It is not air cover, before it's even dry, to suddenly say, 'Ha, but, you know, guess what? Tough luck, west Wales—once again, 15 years on, we're going to start going on about Withybush hospital.'

So, I'm asking you to please ensure that other Members of your party, and your Government, respect the people of west Wales. Will you please ensure that Hywel Dda speak to us in an open, honest and transparent way? In fact, my colleague Paul Davies and I have managed now to get a meeting with the chief executive and the chair on Thursday. This is so serious, and it's really, really annoyed me, beyond all description, that this, which I was looking forward to see as your vision, was traduced in such a way. We don't expect that supercilious arrogance from the First Minister. We are here to represent the people we represent and we have every right to ask you to scrutinise Hywel Dda health board to make sure that they go about this in a really fair way and, for once, take the people with them and not just set it up to be a battlefield. 

Well, I have to say, I don't share her characterisation of the way that Members in this Chamber behaved yesterday. I certainly don't think there was any attempt or intention to introduce supercilious arrogance or to traduce the efforts of Members in every party in having a properly mature conversation about the future of health and care in Wales. The parliamentary review was an honest attempt to try and have an informed and mature debate about our future. And in every part of Wales, not just in west Wales, there will be very difficult choices to be made. 

I can't and I won't comment on the detail of an incomplete process within Hywel Dda and their transforming clinical services programme, because as you know, and I appreciate you know this, I potentially have a decision-making role at the end of this. So, I can't comment on proposals, but there is a process going through and the health board have announced there will be a shortlist to go out to public consultation with in the spring. And it's really important there is a proper public consultation through this. It's important that staff are properly engaged in the process as well, because whatever you or I or anyone else says about the future of health services, if there is to be a battle between politicians, then people choose their sides. Actually, I think lots of people will walk away and simply think it's politicians arguing over something rather than, 'What about the future of health and social care in Wales?'

As we all know, from what the review said, the way we're currently set up isn't fit for our future, so there'll be a need to be a way to deliver change and reform in our system, and that's difficult when it comes to local decision making. It isn't just an issue for one particular site in Wales; every site has a challenge around the attachment to services as they currently exist, to bricks and mortar, and that isn't just a west Wales view. So, I really look forward to a consultation that engages the public and to see the view of healthcare staff themselves as well, because, actually, the real trust is in that which rests between the public and the people running and delivering those services.

There's got to be a serious account taken of whether or not we think the way we currently run and deliver services in every part of Wales is going to last, and if not, how that conversation takes place so the public do get properly engaged and informed before any choice is made. That's what I expect and that is a process that I expect to engage in in this place and, of course, I expect people to ask me questions to try and pin me down on a particular view during the process. I know that is part of what Members will try to do, but I will be direct and honest and I'll continue to say, 'I can't give you a view'. And I won't give you a view about a consultation. There are no proposals as of yet, but I may well be asked to be a decision maker in there so I have to make sure I do the right thing. 

Members in this Chamber are well aware of my views on this matter. I find it completely unacceptable that any options that could result in the closure of Withybush hospital are even being remotely considered by Hywel Dda university health board. The people of Pembrokeshire have seen a constant reduction of services in recent years, and this latest news sends another statement that health services in Pembrokeshire are once again under threat.

Indeed, it would be even more difficult to recruit medical professionals if there is no stability over which services are staying and which are potentially being removed. Therefore, following on from Angela Burns's questions, does the Cabinet Secretary accept that this announcement does nothing to help attract doctors and medical staff to the area when they continue to see services being removed from the hospital? In light of these damaging proposals, can he tell us what immediate steps he is taking to address this matter? 

The move that we wish to see—[Interruption.]

Sorry, just a minute—you've asked a number of questions. Do have the courtesy to the Cabinet Secretary to hear all of the debate, please. Cabinet Secretary.  

The move that we wish to see in health and care is set out in the review. There'll be a concentration of some specialist services onto a smaller number of sites to provide better care. That will mean more physical travelling distance to some of those services. What absolutely compromises that also is that there'll be more care delivered closer to home—we see that already. There are a wide number of services delivered within the community and local healthcare that previously would have been delivered in theatre conditions. So, we're seeing a move around right across the whole country of the way in which care is delivered. 

Our challenge in the future of health and care, not just in Pembrokeshire, not just in west Wales, but in every single part of the country, will be how we deliver change and reform to safeguard the future of health and care services, and not to wait until something is genuinely broken before we fix it, because no change isn't an option, and there's no way not to be honest about that. That is one of the central messages from the parliamentary review. The challenge is how we recognise the way we currently send and deliver services in health and care, how we recognise the weaknesses and the strengths we have to try and deal with our weaknesses, as well as build on our strengths, and, actually, there are real challenges in every health board about locum and agency spend. In some of our services, there's a real challenge in financial terms about the way money is spent. That's why I've taken action on the pay bill, actually, in locum spending in particular in the last few months. There's a pay cap that's come in on locum spend, on the terms available in November from last year, because we do need to deal with some of those costs, otherwise we'll undermine the sustainability of that service. That does affect recruitment into services in each part of the country.

In west Wales, in particular, I still expect the campaign we have on 'Train. Work. Live' to sell not just the opportunity to work in the national health service in Wales, but to live here as well. And, actually, I think west Wales has an awful lot to offer people as a place to work, but certainly as a place to live as well, and the training opportunities that go alongside that. 

There is no way to have an easy conversation about transforming any part of the national health service. There will always be a reasonable view about why a change—in particular on a local and individual level—shouldn't happen; you'll see that in any and every part of the country. But if there is not the space to have an honest conversation between staff within the health service and with the public about reasons to try and change the service to improve the quality of care and the quality of outcome that is delivered, then we won't get to a point where we can be certain and have real confidence in the future of the national health service, and that is absolutely where the parliamentary review is. That is the way I expect every health board to behave with their own individual populations, but also in working together on a number of the challenges that we face in the way that services are designed and delivered. 

As I say, I'll be as open and as honest as I can be, protecting, of course, the reality that I may well have to be a decision maker. I can't go into some of the detail in the questions that you asked, because, otherwise, I'd put myself in a position where I could undermine the consultation that has not yet gone out to the public—it's for this spring. And this is not just that one part of Wales would have this conversation; there is a national conversation and some really difficult national choices for us to make. 

You've set great store, Cabinet Secretary, as did the First Minister yesterday, by the parliamentary review but, of course, the parliamentary review was published too late to influence these proposals from Hywel Dda. So, will you join me today in urging Hywel Dda to withdraw these proposals until we have had time to consider the parliamentary review—how it might be applied throughout Wales, and how this mature conversation that you're seeking for us to have can be had on that basis without us dealing with individual proposals to close hospitals, which, to be frank, will not allow any of us to engage in that sort of mature debate that you're urging us to do? It would be far better, would it not, for us to consider that parliamentary review, which was only published last week, and to do that and to urge all health boards to look at how we consider the review and then to implement a series of consultations with their local populations, based on the principles of that review? You're putting the cart before the horse if you now allow Hywel Dda to go ahead with a series of consultations, some of which will be highly contentious, that are not able to be influenced by that parliamentary review at all. And you are at risk, therefore, of losing some of that widespread sharing of concern and support that you've built up around the parliamentary review. 

I would also like to invite you to join with your own Labour colleagues in Preseli Pembrokeshire. Paul Miller, the candidate in 2015, stood on a platform of restoring the paediatric services to Withybush; indeed, I remember him saying that he'd had three meetings with Steve Moore—incredible; three meetings, just imagine it, with Steve Moore—to discuss how they could be restored. We were all waiting for those paediatric services to be restored. They had been taken away temporarily, if I can remind you—not as a decision of a consultation, but temporarily taken away due to recruitment difficulties. Surely, to restore some sort of trust of local people to allow us to have the serious debate that you're asking to emerge from the parliamentary review, you would first restore the paediatric services at Withybush so that people have the trust back again and then ask Hywel Dda not to proceed with this consultation until we've fully considered the parliamentary review. 

At the start of the parliamentary review, there was a conversation about how much would wait until the end of the parliamentary review process and how much would need to carry on in terms of conversation. You'll have seen the lengthy statement from the medical director, Dr Phil Kloer, of Hywel Dda, about an ongoing conversation and consultation that the clinical community have been having within Hywel Dda about a range of difficult choices that they feel they need to discuss with the public.

I don't share the Member's view that the parliamentary review means that everything must stop and the consultation must be restarted at some point in the future. I think the parliamentary review highlights a number of points about needing to have a conversation, about not putting things off, and actually this has got to be openly done by the health board and its employees. The clinical community have to be engaged in that conversation with each other and with the public that they live amongst and that they serve.

I don't think it would be the right thing for me to instruct, or attempt to instruct, the health board to stop its consultation now. I think the test is whether they will have a consultation that is open with the public, where they can honestly explain what is happening and where the staff feel empowered to properly engage in that with their communities. Because whether they are to undertake a consultation with the public in spring or in the summer or in the autumn, there is simply no avoiding the reality that there will always be contentious choices to make in west Wales, in north Wales, in south Wales and mid Wales. We either have a choice over whether we say that the national health service and social care must engage in that debate now and confront some of these challenges and have a difficult conversation and then make choices, or we put that off and make it even less likely that that will happen in the future, until at some point something goes wrong. I don't think that's the right thing to do. 

I understand why opposition Members in particular urge me to intervene and to stop things. I do appreciate that. To be honest, if my party were in opposition we may well be asking awkward questions of a similar nature to anyone in the Government as well. I actually think the reason why Ministers are here to do a job is to make a difference to the country, and some of that is about allowing difficult choices to go ahead and be made. I'm not going to try and attempt to instruct Hywel Dda or any other health board to stop the consultation with its staff or with the public. I think the consultation has to run, the public have to be properly engaged, a choice will have to be made and, ultimately, that choice could land upon my desk.

We've had this leaked document, we know that it is going to form the basis of a consultation and we know that, within that, there is mention of the closure of Withybush hospital. It has already raised considerable alarm within my constituency, the one that I live in. I think that our job here as politicians is to have a conversation that starts to calm down those fears. Because as I read this at the moment in its current format, there are a range of options—nine, I think, in all—on the table, and they're seeking a conversation and agreement with the wider public, and that includes us, on taking this forward, in terms of giving people the very best options that they can in delivering the very safest form of care and services, both medical and social, within that region. 

So, there are two things that run alongside that. I think the first thing is that we give immediate reassurance to the people in Pembrokeshire that Withybush hospital is not closing now. I think that's what I'm seeing on Twitter, on Facebook and in the e-mails that I'm having. I think that's the first thing that we have to do. Clearly, the second thing is that this will be a meaningful consultation where people's views will be first of all listened to and then taken on board. Because I think that's where we're at now, and that's what I will be calling for—for those two things to be very firmly stated.

Thank you for the comments and for the points. I think it is important—and I have to put on record now—that there is certainly no plan to close Withybush hospital at any point in the immediate future. There is a challenge about what the future will be for any hospital. It's not about sending out faint praise for any site, because you could say the same about Glangwili and about Llanelli as well. And actually seeing the way it's been reported, of course whilst the Withybush issue has been taken up, understandably, by Pembrokeshire representatives, the long list that has been leaked also includes options around other hospital sites as well, so it's looking at a whole range of different configurations. That's why I'm saying there's a process the health board is running through. They'll come out with a shortlist in the spring on which there will be a meaningful consultation.

I'm very happy to reinforce that I really do expect there to be a meaningful consultation. Of course we've invested in the Withybush site. There is a range of services there that provide really good care for people. So, there are always challenges about how you have a sensible and meaningful conversation and how you respect and understand that some people will be anxious about the future, and some people will be looking for assurances, and some will be looking for definitives that, actually, any responsible Minister just can't give if we're going to make a serious choice about the future of the health service.

Following 80 different local events over the summer, I know the health board held a further 14 in the autumn, and there's more to come and more to do, but I expect clinical engagement in that debate with each other and in the debate with the public and a genuine and meaningful consultation for the public and the people of west Wales, and I expect the same sort of conversations to be taking place across the rest of the country as we try to remake the future of health and care in Wales fit for the future.

The health Secretary is a kind of professional fire blanket for the failures of the health boards all over Wales and Hywel Dda is no exception to that. Of course, Withybush isn't going to close in the immediate future, but the real question is: is it going to close in due course following a death by a thousand cuts? What we've seen in recent times is the progressive diminution of health provision, particularly in Pembrokeshire, and there is no confidence, I think, in anybody that I've spoken to that Hywel Dda is really going to be responsive to the needs of local people.

I did manage to get a meeting with the chief executive and the chairman of Hywel Dda only last week, and we had a general canter around the course, and it's quite clear what the direction of travel here is. They want to close general hospitals and have smaller community hubs that are not going to be able to provide the range of services that are currently available. 

Of course the health service has to change with the times and Hywel Dda has particular historical problems to deal with—I'm not totally unsympathetic to the predicament in which they find themselves—but how can it be right to close smaller hospitals or close general hospitals and try to funnel everything into one central bigger unit? We had not so long ago fears that Bronglais was going to close in Aberystwyth. Now we're fearing that Withybush is going to close. Given the geography of the Hywel Dda health board, where population is sparse, you can't centralise things in one place; that's an impossibility.

The other point that came out of my discussions with the chairman and chief executive was that they don't see the need for as many beds in hospitals. I heard you say a moment ago that the health service has changed so that more people are discharged from hospital earlier today than used to be the case, and that is certainly true, but bed occupancy rates are at record highs—you know, 88 per cent, whereas the safe level is 85 per cent. So, it cannot be right in those circumstances to be contemplating reducing the provision of hospital beds still further.

I appreciate you can't say today what the outcome of this review and consultation is going to be, and that there are legal restrictions on your ability to answer questions, but I can follow on from what Joyce Watson said a moment ago: it must be regarded as a ridiculous proposal to close Withybush—even in contemplation in the medium term, let alone the short term. The health board should, when it produces the list of options for people to discuss, avoid causing unnecessary alarm and consternation by producing extreme proposals that are not going to be followed through.

But, fundamentally, what we are seeing here is the lack of democratic decision taking in the health service. Health boards are not elected, community health councils are not elected. Everything, ultimately, is funnelled up to the health Secretary in the Assembly, and yes, we can attempt to hold the health Secretary to account in this Chamber, but our capacity to do that is, of course, limited by the structure of the Assembly and the party system within it. People on the ground feel that they have no real voice at all. Yes, ours is a voice, but is our voice being heard, and even if it's heard, is it going to be listened to?

I'll just deal with your point about beds and investment in health services. We're not just the numbers of money that we invest in the health service—[Inaudible.]—the numbers of staff we have; we treat more people than ever before, more successfully than ever before and that includes in west Wales, just as with the rest of the country.

Our challenge is how we organise our services to deliver the greatest value, both in terms of value for money, but also in terms of the value that we deliver in terms of the quality of care and outcomes. And that really is going back to why we've had a review to see if we are on the right track and what more we need to do. I say, you can't get away from the fact that there have to be difficult choices made, otherwise, you'll come back to a further point in the future where the Government will be asked, 'Why didn't you do something about a part of the service that really has gone wrong?' I would much rather be in a position where we're having a debate about how difficult choices are made than not.

I just reiterate that there is no proposal to close Withybush hospital. There will be no proposals to consult on until the spring of this year, and it will be the health board that will be doing that. The health board needs to have that conversation with its clinicians and with the public and that is absolutely the right thing to do. Of course, the voice of the public will be an important factor; people will be listened to, but let's be clear, there are a range of different opinions about what could and should happen right across the health board area.

We saw representatives in Carmarthen, Llanelli and Withybush and in other parts of the health board having very, very different views on what the future could look like. We need to have a process that is fair, appropriate and meaningful and then there will be a decision made, and, of course, that is a decision that if the health board wish to make it, it could well end up being referred to me and end up on my desk and I'll accept the responsibility that goes with that.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary.

We're going to move on to the second topical question, but before I call the question, I do want to remind Members that active proceedings are taking place in relation to this matter, and that Standing Order 13.15 on sub judice is therefore engaged. Members should therefore avoid making any comments about the conduct of the parties or individuals involved, or giving any suggestion as to what the outcome of the case ought to be.

I call Neil McEvoy to ask his topical question to be answered by the Minister for Housing and Regeneration. Neil McEvoy.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. The question was to the First Minister, but he's not here, so—

No, no. No, I'm sorry. It is for Members to suggest or indicate who they want to reply, but it is for the Government to decide which Minister is best placed to answer it. You will note that there was a written statement issued by the Minister for Housing and Regeneration, Rebecca Evans, on Monday, and therefore, Rebecca Evans is seen as the Minister who will answer your topical question.

Yes, but it was submitted and accepted as the First Minister.

No, no, it doesn't matter who it was submitted to. I have just explained.

Okay, thanks.

So, either you ask your question of the Minister, or we'll move on.

Thank you. I issued a written statement on 22 January 2018 regarding legal action concerning the regeneration investment fund for Wales. I can confirm that legal proceedings are under way for breach of contract and professional negligence against Amber Fund Management and Lambert Smith Hampton Group Ltd. It would be inappropriate for me to comment further at this stage in those proceedings.

Neil Hamilton—sorry, Neil McEvoy. [Laughter.] I was looking over there then. Sorry, Neil.

Okay. Cabinet Secretary, I'm pleased that the Welsh Government is taking some action over the land sale scandals that took place in 2012, but I'm very concerned that it has taken no less than six years to get to this point. That's six years since my constituents lost out on £39 million at Lisvane, when the land was sold on the cheap to an offshore company, and £7 million at Rhoose in the Vale of Glamorgan.

I'm limited, as we've been told, as to what I can ask, because of the legal proceedings, but you've clearly built up a body of evidence in order to sue the firms that were advising on the sale of the land. So, will you be providing that evidence to South Wales Police and the Serious Fraud Office, and will you call for the criminal investigation to be reopened?

I thank you for those questions. I will say that in terms of the timescale involved, all matters to do with RIFW were looked at in a great deal of detail by both the Wales Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee. Those pieces of work in particular spanned several years, and the Welsh Government did accept all of the 17 recommendations made by PAC, and, actually, this legal action does respond to one of those recommendations, suggesting that action be taken with regard to breach of contract and professional negligence.

For all of the reasons outlined by the Deputy Presiding Officer, I'm really loath to comment any further on the specifics of the legal process that is currently under way, and certainly I won't be commenting on any evidence that we have gathered. However, I will say, in order to be helpful to Members, that I know that there are concerns both with regard to the legal action and then the separate issue of the overage payments as well. So, I think Members would be interested to know that, thus far, more than £5 million has been received as overage payments to date, and additional payments are expected in future. Again, it's too early to say what the precise figure of those funds might be, but I'll be certainly happy to provide further updates to Members on this and other issues as things progress.

Thank you, Minister.

We move on to 90-second statements, and the first this afternoon is Jane Hutt.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. This week marks the fortieth anniversary of Welsh Women’s Aid. I'm hosting a St Dwynwen’s Day event in the Pierhead under the banner of 'Still We Rise—Fe Godwn Ni', to acknowledge the progress made and work that still needs to be done to tackle violence against women in Wales.  

There were only a handful of refuges when I started work as the first co-ordinator of Welsh Women’s Aid, but we were determined to campaign for change as well as providing refuge and support. Progress has been made, but the shocking fact is that one in three women in Wales experience violence and abuse.

Monica Walsh, a speaker at the event tomorrow, was one of the first women in the Cardiff refuge, which opened in 1975. She has shown great courage in her life, became a front-line trade union representative, a Labour councillor and Lord Mayor of Cardiff, continuing to campaign for women’s rights to this day. We have a duty in this Chamber to back her and the work of all those who tackle violence against women on a daily basis.

St Dwynwen, a fifth century saint, devoted her life to promoting loving relationships after surviving rape by her partner and escaping her father’s attempt to force her to marry a man she did not love. In recognition of St Dwynwen’s courage and the anniversary of Women’s Aid, still we rise—fe godwn ni.

Thank you. Julie Morgan.

The Gypsy and Traveller Holocaust event—the cross-party group on Gypsies and Travellers began organising an annual event three years ago to mark Holocaust Memorial Day because of the lack of knowledge of the suffering of the Gypsies in the Holocaust. Although the event tomorrow has been organised by Gypsies and Travellers, we will also be remembering the Jewish people, disabled people, the gay people who suffered; we will be remembering everybody.

Roma were targeted by the Nazis across Europe in the same way the Jewish population was, and the aim was to destroy the population entirely. Systematic programmes for moving the Roma into camps or segregated areas existed in every country under Nazi occupation and hundreds of thousands of European Roma were murdered. It is estimated that, at the beginning of world war two, there were around 1 million Roma in Europe. By the end of the war, there were only about 20 to 30 per cent of that. After the genocide, Roma survivors of the camps were not immediately acknowledged; they weren't compensated or asked to testify at the Nuremberg trials. It took more than 30 years for the West German Government to admit that the Nazis had targeted the Roma population.

A great many people who survived the Holocaust were left with terrible scars—scars that for many people have never healed. We will remember all of them too. Last year, the event used visual art to help us remember, with a tree and the book sculpture to represent the resilience of survivors and the will of the people to go on. This year, the artwork for the event is the 'Wall of Words'. Young people chose the words of power displayed there, which I hope you will see tomorrow on the steps of the Senedd at 1 o'clock.

Thank you.

Item 6 on the agenda is a debate on the Finance Committee report of their inquiry into the financial estimates accompanying legislation. I call on the Chair of the committee to move that motion— Simon Thomas.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I don’t think this will be the most exciting debate that we’ll hold at the Assembly today, or certainly over the term, but it is an important debate. It is important, and if I may say what the purpose of the inquiry by the Finance Committee is, perhaps some Members will see that it is important. 

What we did was look at four pieces of legislation that were passed by the previous Assembly to ensure that the method of assessing the financial cost of introducing legislation and turning it into an Act was sufficient and effective. What we’ve tried to do is look at whether the assessment of costs in introducing a Bill are correct, whether the methods used by the Government to assess the legislation hold water, and whether we could improve the processes so that we get better outcomes in the future. The purpose of that, very simply, was to safeguard the public purse and to ensure that public funds spent by the Government on legislation are assessed properly and spent properly. So, even though that description perhaps doesn’t make it more exciting, I hope it does explain why we held this inquiry. It was worth doing, I think, certainly for the members of the Finance Committee.

So, the situation is that every Bill that is introduced to the Assembly has to have an assessment that includes the best estimate of how much funding will be spent or saved—spent, usually—as a result of implementing the legislation. As a Finance Committee, we always report on the financial implications of Bills during the Stage 1 process. In the current financial context especially, the use of public funds needs to be scrutinised more than ever. Also, the costs associated with implementing legislation are an integral part of forming a view on whether it is reasonable to support a Bill. So, very often, one might see a Bill and say, 'Well, the Bill is a good idea, but if it costs too much then the value of the impact that you receive is lost.' So, it’s important that we do understand, at the beginning of the process, how much it’s going to cost.

We are, as a committee, careful that our scrutiny work happens early on in the legislative process to make it easier for Assembly Members to decide whether a Bill is worth supporting or not. We examine the financial estimates provided at the start of the process, but we don’t always have an opportunity to formally consider any changes that might result from updated impact assessments or amendments that might be made to a Bill during its passage through the Assembly. So, in other words, we look at the full cost of the Bill as it’s introduced. Some Members will know that Bills change significantly by the time they become an Act. We haven’t always had the opportunity to see whether that affects the costs and whether we should consider reassessing the value of the Bill because the costs have changed as the Bill has changed in its journey through the Assembly. So, this was an inquiry by the committee, and it was important for us to ensure that we had the tools for the remainder of this Assembly to do this work, and perhaps to change our minds on a Bill because the costs have changed.

Now, we made 16 recommendations in the report and I am pleased that the Government has accepted, or partly accepted, 15 of these, and I don’t want to go through them all in turn, but I’ll speak to some of the ones that are important to the committee and to the one that the Government didn’t accept. It’s important—and it’s important to us in the Finance Committee—to ensure that people can understand easily what the financial implications of Bills that come before the Assembly are. In the past, the Welsh Government has been criticised for not providing this information in a clear and consistent way, so we do welcome the steps taken by the Welsh Government recently to implement the recommendation made by the Auditor General for Wales that costs should be clearly presented in a summary table—not in the Bill, but in the explanatory memorandum, of course. We note, from scrutiny of Bills introduced during the fifth Assembly, that this has aided transparency, So, we are of the opinion that we have seen definite improvement in the way that the Government puts forward this information.

Now I’ll turn to one issue that leads many of us to question how these Bills are put together. It’s clear that any Bill that’s put forward includes several assessments. I think it’s up to 26 possible assessments that can be made on a Bill. So, one of the things that we did ask, in our inquiry, and we did ask the Government was, 'What’s the role of the well-being of future generations Act?—this is the first time that the Act has been mentioned today, but what’s the role of that Act in trying to co-ordinate the assessments that happen around a Bill, and to ensure that the assessments, with regard to the budget, are relevant to whether the numerous assessments done to accompany legislation can refer to a project that is an Act that the Welsh Government does want to use to shape policy in the future. So, we do look forward to seeing whether the Welsh Government can adapt the framework of the Act in order to co-ordinate—not cut down, as such, but to make more sense of, to rationalise, the different assessments. I understand that the Government is undertaking a piece of work to look into this, and I know that the public policy institute has done a piece of work on this, and we look forward, as a committee, to seeing how the Government can respond.

Now, as I’ve already said, the Finance Committee doesn’t necessarily have the opportunity to re-examine the financial implications once it’s reported as part of the Stage 1 process. So, any updated regulatory impact assessment published at the end of Stage 2 may not reflect the same level of scrutiny work. Now, that’s not always important. Very often, there’s no change between Stage 1 or Stage 2, or very little change, but there are sometimes substantial differences—for example, with regard to the Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Bill, which is no longer a Bill, as we heard today, but now an Act, having received Royal Assent. We had to, and we felt that there was a duty on us, as a committee, to reconsider very carefully the costs of that particular Bill, or the Act, as it is now, because the figures had changed so significantly. Indeed, they changed significantly in Stage 1 and Stage 2, so it was important that we did look at that Bill again. The response of the Government to our report with regard to that acknowledges that there is room for improvement on the current processes. So, I hope that we can learn from that process. So, the Welsh Government’s commitment to include a draft RIA as part of the consultation in putting forward a Bill should add to that process of understanding the costs of the Bill very early on.

I’ll now turn to the one recommendation that was not accepted by the Welsh Government. That stemmed from the fact, of course, that a number of the Bills that are put forward at the Assembly increase the financial pressures faced by those who have to implement the provisions, especially in local government. There’s no certainty every time with regard to how those costs are going to be met, whether it’s the Welsh Government that’s going to respond to those costs, or whether those costs are to be shouldered entirely either by local government or other bodies that are funded by the Government. Now, we were of the opinion that specific reference should be included in any RIA to how any costs should be paid for and by whom. The Welsh Government doesn’t accept that, depending on the wider context, I think, around legislation that any Bill should receive financial consent during the process, but it’s certainly an area that the Finance Committee will be keeping an eye on and will return to, in due course, I’m sure. 

If I can conclude by just drawing attention to the importance of reviewing legislation once it’s implemented, therefore, if we are going to learn how to make better legislation and to assess the costs better, sometimes we need to look back at a piece of legislation to see how it was implemented and how the real costs, or the real savings, correspond to the original estimates, but also to understand whether the methodologies and approaches used in preparing the RIA worked. This is an opportunity where the Cabinet Secretary has met with us and has understood that that is a worthwhile process for the Government, and for us as a Parliament that legislates, and it’s an area where the Welsh Government can make improvements. I am pleased that there has been that acknowledgement in the response by the Government to the report, and we look forward to seeing more appropriate assessments—not too many of them, but appropriate assessments—to see how the costs of Bills have turned out, ultimately.

And, if I may say so, to conclude on a very personal level, Deputy Presiding Officer, because I am taking a Bill through this place at present on behalf of the Finance Committee, I’m painfully aware that I’ve made a rod for my own back in putting forward such a comprehensive report on how to put forward a Bill. But I am willing to face that head on, if the Government is also willing to pay the price.

Thank you. Nick Ramsay.

Diolch, Dirprwy Llywydd, and congratulations, or maybe not congratulations, to the Chair of the Finance Committee for having the onerous task of taking that Bill forward. We’ve had many discussions about that, and that does have the support of the committee.

I'm pleased to be here to debate today the Finance Committee's inquiry into the financial estimates accompanying legislation—probably not the talk of bars and pubs across the land, but nonetheless—[Interruption.] Well, maybe in your neck of the woods, Dai Lloyd. Nonetheless an important issue for us to discuss because it does go to the heart of what we do here in terms of forming legislation and ensuring that relevant costs are met. As the Chair said in opening, the aims of the report were to examine the costs of legislation with specific reference to the costs associated with a sample of selected Acts that we looked at. We also were charged with examining the current reporting and monitoring arrangements for legislative costs after implementation, and establishing the effectiveness and the quality of RIAs that have been produced, and how this informs monitoring. RIAs went to the heart of our inquiry. While progress has been made on regulatory impact assessments—and that's to be welcomed—the Finance Committee's report highlights that more work is clearly needed, such as ensuring a summary of financial information to be included in the RIAs for each of the Bills that are introduced.

We also felt that a distinction must be made as to whether costs are capital or revenue, and that was key to recommendation 1. If I can just turn to the issue of transparency, during the passage of the Welsh Government's most recent budget, the evidence several committees received showed the problems in scrutinising proposed changes to grants, changes to budget lines and different calculations included to underline its supposed increase in funding to schools and social care. Those were issues that I raised during the draft budget and the final budget debate, and I hope that the Welsh Government will take them on board to make sure this process is as transparent as possible.

In terms of stakeholders, there was a wider concern—or, I should say, the implications for stakeholders were of a particular concern. They've been hit by higher charges due to issues within regulatory impact assessments. For instance, the committee heard that Residential Landlords Association members were hit by higher charges under the Housing (Wales) Act 2014 than those initially outlined by the regulatory impact assessment. These changes, the RLA claimed in evidence, were made without notification, and furthermore, in relation to costing the Rent Smart Wales scheme, Cardiff council, which operates the scheme on behalf of the 22 local authorities, created its own financial model showing that the Welsh Government's RIA had overestimated the total number of landlords in Wales. So, that was one issue that was highlighted by our inquiry. One of the recommendations regarding stakeholders is recommendation 5, and that's that the Welsh Government should thoroughly consider the financial implications for all stakeholders in RIAs, including ensuring that the financial implications for the private sector are fully considered. Not always straightforward but, we felt, very important.

I'm also disappointed—the Chair's already mentioned this—that the Welsh Government has rejected recommendation 10, recommending that summary information in RIAs contain explicit reference to how any costs identified in the assessment will be funded, and by whom. Whilst I see what the Welsh Government is getting at by stating that this is a wider use of the RIA than originally anticipated and that this could pose complexities, well, yes, it is, it may be, but at the end of the day, we felt that this is a good way of bolstering RIAs, making them more meaningful and presenting that information in terms of the finance and the Bills that we feel is essential—it's certainly going to be helpful—in deciding whether that legislation is going to achieve its goals or not.

Simon Thomas also referred to issues that we addressed within the future generations legislation. If Steffan Lewis were here today, I'm sure that he'd be bouncing up and down in his seat and commenting at this point. He had his concerns about that legislation, and those are well versed. I would say if we can't get this right when it comes to more straightforward, simpler legislation, then when it comes to legislation as complex as the future generations Act, then there are going to be serious problems for this Assembly. So, let's look at ways that we can improve this process for legislation across the board.

I think it's welcome, in concluding, Dirprwy Lywydd, that the Welsh Government believes that there is scope to improve processes so that any errors or gaps in analysis are identified before a Bill is laid in front of the Assembly. I think we're all singing from the same hymn sheet on that one. We all want to make this process better. We want it to be an exemplary process that we follow through in the Assembly here, and one that people across the rest of the UK, and indeed the world, can look at and say, 'That's how they do it. We think that's better than the way that we do it. We want to get this right'.

So, I hope that the Welsh Government does take on board the implications. I'm pleased that you've accepted a number of the recommendations that we put forward. I'm sorry that you rejected one of those recommendations in particular, but I hope that the Welsh Government does look at ways that this process can be improved so that we can have a far better way of legislating in future.

I welcome the opportunity to debate the Finance Committee's report entitled 'Inquiry into the financial estimates accompanying legislation'. This is a hugely important topic, because money spent in implementing new legislation is money not available for current services. We sometimes debate here as if there's some sort of new money coming from somewhere—perhaps Theresa May's money tree—for new legislation. It isn't. It's coming off existing services. So, it is very important that the cost of all legislation is calculated. I think Nick Ramsay is absolutely right about capital and revenue, but we also need set-up costs on the revenue side, because there'll be revenue costs that will fall in the first year for set-up that won't occur in future years. Something that's worthwhile at £1 million may quite often become unaffordable at £1 billion. I greatly believe in two things: looking at opportunity cost and looking at cost-benefit analysis. When you're spending money on one thing, you're losing the opportunity cost of spending it on something else.

The committee recommends that the Welsh Government should ensure that the RIAs are explicit in their division between cash costs and savings and monetised costs. This is important to distinguish between cash and non-cash savings. An example of where a Bill went wrong is the additional learning needs Bill, where the non-cash savings, in this case volunteer time, were counted as a cash saving. Whilst volunteer time may be used in the community for other community good, its cost cannot be taken into account when calculating the net cost of a Bill. This severely distorted the cost savings of the Bill. This affected the net cost of the Bill. The cost then had to be recalculated. The resultant cash costs were substantially higher. Also, it is important to identify who the costs are going to fall on, who is going to pay for it, and where the benefits will accrue. I think we really do need, when we're passing legislation—. And we pass legislation because it's good, but would we pass some legislation that is very good, but it's going to mean that something that we feel equally or more strongly about is not going to be able to be done because the money's just been spent on this?

The committee recommended that the Welsh Government thoroughly consider the financial implications for all stakeholders in regulatory impact assessments, including ensuring that the financial implications of the private sector are considered. We passed a piece of legislation in the last Assembly where the cost fell on the public sector and the benefits were in the private sector, but I think that it's important that we identify who are the winners and losers. There is always a danger in creating legislation that it will create additional demand for service, a sort of latent demand. In fact, just talking about it here, getting it on the BBC and in the Western Mail will create additional demand for services that people may not have known they were able to get.

I would like to highlight recommendation 7, where the committee recommended that where there are changes in the RIAs after Stage 2, the Member in charge should provide to the Finance Committee and the relevant scrutiny committee a summary of these changes, including the financial implications. This takes me back to the first point: there is a danger that, once a Bill has passed Stage 1, it has something called momentum, and it's going forward, and everybody's in favour of it. Because with most Bills here, there's a bit of an argument over them, but most people think the general thrust of them is a good idea and it's going to make things better. And it's considered value for money when it's costing £5 million or £10 million, but once the cost escalates at Stage 2, that momentum is driving it forward. Everybody's behind it, and even those people who are going to vote against it and are critical of it are critical of bits of it, but actually like the general idea of it. So, what would not have got through Stage 1 with the correct legislative costs now keeps going forward. The cost increases, but it becomes difficult to stop going forward with legislation. How much would legislation have to increase before we actually took a stand at Stage 2 to say the Government should withdraw it, or we as an Assembly say, 'Look, this is getting too expensive'? I think that is why it needs to go to a committee: for us to look at it dispassionately. There's a need to have people outside Government to re-examine, at both the subject committee and the Finance Committee.

I also accept that producing cost and cost saving for legislation is complicated, often needing a detailed understanding of the service and how it is funded and who uses it. Realistically, costs and savings will be in a range based upon assumptions that have been made. I have always believed—not that I've got much support among other people—that we should actually have a range of costs and a range of savings being published, and the mid point being used in calculations, because that's actually what people must be doing. They're making assumptions and they're saying, 'Well, we'll take 50 per cent of that, and 75 per cent of that'. This will allow those considering legislation a better insight into costs and benefits. Finally, stating the obvious, if costs are higher than expected and savings are less, other services, which many of us rely on, will have less money.

As one who isn’t a member of the Finance Committee, may I thank the committee and the Chair for their work? I think the Chair was a little hard on himself, suggesting that this isn’t the most exciting debate. Certainly, it won’t be the least exciting today. But I was excited by reading the report and looking at the recommendations, because of, as he’s mentioned, the experiences with the additional learning needs Bill, which is an Act now.

What’s summarised in the report and the recommendations that emerged from that report speak directly to some of the problems and frustrations that we as a Children, Young People and Education Committee had in scrutinising that particular Bill, particularly some of the recommendations around the regulatory impact assessments in terms of securing the quality of the assessment, that there should be a draft RIA as part of the consultation and the process of creating legislation, and this important role that stakeholders play, and that we need to improve the engagement of stakeholders in identifying the costs that may emerge as a result of legislation. That’s all important, and it’s all very pertinent to our practical experience of scrutinising this Bill.

It’s ironic that I’m raising these issues on the day that the Bill gets Royal Assent, but there we go. Because it’s only through Stage 1 scrutiny of that Bill that many of the weaknesses and the financial errors emerged, in terms of that particular piece of legislation. Originally, the Government had identified savings over four years of £4.8 million. Now, it became apparent, later on in the process, that there were no savings at all, but there were costs of almost £8 million, and that’s a difference of £12 million. Therefore, that actually lifted the curtain on some of the problems that are part of this process, and some of those problems that we need to guard against, in light of the recommendations made by the Finance Committee.

That also meant, of course, that we’d had to discuss and vote on Stage 1 of that Bill with the original RIA off the table, to all intents and purposes, as it was redrafted, and then we had to defer the financial decision, which was to take place after the vote on Stage 1. It wasn’t possible then to deal with Stage 2 amendments until those financial issues had been settled. And we did that just 24 hours before we sat down to vote on amendments at Stage 2, so it was a very confused process, and it didn’t provide the clarity that I would want to see and that we would all want to see in scrutinising legislation in this place, which would allow us all to be confident that the process was robust and engender confidence, not only here in the Chamber, but among the stakeholders and the wider public too.

You could argue that it’s not possible to guard against all possible scenarios. We’re all human of course, and mistakes will inevitably happen at times. You could also argue that the Children, Young People and Education Committee had done its job in scrutinising the Bill, and had highlighted some of these questions that led to the redrafting of the figures around that particular Bill. I, myself, would agree with that. It’s all valid and it’s all possible, but it’s also reasonable for us to all expect that everything possible should be done to avoid such a situation in the first place, and it’s also reasonable for us all to expect that lessons will be learned if these errors are made—that they should not be repeated in future.

That’s why I do welcome the Finance Committee’s report and the recommendations made in the report. I also welcome the fact that the Government has accepted most of the recommendations, although they have only accepted in principle the most relevant recommendation from my point of view, namely this issue of engagement with stakeholders in drawing up the costs. So, I thank the committee for casting light on the weaknesses of the process, and thank you for providing solutions, very specific solutions, to some of those problems. May I encourage the Government, as I’m sure they will, to respond positively and to accept all the recommendations, but certainly to learn the lessons from those recommendations?

Can I now call the Cabinet Secretary for Finance? Mark Drakeford.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm very grateful to the committee for the report and for the opportunity to contribute to this discussion. The Welsh Government acknowledges that we need an assessment of the financial implications and that that should be transparent and accessible so that the Assembly and stakeholders can effectively scrutinise new legislation.

As most Members who've taken part in the debate, Dirprwy Lywydd, have said, this is a relatively technical and specialist area, but genuinely important in making sure that we are able to provide the information that is necessary to allow Members of the National Assembly and those who take an interest in particular pieces of legislation to be able to understand the implications of the legislation that comes before this Chamber. 

The intention when developing a regulatory impact assessment is always to present as full and as detailed an assessment as is possible, given the available evidence. This includes consideration of the costs and benefits associated with cultural change and with the aspirations of legislation, although as was acknowledged during evidence sessions, it is not always necessarily straightforward to quantify those costs and benefits. In the future, we will seek a proper balance between the need to present a monetised assessment of costs and the risks of presenting incorrect or misleading figures.  

While the financial assessment will consider the impact on all groups, I want to reassure Assembly Members and the point raised by Mike Hedges that particular attention is paid to the potential impact of legislation on private businesses in Wales, and whether the proposals have a detrimental impact, potentially, on the competitiveness of Welsh firms. 

Now, the Welsh Government believes that the Treasury Green Book and Standing Order requirements provide a suitable framework for preparing RIAs. Here in Wales, however, we also deploy the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 in developing the policies we pursue and the policy options we consider. As a result, and as Simon Thomas noted, a project is under way within Welsh Government to develop an integrated approach to impact assessments, using the framework provided by the well-being of future generations Act. The purpose of that is not to reduce important assessments, but to try to make sure that the sum of them is more than just the component parts. While RIAs are not within the scope of that project, they will be informed by the results of the integrated impact assessment. 

Dirprwy Lywydd, at the end of the fourth Assembly and in response to the publication of the 'Making Laws in Wales' report and the previous Finance Committee's legacy inquiry, the Welsh Government committed to review the development and presentation of the financial impact, and there is a significant overlap between the committee's recommendations and the work undertaken and in progress within Welsh Government to strengthen RIAs as a result of those previous pieces of work. The latest version of the legislation handbook on Assembly Bills, which was published in August of last year, includes a chapter setting out revised guidance on developing a regulatory impact assessment. It includes a number of changes aimed at improving the clarity and accessibility of RIAs.

The Welsh Government economists have developed a standard summary table to be included at the start of each RIA, as Nick Ramsay suggested. That summary table, which has been used in the explanatory memorandum for each Bill introduced during the fifth Assembly, has been designed to present clearly all of the information required in Standing Orders. And in a point that Mike Hedges raised, the guidance has been revised in response to concerns that the presentation of monetised benefits alongside cash costs could be misleading. 

Finally, the guidance has been strengthened to make it clear that the RIA for a Bill should, as far as practicable, include a best estimate of the costs of any associated subordinate legislation. I was grateful to hear members of the Finance Committee, including its Chair, noting the evidence from stakeholders, reflected in the committee's own report, in acknowledging that as a result of that earlier work, presentation of RIAs has improved during the fifth Assembly. 

Dirprwy Lywydd, I'm not going to be able to deal with all the recommendations in the Finance Committee's report either. I want to draw attention to a small number, if I could, dealing first of all with the issue of stakeholder engagement, which a number of Members have highlighted. The evidence given by stakeholders to the inquiry was clear that in the past there had not always been sufficient stakeholder engagement when developing an RIA, and where there had been engagement it had often come late in the process.

The Welsh Government recognises that stakeholder engagement is essential and the revised guidance sets out a more clearly defined, staged approach to the development of an RIA, one part of which is the inclusion of a draft RIA as part of the consultation exercise. And that is intended to respond to points that both Simon Thomas and Nick Ramsay have made this afternoon in providing an opportunity for stakeholders to engage in the process and to provide additional or alternative information before we get to that final analytical point. Linking the publication of a draft RIA to the consultation process is intended to ensure engagement takes place at the early stage of the policy-making process. The publication of a draft RIA is expected to become the norm in the future.

I turn to the issue of financial implications, and this is another issue that the report focuses upon in the inclusion of financial implications in the post-implementation review of legislation. I set out in the Government's response that the legislation handbook on Assembly Bills has been revised and now includes financial considerations as one of the issues to be considered in any post-implementation period. The shared view on how the financial estimates accompanying legislation can be strengthened and improved is reflected in our response to the committee's recommendations. I simply repeat what I said in that document that the one recommendation we felt unable to accept is the recommendation that RIAs be extended to consider how any costs identified in the analysis will be funded and by whom, and that's because the RIA is a value-for-money assessment and to consider how any cost will be funded goes beyond the purpose and design of that assessment. It's not to say that matters of funding and affordability are unimportant—far from it—it is simply that funding and affordability are considered during different parts of the development of legislation and are included as part of any financial resolution. 

Dirprwy Lywydd, I wanted to end by providing—

Will the Cabinet Secretary give way?

Yes, of course.

On that specific point—because I did mention the fact you'd rejected that recommendation. I do take the Welsh Government's point on why you didn't find that recommendation acceptable, but would you at least undertake to look at ways that the process can be bolstered so that those issues of funding and affordability, whilst I understand they're being looked at in other areas, are brought together somehow, so that it's not just left to different aspects of this process and that there is a concerted look? If the RIA is not going to give that focus to it then perhaps there are other ways it can be done. 

Dirprwy Lywydd, I'm perfectly happy to look at that issue. As I said, the reason we didn't accept the recommendation is we didn't think the RIA was the best place to do that. It's not to say that we wouldn't be willing to look at other ways in which that issue could be pursued.

Dirprwy Lywydd, if you'd allow me, I'll just end by just setting out for Members some of the ways in which we plan to take these recommendations further forward. Officials are revising the RIA guidance as a result of the committee's report and will be amending it accordingly. I know that they have already been discussing the report with policy teams working on current legislative proposals. My officials will also be looking at the quality assurance processes currently employed by policy departments and the way in which the costs of legislation are recorded and monitored to see where the process can be improved.

I intend to write to my Cabinet colleagues to ensure that they are fully aware of the issues raised in the report as they take forward pieces of legislation for which they are responsible. I will also be writing to the First Minister to ask that the recommendations in the report are considered in the state of readiness discussion held before each Bill is laid and in a committee that the First Minister himself chairs.

I hope, Dirprwy Lywydd, Members will see that the Government has wanted to respond very positively to the report, thinks that it has made a very useful contribution to thinking on this issue, and that we will be looking for practical ways in which we can take advantage of the advice that it has provided.

Thank you. I call on the Chair of the committee, Simon Thomas, to reply to the debate.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, and thank you to everyone who contributed to the debate. I think even though it's a very technical debate, the fact that we have brought it to the floor of the Chamber is important because it deals with the Bills that all of us are involved in. I'm particularly pleased that it's given Llyr Gruffydd an opportunity to express his experience from another perspective, from another committee, and I think there are a number of things that Llyr spoke about that underline why we need this kind of report on some of the recommendations that we've made.

I won't repeat too much of the debate. I simply want to pick up a couple of themes that I think were quite important and to thank Nick Ramsay and Mike Hedges also for participating in the debate. I think what we really want to see, at least conceive of, is that it would be possible for a Bill to be supported at Stage 1 here—for all parties to support it, potentially—but by the time it got to Stage 2, by the time we've gone through this process, by the time amendments have been made and changes have been made and more understanding has been gained, it would be conceivable not to proceed with that Bill because the cost-benefit analysis had changed. I think we need to at least provide Assembly Members with enough tools and information to allow them to make that judgment. We should at all stages of the—this is why we have stages, if I may say so, Deputy Presiding Officer. It is possible not to proceed with a Bill after certain stages. Once it goes past Stage 1, it doesn't mean it's on some kind of rollercoaster and must go to the end. It is possible, because we have these stages, to reconsider the nature of a Bill. That would clearly—well, probably—be a Bill that hadn't gone through the right process at some stage, but we must at least make sure that our processes are robust enough to allow that to happen, and indeed to allow new facts to emerge that change the way we look at the Bill.

The Additional Learning Needs and Educational Tribunal (Wales) Act 2018, as it is now, is a very good example of where that could have happened. It didn't in the end because, I think, to be frank, the other issue that the Government does not accept as part of the RIA—and I see where the Government is coming from, but of course in the case of that Bill, as it was then, the Government had made a financial commitment, not in the RIA but a general policy financial commitment, which overcame any doubts that people had around the details of the financial detail of the Bill.

The second theme that I think is important to remember is that, although this is a Finance Committee report and recommendation and a Finance Committee debate with a little additional input, it really underlines how important stakeholder involvement is in preparing our Bills. [Inaudible.]—says a tap on the back; I was saying we had a rod for my own back earlier on, but a tap on the back now. Having been elsewhere and looked at Bills, we do things better here. Bills that begin in the Assembly have more information around them, more impact analysis, more understanding of the financial impact than a Bill that would go through Westminster, for example. So, we are able to use that in a way that enriches our stakeholder consultation, the way they come in—and other committees as well, as with Llyr's example. Other committees are feeding in; it's not just the Finance Committee that should be looking at that aspect of the Bill.

Can I just conclude by thanking the Cabinet Secretary, certainly for accepting just about every one of the recommendations? I understand why he's not persuaded of the one, although that's something to keep under review in terms of understanding who picks up the costs, but I particularly want to thank him for setting out today how he's taken these recommendations through the process, the internal process, of Welsh Government. A state of readiness sounds like an appropriate way to think of any Bill that's presented to this Assembly, and I hope that this report has helped inform and ensure that any Bill presented is in a state of readiness and is ready to be debated by the whole legislature.

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

Item 7 on the agenda this afternoon is a debate on the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee report: 'City Deals and the Regional Economies of Wales'. I call on the Chair of the committee to move that motion—Russell George. [Assembly Members: 'Hear, hear.'] Good heavens above.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. And to my small fan club on this side of the Chamber. [Laughter.]

I move the motion in my name.

Over the next 10 to 15 years, £2.5 billion will be heading to the Cardiff city region and the Swansea city region as part of the city deals, signed of course by the UK Government, the Welsh Government, local authorities and other partners as well. In north Wales, the Economic Ambition Board has submitted its bid for a similar agreement serving its area.

In our committee's report, we recommended that mid Wales should also have a deal,

'to complete the jigsaw in Wales',

as we put it in our report. I was pleased to hear the Chancellor in the UK Government's budget say that he would consider proposals for a mid Wales growth deal. The Welsh Government has also been supportive, not least in its response to our report, but, of course, warm words won't improve the economy of mid Wales, and I'm conscious that, without greater input from both Governments, there is a danger that the heart of mid Wales will be forgotten. So, I am pleased that there is consensus that there should be a deal for mid Wales, and now we need, of course, to put flesh on the bones and build consensus amongst businesses, the public sector and the people of mid Wales to ensure that their deal meets their needs and do that sooner rather than later.

I am grateful to the Cabinet Secretary, as well, for allowing his official to come to a meeting that I organised last week with stakeholders. The meeting was probably more technical in terms of what areas should be covered and who should govern a deal, because I think it is, perhaps, a little bit too early to get into any detail.

Of course, city deals are already reshaping the economic development priorities of south Wales, and the Welsh Government's new regional approach set out in 'Prosperity for All: Economic Action Plan' supports this. As a committee, we took on this inquiry because we wanted to see what impact these deals were having, how they were progressing and to compare the Welsh deals with what is happening in other parts of the UK. Deals are very much being talked about as a key driver of future economic activity in Wales, so we need to ensure that there is clarity about what is happening, who is responsible for the plans and what happens if targets aren't achieved.

I'll give one example. We felt that there was a greater need for certainty that meeting the UK Government's drive for GDP growth and the Welsh Government's ambitions for a sustainable economy can both be achieved at the same time.

Whilst we in Wales were looking at our city deals, in the Scottish Parliament, the Local Government and Communities Committee have been doing something very similar to us. Their report, published two weeks ago, reaches many of the same conclusions that we did, which, I think, is reassuring. Interestingly, they also felt that there was a tension between the aims of the devolved and the UK Governments.

Their report says, 

'further clarification is required as to whether the focus should be on pure economic growth or inclusive growth.'

So, it's clear that this is an issue that hasn't been fully resolved in any of the devolved deals to date, and equally, it's clear that it needs to be.

Our inquiry revealed concerns about whether any positive impacts of deals would reach the most disadvantaged in the area, and whether competition between regions could see some places prosper at the expense of others. It's heartening to see that leaders of the deals are mindful of these issues, and there is some evidence of collaboration between Welsh regions, but it's not clear whether that will be enough to ensure that deals can avoid the creation of winners and losers.

I note that the Scottish local government committee also talks at length about the risk that economic activity will simply be displaced from one area to another. Like us, they worry that areas not covered by a growth deal could lose out twice. By that, what I mean is, once, by not having a deal of their own and, secondly, by seeing their home-grown businesses move to another deal area. This, of course, only reinforces our argument that all parts of Wales should have a deal.

The one area where the Minister has rejected the committee's recommendations is with regard to what we call 'fuzzy boundaries'. Our aim in this recommendation was to ensure that local authorities or other partners have the flexibility to contribute to more than one deal area. An example of which is, perhaps, Gwynedd and Pembrokeshire share some of the rural issues of Powys and Ceredigion, and I would urge the Minister to relook at this.

In Scotland, there are a number of local authority areas that participate in more than one deal. So, there is no reason why similar arrangements could not work effectively here in Wales. Should local authorities choose to go down that route, I absolutely accept that there would be issues around accountability and clarity that would need to be resolved.

Deals, of course, are at a very early stage and the tailoring to local needs at the heart of deals makes it difficult to learn conclusive lessons from other places. But, a constant issue is the need for partnership and an agreed vision for the region. This element of the south Wales city deal has also occurred, but will need to be sustained. The financial sums involved in these deals are perhaps less significant than they appear at first glance, because they are over, of course, a large period of time. But, the potential gains from collaboration, I think, between sectors, and the development of strategic development goals, could prove to be both the foundation stone and the lasting legacy of the city deal approach.

So, I'm very much looking forward to this debate this afternoon and what I hope will be an interesting debate. I hope that we will hear from Members, perhaps those not on committee as well, and I hope that, in general, there'll be consensus around some of the recommendations that the committee's report made.

These committee reports are very helpful, and they reveal the real Russell George, I think, which we've seen as Chair of the committee, not the Russell George we'll see, perhaps, in the next debate. I think this is the true personality of the reasonable Assembly Member that is Russell George.

It's worth remembering that Adam Price referred to the city deal, during the previous economic debate, as the snake oil of city regions, and, in some ways, you can be critical of city deals for the fact that if they aren't connected to anything else, they're not likely to be successful. However, we've also got the Valleys taskforce delivery plan and we've got the Cabinet Secretary's economic plan. If those things are tied in together, then you get a much better economy of scale that can then deliver some of the issues that are reflected in the report. Therefore, I can see why, perhaps, the declining of some of the recommendations of the report was done by the Government. So, the declining of recommendation 10 on issues of accountability, but also the regional focus, is because they have to tie into the economic plan and into the Valleys taskforce. I can understand that, even though it's a bit disappointing that then you can't blur those boundaries across areas.

From my perspective, I think the city deals themselves, of themselves, on their own, are insufficient, but working together with those makes perfect sense, and what's important to me is that the city deal delivers for this area that I've described, in the north of my constituency, as the northern Valleys—those communities tucked away from the M4 and A465 Heads of the Valleys road that, perhaps, have not enjoyed the same level of investment as those places located closer to those transport hubs. That's why I've tried to develop this concept. Again, it's encouraging that the Government is recognising in some of their responses to the recommendations that we can serve those areas better by having those boundaries.

The city deal can facilitate, for example, strategic development planning, and I think strategic development planning is a fourth tool that can be added to draw things like housing, investment and business north, into the northern Valleys communities. Better Jobs Closer to Home should not mean that those communities are cut off, and, therefore, in addition to strategic development planning, transport planning is also key. The south Wales metro will also be a key factor in delivering this.

I'm pleased that the two Cabinet Secretaries have accepted the majority of the recommendations of the report. We have to provide a mechanism and a structure for joined-up working, and I think that it's based in this plan, with issues of accountability and regional focus being at its heart. If we can bear this in mind and we can get it right, then I know the Welsh Government will make it work, and I'll be supporting them in doing just that, but, at the same time, being a critical friend and bringing to this Chamber those issues where I feel the city deal doesn't work.

It's a great pleasure to take part in this debate, even though I'm not a member of the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee, but I've accepted the Chair's invitation and I'm willing to contribute to the debate.

The United Kingdom Government, through its city deals, and the Welsh Government, through its economic strategy that is committed to an economic development model that is regionally based, have set a new direction for economic policies for Wales. In a nation where wealth and public expenditure tend to be focused on one corner of the nation at the expense of other areas, giving due consideration to economic development on a geographical basis in an attempt to attract investment and opportunities to disadvantaged areas is to be welcomed. However, in so doing, there are risks that we must consider. The inquiry revealed concerns as to whether any positive effects of the city deals would reach the most disadvantaged people in an area, and whether competition between regions could see some places thriving at the expense of others.

However, one element that has to be welcomed from both Governments’ efforts to regionalise economic development is the collaboration that this entails between businesses, local authorities, the new city region boards, the Welsh Government and the United Kingdom Government. City deals make it easier to collaborate with areas over the border in England. Cross-border collaboration is important, not just for Wales, but for any nation in a globalised world.

However, nobody's arguing that the Welsh Government should prioritise establishing trade links between Cardiff and Bangor, for example, within Wales, which is 190 miles away, as compared to Bristol, which is only 40 miles away from Cardiff. However, we are in danger of looking to the east too often for the answers to our problems. In so doing, decisions such as those on investment in infrastructure are made based on this particular priority.

The Secretary of State for Wales, Alun Cairns, held a Severn growth summit this week, which saw businesses, local authorities and academics coming together to discuss the opportunities that may follow the abolition of the Severn bridge tolls. The decision to abolish these tolls on the Severn bridge could lead to the creation of a western powerhouse stretching from Bath and Bristol to Newport, Cardiff and Swansea, boosting prosperity and jobs, according to the Secretary of State. As I said earlier, cross-border collaboration is vital, but it must be based on a fair partnership that is beneficial to communities on both sides of Offa’s Dyke. This must mean that efforts are made to ensure that investment comes to Wales, to Cardiff, Newport and Swansea, to create quality jobs here and to not just facilitate a commute for people living here to jobs in Bristol or Bath.

Moreover, what about the area to the west of Swansea? With regard to the United Kingdom Government’s decision not to invest in the electrification of the railway from Cardiff to Swansea, the impression that this gives to investors is that there's no point considering investing in areas beyond Cardiff, not to mention beyond Swansea. The Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee’s report notes concerns that regionalisation could lead to winners and losers, with some areas benefiting at the expense of others. But it's impossible to overstate how dangerous this idea of city deals and economic regions are to communities in the far west of Wales, bearing in mind that the development of a cross-border economy is the priority of Governments at both ends of the M4. Thank you very much.

In his response to our report, the Cabinet Secretary states that city and growth deals have a strong role to play in our regionally focused approach to economic development. He accepts our recommendations 5 and 9 regarding the north Wales growth deal, the bid for which was formally submitted to both himself and the UK  Secretary of State for Wales by the six north Wales county councils and their partners last month. These stated,

'The North Wales Growth Deal negotiators should continue to work constructively with partners and neighbouring authorities both within Wales and across the border',

and that,

'The Welsh Government should continue to support plans for a North Wales Growth Deal and use the influence it has to accelerate this process.'

The UK Government announced it was opening the door to a growth deal for north Wales in its March 2016 budget, and announced, as we heard, its continued commitment to this in its 2017 autumn budget. Although the UK's unemployment rate stands at a four-decade low, and new UK figures today show a further fall in unemployment in a faster-than-predicted pace of job creation, Wales, sadly, has rising unemployment and the highest unemployment rate amongst UK nations. After two decades of a Labour-led Welsh Government and billions spent on regeneration, Wales remains the poorest part of the UK, producing the lowest value of goods and services per head amongst the 12 UK nations and regions.

In the context of north Wales, the figure per head of population in the west Wales and Valleys sub-region, including four north Wales counties, is still bottom across the UK, at just 64 per cent of UK average, and Anglesey still sits bottom in the UK, at just 52 per cent of UK average. Even Flintshire and Wrexham have seen their combined GVA fall from almost 100 per cent of the UK level at the time of devolution, to stand at 89 per cent in 2016. 

The growth deal bid, therefore, seeks both to maximise the cross-border opportunities presented by England's Northern Powerhouse, and, clearly, to spread prosperity westwards. Our report states that, in north Wales, the provisional plan is to establish a board of local authority representatives, but also with co-opted representatives of higher and further education and the business community. Well, the north Wales growth board has now been established to finalise the growth deal and manage its delivery, once agreed with the two Governments.

Negotiations with both Governments are due to commence early this year, and we therefore need clarity from Mr Skates on the Welsh Government's position. Does it support the proposals and how will it be responding as negotiations over the growth bid now go forward?

Will you take an intervention? Just very quickly—thank you for taking an intervention. Is the Member aware—and I note that you called the Northern Powerhouse England's Northern Powerhouse—are you aware that north Wales is included in publicity material for the Northern Powerhouse, not as a partner for the English Northern Powerhouse to work with?

Well, the key thing is that we benefit economically and socially from that connection whilst clearly spreading that prosperity all the way to Holyhead.

The WLGA's north Wales co-ordinator told me in committee,

'it’s not just about people who are out of work, but there’s also the issue of low wages, and then there’s also the issue about being able to move to more, higher paid work'. 

The north Wales business council chair told me:

'We have to do everything we can to robustly package our economy in the region, including that with cross-border partners, and we’ve got to be doing it now.' 

To allow for working on an equal footing with areas across the border from north Wales, they also called for devolution of resources and powers at a regional level. The north Wales growth deal's lead chief executive, Flintshire's chief executive, told me:

'There are some areas of funding...if the controls were loosened and they were devolved to north Wales with some agreement of objectives with the Welsh Government, we could make more traction with that money.' 

And the North Wales Economic Ambition Board stated:

'Devolution of functions to north Wales that matches that of neighbouring English regions is a defensive necessity and a desirable enabler of growth.'

Their vision aims to create 120,000 jobs and boost the local economy to £20 billion by 2035. 

Yesterday, I asked the Cabinet Secretary to respond to the north Wales growth deal bid's invitation to the Welsh Government to support the formation of a regional transport body with powers delegated to the body from local authorities and the Welsh Government to allow it to operate in an executive capacity and with a fund of £150 million over 10 years, including the Welsh Government's existing £50 million for the north Wales metro commitment. His potentially concerning response was instead:

'We've already established the north Wales and north-east Wales metro steering group'.

Will he therefore have the courage to devolve the powers that north Wales is calling for, or could the Cardiff command-control mechanism compromise the whole project?

As has already been stated, city deals offer a new opportunity to bring together a range of stakeholders to really boost the economies of Wales. It offers a new, joined-up way of working. Importantly, they will be backed up by an injection of capital that could help deliver major infrastructural benefits. But it is important that we get city deals right, that their governance is understandable and recognisable. They must also meet the objectives laid out by the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 and offer communities the opportunities they need.

These are the points I want to make today. Firstly, recommendation 2: democratic accountability is key to ensuring the city deals fulfil their potential to boost our economy. Governance must be transparent, expectations clear, and outcomes easy to monitor. It's important that communities know how their money is being spent. It's also vital that they, and their representatives, whether elected to this Assembly, to council chambers, or to Parliament, are able to purposefully engage and scrutinise decision makers. All this will help determine ownership. I understand similar points have been made by the Scottish Parliament's local government committee during its considerations of city deals in Scotland.

I think there's an important parallel here, perhaps, with the European Union. We know that EU funding helped deliver some really beneficial projects across areas like mine, but many in those communities never felt that sense of ownership. They didn't know where the money went, what it was achieving or delivering. This fuelled the anti-politics feeling that manifested itself in 2016's Brexit vote. We cannot let the city deals fall into the same trap. I welcome the Cabinet Secretary's strong response to this recommendation. Similarly, on recommendation 3, there should be clear recognition and awareness of exactly what success and failure looks like. However, as I've said, we need to be bold and dynamic and ensure this information is not just retained by deal partners, but shared and understood at the grass-roots level also.

The sixth recommendation is also very important. The well-being of future generations goals rightly underpin the work and objectives of the city deal initiative. For example, in terms of the prosperity and equality goals, it is good to note the Welsh Government's response to the report. The comment that spreading economic benefits across the regions is key to the city and growth deals is important. As a socialist, I am convinced that economic redistribution is key to measuring the success of the city deals. During evidence, we did hear some concerns from Colegau Cymru about the possibility of the Valleys being hollowed out. We must make sure that this hollowing out does not occur. Transport links, as previously mentioned, are critical to this and they must be genuinely two-way. They must bring investment and prosperity into the Valleys, just as they take Valleys workers out for jobs in Cardiff or elsewhere. The south Wales metro project will really be key to this.

I also briefly want to touch upon recommendation 10. When we heard from witnesses, the benefits of local authorities and private sector partners being able to engage with multiple city deals came through quite strongly. So, our recommendation that borders be fuzzy and flexible makes sense. This is also an area where I know first-hand from my constituency that such an approach would work best. For example, communities like Hirwaun look towards and have strong communication links with Swansea, although they're part of the Cardiff capital region and Cardiff capital city deal. These areas on the boundaries could really benefit from being able to engage in a bespoke way with both Cardiff and Swansea city regions. The response of the Welsh Government on this recommendation is therefore, I feel, disappointing. I previously raised this during a session of FMQs and welcomed the First Minister's expressed views that there wouldn't be any strong boundaries. I hope the Cabinet Secretary can give us further reassurances around this point when he replies to the debate today.

I've welcomed the opportunity to contribute to today's debate and to the wider inquiry conducted by the economy committee. My thanks to the Chair, to other Members, and the clerking team, and I would like to echo previously expressed thanks to all of our witnesses too. I look forward to seeing how the city deals work so we can see the development of the regional economies that Wales undoubtedly needs to compete and thrive in the future.

I've considered this report very carefully, and with the understanding that I'm sure that all in this Chamber want the Welsh Government to succeed in its stated aim of providing prosperity for all. However, before I comment on this report, I have to put it in the perspective that the Labour Party has been in power in Wales for all of this Assembly's existence, and, in that time, we've seen many strategies and Ministers come and go. My fear is that we still do not have a joined-up economic plan for Wales. It seems that any cohesive—. What comes out of this report is that it seems that any cohesive economic plan is obviated by the various and spatially different layers of delivery bodies charged with delivering this economic plan, a position that is exacerbated by a number of others being envisaged. This is hardly the bonfire of quangos that Rhodri Morgan promised 13 years ago.

One recommendation in this report was that the Welsh Government should put a duty on regional bodies to promote economic development and inclusive growth, with a discretion to spend a substantial amount of funding, whether from Welsh Government or raised within the region. But it is difficult to imagine this happening with the current outmoded 22 local authorities. This is not the fault of the authorities themselves, but is purely down to the size of the budgets they manage and the limited nature of their competences. The recent changes to local government spoke only of cross-regional collaboration, with no direct amalgamation of the authorities, which begs the question: was this strategy simply one of political expediency rather than economic viability? Is it not time to explore regional government based on the five regions of the Assembly, with the possible exception of splitting mid and west Wales into two regions, given the huge geographic spread? Surely this would be more likely to dovetail into the regional concept of the Government's economic action plan.

If the economic action plan is to give prosperity to all it must realise the need to reduce the tax burden on the hard-working families of Wales. This can only be achieved by cutting out the layers of bureaucracy and unnecessary governance that now exist. This multilayered multibodied economic model also means scrutiny of stated goals is made far more difficult. As to whose interventions have led to any success or failure, it will be almost impossible to evaluate. Let us create an economy in Wales that is founded on a dynamic business and manufacturing base, not an overburdened public sector. With the greater economic wealth this brings, we shall be better able to fund the vital services that make up that public sector.

We cannot overestimate the importance of the Development Bank of Wales and Business Wales in bringing about this sea change in Welsh economic policy. They will be fundamental in providing the finance and expertise necessary in building this entrepreneurial, business-led economy. The world outside Wales is changing dramatically and we need to embrace what is now being called the fourth industrial revolution, a range of new technologies that are impacting on all disciplines, economies and industries, and even challenging ideas about what it means to be human. Sir Terry Matthews believes we should move towards driving innovation and the focus should be on linking up business with the best research as a means of exploiting this new unknown. We acknowledge that our universities have a major role to play in these developments, so we welcome the £135 million innovation centre for Cardiff University, but would ask: should we be replicating this in north Wales?

Llywydd, if we want a Wales economy fit for the twenty-first century, we must have a delivery plan that is lean, dynamic and free from bureaucratic red tape.

This is a useful short report to highlight some of the benefits, but also some of the hazards, potentially, ahead. I think it's fantastic that we've got 10 local authorities in the Cardiff capital region collaborating together, because obviously when we're trying to sort out our connectivity and other transport arrangements we need to make for our communities, we need to work together. It's ridiculous to have artificial boundaries. So, that's all very well and good, and I note the positive comments of Andrew Morgan, saying that, because the local authorities have worked well together, that has also encouraged the Welsh Government to work effectively with those 10 local authorities. So, that's all very good stuff.

I think some of my concerns relate to some of the things that the report mentions that are around governance and transparency, because I'd like to think that I pay quite a lot of attention to the Cardiff capital region, not least because, at the moment, most of the money is going to be going into the transport arrangements for the region, and that's something I have a particular interest in. But I note the concerns of the Bevan Foundation and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation about the lack of transparency, and that's a little bit what I experience myself. I really don't know how decisions are being made as to how this £734 million for stage 2 of the metro is being decided. Because if it's merely going to go into upgrading the existing railway lines, it's good news for the communities who already benefit from those railway lines, but not at all good news for those communities that don't have any of the benefit of the railway lines that were closed long ago under Beeching. There's a lack of clarity in my mind about how we're really going to have a comprehensive approach to ensuring that all our communities are connected so that we don't have communities left behind. That's one of the other things that was flagged up by the Bevan Foundation and Joseph Rowntree—you'll have a tunnel effect of pulling in resources into particular areas that will suck out resources from other areas. Those are things we absolutely have to guard against.

There are massive concerns around the unknowns. It obviously will be of benefit for Wales to have control of its own transport destiny, because it's interesting to remember that, in the high-level output specification that is determined by the Secretary of State for Transport in Westminster, one of the two objectives was to electrify the line between London and Swansea, and we all know what happened there. So, at what point do they suddenly change the goalposts in relation to Transport for Wales and the electrification of the Valleys lines? I think there are risks in all of this, and also there are other risks that we've also seen played out elsewhere in the UK, around the north-east of England franchise that was bid on by Virgin and Stagecoach and then shortly into the contract they've decided to hand it back. Obviously, there are huge financial risks if our preferred bidder for the all-Wales franchise gets it wrong.

I welcome the report because it highlights some of the things that we really need to focus on. I think it's particularly important that the auditor general highlights the importance of tracking the performance of the metro phase 2 project so that we are able to see where the slippage is and where things are going wrong and where things are not being delivered. We've already seen some worrying ballooning of the M4 relief road estimates and we clearly need to ensure that we are clear about what we're setting out to do with this £734 million and what are the milestones that we're supposed to be achieving with that money. But, for myself, I don't feel I've been consulted or that my constituents have been consulted on the shape of the metro at all at this stage.

Can I begin by thanking the committee for conducting this inquiry? I think it's a very valuable examination of progress and obstacles identified to date. As Members in the Swansea bay city region will know, we’ve had an absolute devil of a time trying to get the shadow board to meet with us for a briefing session on progress. I tend to agree with Jenny and Vikki Howells, bearing in mind the comments made about transparency in this report; it’s worth all city deal leaders remembering that they can only gain from engagement with all parties collectively. Being open and candid with us now, particularly with those of us who will be interested in scrutinising this as it goes along, can only be of help in building trust.

I was struck by the report’s findings on the opacity of the governance structures generally. As a relative newcomer to the world of these deals, I would have hoped to see some evidence of the Welsh bodies learning lessons from those who have gone before. I have no problem at all with each deal and its structures being different. Attempts at unified approaches in the name of consistency or an all-Wales identity have seen many a promising policy flounder in delivery as the best local outcome has been sacrificed on the altar of homogenous processes. Even so, some or maybe all of these deals, as they stand now, have really tested the conclusion that I’ve drawn over my years as an Assembly Member.

In terms of accountability and contrary to received wisdom, I've often found it easier to get answers from arm's length bodies—separate, independent bodies, anyway—than I have from Government itself, and so far, these deals don't fit that conclusion. So, I'm pleased to see that recommendations 2, 3, 6 and 8 all speak to scrutiny, understanding, assessment and monitoring, not in a way that is about ensuring that boards stick to a Government-determined process, but in a way that allows us to see clearly what a board is hoping to achieve, and that their chosen way of getting there is effective and fair. And I think that's going to be especially important when these deals are approaching their fifth anniversary.

Knowing what good enough progress against agreed key performance indicators looks like at this milestone has to be a priority, I think. The risk of central Government funding, from both sides, not being forthcoming at this five-year point could be high, and it worries me that almost a fifth of the time, at least in the case of Swansea bay, has slipped by and we haven't even pinned down the governance structure. The gateway assessment phase has 'political football' written all over it if progress is dilatory, and I for one would rather be singing the praises about how the lives of my constituents are starting to improve as a result of economic growth, than kicking that ball around in the predictable and traditional blame game.

There are two findings I'd particularly like to look at, as they're especially relevant to my region, and they're touched upon in a number of recommendations, and the first is the alignment—I'm a bit worried about the word 'alignment', but let's use that—with Welsh and UK strategies. I start from the point that the intrinsic autonomy of these deals offers the chance to actually outstrip these various strategies in terms of outcomes, but there is little sense in working at complete cross purposes and ending up in a spaghetti bowl of competing initiatives. The Valleys taskforce, for example, needs to be in harmony but not necessarily clamped to the city deals in terms of vision and mutual leverage.

I think the structures embodied in the future generations Act could facilitate some common objectives, or they could be more spaghetti in a bowl; I really don't know. But where I think the Act's influence must come to bear is on bringing some flexibility on this issue of well-being being an outcome of the deal, as well as GDP, because the latter really is not of huge significance if it doesn't actually improve the former. I'd also like to see, as a core ambition, a demonstrable move towards co-production, where the beneficiaries of economic growth, namely our constituents, are active participants in the process. It's a real opportunity for a better balanced approach to achieving common goals. 

Secondly and finally, recommendation 10. I also urge you, Cabinet Secretary, to reconsider your view on this. The harmony of vision is not about markers on maps, and I'm really concerned that the boundary between these two city deals runs right through South Wales West with an artificiality that clashes with local identity and local potential workflow. And the worry is not that Bridgend will get the best of both worlds but that it will benefit from neither, at the same time as the council carrying financial risk of failure to get past the gateway assessment. By all means suggest mechanisms to protect from abuse of accountability, Cabinet Secretary, but please let the deals take responsibility for managing fuzzy boundaries instead of obliging them to bang their heads on solid walls. Thank you. 

Can I also join others in thanking Russell George and the committee for this report? The report certainly highlights a number of very important issues about the need to focus on delivering improved outcomes for our communities from the deals, and to avoid the burden of bureaucracy that runs throughout that report. And that's never easy because, for example, since this particular scrutiny work started, we saw the publication of 'Our Valleys, Our Future', which is another layer of expectations to be delivered by many of the same bodies. Yet, that vital relationship between the city deal and the Valleys strategy doesn't seem to have formed any clear part of the committee's considerations, at least not that which is reflected on the face of the report, which I think is a point that Hefin was making. And I accept that that may just be a matter of timing, because there is evidence in the report—from the submissions of the Bevan Foundation, Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Wales TUC, and, indeed, Russell George alluded to it himself in his opening remarks—that the needs of our most disadvantaged communities were raised. I'd be interested to hear how those matters weighed in the deliberations of the committee.

Llywydd, the comments I want to make are not aimed specifically at any particular recommendations but are more general to the report's conclusions as a whole. But again, to echo some of the points made by Hefin and also by Vikki Howells, to achieve that end, the deal has to deliver tangible benefits to all the citizens in the region. So, if Cardiff and Newport get shiny, new investments out of the deal, I won't be complaining about that—they'll be regional assets and we'll all use them. But clearly, that in itself will not be sufficient to say that it's been a success. Success will be the upgrading of skills and economic opportunities in places like Merthyr Tydfil, delivering even better connections from the wider region into Merthyr, identified as arguably one of the most significant Valleys economic hubs. That will be absolutely vital, because with better connections into places like Merthyr, then public investment decisions, including locations for public sector investment, not only make sense but can be justified with tangible outcomes like jobs and economic growth.

Success will be areas like the upper Rhymney valley feeling an uplift because many of the partners across the wider region, including the other nine local authorities now in partnership with Caerphilly, will have seen and recognised the needs of these communities. Success will be seeing areas like neighbouring Blaenau Gwent benefiting, because that Heads of the Valleys axis of Merthyr, Rhymney and Blaenau Gwent are the very areas most in need of what I would call a better deal, not just a city deal. If I can quote from the Chair's foreword to the report,

'If deals are to be a key driver of future economic activity in Wales, then we need to ensure there is clarity about what is happening'.

Well, those of us who represent Valleys communities have a very clear view about what needs to happen in those areas of greatest disadvantage. A city deal must help improve the places that need that better deal. Only then will it be a success.   

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport, Ken Skates. 

Diolch, Llywydd. Can I start by expressing my appreciation to Members for the opportunity to respond to this debate today and also put on record my thanks to committee members in particular for their insightful report, including the Chair of the committee, Russell George, who I agree has shown an admirable degree of balance and objectivity in leading this inquiry?

I welcome both the committee's inquiry and their recognition that city and growth deals offer Wales and our regions an important opportunity to unlock additional UK Government funding to support interventions that can deliver inclusive economic growth. I'm pleased that we have been able to accept the vast majority of the committee's recommendations. I also welcome the acknowledgement in the report that city and growth deals are not merely about funding. They are not simply another funding stream through which to pursue individual, stand-alone projects that are unable to secure support in any other way. They are, together with our economic action plan, a way in which collectively we can develop a stronger and more strategic economic agenda that can support the communities, businesses and individuals in that area.

Now, as a Government, we have recognised the importance of a regional approach and we're proud of our record on jobs, with over 185,000 supported in the last six years. Over the last year, the employment rate in Wales has been at or close to record levels with more people in employment than ever before. As I've said on numerous occasions now, the benefits of economic growth have not fallen evenly. There are still large differences between different parts of Wales. We recognise that not every part of Wales has had its fair share of growth and we recognise that Wales is composed of regions that have their own distinct opportunities, their distinct identities and, of course, their distinct and unique challenges.

So, by introducing a regional dimension to economic development through the economic action plan, I believe that we can develop the distinctive strengths of each region in Wales, working in partnership with city and growth deal areas. Each region of Wales will therefore have a specific focus in this new model of regional economic development. Chief regional officers have been appointed and are already engaging with stakeholders across the regions and, of course, with one another, to ensure that activities across the regions are complementary and co-ordinated. This will help us shape Welsh Government delivery, so that we can better respond to the specific opportunities in each region.

Llywydd, both city deals in Wales have solid foundations already and a strong basis to achieve their economic ambitions, and within each region, progress is clearly being made. The £1.2 billion Cardiff city region city deal has the south Wales metro at its very heart, and that is our major contribution to that particular deal. Led by Welsh Government, the procurement process is well under way, with a memorandum of understanding agreed between the Welsh Government and the city deal joint cabinet. But as Vikki Howells said, city deal should not lead to growth in some areas and to no growth or, indeed, to decline in other areas. City deal should and must lead to inclusive growth, delivering wealth-creating opportunities across regions, and I do think that the metro is designed to do just this—to bring new life to dormant communities. I do think that our approach to the development of Merthyr in recent years can act as a blueprint for the regeneration of many, many more communities across south-east Wales.

We've welcomed the plans to invest £37 million to create a world-leading technology cluster in Newport as the first project to be supported by this £1.2 billion deal. This is expected to create more than 2,000 jobs and is backed by £12 million from Welsh Government. Following the signing of the £1.3 billion Swansea bay city region deal, detailed business cases are being developed for 11 projects. Governance arrangements are also being agreed to provide strong leadership and accountability for the deal's successful delivery, and we are continuing, of course, to work with the north Wales region and the North Wales Economic Ambition Board to consider how a north Wales growth deal can best support their aspirations to bring further economic growth—further economic growth to build on the success that we have driven in north Wales.

We only need to look at the investment that Welsh Government is making in north Wales to realise the potential of that region if the UK Government opens its pockets and invests in north Wales as well. There is £600 million ready from Welsh Government to invest in infrastructure, such as the A494, a third Menai crossing, the Bontnewydd to Caernarfon bypass, the A55, the Welsh advanced manufacturing institute, the Development Bank of Wales's headquarters, the Business Wales hub, M-SParc. I'm looking forward to fully scrutinising and supporting proposals contained within the north Wales bid.

But, of course, the big ticket item in north Wales that people constantly speak to me about is transport. I'm responsible, in many respects, for transport, but there is a huge ask on the UK Government to uplift the spending on rail infrastructure, which has lagged behind the UK average. It's lagged behind for far too long. We've only enjoyed approximately 1 to 1.5 per cent of rail infrastructure spend in the last five years. That is simply unacceptable, given that we have 5 per cent of rail infrastructure in Wales.

Now, in mid Wales, Powys and Ceredigion are developing Growing Mid Wales—

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, of course.

On that point, what was the figure when Labour were in Government?

When Labour were in Government, I think it's fair to say that investment in rail was substantial, but there is always room for a further investment, and that's why Welsh Government is investing in the metro in south Wales—more than £700 million—and that's why we are investing in the north Wales metro with initial seed funding of £50 million. I would urge the Member to support, not denigrate, the work that is being done to ensure that the north Wales metro is a huge success.

As I say, in mid Wales—[Interruption.]—Powys and Ceredigion are developing Growing Mid Wales, which draws together local and national Government to create a vision for the future growth of mid Wales. We've welcomed details from the Growing Mid Wales partnership on how a deal could support this vision. Again, Welsh Government remains committed to fuelling economic growth in mid Wales, and I'm pleased that we've been supporting the rapid growth of businesses in Welshpool, including Zip-Clip and Charlies, and the infrastructure of Newtown, with spend on the much-needed bypass. I do believe that a deal could build on this significant investment.

But to meet the challenges of today and the opportunities of tomorrow, our economic action plan sets out how we, as a Government, will continue to grow the economy and spread opportunity, and in doing so, provide a stronger voice for our regions. We remain committed to delivering successful deals across Wales as part of that vision in the plan—a plan for driving inclusive growth.

City and growth deals have the potential to make a lasting impact on our regions, providing that they respect the devolution settlement. And in that context, I do welcome the strong cross-party support again shown in this debate today.

I call on Russell George to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I thank all Members for taking part in this debate today, especially Members who are not members of the committee? It's always welcome to have contributions from Members who didn't take part in our committee as well.

I'll comment on a few of the items that were mentioned today. Hefin David and Dai Lloyd, particularly, talked about getting the collaboration right and getting the right deals, and, of course, made points about the goals being set by the local areas and that being a particularly important matter for all the city deals. For me, I think that's very much what I would agree with, and it seems that the Welsh and UK Governments would agree with that position as well. Of course, Dai Lloyd, Hefin David and, indeed, Jenny Rathbone also talked about the need for working together, and it got me thinking, as all three spoke, that it's pretty amazing that 10 local authorities can— . It's difficult to get two local authorities working together, but 10 local authorities working together—of different political colours—and coming together with a joint plan, but also having the UK Government and the Welsh Government sat around the table as well, all agreeing a plan together and signing that plan—that, of course, I think, is what politics should be about, and that's what I think the public want to see.

Mark Isherwood, as you would expect, also talked about the north Wales growth bid and the need to link and work with the Northern Powerhouse. And, of course, the North Wales Economic Ambition Board has submitted its bid and we hope that we'll soon be able to talk about a third deal for Wales, followed by a fourth deal after that. 

Can I thank David Rowlands for his contribution and for widening out the debate to other thought-provoking areas as well? And Dawn Bowden also, of course, in her contribution, talked about other areas that the committee perhaps could look at in the future—that's how I took what Dawn's contribution made to the debate. I have to say, it was a very tight remit that we had. It's a big issue to look at all the growth deals and the potential for a mid Wales growth deal, so our remit was tight, to a certain extent. But some of the issues that you mentioned, Dawn—I think there's scope in there for further work that we can do as a committee.

I'm coming on now to talk about the fuzzy boundaries. Suzy Davies talked about this and about markers on the map, and she gave the example of the potential difficulties for places like Bridgend in this regard. And, of course, Suzy made a point about local authorities being able to make this decision and take note of these matters for themselves. I'm hoping that we can persuade the Cabinet Secretary to change his position on the fuzzy boundaries recommendation. Vikki Howells made the point that she had raised this, of course, with the First Minister in First Minister's questions, and that he was very much supportive of a fuzzy boundaries model. So, we have got an ally around the Cabinet table, but we've also got other allies as well, because I should say we've got Hannah Blythyn and Jeremy Miles, who also were part of this committee, and I should thank them for their part and their work with the committee. But, of course, they're also very keen on and very supportive of this particular recommendation as well. So, we've got at least three allies around the Cabinet table. On a serious note, I hope that the logic that we've provided with regard to our fuzzy boundaries will, perhaps, change the Cabinet Secretary's mind at some point as well. 

I'm also pleased—

Will you also accept an intervention on fuzzy boundaries? [Laughter.]

Yes.

As a Member of a constituency where people look south to your constituency, they look south-west to Owen Paterson's constituency, north to Wrexham and Delyn, east to Chester, and west into my colleague's area of Wales, I think it's absolutely essential that we respect that economic development sees no boundaries. But there is also a need for governance arrangements that are very clear.

My belief is that there will be no need for fuzzy boundaries, provided the deals are complementary, and given that we're establishing the roles of chief regional officers to ensure that those deals are complementary and to make sure that communities and businesses across each of the regions can benefit, not just from interventions and projects in their own growth or city deal regions, but also in those that are adjoining—. I'd say that not just for the developments that have taken place within Wales, but also on a cross-border basis in England as well. So, that's why we're very keen to ensure that there's full complementarity of the projects that are contained within the growth deals on the English side of the border to those that are contained within those here in Wales.

I very much agree with what the Cabinet Secretary said. In the new, potential mid Wales growth deal, there's the cross-collaboration work in there with the midlands engine, but I appreciate, as a constituency Assembly Member like me, you also represent a constituency that absolutely has to work across boundaries. I think, in many ways, we're perhaps talking with crossed wires to a point where we're agreeing with each other. Certainly, in Scotland, we've seen the example there of city deals overlapping across their boundaries as well. But I absolutely accept the argument for clear governance. I think, perhaps, we're not too far away; perhaps it's just an issue of terminology.

Can I, really, end by thanking all those who took part in the debate today? I also want to put on record my thanks to those who gave time to the inquiry and gave their expertise to the inquiry, in particular the staff of Glasgow city deal, FSB Scotland and RSPB Scotland, who generously welcomed us to Scotland's largest city. I'd also like to thank the committee clerks and the integrated team for all the support that they've given us as Members as well in putting this report together. Of course, I do thank the Government for accepting the vast majority of our recommendations.

The proposal is to note the committee's report. Does any Member object? The motion is therefore agreed.

The next item is the Welsh Conservatives' debate, and I call on Andrew R.T. Davies to move the motion. Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. It's a pleasure to rise to move the motion on the order paper today in the name of Paul Davies, looking at, obviously, the 'Prosperity for All' economic action plan that the Welsh Government laid before the Assembly and presented to the people of Wales just before the Christmas recess. It has had a fair degree of scrutiny, this document, and it's had three previous documents before it that, obviously, successfully laid out economic policy from previous Welsh Labour Governments that sought to outline economic activity, economic opportunity and prosperity for Wales. It is fair to say that all three failed to live up to the expectations that they sought to achieve. When you look at the hard facts of gross value added, for example, in the 20 years of Labour Government in Wales, GVA has gone up by 0.5 per cent in the 20-year period. If you look at wages, for example, which are another key indicator, a Scottish worker would have started at the same level of pay as a Welsh worker in 1999; today, that same Scottish worker is taking home £49 a week more in their pay packet than a Welsh worker.

No-one wants economic inactivity, no-one wants economic failure. It is an important role of Government to work with communities and work with businesses to deliver those opportunities, but it is fair to say that it is difficult to imagine how this document will differ from the three predecessors that sought to liberate many of the communities across Wales and spread the wealth of Wales more equally around Wales so that communities do not feel left behind. As I look across the Chamber, I can see the Member for Ynys Môn in front of me, and, regrettably, Ynys Môn, for example, has the lowest GVA in the country, it does. If you come down to the south, an area I represent, the capital city of Cardiff, which has benefited from realignment of opportunities through the Cardiff Bay regeneration that's gone on, to the financial service sectors—. But if you look at Cardiff as a capital city against the other capital cities of the UK—Belfast, Edinburgh and London—Belfast, our nearest rival, if you like, on GVA measurement, has a £5,000 a head advantage over Cardiff. If you it take against Edinburgh, you're talking £7,000 a head advantage. And then if you take London, which I take is a separate economy entirely, a £10,000 to £12,000 a head advantage. Those sorts of sums, after 20 years of devolution, really shouldn't be in existence, and the Welsh Government really should be more imaginative and bolder in the way that it's putting forward its economic policies to try and make up some of that ground.

The reason for this debate today is actually to pinpoint why this document lacks so much confidence. When you do talk—and it is fair to say, since its introduction, I have had the good opportunity to speak to many businesses and many organisations the length and breadth of Wales. They too lack the confidence that this document should have ingrained in them that the Welsh Government will be able to close some of these hard, economic indicators that have existed for many years.

It could well be the fact that the entire document is not based on any significant economic intelligence because, obviously, this is a line of questioning that I have put to the First Minister as to why the Welsh Government, in developing economic policy, has not developed an economic intelligence unit to look at the input/output tables, so that you know what you're putting in and what you're going to get out from the programmes and initiatives that you put in place. Many other countries across the globe rely on that type of data, and rely on that type of understanding of economic activity, to shape the policies and shape the initiatives that have moved the indicators positively for the communities that those Governments represent. In fairness, when it comes to Scotland, for example, they have commissioned a dedicated unit at Strathclyde university to make sure that that activity informs Scottish Government policy in the field of economic development and economic opportunity.

But I do go back to the point, in listening to the previous debate, that the Cabinet Secretary touched on how he sees his vision of the regional directors that he has put in place, which this document talks of in glowing terms, as being the game changer to the delivery of economic policy here in Wales. How does he? Because when you read this document, there are no indicators of what progress there will be in GVA; there are no indicators of where wages will go over the lifetime of this document. How does he believe that the new structures will be able to give that distinctive strength that he talks of to the regions of Wales? How will the regional directors, who are obviously going to be empowered—I would hope—from the Welsh Government to drive forward Government initiatives, make an impact where their predecessors have failed in the past?

I well remember now, with 10 years under my belt in this Assembly, much of the talk around the enterprise zones that were delivered here in Wales—enterprise zones that, on the surface, seemed to promise to deliver much and have consumed much wealth from the Welsh Government: £221 million of public money; but when you actually look at their impact across Wales, have achieved significantly varying results. And in the areas where they should achieve better results, where the challenges are greater, their impact has been minimal. I notice that the document talks little about the enterprise zones and the creation or development—or continued development—of that initiative that was underpinning much of the economic development that the Welsh Government had in the last term. So, again, from a lessons learned exercise, how does this document give us the confidence that the Welsh Government will be able to have that reach around the length and breadth of Wales, that previous initiatives, such as the enterprise zones, have failed to deliver?

Also, the one thing, again, I do think that this document fails to recognise is the devolution of responsibility when it comes to economic development in England. There isn't a single mention in this document about metro mayors or city mayors in England and how that cross-border working could enhance greater opportunities the length and breadth of Wales. If you look at Bristol, for example, if you look at the mayor for the west midlands, Andy Street, if you look at, obviously, Liverpool, and if you look at Manchester—four huge economic drivers right the length and breadth of Offa's Dyke—there is a huge—in one breath—competition for any investment that might be there, but there's also—in another breath—a great opportunity for collaboration, and yet after reading this document, it doesn't mention those opportunities once in it. Not once. That, surely, is an admission, Cabinet Secretary, of what you might be able to achieve when you collaboratively work across the border that is Offa's Dyke.

I also make the point in my opening remarks about how we are going to make that difference from being, regrettably, a low-wage economy to an economy that does deliver wages that are more comparable to other parts of the United Kingdom. I've used the example of that £49 a week going into pay packets in Scotland, but I could have pulled any region of England or Northern Ireland, because, regrettably, we have the lowest take-home pay of any part of the United Kingdom. This document, again, only mentions the word 'wages' twice. It mentions the word 'wages' twice, and when it comes to taxes, which is a new lever that the Welsh Government has, it actually mentions 'taxes' once. Surely, those are major areas that any economic document should be looking at, if it is looking to improve the lives of the people of Wales.

And then the big challenge for us on job creation and job preservation, which has been debated in this Chamber, around automation, if you look in eight years' time, the projections are that 25 per cent of the jobs will be lost here in Wales because of automation—or recalibrated to new roles, if we're streetwise enough to make sure that we are keeping up with that progress. By 2035, it will be 35 per cent of jobs here in Wales that will be lost or recalibrated. I hope it will be a recalibration, not a loss. But, again, the document does not offer any route-map as to how we will work with industry and how Government policy will seek to implement change and assist business to implement that change. Surely, again, any document that has a vision for where we're going to be in the future should be addressing that head-on.

If I could ask the Cabinet Secretary in his response—it might well just be a printing oversight in here, but I do notice that, where it talks of transport infrastructure projects that will be supported by the Welsh Government on page 37, it talks very specifically about the north-east gateway on the A494, it talks about the third Menai crossing; it doesn't mention the black route, Cabinet Secretary. It just says 'M4' full stop. Given what we know about the spiralling costs associated with that project, can the Cabinet Secretary confirm that that is an oversight and that it is in fact a key part of Government policy to deliver the M4 black route—not just improvements on the M4, but the M4 black route? I'm assuming it's an oversight, but it is something that, when I was reading the document, I did notice. Despite the detailed description of other transport projects, there's a rather vague note when it comes to the M4, and I think many people would gladly wish to understand exactly how the Cabinet Secretary is handling those cost pressures within his budget.

So, it would have been good to stand here today and endorse this document, but with little or no—[Interruption.] The Cabinet Secretary for rural affairs obviously sighs. As Hefin David said earlier, the real Russell George was in the last debate. The real Andrew Davies is passionate about making sure that economic development reaches all communities in Wales, and I fully accept—I fully accept—that the Government have a mandate till 2021, and the decisions that the Government take will impact on communities the length and breadth of Wales. It would be good to stand here and have confidence that this document does make a difference from its three predecessors.

But, as I said, with little or no economic intelligence going into this document that I could see or that I can find in the research notes to it, with little or no indicators to measure progress and the direction of progress that the Welsh Government wishes to undertake, and with little or no references to, at least as I see it, the three major challenges that any economic document should undertake—which are increasing wages here in Wales; working with industry to make sure that the agenda of automation is focused on and job security is protected and we continue to create quality jobs; and above all that we work across our borders with the economic opportunities that are there with the devolved economic development opportunities that the mayors and metro mayors have in England; none of those issues are touched on in this document—how can you have confidence in the document actually being any different from its three predecessors? And that's why I call on the Chamber to support the motion that is down in the name of Paul Davies today, saying that we lack the confidence that this document will make those changes that we would all wish to see here in Wales.

I have selected the two amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call on Caroline Jones to move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Neil Hamilton. Caroline Jones.

Diolch, Llywydd. I'd like to move the amendment tabled by my colleague Neil Hamilton. UKIP tabled amendment 1 to highlight the situation we find ourselves in with regard to the Welsh economy.

Both the Conservatives and Labour blame each other for the dire economic situation in Wales, when in fact they're both to blame. Labour have been in charge of Welsh economic development for nearly 20 years, but failed to improve our economic performance. The inept handling of EU structural funds saw the downfall of Wales's first First Secretary. Unfortunately, lessons weren't learnt from this and, as a result, billions of pounds were wasted and failed to improve our economic fortunes. Objective 1 funding was supposed to be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to improve Wales's economy. It’s a damning indictment of successive Welsh Labour Governments, propped up by other governments, that Wales continued to qualify for EU funding.

Labour’s first economic strategy promised to close the GDP gap with the rest of the UK. They even set a target of 90 per cent of UK GDP by 2010. Not only did we not achieve that growth, our economy went backwards. The target became an aspiration and became history when it was quietly dropped.

Various Labour Ministers now blame the Tory UK Government for Wales's poverty, but during the first decade of this Assembly we had a Labour Government and a Chancellor who believed in massive borrowing and spending, and in that time our economy went backwards.

We do now have a Tory UK Government who have massively curbed public spending because of the fiscal mess left behind by Gordon Brown. However, they are also partially responsible for the mess we find ourselves in. Since 2010, the UK Government have saddled our economy with more debt. Yes—debt used to fund—

She kept quiet about this when she was in our party.

She was, she was. That's why she left.

Debt used to fund vanity projects like HS2, which will cost the UK taxpayer over £70 billion and has been monumentally mismanaged—the row surrounding outgoing staff being overpaid by nearly £2 million just the latest in a catalogue of waste, which has seen the costs more than double, and some reports suggest it could be triple the initial costs by the time it's completed. Debt used to fund an out-of-control overseas aid budget, which now stands at over £12 billion.

Says UKIP.

No, no, no. This is fact. This is fact. This fact.

In the last few days we learnt of a project—[Interruption.] No. We learnt of a project that is supposed to deliver wells, water pumps and irrigation across southern Africa, yet nearly 70 per cent of that funding did not go to the people it was supposed to reach. It went on consultancy fees, with staff being paid £600 per day.

How can we justify a foreign aid budget where the top beneficiary, Pakistan, spends over £2 billion a year on nuclear weapons, and the tenth largest beneficiary, India, spends £1 billion on a space programme? Come on. Let's get it right. We must use overseas aid to benefit the people who really need this aid, and it's not getting there.

Will the Member give way?

Yes, I will, David.

I'm unsure whether you're arguing for the aid budget to be used in a different way or whether you want to cut the aid budget. Because your colleague sat next to you often tells us how you'd like that part of the UK's budget to be cut dramatically.

Yes, but it's been in the paper, David, and on the news, that your party also wants to cut it.

No, we don't.

The UK Government must stop wasting the taxes of hard-working taxpayers and instead concentrate on ensuring that large multinationals pay their fair share. They should scrap HS2 and invest in infrastructure projects that truly benefit the UK, such as ultrafast broadband and universal mobile coverage.

The Welsh Government need to learn from past mistakes. They need to deliver a long-term economic policy designed around a low-tax economy and more proportionate business regulation, rather than pursuing an anti-business agenda. Every person in Wales and, indeed, the UK has a basic right and a human right to have a roof over their head and this is not the case and this is what I will fight to change.

Both Governments must work together for the sake and benefit of Wales rather than continue to blame each other and do nothing about it. You are both to blame and you both have the tools to fix our economy, and it's time you put the people of Wales before party politics.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport to move formally amendment 2, tabled in the name of Julie James.

Formally.

Since coming into power in 1999, this Welsh Labour Government have brought forward a trilogy of three major economic strategies, and here we see another. Twenty years ago, weekly wages in Wales and Scotland were on par. Today, residents in Scotland earn £49 per week more. Twenty years ago, Wales was at the very bottom of the GVA league table for the United Kingdom's home nations. Today, it is still there. We have the lowest median gross weekly earnings in the whole of the UK, the joint-lowest growth rate of gross disposable household income per capita, and regional inequality remains stark across Wales. Incredible.

There are incredible disparities in terms of GVA per capita—a difference of £9,372 between Ynys Môn in north Wales and Cardiff and the Vale in south Wales. So, it's quite often, isn't it, that my constituents ask me, 'Janet, why are there these inequalities?', 'Janet, why does all the money stay in south Wales?', and it is a fact that we, as north Wales Members, have to shout louder and fight harder.

But we are prepared to challenge this Welsh Labour Government for the same economic benefits for our equally deserving businesses and residents in north Wales. It is little wonder that the 'Prosperity for All' economic action plan is viewed with scepticism by many. Maybe one should question this Government's enthusiasm for writing plans instead of supporting meaningful and tangible projects, such as the incredible work by so many on the north Wales growth deal. But, again, this does need the Welsh Government to put their hands in their pockets and ensure their support so that this just does not end up as another deal in document only, confined to the dusty shelves of Cardiff Bay.

The recent budget has undermined the action plan by cutting funding for business innovation by £1.2 million, innovation centres of research and development by £1.7 million, and the delivery of ICT infrastructure by over £1 million. To me, that is a complete contradiction of terms as regards ambition. Hardly a mention of the Development Bank of Wales. Instead, over £1.7 million now removed from its operating grant next year. Enterprise zones receiving over £221 million of public funding, in some areas equating to just one job created at a cost to the taxpayer for that job of around £250,000. It's scandalous. Annual spend on enterprise zones has more than quadrupled in three years, yet statistics released only today by the Office for National Statistics show that unemployment in Wales has risen by 0.8 per cent—the highest of all UK nations.

Meanwhile, our hard-working business owners face ever-rising business rates; one of my constituents now facing an increase of almost 2,000 per cent, fast making Wales the most expensive place in Britain to run a business—a 51.4p multiplier meaning businesses will have to pay over half of their annual estimated rent in rates, whilst those in Scotland and England will pay just 48p in the pound.

How wrong, then, for the Welsh Labour Government to even hint, let alone suggest proposals to introduce a tourism tax that has already succeeded in denting much confidence in our Welsh tourism sector. The Wales Tourism Alliance, the British Hospitality Association, FSB Wales, North Wales Tourism—just some of the people that have opposed this tourism tax, along with other countless businesses. Llywydd, the economy of Wales is vitally dependent on tourism, contributing £8.7 million annually and supporting 242,000 jobs. Please, Cabinet Secretary, will you put an end to this nonsensical proposal and confirm that you have no intentions whatsoever to pursue such a devastating tax for the economic health of Wales? Our businesses and our residents are relying on you to put this to bed once and for all. Let's have prosperity across Wales and for our tourism sector. 

In the absence of my colleague and the Plaid Cymru spokesperson on the economy, it's my pleasure to participate in this important debate and to make a few comments.

Without doubt, there are some elements of the strategy that we would welcome: a new emphasis on the foundation economy, decarbonisation and the decision to encourage businesses to be more responsible if they are to receive Government support. The strategy also refers to automation and the challenges that automation can pose for our economy. Automation has the potential to devolve jobs in important sectors to us in Wales, such as manufacturing and processing, but also retail, which is the largest sector in Wales in terms of the size of the workforce.

For our economy to grow and develop, we must understand what our unique, competitive advantages are as a nation. Wearing my hat as a health spokesperson, with a population that is growing older more swiftly than the rest of the UK, Wales is strongly positioned to innovate in that area, in promoting more use of technology, for example, in improving the care available. But I'm not here as health spokesperson today. In reading the strategy, you will see that there is a failure here to note where and how to make the most of the unique opportunities available to us as a nation. It feels somehow like a document that provides a commentary rather than a comprehensive strategy that explains how the Government intends to overturn our economic decline.

For an economic strategy to work, we need strong institutions to implement that strategy. When I was Plaid Cymru's spokesperson on the economy before the last election, I had an opportunity to outline clearly our vision and the steps that we would wish to see taken to build the Welsh economy. Having an economic development agency for Wales was a central part of the vision that I was espousing at that time, and at arm's-length, I think, is the best place to create that capacity and also to focus the expertise required to draw up and implement such a strategy. 

After the election, and specifically following the vote on our membership of the European Union, we called for a regional focus on the challenge of developing the economy in order to focus on ways and means of developing the economies of areas of Wales that quite simply have been left behind and know that they have been left behind. The Government strategy does commit to a model of economic development based regionally, and in order to achieve that, the Government wishes to develop three main regional offices to deal with this. Other than that, there is no talk of the other things that are required; the national institutions that would, in partnership, deliver the objectives of the strategy. I think the institutional hinterland that exists in Wales—the development bank is an exception perhaps—does mean that we as a nation aren't striking the right chord. Until this Government creates the kinds of economic institutions that other nations have—development agencies, promotion agencies, trade and investment, a national innovative body—as Plaid Cymru has been calling for, no strategy has any hope of delivering its objectives.

I will close if I may by making a few comments that would have been just as relevant to the previous debate this afternoon, on this uncompromising focus by the Conservatives and Labour on merging the regions of Wales with the regions of England. Across the globe, cross-border economic relations are very important, and that is true of Wales between the north-east of Wales and the north-west of England, and likewise in the south-east of Wales and the south-west of England, but don't be misled—

Will you give way on that point?

With permission from the Presiding Officer, yes.

Very briefly, I just think that was a very cheap shot and you're better than that. No-one is talking about merging economic Wales with economic regions of England; this is about closer co-operation, which, you know in your heart of hearts, is quite different.

The point I make is this: close co-operation is very, very important. You can look throughout the world at the importance of cross-border co-operation, but let's remember what the focus is here, and be realistic about the fact that it's not the interests of Wales that's at the heart of some of these developments, like those trumpeted by Alun Cairns this week. The fact, I think, that it's called a 'western powerhouse' tells me that that is something that is being thought up from a British perspective, because to me, Bristol is to the east, and I go further than to say 'British perspective', but an English perspective. And the same thing can be said for the Northern Powerhouse—it's the north of England powerhouse, just as Mark Isherwood said. Just ask somebody from Scotland what they make of the term 'Northern Powerhouse' and whether they think that is from a British context.

So, let's have a strategy that looks at the Welsh economy as a whole. Yes, looking for new partnerships, but looking at ensuring that no part of the Welsh economy is left untouched.

Well, it's a slim document. Andrew R. T. Davies has already given us a pretty good exposition of what could have gone in there, but it's still taken until page 4 for Welsh Government to admit that this strategy represents a significant change. I have to ask, has it really taken 19 years to reach the conclusion that significant change is necessary? 

Welsh Conservatives have been asking you to change tack for literally decades now, and for good reason: the lowest wages in the UK, the lowest GVA in the UK, the lowest growth in the UK, the lowest disposable income in the UK, the lowest investment in the UK, and the poorest PISA results in the UK, as well as some uncomfortable statistics around regional inequality within Wales, business start-ups and so on that I'm sure we’ll hear more about in this debate. 

And, I’m sure that Labour Members and even you, Cabinet Secretary, will come back and point to all the spending that you’ve done and have a go at the UK Government for all the cuts and Barnett reform. But, can I just head you off at the pass there? You’ve had significantly higher sums from the European Union than any other part of the UK during this period. Those UK Government cuts have applied across the UK, not just in Wales, and while we do agree that Barnett isn’t right, you’ve benefited from a funding floor courtesy of the Conservatives and still have higher per capita income via Barnett than England does. You cannot persuasively use those arguments to explain why Wales’s performance compares so badly with other parts of the UK when you have had the benefit of direct advantage or, at least, no greater disadvantage than other nations and regions.

So, let’s have a look at the significant change that you’re promising. You say that, at the heart of this strategy, is a recognition that public services and voluntary partners want to work together towards common objectives.  Well, I’m absolutely not going to argue against this principle, as any strategy, economic or otherwise, should capture talent and ideas from all sources. That is why I want your assurance that 'public services and voluntary partners' is not Welsh Government code for public sector and third sector only. There’s a growing entrenchment in this Government against cross-sector provision of public services and I think that is a mistake. Historic bad private finance initiative and the high-profile idiocy as we’ve seen with Carillion, is not indicative of a wholesale reckless and rapacious private sector in this nation of SMEs. And, in this nation of SMEs, no economic strategy is going to succeed if we fear or demonise our private sector. 

We’ve had plenty of high-level idiocy in the public sector over the years, whether it’s bendy buses in Swansea or chucking money down the drain because of delays to M4 improvements, but no-one’s suggesting turning our backs on the public sector. If anything, Cabinet Secretary, what is needed is a more confident relationship with the private sector with some serious negotiating expertise. We should never worry that it’s Snow White around the table with Darth Vader. And you know that we support taking calculated risks when it comes to investing taxpayers’ money and we accept that some investment will fail, but our constituents—shareholders in Wales plc, if you like—will want you to protect their stake, but they won’t thank you for limiting your options for improving their lives.

They won’t thank you for floating ideas that compromise growth either. The document raises tax- raising and varying powers. We've mentioned business rates and the visitor bed tax. You know the Welsh Conservative and the industry’s position on the latter. 

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, very quickly, then.

In terms of economic policy, a number of us were this morning at the launch of the report from the airport, which was taken into public ownership, which is showing really incredible performance figures but, importantly, supporting thousands of jobs. Does the Welsh Conservative party still believe it was a mistake for the Welsh Government to take that airport into public ownership?  

Well, what about private enterprise? There's more than one option. That's the point I'm making here. What I'm seeing in this Government is that one option is the only way at the moment. 

I just wanted to finish off briefly on the tourism tax because, actually, that's a bed tax, a visitor bed tax. And I don't think it's—. If you're attempting to attract business to Wales, I don't think your primary message should be, 'Oh great, we can get an extra fiver out of you while we're talking.' Can you at least today tell us when the Cabinet's going to be making a decision on the tax proposals it's taking forward, and how that decision is reached? I think that would bring some certainty to this. 

Janet Finch-Saunders has already covered the point that I wanted to make on business rates. I think you're fooling yourselves if you think businesses thought that your offer was a tax cut, and I really hope, just for constituents' sake, that you'll reconsider the position of the multiplier and how all Welsh businesses are likely to lose out on that. 

I do want to finish on a point of agreement, though. Economic growth isn't an end in itself, but neither is consequent well-being a passively received consequence of economic growth. Good jobs, well-funded public services, safe neighbourhoods, faith in our care system—these all require a confident and capable citizenry empowered through education, freedom and encouragement for individuals to be primary actors in their collective future, connecting participation in economic growth with the benefits of that. Our people should be our greatest asset—they’ll bring Wales great returns. Use the economic strategy to invest in emboldening civil society, because social capital also pays impressive dividends. Thank you. 

I'd like to share the very grave disappointment that's been expressed in this Chamber today that we've never had a majority Labour Government in Wales. I think that partly explains some of the comments that have come from UKIP and the Conservatives, in particular. And I can see Russell George didn't contribute—I don't whether he is planning to in this debate—

I am. 

Oh, there we are. Well, we'll look to see if he's going to play good cop, but certainly we had the bad cop to start, which took the economic plan, which I think is a good economic plan, and dismissed it in the motion in one sentence. And I think an analysis that—. To be fair to Suzy Davies, she's engaged in a very detailed and in-depth—probably not my ideological position, but certainly a detailed and in-depth analysis of the economic plan that does it justice. I don't think the motion does, which is why I'll take pleasure in voting against that motion today. 

And also it's very rich of the Tory Government in Westminster, which has turned down the Great Western main line electrification, devolution of air passenger duty, and the Swansea bay tidal lagoon's yet to be agreed—. This Government in the UK could be doing so much for the Welsh economy and is failing to do so, and that perhaps could have been recognised in their motion too. And then you get the criticisms of UKIP. You know, I'm so far from UKIP that it's a very great distance that can never be bridged, but UKIP themselves are talking about managing the economy when they can barely manage their own group and as their party collapses. [Interruption.] You wonder where does—[Interruption.]—where does—[Interruption.]—where does the ideology actually sit within UKIP, which explains the way the party is collapsing. 

Labour backbenchers have also therefore been acting quite constructively, but as constructive and critical friends to this Government. And what we've asked the Government to do is include in the economic strategy things that we wanted to see, and one of those things has been the foundational economy, and Rhun ap Iorwerth recognised that in the things that he said, and welcomed those  aspects, and it's pleasing to see that the foundational economy is recognised in it. Russell George said to me the other day, 'You always go on about business; you should be in the Conservative party', but actually—at the end of this speech, you won't want me—I'd say that the support of business, small business, small business that exists in our Valleys communities, and self-employment is actually all about the ownership of the means of production. And, in that sense, I'd say small business is a socialist construct and is recognised in this economic plan.

Thank you, Hefin, I'm grateful for that. Can you not see the fundamental flaw in this document, that, if you read it, there is no road map to say where we will be at the end of this process? In my opening remarks, I talked of where are we going to be on wages, where are we going to be on GVA—there are no parameters to what we're working to, so how can you say that this document can command confidence when there is no clear route for where we will be in five or 10 years' time?

I'd have more respect for that argument if it had been reflected in the motion that was put before this Chamber, rather than simply dismissing it in order to put a good line out on Twitter. But it's bizarre that those criticisms that you're making of this economic plan are so strong when the previous debate on the city deal was so constructive. I don't understand, because these things go hand in hand, and the only way that city deal is going to be effective is if this economic plan works hand in hand with it, and I think it certainly will.

Alongside that, we've got the south Wales metro, which will form part of it. We've got the city deal, and we've got the Valleys action plan. One of the things I would say regarding the foundational economy aspect, and it's a minor criticism, which I've raised with the Cabinet Secretary in committee, is that there are four foundational sectors in the economic action plan, but there are seven foundational sectors in the Valleys delivery report. And I think there needs—. The Cabinet Secretary may wish to clarify how those things will work together, and maybe also that may go some way, I think, to addressing the Conservatives' concerns, and maybe even persuade them, ultimately, to vote against their own very silly motion.

I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, and I have to say I'm a little bit disappointed with some of the contributions so far. I was very surprised to hear Rhun ap Iorwerth, in his criticism of the Welsh Government, not reflect on the fact that, for four years in the past decade, we had an economy Minister who was a Plaid Cymru Deputy First Minister, and, during his period in office, we suffered the worst economic decline in the whole history of the Assembly.

The figures don't bear that up, and I'll remind you that, in those years, Wales took some of the steps that the UK Government failed to take to stand up to the worst problems caused by the financial downturn.

Sorry, I gave way to accept an apology, but clearly didn't get it. I have to say I'm also very disappointed that the Welsh Government doesn't seem to understand that it's businesses that create the wealth, which pay the taxes and pay the members of the public, which then pay for public services. So, you've obviously got to have a business base, both small, medium and large businesses, Hefin—not just small businesses—all of which do good for society. 

Now, one important aspect of business in Wales, which has been referred to in this debate, is the importance of the tourism industry, and it's particularly important in north Wales, as the Cabinet Secretary will know, because of his own constituency interests. The tourism industry has been absolutely spooked by this suggestion that there could be a tax on accommodation across Wales at a time when there are no such taxes elsewhere in the UK, and at a time when tourism businesses are already paying corporation tax, VAT, employers national insurance, and a whole host of other taxes such as business rates. That has spooked many of those businesses. Many of them in my own constituency are now holding back on making investment in their businesses. [Interruption.] It's not rubbish; I'll send you the e-mails. I'll send you the e-mails, Cabinet Secretary. People are holding back on investing in their businesses because they have no idea what's going to come next from the Welsh Government. 'Why are they out to get us?', they say. You've spooked them. You've spooked them, and I suspect very much that your Cabinet Secretary agrees with my point of view. So, when you finally end up ditching that ridiculous proposal, you'll hear lots of cheers on these benches, because it needs to be consigned to the rubbish bin as soon as possible.

And we all know the importance of infrastructure in order to create prosperity, the importance of decent access to broadband, which still many businesses and many homes do not have, particularly in north Wales and particularly in rural parts of Wales. We all know the importance of a decent transport infrastructure—it was referred to in the last debate—so that we can bleed some of the prosperity from those areas of the country that are doing very well, whether they be over the border in England, Rhun, or whether they be within Wales and we need to bleed that prosperity out. But I tell you what: I'm not for closing a slate curtain across our border, trying to ignore the fact that many people cross that border—[Interruption.] I'm not accusing the Welsh Government of wanting this; I'm accusing Rhun ap Iorwerth of wanting this. This is what he was referring to. The reality is that there are strong economic links between the north-west of England and north Wales, and between the Birmingham area and the Shropshire area and mid Wales, and between south Wales and England in terms of Bristol and the wider geographic area around there. Why can't you recognise that that gives us opportunities? You're willing to do business with countries many miles away and yet the country that's the biggest opportunity for our Welsh businesses is just over the border and you don't want to connect with it.

Which part of 'those relationships across the border are vital' did you not understand?

Well, I think it's very clear from your contribution that you don't like the fact that there's collaboration and discussion going on with other parts of the United Kingdom, particularly England, in terms of trying to create prosperity within Wales. Now, I welcome the fact—[Interruption.] I welcome the fact that the Cabinet Secretary has made his position quite clear. He wants connections with areas in England that will serve the interests of the people of Wales in terms of boosting our prosperity. I welcome that and I back you on that as a Cabinet Secretary because I believe that that's the right way forward. But what I am concerned about is that we haven't got our transport infrastructure right, we haven't got our broadband infrastructure right. I'm very concerned about the state of the A55, I'm very concerned about the disparity in terms of the investment in the south versus the investment in the north. One clear example of that is the south Wales metro, something that I welcome and we support—£2 billion-worth of expenditure, and yet the amount that you've allocated for the north-east Wales metro, £50 million. Fifty million pounds versus two thousand million pounds. What could be a bigger contrast than that? We need some investment.

One final point, if I may, Llywydd, on Cardiff Airport, which was referred to earlier on. I welcome the fact that Cardiff Airport is eventually going to lift itself into making profits rather than losses for the taxpayer. When Cardiff Airport was purchased for £52 million, in terms of the overall investment, that was predicated on that business making a profit much earlier than it's going to make a profit. And, actually, if you looked at the forecasts that were provided to the Public Accounts Committee during our inquiry— 

Will you take an intervention?

—it was quite clear that they ought to be having around 1.75 million passengers each year at this point, when the reality is that they are down at 1.4-odd million. Okay? So that's quite a significant difference. I welcome some of the change that's taken place at Cardiff Airport. I support that airport and want it to thrive for the sake of the Welsh economy. But we must face facts that the airport valuation was based on an entirely different level of performance than we're currently seeing.

Do you still—

Mick, I'm calling you to speak. Mick Antoniw.

Thank you. Llywydd—[Interruption.] Llywydd, I intend to rise above the cheap, shouty, banter of the opposition. I have now the high—[Interruption.] I have now the high moral ground and I intend to keep it.

I'd like—[Interruption.] I'd like to talk about what is actually happening on the ground because many of the matters raised in this document I believe are things that we've been working on for the past couple of years in Pontypridd and the Taff Ely area, and in Rhondda Cynon Taf. I hope, unlike the banter that we've heard, to actually provide a few bits of data and a few statistics on this as well. Because I think there is an exciting partnership that's occurred between a socialist Labour-controlled council and with a socialist Labour Government delivering a socialist Labour approach to policy, to economic regeneration and developing prosperity.

The investment and partnership of Rhondda Cynon Taf with the Welsh Government I think is going to be one of the models of success that we should look at. The devolution of Transport for Wales to the Taff Ely area is already having significant economic and regenerative impacts. I think that's an important model. The fact that, as part of that and the franchise, there's potential development of maintenance units in Taff's Well, and the apprenticeship programme, as a result of Welsh Government investment in Coleg y Cymoedd, I think, is very significant and really exciting. 

Can I say also—? In terms of education and skills and training and aspiration, by 2020, with the twenty-first century schools project, Rhondda Cynon Taf will, over that 10-year period, have invested around £0.5 billion in new schools, modernising schools and new educational infrastructure. It is the most exciting and the biggest development for educational capacity and facilities, I believe, in generations.

Since 2012, there are now 2,017 more businesses in my constituency, a 53 per cent increase in the number. It's a former mining area, an area hit by all the problems of industrialisation and then deindustrialisation, and yet one of the highest areas of business growth. Gross pay in my constituency increased by 10 per cent compared with a 5 per cent average at UK level. GVA is still an issue, it is lower than the UK average, but it increased by 21 per cent compared to 17 per cent for the rest of the UK. 

Unemployment for those aged 16 plus has fallen by 2.6 per cent in the past year and 5.1 per cent in the last five years. There are many significant challenges in the Taff Ely, Rhondda Cynon Taf and Pontypridd area, but the actual partnership with Welsh Government, the partnership of investment in decentralisation of services and using that as a target for regeneration, the development around the metro, the educational development, is transforming that community. I think the optimism is now beginning to appear there.

Can I say—? Perhaps on the down side, of course, one of the big challenges—and we know there's been a lot about that in the media recently—is, across the whole of the UK, the issue of social mobility. We have to recognise that we can do many things within our devolved responsibilities and the resources we have, but we cannot isolate ourselves or extricate ourselves fully from the mega-economic and the macroeconomic levers that the UK Government has.

So, can I say—? When so much was expected from the Social Mobility Commission, a commission that had commended and recognised the progress that was being made in Wales in terms of child poverty, that talked about the leaking bucket of welfare cuts and the impact that had, when you see the entire commission resigning because it has no confidence that the UK Government has any real interest in social mobility, when you have someone saying—the chairman and the Conservative vice-chairman—basically criticising the UK Government for indecision, dysfunction and a lack of leadership, and when you have in the resignation letter of Alan Milburn, the chairman appointed by the Conservatives to head that commission, where he says,

'I do not doubt your personal belief in social justice, but I see little evidence of that being translated into meaningful action',

that is the backdrop against which we work to regenerate and develop prosperity within Wales— against a backdrop of a Government that is so committed to austerity that it has resulted in the UK now having the second from bottom economic growth in the whole of the European area and the growth of unsecured debt for the whole of the UK to £392.8 billion. That is the economic backdrop against which we are working—[Interruption.] I apologise, I would have—

You are out of time. 

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport, Ken Skates.

Diolch, Llywydd. It's a pleasure to respond to Members in this debate today and I'd like to thank everybody for their contribution. I'd particularly like to thank Mick Antoniw for occupying the moral summit and for taking some of the heat out of what has been a lively debate and drawing attention to some of the realities that many people in our communities face.

Before I address some of the specific points raised by Members, I'd just like to correct some of the history lessons that one or two Members have attempted to give. I'll do so by highlighting some of the data that is available to all Members—data relating to the period since devolution. Of course, many point back to the 1980s and the 1990s as though it was a glorious past for Wales. In my memory, the 1980s and the 1990s were a deeply grim period. Since then, since devolution, Wales has had the fourth highest increase in GVA per head compared to the 12 UK countries and English regions. In addition, since devolution, we've seen the unemployment rate in Wales decrease more quickly than the UK average. It's decreased by 3 per cent in that period compared to 1.7 per cent across the UK. During that—

Will you give way?

I shall in a moment. During that period, the employment rate in Wales has increased more quickly than in the UK, since devolution again: 6.5 per cent up compared to 3.1 per cent across the UK as a whole. The economic inactivity rate since devolution has fallen more quickly in Wales than the UK as a whole: down 4.5 per cent compared to 1.9 per cent across the UK. In terms of workforce jobs, we've seen an increase that is more rapid in Wales than in the UK as a whole since devolution: 21.5 per cent compared to 19.1 per cent. We've got 100,000 businesses, a record number. We've seen research and development spending by enterprises rise by 5 per cent in real terms, which is higher than the UK average of 2 per cent. All of these statistics show that we are on the right path, and it must be borne in mind as well that, during the period of devolution, we have seen some of the most cruel welfare reforms, particularly for people who are in work, the introduction of universal credit and a prolonged period of austerity that the Conservatives, I am afraid, still refuse to apologise for. I now give way. 

Thank you very much indeed. On the day that new figures show that joblessness across the UK has fallen, but risen in Wales, despite unemployment across the UK being at four-decade low, are you not ashamed that, compared with a year ago, Wales is the only part of the UK where unemployment has gone up?

I think the Member should look at the statistics, again, that I've just outlined and also the fact that the employment rate in Wales now stands at 72.7 per cent. That is 0.2 per cent up on the quarter and 0.3 per cent up on the year. I'm sure that the Conservatives in Westminster would wish to claim success each month when the statistics show that there are improvements, but today I noticed that the Secretary of State for Wales has remained quite silent on this issue, perhaps that same silence that we've heard over the Swansea bay tidal lagoon and air passenger duty as well.

Now, in common with other developed economies, we face a number of issues here in Wales, a number of issues that have informed our economic action plan. They include the challenges and opportunities of the fourth industrial revolution—the economic and environmental imperative to decarbonise, an ageing population, the changing nature of work in which wages have stagnated and insecurity is growing. These are compounded by the challenge of leaving the European Union. As a Welsh Government, we cannot and we will not stand idly by and leave our communities and our economy to flounder in the face of what is ahead of us. The threats we face require an approach that is focused on the future but that also addresses the needs of today—action for the short, medium and long term.

Reflecting the learning provided by international organisations like the OECD and the experience of successful economies like Canada, the action plan sets out an approach to inclusive growth that, yes, aims to raise growth in the aggregate but that also recognises that addressing individual wealth and well-being contributes to growth through raising productivity and competitiveness. The role of fairness, Llywydd, in supporting growth is clearly articulated in the economic contract. This drives the principle of public investment with a social purpose by seeking to increase the availability of fair work, reduce carbon emissions and support a competitive environment for businesses. In return, we will simplify finance to business and deliver a competitive wider offer.

Now, a key part of this is our response to a call from business and others for greater simplicity, which we are addressing through the creation of an economy futures fund. The fund will align with the financial support we provide through our calls to action, and these are designed to prepare businesses and the economy for the future, designed to address the productivity gap, and designed to drive up wages and standards of living. The economic contract, our calls to action and our economy futures fund—[Interruption.] I will shortly. And our economy futures fund will dovetail to change the way in which we approach, assess and monitor the provision of our direct financial support to business, and at the beginning of the new financial year we'll have that contract, we'll have the calls to action, and we'll have the fund in place.

But let's be clear: meeting the economic challenges and opportunities that we face is not just about what we do in Wales. The UK Government, I believe, through its macroeconomic powers, its approach to exiting the EU and through welfare policy is a significant influence indeed.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary. The document, as I said to Hefin David in my intervention to him, doesn't offer any scope to understand where wages will be in the future here in Wales, and does not offer us any scope to understand how these policies will drive GVA, which—I made the point—has only gone up 0.5 per cent over the last 20 years. How can anyone have confidence when you're not even giving us parameters that the Government is working to? Give us some numbers to work to so that we can then say either 'success' or 'fail'.

First of all, I've been very clear in conveying the national well-being indicators as a consistent approach for us to adopt across Government. But I've said on numerous occasions as well that setting targets can lead to perverse incentives, and can consequently lead to uneven economic growth. Setting targets for employment, for example, where you don't recognise the inequalities across regions, can lead us to create jobs where there is already a very high level of employment. Instead, what we are doing is addressing regional inequality by applying a new regional approach and by applying an economic contract that seeks to drive up their work—that seeks to drive up the security of work. These are issues that I think have stemmed from wide-ranging engagement with the business community, but also with people in the trade union movement who represent tens of thousands of people who wish to see improvements in standards of employment.

I'm going to address some of the specific points that Members raised, beginning first of all with the question of cross-border working. The leader of the Conservatives said that we do not mention this once. In fact, it's mentioned twice on page 23 alone. Why do I point to page 23? That's because we also talk about a certain Swansea bay tidal lagoon on that page, which is something that the UK Government remain silent on. On that page, we state:

'In the North and in Mid and South West Wales we will be able to use the new approach to strengthen and evolve important arrangements for cross border economic development and transport planning.'

Now, Darren Millar, in his contribution, rightly pointed out that cross-border collaboration is vital in terms of transport and planning and economic development, and for our part, in north Wales and along the border, we've already announced that we are committing to relieving congestion on the A494. We're investing heavily in the A55. We're going to relieve the pinch point that is the Halton roundabout on the A5. We're also going to be investing heavily in Shotton and Wrexham railway stations. We would wish to see the UK Government meet our investments by investing in infrastructure on the English side of the border at Chester, on the M56 at Helsby, and, crucially, on the A5 in the Shrewsbury area. These are huge problems that must be addressed.

Llywydd, as I reach the end of my contribution, Members will no doubt be aware of the UK industrial strategy, and I would wish to say that the UK Government needs to back up the warm words about redistribution in that strategy with investment across the whole of the UK, including here in Wales.

I call on Russell George to reply to the debate—Russell George.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. The real Andrew R.T. Davies has only left me with three minutes to close this debate, so I won't be able to namecheck all who took part, but I would like to thank all Members who have taken part in the debate this afternoon. I hope I can also reassure Hefin David that I will be the real and reasonable Russell George that he mentioned in the last debate, and I think the real Hefin David is a Conservative as well. I have to say that. 

But I think we all share the same aims here, in this Chamber: we want to see a prosperous Wales in the future, but as Andrew R.T. Davies pointed out in his opening remarks, the view is that the Welsh Government has no road map, of course, for taking and driving forward the long-term economic development across Wales. Now, the Welsh Government's latest economic strategy contains plenty of words—17,000 in total. I recently mentioned I'd taken this as my Christmas reading over the Christmas period. What it does fail to do is bring forward ambition. That's what this document fails to do. One thing that is absolutely crucial—what it does do: it doesn't give any targets. That's the job of an opposition party, and Labour backbenchers: to provide scrutiny to the Government, and it's difficult to do that if there are no targets in the document. So, in short, I think it fails to provide a comprehensive strategy for delivering economic prosperity across Wales.

Of course, Andrew R.T. Davies also, in his opening remarks, talked about GVA. We're at the bottom of the league table when it comes to weekly earnings, and we're at the bottom of the league table when it comes to regional inequality.

Now, if I come to UKIP's contribution and amendments, I'd say some of UKIP's amendments I can agree with. Your amendments were better than your contribution, I have to say. Caroline Jones spoke about the long-term economic strategy, and I'm pleased to say that that's exactly what the UK Government has done through the publication of its industrial strategy. Caroline Jones also talked about growing the economy of Wales. To grow the economy of Wales—you do that by backing the high speed 2 line, which actually grows the economy of north and mid Wales. I think that's important.

Janet Finch-Saunders and Darren Millar gave outstanding contributions. Darren got better and better, and as he got better and better he got redder and redder, but that was because of his frustrations with the tourism tax. Janet Finch-Saunders pointed out a list of organisations that are calling on the Government to take the tourism tax off the table. So, I would say: please, Government, take that off the table, and that will, of course, allow the economy to grow.

When it comes to this document here, there are plenty of warm words in it—17,000 warm words—but the document makes—. The Cabinet Secretary talked about things being left out. One thing he's left out in this document is any mention of enterprise zones and attracting foreign direct investment into Wales. Perhaps that is an admission about the complete lack of success that these measures have had despite the hundreds of millions of pounds that have been put into these projects over the last 20 years.

Presiding Officer, I think I'm about over time but can I just suggest that the Welsh Government devotes the same amount of time as the UK Government does to the industrial strategy to lay the foundations for improved living standards, economic growth and a more prosperous and equal Wales? I commend our motion to the Assembly.

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

We now reach voting time. Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will proceed to the vote, and the vote is on the Welsh Conservatives' debate on the economic action plan. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 22, no abstentions, 27 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed.

The next vote is on amendment 1. Amendment 2 will be de-selected if amendment 1 is agreed. I call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Neil Hamilton. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour five, one abstention, 43 against. Therefore, amendment 1 is not agreed.

The next amendment is amendment 2. I call for a vote on amendment 2, tabled in the name of Julie James. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 27, no abstentions, 22 against. Therefore, amendment 2 is agreed.

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

Open the vote. Close the vote. For 28, six abstentions, 15 against. Therefore, the motion as amended is agreed.

The next item is the short debate, and I call on Siân Gwenllian to speak on the short debate put forward in her name. Siân Gwenllian.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. It’s a pleasure to bring this debate forward today. I will be inviting Jane Hutt, Joyce Watson, Suzy Davies and Julie Morgan to participate in this debate. I’d like to thank them for their contributions.

A century since women were given the vote, is Wales a truly equal nation? I will be presenting evidence to demonstrate that Wales is a long way short of being equal in terms of gender. I will argue that we need to give priority to the efforts to reach equality, and I will also be proposing one practical step that our Parliament can take to lead the way.

In 1918, women got the vote for the first time, but bear in mind that it was only women over 30 years of age who owned land who were allowed to vote. However, all men over the age of 21 in 1918 were allowed to vote. It’s difficult to believe why one would want one set of rules for men and another for women, belittling half the population. Therefore, bearing in mind the centenary, it’s worth noting that equality in terms of voting wasn’t achieved until 1928.

In celebrating the work of the suffragettes, it’s clear that we are a very long way from being an equal nation in terms of gender. Women only need look at the gender pay gap, the statistic in terms of domestic violence and abuse, the culture of sexual harassment, and the small percentage of women in senior posts in public life. Let’s start by looking at the gender pay gap.

The gap between men and women in Wales is around 15 per cent, increasing to 25 per cent in certain parts of the country. Noting the average salaries of men and women shows the disparity between the jobs done by men, mainly on top of the pyramid, and the jobs done by women, which tend to be lower down the employment pyramid. One significant step forward is that major employers in the private sector and the voluntary sector do have to publish information about salaries on a gender basis. Only 6 per cent have done so to date, and by the closing date in April, perhaps we will have a more comprehensive picture. But, already, companies such as the BBC, EasyJet and Virgin have demonstrated that there are large gaps in existence. That is one sign that we are a long way off achieving equality.

We will turn now to violence against women and domestic abuse. According to the official figures, one in four women in England and Wales—27 per cent—will suffer domestic abuse during their lifetimes—a figure that is twice as much as the figure for men—13 per cent—and the figure represents some 350,000 women in Wales.

A study by the National Union of Students demonstrates that 68 per cent of women on a university or college campus have experienced sexual harassment, and one in seven has suffered a violent sexual assault. The continuum of violence and harassment relates to broader cultural patterns of inequality, and maintaining and reproducing an unequal power relationship is at the heart of all of this. Solving this requires a wider cultural and social solution. The recent coverage of sexual harassment in light of the Weinstein scandal has opened the floodgates, with women at last starting to discuss their experiences publicly. My generation has been guilty of sweeping certain types of abuse under the carpet. We need a national conversation about these issues as a matter of urgency in order to explain what harassment is and why it's not acceptable. 

In arguing that there is a lack of equality in Wales today, we will now turn to equality in public life. Twenty eight per cent of councillors in Wales are women. The same figure, 28 per cent, of MPs from Wales are women. And here at the Assembly, 42 per cent of AMs are women—where there was equality back in 2003, and where the Assembly was in the vanguard at a global level. And unfortunately, my party has contributed to this decline, but I am pleased that we have agreed a new policy at our conference in the autumn that will put in place new mechanisms to have equal numbers of candidates. 

Research demonstrates that women in the Assembly raise issues such as childcare, domestic violence, the pay gap and end equal pay, and inequality more generally. And women do that far more often than their male counterparts. For the sake of natural fairness, but also in order to remove the barriers facing women generally, we must have 50:50 representation among those making decisions here in Wales. And that is why I agree entirely with the recent proposals made by the expert panel on Assembly reform, which suggest making it a requirement through law for political parties to choose candidates on an equal basis in terms of gender. 

The exact mechanism required to deliver that is a matter for us to focus on over the next months, perhaps years. But in starting here at our feet in this Assembly, there is an opportunity for us to make a difference. Having more women in this place would lead to better policies to create equality across Wales. It would also demonstrate the necessary leadership in order to create true equality across our nation. Evidence from across the world shows that quotas and gender legislation do make a real difference, but it does have to go hand in hand with a huge cultural shift too, and that's why including education on healthy relationships in the new curriculum is so crucial. 

My intention in bringing this debate forward today is to provide a focus once again on lack of equality, but proposing how we in this Assembly can contribute to the work of eradicating inequality, first of all by introducing a 50:50 quota through legislation, and not relying on the parties alone to lead in this regard. Since 1918, many steps have been taken towards equality, including the efforts of the suffragettes, and there is a great deal left to be done. There isn't enough emphasis on this work, and there isn't enough of a sense of urgency. Many of us in the Assembly have been battling for equality for women for many, many years—far too long perhaps—but now is the time. The women of Wales need to take the reins. Women have done that in the past. It is time for us to insist on equality and it's time for us to show the leadership required to achieve it. This is our opportunity and we must grasp it.

I look forward to hearing the contributions from other Assembly Members and, more than that, perhaps, I look forward to discussing this in terms of how we can move this forward together over the next few weeks. Thank you very much. 

Thank you very much, Siân Gwenllian. I'm very pleased to speak in today's debate. 

This week, as I said earlier on, marks the fortieth anniversary of Welsh Women's Aid. When we started work in Welsh Women's Aid, we were determined both to support those affected by domestic violence, but also to campaign for change. We have made progress since 1978, with Wales leading the way in the UK with the landmark violence against women Act and the appointment of national advisers; but as always, it is one step forward and one step back. A shocking new report from the Fawcett Society claims that abuse and harassment against women is endemic in the UK and justice for women has been set back by cuts to legal aid and the introduction of universal credit.

As Siân has highlighted, progress appears to be stalling on closing the gender pay gap. We've got Davos this week—the World Economic Forum has predicted that women will have to wait 217 years before they earn as much as men. Moving forward, Harriet Harman successfully introduced the Equality Act 2010 in the last Labour Government, resulting in a clause, which will come into force in April, requiring every company of 250 or more employees to publish its gender pay gap. I welcome that step forward, but I back your call, Siân, for gender equality in our Senedd, and I will work with you and women across the Chamber to achieve it.  

Thank you very much. I'd like to congratulate Siân Gwenllian on having this debate. Equality is very close to my heart and I thoroughly support you in all the things that you've said.

When I was in Westminster, we did discuss the possibility then—the women in Westminster—of trying to get the law to decide that there should be quotas, but the mood wasn't with us. So, instead we passed the legislation that enabled political parties to use positive action to help women become MPs and AMs. That meant that in the Labour Party we were able to use all-women shortlists and we were able to use twinning at the start of this Assembly, which meant that we came into the Assembly with equal numbers of men and women.

That was a painful process. It was a very successful process, but I think we've reached the stage now where we have to have legislation. I think that the proposals by the group that has looked at the future arrangements for the Assembly has come forward with what I see as an absolutely crucial move forward to have 50:50 for all political parties to put equal numbers of candidates up. I don't think it's straightforward because obviously you've got all the issues of which seats are winnable and all those sorts of issues that you look at, but I think there has been such a long history and such a long struggle that we do owe it to everybody in Wales—to women and men—to make sure that we have equal representation here. I just think we must never forget that what we do here in this Assembly is working for the good of the people of Wales, and we're trying to improve people in Wales's lives, and, for that, we need equal representation. We need women to be represented here, and we need all people to be a really good, representative Chamber. So, I'm totally behind you. 

Diolch, Siân. Thanks very much for bringing this debate. This figure for local government, the representation of women, is 28 per cent if I remember the figure right. At a time when austerity is hitting really hard, right down to local government budgets, the lack of women around the table in the first place and the serious lack of women driving the economic agendas forward in cabinets is of even greater concern, because the result is that it's not even as if women have got a voice—it's absolutely silent. So, when you come to cutting the budgets for the services that women rely on the most, it is fairly easy to do that—or not even to think about it—if women aren't sitting around the table. 

Can I thank you? Diolch, hefyd, Siân. You made very powerful points today, particularly regarding violence against women and obviously the attitude towards unwanted attention.

Sometimes, things like this really do come to the boil, and what I would like to see come to the boil now is how society values strengths that are traditionally—and I mean, stereotypically, almost—attributed to women. I certainly respect your argument, but I'm not convinced yet that statute is the way to do that, I'd much rather that we row in behind organisations like Women2Win and Chwarae Teg, which help society understand that women's strengths are what we need in politics, not least women themselves. That would be my preferred route, not least because I'm just slightly worried that if we have a statutory quota, that actually limits the opportunity for more than 50 per cent of women to come into this place. And I think the strengths that women generally have are a very good argument for having more than 50 per cent. Thank you.

I call on the leader of the house to reply to the debate. Julie James.