National Assembly for Wales

I call Members to order.

The first item on our agenda is questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Education, and the first question, Nick Ramsay.

Of course. Categorisation provides a clear picture of how well schools are doing and the level of support they need to do even better. This year, Monmouthshire has seen an increase in the primary schools in the green category, which is a testament to the hard work of the staff at the schools and is something to be celebrated.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. You've clearly got the same figures there in front of you that I've also seen. There has been, as you said, a steady improvement in categorisation in Monmouthshire, going from just three green schools five years ago to 13 today. This progress is a credit to the work of teachers and headteachers, and pupils, and also of course the local authority and the regional consortia involved, which has offered considerable support over the last number of years to headteachers, in offering challenge and sharing best practice. How are you working with the Education Achievement Service, and other consortia, to ensure that the sharing of best practice does happen between consortia as well as internally?

Well, I'm glad that we've got the same figures; it would not have been a very positive start if we had a different set of categorisation data between us. You're absolutely right, Nick, to identify that school improvement is a joint endeavour, between the staff and the leadership of individual schools, the local education authority. And I would like to pay tribute to Councillor Fox, I believe, at Monmouthshire council—sometimes, he and I have had some cross words about the performance of Monmouthshire, but this categorisation demonstrates that progress is being made—and also the regional consortia. It is important that regional consortia work together to learn from each other so that there is a consistent set of approaches to school improvement across the nation.

Thank you, David. We're working closely with Universities Wales, the British Council Wales and the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, through the Global Wales partnership, to build collaborative opportunities and support increased promotional activity, such as the delivery of the Study in Wales brand in key markets.

Cabinet Secretary, students from overseas are worth more than £151 million to the economy of Cardiff alone. You may have seen a new study by the Higher Education Policy Institute that shows the benefits of international students are up to 10 times greater than the cost. So, for places like Cardiff, and other university cities and towns around Wales, this is a really, really important source of income, but, more importantly, the prestige we get and the future benefit from highly skilled people having had such a welcoming and attractive experience in Wales in higher education. So, what will you be doing to ensure that, as Brexit proceeds, we remain a key place, and a most welcoming one, for foreign students?

Thank you, David. I couldn't agree more with the analysis that you just gave of the importance of international students and, indeed, international staff who come to study and work at our universities. And I've been clear that students from the European Union, and beyond, remain very welcome in Wales and will continue to be very welcome in Wales. I have good news for the Chamber: UCAS data on full-time undergraduate acceptances for the 2017-18 academic year has shown that providers in Wales have had an increase in acceptances from the EU despite uncertainty relating to Brexit, and the highest number of acceptances on record from outside the EU. What's absolutely crucial to me is that we continue to press the case with the United Kingdom Government that international students should not form part of any immigration statistics that may come forward. As we heard yesterday from the Cabinet Secretary for health, whilst I believe those within the Department for Education understand this, and believe this, there is a battle to be won with the Home Office.

Questions now from the party spokespeople. The UKIP spokesperson, Michelle Brown.

Thank you, Presiding Officer, and good afternoon, Cabinet Secretary. The report into the future of the sex and relationships education curriculum in Wales says that, at the moment, the success of SRE too often rests on the interests and enthusiasm of individual teachers or school leaders with SRE/personal and social education responsibilities. In this area, knowledge itself isn't an indicator of success. An unplanned teen pregnancy isn't necessarily caused by a lack of information or understanding, and a child or young person may be fully aware that abuse is being inflicted upon them but not able to do anything to stop it. How are you measuring the success of current SRE, and how will you measure success in the future?

Thank you for that question. On coming into office, I was concerned that current SRE provision is not as good as it should be, and listening to children and young people, as I travel around schools in Wales, they have been very clear with me that the current SRE provision often doesn't meet their individual needs. That's why I commissioned Professor Emma Renold of Cardiff University, who is an international expert in these matters, to compile an independent report. That report has now been given to me. We are considering the recommendations of how we can improve current provision of SRE and how we can ensure that our new curriculum meets the needs of children and young people. 

Thank you for that answer, Cabinet Secretary. In the same report, it says that, even before school, children receive messages about gender, sexuality and relationships from a wide variety of sources, for example advertising, books, social media, television and family members, et cetera. I'd say that a majority of these are either under the control of parents or can be under the control of parents, particularly those parents of preschool children. Surely, it's the parents' right to bring up their child in accordance with their values and beliefs? So, I'd just like to ask the Cabinet Secretary whether parents will continue to have the right to opt their child out of SRE if they feel that that SRE curriculum isn't appropriate for their child? 

Well, of course, parents have rights and responsibilities, but, sometimes, the issues that you're talking about are beyond a parent's control. I remember only too well, when my own children were very small, going into a very well-known high street retailer to find in that shop the dressing up costumes for doctors were in the boys' toy section and the dressing up section for girls had a nurse's costume. These, sometimes, are beyond parental control. 

With regard to the role and the compulsory nature of sex and relationship education going forward, I have received a very clear recommendation from Emma Renold. The report that's she's developed for me is under consideration, and I hope it won't be too long before I come to this Chamber with my full response to that report, outlining how we intend to improve relationship and sexuality education for all our children and young people in Wales. 

Thank you for that answer, Cabinet Secretary. 

Parents, particularly of preschool children, are understandably going to be concerned about what the content of the SRE curriculum is going to be. There are going to be parents who, for religious reasons and various other reasons, may find the content of the curriculum unpalatable. So, I suppose my final question has two parts to it really. How much input are parents going to have into the new curriculum and if a parent—. Sorry, that's my question: how much input are parents going to have into that curriculum?

I'm still uncomfortable with this thing—that you don't want to say whether parents are going to have the right to opt their child out, because the ultimate ability for a parent to opt their child out of a part of the curriculum that they don't like is to withdraw their child from the school and home school the child. That's going to have a detrimental effect, particularly on women, who are going to be left looking after the child when, otherwise, they could have been in schools. So, how are you going to get round that? 

I don't want to pre-empt the final discussions and decisions that I will make with regard to that report. And I have given a commitment here this afternoon, Michelle, that, having done that, I will come back to the Chamber with a full statement on how we intend to develop policy in this area.

I have to say, we don't allow parents to take their children out of maths lessons, or English language lessons, and what I hear from children and young people is that they feel this is a really important aspect of their education, which we need to get right for them. Of course, that has to be delivered in an age-appropriate way and in a way that is accessible even to our youngest children. And I don't believe there's a child too young to start to talk about relationships, being safe, consent and what that means.  

The Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Llyr Gruffydd. 

Diolch, Llywydd. 

Plaid Cymru opposes University UK's proposed pension reforms and we support the University and College Union lecturers' strikes. Do you support the UCU action against pension cuts? 

Well, Llyr, I have met with both UK-wide officials of UCU as well as Welsh representation, and I continue to be in correspondence with them. Unfortunately, because of the bad weather in Cardiff on Saturday, I was unable to attend the UCU conference, because the conference was cancelled. Officials keep in close touch with both the employers and the employees, and I have, at every opportunity, urged the employers to get back around the table to discuss these concerns because it is of huge concern to me that any student should be disrupted, and I do have sympathy with those members who are seeing potentially significant changes to their pensions, and I understand why they are duly concerned. Unfortunately, the employers are individual organisations, but whatever Welsh Government can do to get those parties around the table to find a solution to this problem, then we will do that.

I'm glad to hear that you've made representations to the UK Government. Clearly, UCU has said that their colleagues in many other European countries in post-1992 universities, schools, FE colleges, the NHS and Government all have their pensions underwritten and guaranteed by the state of course, and they're asking why UK pre-1992 universities should have a pension scheme with no Government guarantee. So, I'd be interested in knowing what representations you've made to the UK Government and, indeed, what interventions you called for from them in this respect.

As I've said, Llyr, we have urged all parties involved to get around the table, and I was encouraged by the decision for parties to get back around the negotiation table and to have that work assisted by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. I think that gives us the best chance of finding a solution here to this significant problem. As I said, the direct role that Welsh Government can play in this is somewhat limited, but we will use any of our ability to influence to make sure that these talks are successful, and I continue to talk with the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales to ensure that any disruption to individual students are kept to an absolute minimum.

Clearly, there's an economic aspect to this action, but I believe there's a moral issue at stake here as well, because all of this is happening to a backdrop of vice-chancellors, of course, enjoying astronomical salaries that put the salaries of the First Minister and even the Prime Minister at Westminster in the shade. Indeed, it was recently revealed that around £8 million was paid in expenses to top university executives just in the last two years. You've previously said that there should be restraint in senior pay and there should also be a focus on the lower end of the pay scale. So, how does all of that tally with these pension proposals, which are actually seen as a direct attack on the working conditions of those staff?

Well, Llyr, I would reiterate that stance here today. I do expect restraint from my vice-chancellors in Welsh universities, and you will be aware that HEFCW, working with the sector, have published a report regarding pay levels in Welsh universities, and our vice-chancellors are not out of kilter with those across the UK. But in terms of social justice, what's really important to me is that the lowest paid workers in this sector are treated fairly and that's why I'm delighted that Wales's higher education institutions and our sector will become the first part of the sector in the United Kingdom to pay the real living wage to all of their workers. We continue to negotiate that across all aspects of those people working in Welsh higher education, including those working in the Llandudno office of the student loans company.

The Conservative spokesperson, Darren Millar.

Diolch, Llywydd. Cabinet Secretary, research shows that the Gypsy/Roma/Traveller community have the lowest attainment rates of any ethnic group in Wales when it comes to their education. Tell us, why did you scrap the education improvement grant, which was designed to support and increase the attainment rates amongst this particular group?

Presiding Officer, I have not scrapped the education improvement grant.

As you know, you have redistributed the education improvement grant—the minority ethnic achievement grant element of that—into the revenue support grant for local authorities, and they claim that they can find no trace of it within the lines within the budgets that they have been given by the Welsh Government. They reckon that around £13 million has gone missing from the education allocation that they have received from the Welsh Government and that it's having a significant impact on their ability to meet the education needs of the Gypsy/Roma/Traveller community, and, indeed, other ethnic minority communities that need specific and additional support. What are you doing to put their concerns to rest?

The Member will be aware that a number of grants were rolled into the education improvement grant four years ago. Part of that was called 'MEAG', which is there to support the education of minority ethnic groups, and there was a separate grant scheme to support Gypsies and Travellers. The Member is not wrong to say that we need to redouble our efforts with regard to outcomes for Gypsy/Traveller children. Where we have seen significant improvement in the educational attainment of all but one minority ethnic group, Gypsy/Traveller attainment is still a cause of concern to me.

The Member is correct to say that as a contribution to moneys made available to the local education authority via the revenue support grant, the education improvement grant was added as a contribution. I've recognised that for some local authorities that has meant, because of different ways of distribution, they may have been put at a disadvantage. Therefore, I have made available £5 million to right that disadvantage for Cardiff, for Newport and for Swansea, and we will make an additional £2.5 million available over this new financial year to the regional consortia to work with lead local authorities, including Wrexham in north Wales, so that we can ensure that we can get better outcomes for these children.  

So, that £7.5 million, which you've suggested, you're going to make available primarily to three local authorities that happen to be Labour authorities in south Wales, with very little left for the rest of the nation. The reality is that every single local authority in Wales has young people who need this sort of support. So, I ask you again: when will you ensure that there are adequate resources available to each of the local authorities across Wales, whether they be in north Wales, mid Wales, west Wales or south Wales, to ensure that they can meet the needs of not only the Gypsy/Traveller community, but also those other ethnic minority communities that may need additional support with their learning? 

Well, Darren, as I've said, all local authorities will have benefited from the contribution of EIG going into RSG. I have recognised that, for some local authorities, changes in the distribution formula have had a negative effect. The reality is, Darren, that those three local authorities are affected because that is where the density of the population is, and therefore it is unsurprising that those authorities would be Cardiff, Swansea and Newport, because that's where we find the majority of those students living. On top of that, as I've said, we will give resources in this financial year to regional consortia across the piece to be able to develop policy and support in this area. It is true to say, for instance, that some of the most successful interventions are actually already run at a consortia level or by an individual local authority for the entire region, but I recognise that for this group of children, there is more to be done. But let me say: it's not fair to roll all children from a minority ethnic background into one particular case. Welsh Chinese children, Welsh Indian children, Welsh Pakistani children, Welsh Bangladeshi children all perform at or above the Welsh average.    

Thank you, Bethan, and can I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your recent marriage?

'Education in Wales: Our national mission' provides an action plan that will see transformation of the education system in Wales. The plan has been developed in accordance with the principles of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, and will be delivered and assessed against the well-being objectives.

Thank you for that reply. The policy of school reorganisation and the creation of the centralisation of superschools, particularly in Neath Port Talbot and across Wales, has caused some concern, particularly with the potential closure of Cymer Afan Comprehensive School in my region. It's particularly acute in relation to the Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013, and it's going against that, because if the school closes they will be having to travel 50 minutes to reach the closest school. So, when we had a public meeting on this recently, people were saying that this would add stress to the lives of the children, and that it would contravene the very sustainability of that particular Act. I acknowledge you can't look into this particular issue in and of itself, but what is your view, if a school closes and if then, therefore, more transport is created, more pressure on schoolchildren is created—what do you do in relation to the well-being of those children to try and aid them in the development of their education, as opposed to hindering them, as many of the parents believe in this particular circumstance? 

Well, Bethan, in undertaking their school organisation responsibilities, local authorities must comply with the School Standards and Organisation (Wales) Act 2013 and the schools organisation code and must consider a range of factors. One of those factors is the interests of learners. You will be aware that we have recently undertaken a consultation on the code to see where it can be strengthened. Where proposals involve the closure of any school, which can be very, very challenging and very emotive, the consultation document must show the impact of the proposals on individuals, and indeed on the community, and an assessment of that community impact must be carried out. 

Cabinet Secretary, considering the well-being objectives, can I ask you what consideration, if any, you've given to initiatives that we've seen in France and more recently in Scotland to control the use of mobile phones in schools as a way of helping to combat both school bullying and disruption to learning? 

Thank you, Dawn. I have to say, it is for individual schools to determine the most effective way to address bullying and implement any anti-bullying policies within their school setting, which includes any measures that they may wish to consider to control the usage of phones or information technology equipment, which may be a channel for cyber bullying. We're also developing a suite—we already have a suite of measures in place to support schools in tackling cyber bullying within their schools and we are in the process of updating our anti-bullying guidance.

I do think it's important, however, to state that we can't just label all information technology as having a harmful effect on education. Only yesterday, we were debating digital skills and the use of technology in our classrooms and the advantages that can bring to both pupils and teachers. Therefore, we need to keep a balanced approach in this regard. 

Cabinet Secretary, one of the objectives of the future generations Act is to ensure that every child has the opportunity to achieve their full potential, irrespective of their background. I'm sure we'd all agree with that. The gap in outcomes between children eligible for free school meals persists, however. A number of families are operating just above the poverty line but are not falling into the category that they should. Are you confident that the current criteria is sufficiently broad to capture all of these children who are suffering in these conditions, and if not, what do you propose to do to make sure that there is a better safety net?  

Nick, you're absolutely right: one of the biggest challenges that we have in Welsh education is to ensure that equity within our system and that includes closing the attainment gap for those pupils who are qualifying for free school meals against that of their peers. This year, Welsh Government will invest over £91 million in the pupil development grant. We are always challenging both regional consortia and individual schools to adopt best evidence-based practice of how that resource can be best used to assist those children who are on free school meals. 

We are aware that there are some families that fall above the criteria for free school meals, and given the constraints of public finance at the moment, it would be wrong of me to suggest that we were able to increase the number of children. At the moment, free school meals represents, as far as I'm concerned, the best proxy that we currently have for need. 

Thank you, Russell. Through the education improvement grant for schools we will continue to make available more than £225 million over the next two years to support both the foundation phase and improvements in schools. This represents a significant investment that will benefit all learners as part of our delivery of the national mission.

Thank you for your answer, Cabinet Secretary. I was listening to your answers to Darren Millar earlier on and you committed £5 million from your reserves for the financial year 2018-19 to allow for the impact on urban local authorities. But from your answer to Darren Millar, it seems that that figure is now £7.5 million. How do you intend to support learners in mid and north Wales, and, in particular, how much of that £2.5 million that you referred to earlier will support learners in Powys? 

Well, Russell, what's important is that we direct funds to where individuals who would previously have benefited under some of these grants are located. Because of the transfer, there are certain authorities that would not have received—or would have received very little under the old minority ethnic achievement grant and Gypsy/Traveller grant who, actually, under the RSG distribution, will have benefited. So, I do not anticipate at this stage making any additional resources available in this regard. 

Cabinet Secretary, the education improvement grant is there to assist the regional consortia to improve the outcomes for all learners. My region is home to the best comprehensive school in Wales, Pontarddulais, but it is also home to one of the worst-performing schools, just a few miles down the road. So, how does your Government plan to eliminate such huge disparity in attainment within regional consortia?

I'm very grateful for the acknowledgement of Pontarddulais school. Only yesterday evening, I met the headteacher of the school as she becomes one of the first tranche of the new associates of the academy of leadership, and her contribution to raising standards in her own school and across the region is one of the reasons why she has been appointed to one of those, what I would regard as prestigious, roles.

Variation in our system, whether that be in-school variation, in-county variation or, indeed, in-region variation, continues to be a source of grave concern to me. It was addressed yesterday in our debate on Estyn's annual report in that we need better school-to-school working so that we can ensure that that variation is kept to a minimum, because it is incredible, is it not, as you've just described, that in one small area we can have highly performing institutions and those that are not doing quite so well? We need to take the opportunity to learn from the best and share that good practice.

Thank you, Mr Bennett. Learners have the opportunity to study politics and citizenship as part of the Welsh baccalaureate and in personal and social education. Ensuring learners become ethical, informed citizens is one of the four purposes of the new curriculum. Political and citizenship education will be central to supporting this.

Yes, thanks for the answer. I think that, with the possibility of 16 and 17-year-olds getting the vote in Wales, there may be a stronger case now for improving the provision of political education in the school system. Indeed, many young campaigners who want the vote have called for that. So, I wonder, going forward, is there likely to be any change, do you feel, to the provision of political education?

Well, indeed, the development of the new curriculum provides a very real opportunity to ensure a broad and balanced education for children and young people across Wales, and I would include in that political and citizenship education. Indeed, as the mother of a 16-year-old myself, who is very anxious to have the opportunity to be able to have a democratic right and cast her vote and is incredibly—sometimes, much to my horror—interested in politics, I think that there is much more that we can do. One of the purposes of our curriculum, as I said, is to have ethical, informed citizens, and to be able to give our young people the skills, for instance, to understand that there will be words on the side of the bus and to interrogate exactly what those might appear to be or appear to promise and to be able to act accordingly, is very welcome.

Thank you very much, Jane, for the question. Local authorities are responsible for school funding in Wales. The Vale of Glamorgan Council sets their spending priorities for the services that they provide, taking consideration of local needs and all the resources available. How much an authority sets aside for school budgets is a matter for that authority.

Cabinet Secretary, you will be aware that the Vale of Glamorgan Council has written to every parent in the county about school funding. I thank you for your response to me regarding this matter. Your letter to me actually clarifies a number of points, and you've stated them again in response to me, and it does put the record straight regarding the Welsh Government's role in schools' funding budget decisions. So, I'm pleased you were able to clarify in your letter to me the key role of local government in setting budgets for their schools and for the role of local government in agreeing and reviewing the funding formula. I do want to quote briefly from your letter of 26 February. You say,

'The Welsh Government does not fund schools directly. Each Local Authority in Wales is responsible for determining how much funding is allocated to its schools'

and, as you say,

'How much an Authority sets aside for school budgets is a matter for the Authority to determine.'

You also say that,

'With regards to how the Welsh Government funds Local Authorities, the core revenue funding we provide is distributed according to relative need, using a formula which takes account of a wealth of information on the demographic, physical, economic and social characteristics of authorities. This funding formula has been developed in consultation with Local Government through the Distribution Sub Group'.

Do you think it would be helpful if your letter, including this information, was sent to every parent in the Vale of Glamorgan, or, at a minimum, was put on the Vale of Glamorgan website? And also, do you welcome the Welsh Government's twenty-first century schools programme, which has resulted in a new Llantwit Major learning community with an official opening on 22 March? And, Cabinet Secretary—

I've been very tolerant, Jane Hutt. You're over two minutes now. Very quick final question.

And finally, I understand that a recent Vale of Glamorgan Council cabinet report shows an increased capital contribution from the Welsh Government, while plans for 2017 onwards show a reduction in the Vale council's—[Interruption.]

Well, Presiding Officer, there is no doubt that this is a challenging time for education budgets, and I make no bones about that. That means that being clear about the facts and information is more important that ever, and it is disappointing that the correspondence that the Vale has issued to its schools and parents have misrepresented the position on school funding. I am in the process of responding to every letter that I have received from parents from the Vale of Glamorgan, setting the record straight, and I'm happy to do that again today.

In respect of core funding under the local government settlement, the Vale of Glamorgan is not—not—the lowest funded authority in Wales as it would have parents believe. It may be the lowest spending authority per pupil, but that is a matter for the council. What is a matter for me is that resources that I have centrally can be used to support education in the Vale of Glamorgan.

The Vale of Glamorgan benefits from the pupil deprivation grant; it also benefits from our small and rural schools grant; it is also part of our school-based supply cluster pilot; and it is also a part of our school business manager pilot. It has had significant resources made available to it under band A of the capital twenty-first century schools programme. We have outlined a significant amount of resource under the band B of the programme and, as you'll be aware, only this weekend I announced £14 million extra for small school repairs, of which the Vale of Glamorgan will receive over £0.5 million.

However, I must take this opportunity to say I would also encourage them, that is, the Vale of Glamorgan, to submit revised proposals to access part of the £36 million infant class-size commitment over the term, because what they've submitted to date does not meet the criteria, and I'm very anxious that children in the Vale of Glamorgan should not lose out on this opportunity to cut class sizes. 

I think the reason, Llywydd, this double act doesn't quite work—though it's been very well staged, I know, I grant them that—is that the Vale of Glamorgan is a highly competitive authority politically; it's been run recently by Labour administrations and Conservative administrations, with other parties involved and independent groups also, and they've all had concerns about the funding formula and have raised these matters. When will you actually review the situation, because there is cross-party concern in the Vale of Glamorgan about the current situation?

Let me be absolutely clear: the core funding formula is not a matter for me; it is a matter for my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for local government and for the revenue support group that sits across that, making decisions about how the RSG revenue support grant is made available. On two separate occasions, the Welsh Government have offered Welsh local government the opportunity to change the base data, most recently in 2014-15, and on both occasions, the WLGA have refused the offer to update the data, and I have asked officials and the Cabinet Secretary for local government to look at that again. But it is a matter for the local government working collectively to agree changes to base data.

Question 7 [OAQ51833] has been withdrawn, therefore, question 8, Simon Thomas.

Thank you very much, Simon. Discussions with DEFRA are ongoing regarding school milk. Wales will continue to participate in the existing EU school milk scheme. We will discuss with DEFRA and the other devolved administrations options for the future of the scheme, as part of our wider consideration around departure from the EU. And this is just one of a number of examples that many people do not know about with regard to the impact of us leaving the European Union.

Thank you for that response and I am pleased that discussions are ongoing, but at the moment, milk is available free of charge in the foundation phase, mainly because of investment by the Welsh Government. Milk is subsidised in primary schools, because we are part of the EU school milk scheme, and, of course, milk in schools is not only nutritious, and adds to the nutrition of children in schools, but also demonstrates where food comes from, so they can learn about the role of food in our daily lives.

I understand that you have to discuss this at a UK level, but I also think it’s important that the current Government, the Welsh Government, should make a statement that you would wish to continue, come what may, with the current milk system, because I think that’s the assurance that parents, schools and the wider community want to see.

Well, Simon, as you've acknowledged, the Welsh Government's school milk scheme is indeed unique amongst the United Kingdom home nations, being the only scheme that offers milk at no cost to the entire foundation phase. Over 99 per cent of maintained primary schools are signed up to the scheme, and as you said, it has a number of benefits for the children involved.

In 2017-18, the free school milk budget was £2.2 million, and even in the difficult scenarios that we've just been talking about with regard to education funding, I have been determined to keep that investment going because I realise and I recognise the benefits of the free milk scheme. We will continue to discuss this, but this is a live issue, it's not something we have forgotten about and we're actively engaged in how we can take this forward.

Can I thank Simon Thomas for bringing this question? Because I'm a really keen supporter of children receiving free milk in schools and, preferably, until they leave school, but there we go.

Can I thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for saying that you're as committed to providing that? But post Brexit, what consideration will you make of encouraging direct partnerships between our local milk producers, our farmers and schools, so that more people can get an added benefit out of having free schools with local milk?

Well, Janet, primarily, we provide milk to our schoolchildren because of the nutritional benefits that that provides children. But, of course, it has an additional benefit to the dairy sector, and as Simon Thomas says, it can provide us with a useful teaching opportunity to talk to children about sustainable food production, where their food comes from, and, indeed, the social and historic contribution to our nation of our farming community and our dairy sector in particular.

I'm continually looking at ways in which we can increase the amount of local produce that is available via our school meals services, as well as providing opportunities for Welsh children to understand more about where their food comes from.

Thank you, Mark. Local authorities are responsible for providing suitable educational provision for all learners to enable them to access a range of qualifications, including the Welsh baccalaureate. Those with additional learning needs will receive additional support to meet their individual needs.

Thank you. I've been contacted by the mother of a young man on the autism spectrum. They've looked at the Welsh bac at level 3 and have doubts about their son's ability to cope with aspects of the Welsh bac, particularly the maths skills needed for the level 3 Welsh bac, where there's a need for a lot of executive functioning skills and collaborative and social skills that are likely to cause stress for their son and prevent him from coping with the course. How, therefore, will you address the barriers to achievement presented by the compulsion of the Welsh bac for all learners, and in particular learners with additional learning needs, on a level 3 course? And, what consideration will you give to a more flexible attitude that allows for learners with 'spiky profiles' to achieve, for some it would mean the baccalaureate and for others that would be too much, but nonetheless they need the opportunity to achieve with the great skills that they have?

Thank you, Mark. I start from the basis that all qualifications should be available to all of our cohort, and I don't think any of us would want to start from the provision of saying that there are certain groups of learners who cannot access a certain qualification. We have to start on the basis of equity.

However, I would expect headteachers to use their professional judgment in determining which learners should be undertaking the Welsh baccalaureate at the relevant level, according to the individual learning pathway, and what support individual learners may need to allow them to access a qualification that could be of benefit to them. But it has to be down to the professional judgment of those teachers who work with individuals and families.

Mick, as I've stated earlier, I've had a number of discussions in recent weeks with sector representatives—both the unions and the employers.

Thank you for that answer, Cabinet Secretary. Isn't it a tragedy that, throughout the UK, tens of thousands of university staff have had to go on strike to resist a unilateral change by Universities UK to their pension scheme, and in some cases that will mean a pensions reduction in value of up to 40 per cent? On Monday, Cabinet Secretary, I had the honour of joining members of University and College Union on their picket line. They asked for one thing: an independent review leading to genuine negotiations. Do you agree that this is a reasonable demand, and will the Welsh Government do all it can to encourage—and I repeat, encourage—genuine negotiations to achieve a resolution to this dispute?

As I said in answer to the questions that Llyr Huws Gruffydd raised earlier, the Welsh Government stands ready to provide whatever support possible, necessary and needed to ensure that we can have that real and positive negotiation between both the employers and employees, and we continue to be ready to do that. We also are working hard with the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales to ensure that any disruption to individual students who may be affected by this action is kept to the very minimum.

I too have been supporting the lecturers who've been left with no alternative other than to strike in defence of their pensions, and I too spoke in one of their rallies. The pension changes that the UCU are opposing will hit everyone hard, but it's going to affect those lecturers early in their career, and it's also going to have an impact on part-time contracts and those on insecure contracts more than anyone else. This will inevitably lead to intergenerational and gender inequalities among university staff and that is unacceptable.

Will you condemn the changes to a pension scheme that could leave university staff in retirement in poverty? And, are you also concerned about the impact that this could have on the university sector in Wales, with many of our brightest and most capable lecturers seriously considering their future in this sector as a result of this move?

Leanne, as I said earlier, I am gravely concerned for the sector in Wales, and for individual students who are caught up in the strike action. I understand why the UCU have felt that they have no other option but to withdraw their labour, given the changes proposed to pensions for their members, and I have met regularly and corresponded regularly with the UCU, listening to their concerns and offering to provide assistance wherever we possibly can. I have also continued to raise this with Universities Wales and with Wales's vice-chancellors, urging them to get back around the table and to have the detailed, true and honest negotiations that Mick Antoniw just referred to, as well as working closely with HEFCW to ensure that disruption to individual students is kept to a minimum.

It is clear to me that the decision to go back to talks, supervised and organised by ACAS, is a step forward, but we need to do more to ensure that a suitable outcome can be found for those individuals who find themselves caught up in this way.

Careers Wales is an impartial careers service that gives guidance to young people and adults, as well as facilitating links between education and employers. The service is currently being revised in an exciting way, and there will be an even greater focus on working with young people and stakeholders and on developing digital services.

Thank you very much. I’m going to ask you not to be as impartial as careers advisers. My interest is in your willingness to work with the Cabinet Secretary for health to encourage the young people of Wales to follow a career in health and care. Would you, as a Government, support joint investment between education and health, possibly, in a kind of all-Wales roadshow to explain the whole range of career options in these areas and to generate excitement in those options, from nursing to medical care and other professions—something that could also double up as a roadshow encouraging people to take an interest in their own health, in their own bodies and in their own diet and so on? I would be more than happy to meet Government representatives to tell them more about my vision in this area.

Well, there are a great many exciting things taking place in this area currently. We do hold days where we encourage young people to have a go—they’re called 'Have a go' days. Thousands of children have been attending these events, where they have access to see what type of options are out there for careers in the future. Health is a part of that, and we must also emphasise that we do need to get people to look into STEM subjects and to ensure that we don’t just emphasise health but point out that there are other opportunities; for example, we would hope to see people going into Wylfa and the developments there. So, I think that limiting it just to health might not be the path that we would wish to take. However, I would be willing to give further information about these days that are already taking place—these ‘Have a go’ days, which are very successful.

Other than Careers Wales, of course, Minister, there are a number of organisations, businesses and other charities that offer careers advice and guidance and training—many of which get money from the Welsh Government or access funding from sources that start with the Welsh taxpayer. How are you working with those organisations to make sure that they understand the growing importance of Welsh language skills? Are you ensuring, even if the organisations have the awareness, that the people that they're training are also aware at the end of that experience?

I'm very pleased with that question because I do think that we need to recognise the Welsh language as a skill as well as other things. The more that we ask different organisations to adhere to the standards, then the more we will be needing to recruit people with the skills necessary to implement those plans. So, there is an awareness that that is something that we need to emphasise. We are emphasising it much more significantly now in further education colleges, understanding that that was an area where we saw a huge drop-off in the number of people actually using the Welsh language after they'd finished Welsh language education. So, there are real opportunities. It is something that we are very much focusing on, and understanding that, actually, the Welsh language is a skill, and it is a method of actually finding a job in the future. A lot of it is about giving people the confidence

to use the Welsh language in a way that will help them to understand that it's an important part of the skills that they have.

Thank you, Minister and Cabinet Secretary.

The next item is questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport. Question 1 [OAQ51860] is withdrawn. Question 2—Caroline Jones.

Yes. 'Prosperity for All', our national strategy, sets out our intention to blend multiple policy aims and objectives. This partnership approach offers benefits to the life sciences sector in Wales, contributing to economic growth whilst also improving the efficiency and affordability of health services and, of course, improving the well-being of citizens across our country.

Thank you. Cabinet Secretary, I want to congratulate you on the work you are doing with the pharmaceutical sector in Wales, and welcome the announcement you made earlier today at the BioWales 2018 conference. The future of the pharmaceutical sector in Wales is not in the manufacturing of drugs but in the researching of new medicines. What is your Government doing to support increased links between the pharma sector and Welsh universities?

Well, can I thank the Member for her question? This is a timely moment to be able to discuss the life sciences sector, given BioWales 2018 is taking place just next door at the Wales Millennium Centre, and I was delighted to be there this morning to launch the occasion. There are 365 companies in the life sciences sector across Wales, employing more than 12,000 in well-paid high-quality jobs. So, it's a crucial sector for our economy, and we see life sciences businesses thrive right across Wales in many of our communities. So, it's not a sector that is just confined to one specific location in Wales.

Now, I'm pleased to say that, as a consequence of A Regional Collaboration for Health, ARCH, we are seeing a £200 million project being developed, which comprises two proposals: for the creation of a wellness village and life sciences village in Llanelli, and also a life sciences and well-being campus project at the Morriston campus of Swansea University. What's crucially important about this development is that it overlaps perfectly with the Swansea bay city deal, of which, of course, health and well-being is a very prominent theme. That particular project aims to create more than 1,800—again high-quality well-paid—jobs in the coming years, and will benefit the economy by more than £460 million. I think this is just the sort of collaborative effort that needs to be replicated across Wales. We see in the north, in the south-east and west efforts being undertaken to bring together academia and business, and I think, in the life sciences sector, there are some excellent examples of that delivering real results.

Can I congratulate the Cabinet Secretary on assuming responsibility for the city deals into his portfolio now? You've anticipated my question, to some degree, on the back of that. You referred to the life sciences campus and the sites there. Part of their role is to attract investment in for the whole of the city deal concept, if you like. Will you be expecting that investment to take the form of both public funds and private investment? I know there's a strong emphasis, as there should be, on private investment, but, with the potential loss of EU funding sources, what are you doing in looking at alternative public sector routes for that?

Well, we've repurposed the Life Sciences Hub Wales to ensure that there is a greater degree of overlap between what's happening in the business community and the needs of patients and people in Wales. In terms of the city deal, I think there would be an expectation not just of private sector investment but also the potential to draw in public sector investment through the NHS and through social care providers. I think, again, the city deal in Swansea makes for a perfect opportunity to promote health and well-being as a priority, not just for that region but also as a priority for the whole of Wales.

Yes, of course. We're continuing to invest significantly in this strategic route in north Wales. We are spending £40 million to upgrade junctions 15 and 16, another £250 million in the Deeside and Flintshire corridor project, and looking at accelerating the delivery of the third Menai crossing. Of course, the road forms part of The Wales Way—a strategy to promote tourism in Wales—and it's marketed nationally and internationally as the culture corridor.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. You'll be aware, yesterday, that I had to raise with the First Minister the number of times that the A55 has actually been closed—that's 55—for a total of 2,720 hours. That's over 113 days. That's nearly a third of a year. This is an essential trunk road for businesses, freight and holidaymakers across the north, and they have been let down time and time again. Only yesterday, of course, we had the accident that has sadly seen two people hospitalised. And it's becoming the norm now. On a daily basis, people are expecting, at some stage, there to be major gridlock on these roads. I don't make this as a pun in any way, but I cannot afford, as the Assembly Member for Aberconwy, to take my foot off the pedal in terms of scrutiny on this issue. So, how will you ensure that your proposed upgrades and work associated with the pinchpoint programmes will not lead to further delays, congestion and just absolute misery for visitors coming into north Wales? It's gone on for too long now, Cabinet Secretary, and we really do need to be seeing some improvements.

I don't think anybody in the Chamber would disagree with the assertion that the A55 requires investment and upgrades. I'm pleased that we've been able in recent months to avoid planned daytime closures of the A55. Night-time closures will continue through to September of this year with no daytime planned closures taking place. But I also recognise that there is a need at the same time to upgrade significant parts of the A55 and to implement the short, medium and long-term objectives and recommendations that were identified in the resilience study.

In terms of the 55 closures, the vast majority of those can be attributed to accidents, incidents, breakdowns due to—believe it or not, there is a proportion of breakdowns caused by motorists running out of fuel. But it was also attributed largely to those planned overnight works.

Now, I think that what's essential is that we look at the progress that is going to be made in the coming months, and then judge on the basis of the implementation of the quick wins the success or otherwise of Welsh Government. I can say that, on wireless CCTV, installation is taking place in April; on the incident detection software, we're trialling a system; on the traffic officer coverage, with the extended hours, we're currently recruiting additional traffic officers—likewise, the additional traffic officer unit—and we expect also that by the end of March additional traffic officers will be extending their work right to the Gledrid roundabout of the A483, covering that huge area, the 55 and then down.

I'm pleased to be able to say that we're expecting a launch during April of the roads timetable. We're currently in discussions with data providers. In terms of the free recovery trial that was identified in the resilience study, we're currently reviewing historic incident statistics to see where and when this might provide some benefit. There was also a recommendation for additional mobile units and we now have six mobile signs rented, and those are on order for delivery shortly. We also have taken on a communications manager, which was identified as a crucial role. In terms of performance analysis we expect in April to be able to have completed the procurement effort that will allow that. In terms of the average speed enforcement trial on the Rhuallt Hill, again, we're going to go live with that in April or May of this year, and then, finally, the final short term measure that was recommended concerned vehicle restrictions on slow-moving vehicles. We are currently identifying exactly what definition should be used for slow-moving vehicles. It might take some time. We need to ensure the legal implications are bottomed out before we implement any restrictions on vehicle movement.

Questions from party spokespeople to the Cabinet Secretary, and the Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Adam Price.  

Diolch, Llywydd. The Wales and borders rail franchise has proven a unique exercise in many ways—unique in the form of the bidding process, but also, sadly, in that 50 per cent of the bidders have now had to pull out. It's also unique for any major rail procurement exercise in the UK in that the invitation to tender has not been made public. This continues to be the case despite the fact that the final tenders were submitted on 21 December 2017. They cannot now be altered, which is one of the reasons for Abellio's forced withdrawal from the process. This lack of transparency has prevented stakeholders from making meaningful comments on the aspirations of the Welsh Government for the future shape of the Welsh rail network. So, perhaps the Cabinet Secretary can shed some light on this for us today. Can he confirm that electrification of the Ebbw Vale to Cardiff rail line has been effectively ruled out for phase 2 of the south Wales metro, and that there is no commitment now either to electrify the Bridgend to Maesteg line?

Well, first of all we're awaiting, or I'm awaiting, full evaluation of the two bids for the franchise and the metro development. It would be premature for me to identify which projects are going to be taken forward and in what form within the next Wales and borders franchise and the development of the metro until the award has been made. But I would say, with regard to the tender process, yes, this is a unique process, one that has not been conducted anywhere else in the UK, but I think as Sion Barry in the Western Mail identified just a few weeks ago, we made the right call in making sure that four bidders remained in the race. There were calls for us to whittle the number of bidders down to two. I think it would have been somewhat embarrassing if that had taken place and then for Arriva and Abellio to have been those final two, and then for Arriva to withdraw and Abellio to have pulled out. But the fact remains that we have two world-class bids that are being evaluated at the moment. They've been strenuously tested, and we are on course to award the next franchise by May of this year.

Well, maybe I can help the Cabinet Secretary out a little here, because some of the answers have been provided for us now through the strategic environmental assessment on the south Wales metro that Transport for Wales have had to produce, and publish, under European regulations, albeit slightly under the radar. This document, and the accompanying maps, confirm that the Ebbw Vale electrification project has been—and I'm quoting directly here from the material now published by Transport for Wales—'discontinued from future consideration'.

Similarly ruled out is connecting Trelewis to near Quakers Yard, joining the Merthyr and Rhymney lines to create the so-called circle line of the Valleys, proposed by Mick Antoniw. It rejects an extension from Merthyr to Dowlais Top, but it does confirm a brand new on-street light rail service between Cathays Park and Cardiff Bay, replacing the current bendy bus. Now, Cabinet Secretary, you're getting £125 million to spend on the metro from the UK Government. When you asked for it, your Government promised it would be for the electrification of the entire Valleys lines network. You're now cancelling that, in just the same way as the UK Government did with electrification to Swansea, while continuing to spend on a bullet train for the bay. The Conservative Government were rightly accused of selling out on people who live to the west of Cardiff. Isn't the Labour Government now doing exactly the same to people who live in the Valleys to the north?

This is not correct. First and foremost, we have consulted on, and published, on numerous occasions, the high-level objectives for the Wales and borders franchise and the development of the metro. The specific design of the metro, and the build of the metro, will take place once the award has been made. But what counts most is that passengers see a vast improvement in the services that are delivered to them. In terms of electrification, we cannot say, until the award has been made, what the specific solutions are for each and every one of those lines that are contained within the metro area. It's therefore premature to assume that electrification of the entire Valleys lines is not included in any of the bids. I cannot divulge what is in the bids, but it is simply not possible to speculate over what is in there at present.

Cabinet Secretary, I'm quoting from your own Transport for Wales authority's maps. Under 'red', it says,

'Discontinued from future consideration at present'.

I'm just quoting at you your own transport authority's statement on these subjects. It is right, of course, that some of the money that you've had is going to be spent on the Valleys lines. According to the same document, there is a possibility that the existing core Valleys lines will be converted to light rail. But, again, that's a policy that we should be debating, because some will feel that light rail isn't appropriate in all circumstances—over long distances, for example, where trains are meant to travel more than 45 mph. It will disconnect the core Valleys lines from the national heavy rail network, with no freight or excursion, or through trains, for example, to Cardiff Airport possible ever again. Though I should point out that you've also ruled out a rail link to Cardiff Airport in the document, but we weren't told about that either. Why weren't we told about these policy decisions, so that we could debate them, and so that the people, ultimately, whose railway service this is—not the Government's—could have their say on whether this was the vision and these were the priorities they wanted to see?

Let's just be clear that devolution of responsibility for and funding for core Valleys lines is taking place, and we remain absolutely committed to upgrading the core Valleys lines as part of the metro vision, so that people can have more regular journeys. Four journeys an hour, we believe, is appropriate within a metro area, as a minimum. We've been clear in stating that. We've been clear in stating that, right across Wales, there will be improvements in terms of capacity, in terms of journey times and reliability. Outside of the core Valleys lines area, responsibility for infrastructure remains with the UK Government, but we would wish to see that devolved as well, as soon as possible. I think events of the past few weeks, with the damage to flanges on railway wheelsets, demonstrate why we need to make sure that there is a greater degree of investment right across the network in Wales. And, for that reason, we believe it should be devolved—responsibility should be devolved. But in terms of the metro, I can promise Members, I can assure Members, that the bids through from two world-class operators make for compelling arguments that there will be change to the rail services within the metro area, and across the country. 

Conservative spokesperson, Russell George. 

Diolch, Llywydd. Cabinet Secretary, despite being set up in 2013 to deliver greater value for the Welsh taxpayer, the Wales Audit Office has been critical of the National Procurement Service. Now, by anyone's estimation, it has comprehensively failed to deliver the intended savings in public spending. In 2016-17, it only generated about 60 per cent of the savings expected and, worse still, it made a loss of around £2 million, in both 2015-16 and 2016-17. So, can I ask why the Welsh Government's flagship policy for improving public procurement in Wales has failed so badly? 

It's not actually the responsibility of my department. It's the responsibility of the Cabinet Secretary for Finance.FootnoteLink However, in terms of the economic action plan, we've made clear that with the economic contract, we could open up opportunities to extend the economic contract—the £6 billion of procurement opportunities within the Welsh public purse. We stated that we wish to disaggregate major procurement opportunities and contracts so that more small and medium-sized enterprises in Wales can capture valuable infrastructure projects across the country. 

I appreciate what you've said, and, of course, you are responsible for the economic action plan, SMEs and supply chains that benefit as well. The Welsh Goverment formed the NPS in 2013. When it did that, it was given a £5.9 million loan, and, five years later, the NPS has failed to pay that loan back. So, I would ask, Cabinet Secretary, when can the Welsh taxpayer expect that money to be paid back? And, further still, the NPS is now not covering its own running costs, despite the then Cabinet Secretary Jane Hutt stating that the NPS would be self-financing by 2016. So, why is the Welsh Government currently using taxpayers' money to prop up the NPS and cover its running costs each year, despite the original policy being for the NPS to be self-funding by 2016?  

Again, I'd refer this issue to my Cabinet colleague, who retains responsibility for it. I'm sure that my Cabinet colleague Mark Drakeford would be able to offer detailed answers to the questions that the Member has raised.  

The National Procurement Service, I would suggest, is a failed policy. It's certainly an ongoing drain on the public purse. I am going to come to some areas that are certainly in your portfolio. Welsh SMEs and Welsh supply chains are not benefiting from the Welsh Government's procurement spending. In 2015-16, only 52 per cent of Welsh Government spending on goods and services went to Wales-based firms, and your Government's new economic action plan, which, of course, is in your responsibility, also fails to provide any detailed and meaningful road map for improving public procurement in Wales. So, can I ask a question that is absolutely in your portfolio? Why has the Welsh Government failed to address the issue of improving public procurement in the latest economic plan?

Well, it is addressed in the plan, as I say, through the disaggregation of major contracts. That will prove to be hugely beneficial, given the size of infrastructure projects—road in particular. And we're also working with not just industry bodies, but also with the sector teams within Government, to identify ways that businesses are able to work together and learn from one another in how to capture a greater share of the Welsh procurement spend. The Member is right that currently it's about 52 per cent—the proportion of contracts that are won by Welsh businesses—but that figure is increasing year on year, and I expect, through those measures identified in the economic action plan, and with additional measures that I've outlined through our engagement directly with business and business organisations, we'll see an increase further in the years to come. 

UKIP spokesperson, David Rowlands. 

Diolch, Llywydd. Cabinet Secretary, with the UK being listed by the Forbes as being the best place in the world to do business, where does Wales stand in comparison? 

Well, given the alarms that have been raised recently by Airbus, by Ford and by many other companies, I would imagine that as we leave the EU, if we don't get the best possible deal, Wales, along with the UK as a whole, will be left further behind. 

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for that answer. I think all of us in this Chamber would recognise the fact that we need to considerably improve our act if we are to develop our business and commercial base in Wales, and, as discussed in the latest questions session, one of the key enablers to improvement is education. Nothing will do more to stimulate growth indigenously and also for inward investment than increasing our skills base, both vocationally and academically. Does it therefore concern the Cabinet Secretary that Cardiff University—the best performing in Wales—is ranked thirty-fifth out of 129 in the UK and that we have three others in the bottom 10?

I think it's fair to say that higher education gives us the strategic weapons for future economic growth in the fight for competitiveness, whereas further education gives us the tactical arsenal. In terms of FE, I think we have a very, very proud story to tell indeed. We have amongst Britain's best further education institutions based here in Wales. In terms of our higher education estate, I do think we have some world-class universities, and Cardiff amongst them, but Swansea as well, I think, in terms of research and development, in particular with regards to steel, can be counted as one of the world's best. The Member is right that, in driving up productivity, one of the key levers at our disposal is the improvement to the skills base and the pipeline of skilled people who are coming through to support business. But also we need to ensure that there is a greater degree of diffusion of innovation in Wales. We've been very clear that we expect, through the calls to action—the prisms through which we are going to be channelling and viewing investments in the future—that businesses innovate more and therefore work more closely, not just with higher education, but also with further education as well. I think in doing so, we will be able to improve our prospects and improve our productivity levels in years to come.

Again, I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his answer, and for the confidence he has in the Government's economic strategy. But the Federation of Small Businesses and business in general have long complained about the disconnect between employers and the academic establishment. Does that Cabinet Secretary believe that there are now policies in place to radically improve on this failing?

I do. I'd argue that now, more than ever before, businesses, and particularly higher education, are working more closely than they ever have done, and I'd point to an abundance of examples right across Wales where that is the case. Just today, I'm pleased to be able to share with Members the news that the advanced manufacturing research institute is being given planning permission in Broughton. We'll be spending a not-inconsiderable sum of money in developing that particular facility, but it will bring in significant private sector investment and also higher education investment. In doing so—in bringing together business with Welsh Government activities and with higher education research—we expect that institute to deliver something in the region of £4 billion of improvements in gross value added to the Welsh economy. That's a hugely significant investment, therefore, for Welsh Government to make. I think it demonstrates how smart investment that brings together business, large and small, with academia can bring about very rich fruits indeed for the economy.

The 'Prosperity for All' national strategy and the economic action plan set out the actions we are taking to improve the economy and business environment across the whole of Wales. 

Sadly, figures from the Local Data Company and the Wales Institute of Social and Economic Research, Data and Methods show that Milford Haven still continues to have the highest vacancy rate of retail premises in Wales. This, of course, has been a long-standing problem that desperately needs support. It won't surprise the Cabinet Secretary that business rates is one factor in preventing businesses from setting up in places like Milford Haven. In the circumstances, can the Cabinet Secretary tell us what discussions he's had with his colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Finance on this matter? Perhaps he can persuade his colleague to commit to reviewing the business rates system in order to look at things like the multiplier to ensure that small businesses aren't actually disadvantaged on our high streets.

I can assure the Member that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance is very alive to the concerns of businesses in Pembrokeshire, and in particular to the concerns that they have over rates. I will raise with him further the points that you have raised today. But I would say that, as a whole across Pembrokeshire, we've seen a significant increase in the number of enterprises operating in recent years. I believe that there's been an increase of something in the region of 10.6 per cent in the number of businesses in Pembrokeshire since the start of the decade. However, I do also recognise that new and existing businesses do face very difficult challenges, and I'll certainly raise the concerns that the Member has raised today in the Chamber with the Cabinet Secretary.

Last week, the First Minister announced that Valero will be investing in a £127 million project to create a combined heat and power cogeneration unit at their Pemrokeshire refinery. That project will help secure the long-term sustainability of the refinery and also secure over 1,000 employees, and help boost the Pembrokeshire economy and, for that matter, that of Wales.

I understand the Welsh Government has been working closely with Valero to help secure this crucial investment. Cabinet Secretary, would you agree that this investment clearly demonstrates the value of strategic enterprise zones like the Haven Waterway enterprise zone, which you have now agreed to extend?

Yes, I would, and I thank the Member for her question. I think it's fantastic news. Valero's £127 million project, I think, shows confidence in the Pembrokeshire site and in the wider Welsh economy. It's interesting that the refinery is one of only six remaining refining businesses in the UK and it's located right at the heart of the Haven Waterway enterprise zone. It demonstrates how, by working together, we can secure employment within a valuable sector for many, many people. Something in the region of 1,000 people rely on work at this particular site. I'm delighted that we've been part of this positive news for the region.

Darren Millar is not here to ask question 5 [OAQ51849]. Therefore, question 6, Mick Antoniw.

Yes. Development of the site depends on the solution proposed by the successful bidder. As part of their robust approach to programme management, Transport for Wales are considering comments submitted on the outline planning consultation for the potential use of the site as a depot, prior to progressing with an outline planning application.

Thank you for that answer. Of course, we welcome all the steps that have been taken with Transport for Wales and with this potential new job opportunity in the Taff Ely area, which is of considerable significance. The issue I raise really is about engagement with the local community. I remember the site well as the former South Wales Forgemasters site. The issues that will arise will obviously be the light and noise pollution during construction, potential access issues at Tŷ Rhiw junction, Cemetery Road and Cardiff Road, and the availability of sufficient parking at Taff's Well station, which is also an issue that has been raised as a proposal in there. What steps have been taken to ensure there is proper engagement and consultation with the local community over this, whilst actually welcoming the fact that there will be a real jobs opportunity for the area?

Can I thank Mick Antoniw for his question? I recognise that he's spoken regularly and with great commitment on this subject. I'm pleased to be able to say that the statutory pre-application period of four weeks for the proposed depot concluded at the end of February. Transport for Wales have carefully considered the comments from the community. A consultation took place and statutory consultees were also engaged. We intend to submit a pre-application summary report along with a full outline planning application for a potential depot to the local planning authority shortly.

The national transport finance plan, updated in December of last year, sets out our priorities for transport schemes across Wales, including in Pembrokeshire.

I'm grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for his answer. It won't surprise the Cabinet Secretary to hear me again arguing that one way to improve the transport infrastructure in Pembrokeshire is to dual the A40, which would have a huge, positive knock-on effect on Pembrokeshire's economy and, indeed, on the economy of the whole of west Wales. Dualling would also improve road safety. Sadly, yesterday, we saw another fatality on this stretch of road. In light of the economic and, more importantly, safety benefits dualling the road could bring, will you now commit to dualling the A40 in Pembrokeshire in the long term, given that the Welsh Government has already committed to delivering improvements to the A40 in Pembrokeshire anyway?  

We are committed to delivering many improvements to the A40. It's a key strategic route, and I'm pleased to be able to say that preliminary investigations have already begun to develop several more overtaking opportunities along the entire stretch of the A40. We're currently looking at when these can be delivered alongside other priorities that are identified in the national transport finance plan, and we'll develop a programme in due course. We also hope that European Union funding that's been earmarked for these improvements will be drawn down and utilised. The A40 is a hugely important route within Wales, and I will do whatever I possibly can to argue the case for further investment, not just for overtaking opportunities but, where possible, the dualling of the route as well.   

Question 8, [OAQ51840], has been withdrawn, Therefore, question 9, Mark Reckless.

I can confirm that we will bring forward a debate in Government time on the M4 corridor around Newport project following conclusion of the public local inquiry. Given the legal implications of an ongoing public inquiry, we are currently considering options available to us and the timing, of course, of this debate, and I will inform the Assembly of those plans as soon as they are finalised.

Will Welsh Government treat the Assembly with equivalent respect in that debate and vote as it has with the recent vote to publish a leak report? 

I can assure the Member that, with a Government debate, there is a vote, and I think it's essential, given that this subject has raised so many differing views, that all Members get a full opportunity to debate the subject and to be able to vote on it, as we've already promised that we will do. 

Yes. The national transport finance plan, which was updated just last year, sets out our programme for the next three years and beyond.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for that response. I would like to ask: will the Cabinet Secretary consider quick wins such as the reopening of railway stations such as Landore, creating bus-train interchanges within the region and completing cycle routes? 

Yes, I will consider quick wins of that nature, particularly those relating to active travel, given my stated desire to see a significant increase in the availability of capital funding to support active travel projects. Aproposal for reopening Landore station is being considered as part of a Welsh Government assessment of proposals for new rail stations. We'll be putting Landore forward as one possible option to be considered as part of the exercise being undertaken by Network Rail.  

As part of the UK's consultation into the future of the Great Western railway position, I've actually done my own transport survey locally, mainly talking about the possibility of a parkway in Felindre or somewhere similar. That proved quite popular, but also ideas were put forward about improving local internal rail links as well, as Mike Hedges has mentioned, to help ease congestion and feed into what a parkway can do, because one of the advantages of a parkway, of course, is that it could help focus the movement of people and of traffic westwards into the city deal area, not just eastwards as we might expect. Obviously, there's a UK element to this. Have you had an opportunity yet to discuss yourself the opportunities that a parkway would present for the whole of the city deal region, not just for Swansea itself? 

Yes, indeed. In fact, just this morning I met with Councillor Rob Stewart to discuss many issues, including the one that the Member has identified, and I think it might be helpful, perhaps, if I was to offer Members sight of my response to the consultation on the GWR franchise route. And I think that will identify how Welsh Government is making numerous demands of UK Government in terms of improvement of passenger services, and improvements to journey times and frequency of services as well. I think it's an exciting time, potentially, for the Swansea bay region. Of course, we've had the very sad, regrettable decision concerning electrification, but we are funding work concerning the potential development of a metro project, and I think this has all the potential to radically change the region and to bring further prosperity and opportunities for growth to Swansea bay and the surrounding communities. 

Cabinet Secretary, whilst the concept, obviously, as you mention, of a Swansea bay and western Valleys metro is to be welcomed, does the Cabinet Secretary recognise concerns within the Neath Port Talbot area around the need to protect the status of Neath railway station as part of any metro proposal, and what discussions have you undertaken with the local authority and other stakeholders to address those concerns?

Well, I think the local authority has been very clear in its position on Neath station. I've listened very carefully and I accept the argument that Neath station and, indeed, many other stations in the area shouldn't just be protected but should be enhanced. I will look at any proposals within the metro vision that will deliver improved infrastructure across the entire network. 

In order to improve tourism, we as a Government, of course, invest across Wales. In 2017, in the South Wales West region of Wales, which the Member represents, this included visitor car and coach parking at Rhossili; significant improvements to Fairyhill hotel, which I had an opportunity to visit relatively recently and to see the impact of those improvements on the visitor offer in being part of an area of outstanding natural beauty as they enjoy their holidays; the development of the Three Cliffs coffee shop; as well as help, I’m pleased to say, for that historic hotel, the Castle Hotel, in Neath—one of the most important hotels in the history of the development of sport in Wales.

Thank you for that clear explanation of what is important for my region and that of others in this Chamber. I ask this question because one of the main points of your economic plan is tourism and culture. We have seen in the Neath Port Talbot area that the local authority has proposed that cuts be made to the Cefn Coed museum, which is something that we would like to see restored and developed. There have also been cuts put forward of 30.6 per cent to Pontardawe Arts Centre, which is also important as a vibrant arts centre for that area, and for the Swansea valley and for Swansea and Neath more generally. How will these cuts align with the economic system that you have, as a Government, of promoting and developing tourism and the arts locally?

Well, tourism, of course, is one of the foundation industries noted in the economic plan. We as a Government are not responsible for decisions taken by local authorities on their budgets, but I do think that it would be very constructive if local authorities were to do what I had an opportunity to participate in in Carmarthenshire very recently, namely to have a lengthy and detailed discussion on the priorities of the authority, particularly where the county council saw an opportunity to benefit from the various schemes that come within the budgets of the department that I am responsible for, particularly those schemes that make provision for tourism but which also, similarly, make provision for local residents and visitors. So, I’m not going to comment on decisions taken by local authorities, but it would be much easier if local authorities were to discuss their priorities with the Welsh Government in these various different areas.

Minister, you started in Swansea, you went to Neath—come to Aberavon and see some of the fantastic sites for tourism in Margam Park and the Afan valley. Many mining communities up in the Afan valleys and other valleys have moved to tourism as an opportunity to actually look at growing the economy. We have projects in the Afan valley. I know the Rhondda tunnel is going between Rhondda and the Afan valley, but there is also the Afan valley project—the resort project that has been proposed. These are opportunities that provide local people with jobs and skills that we can use in their home place. Will you come and visit that site to look at it and to ensure that tourism can actually get a community to thrive and start developing itself, based upon the fact that it's actually had a long period where there's been a lack of growth in the economy because of the loss of those industries? 

Well, I can hardly say 'no' to you with you sitting there. [Laughter.] We are long-standing friends, obviously, as well as neighbours. But, seriously, I have been trying to visit as many of these sites as possible. I was in Cwmcarn recently, where I saw how the development of the relationship between the forestry, which has had serious problems, and the paths and the way the local authority can, by developing an excellent centre, get involved in the development of tourism, especially tourism based on cycling. I was also, of course, in my own part of the world at Coed y Brenin, which one might describe as second only to the Afan valley—[Laughter.]—as a centre of tourism and mountain biking. Certainly, I will come to the Afan valley, but I can only praise the efforts of all our mining communities, both the coal-mining communities, the lead-mining communities around where I live, and of course the slate-mining communities, which have all contributed immensely to the tourism offer now available, and I hope to be visiting Zip World and Surf Snowdonia and other of these facilities, none of which are now in the area that I represent, but not too far from the area where I live. So, I'm on the case, Dai.

Diolch. I'm currently considering the findings and recommendations of the inspector's report that has been received following the public local inquiry, before making a decision on the scheme this spring.

Forgive me for my increasing frustration here. It's about time we had an announcement on the bypass. It's two years behind schedule already, and I was given a pledge by you that there would be an announcement in the new year. For me, the new year has long since passed, and we are into March and we still haven't had an announcement. As well as reducing traffic jams, the area would benefit economically from the proposal, and 40 apprenticeships could be created immediately in my area if there were to be an announcement made. So, may I urge you to announce the commencement of this scheme over the next few weeks?

I listened very carefully to what the Member had to say. I can assure the Member that it is essential that sufficient consideration is given to an inquiry's report in order to avoid any subsequent judicial action. The inspector considered 20 expressions of support for the scheme and 160 objections. The inspector also considered 20 alternative routes as part of the inquiry process. The inspector has presented his considerations along with his recommendations in a detailed report to my officials. I can assure the Member that I will be reaching a decision on this matter this spring.

Yes. A renewed economic vision for north Wales will emerge from the regional agenda contained in the Welsh Government's 'Prosperity for All' economic action plan document, integrating the aspirations of the north Wales growth bid and incorporating and capitalising on opportunities associated with key sectors and, of course, the Northern Powerhouse.

Thank you for that answer. Cabinet Secretary, at the weekend, the gap between the richest and poorest in the UK was highlighted, where the poor relation of the UK was west Wales. I've been looking into the relative prosperity of my region, and I find a large gap of around £50 per week in average earnings between those living there and those living and working in South Wales Central. What are you going to do to address this inequality and close the gap between the north and the south?

Well, it's not just a gap between the north and the south. We see inequalities in all communities, and between the north and the south, between the east and the west, between communities that are adjacent to one another. The whole purpose of the economic action plan is to iron out those inequalities and to offer higher quality jobs to people close to their homes and to equip people with the skills to be able to get into work. I think the report that's been published today by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation highlights just how dire the consequences of austerity have been, particularly for lower income households—especially for those households where there are children, because they've lost considerably more during austerity as a consequence of welfare reform and benefits cuts: around 12 per cent of net income has been lost to the lower earning households within our communities. Large families are particularly hard hit, losing around £7,750 a year, or one fifth of their net income on average. I think this is pretty shameful. We're going to be addressing it, and we are addressing it, through changing the way that we work, in order to provide more opportunities for higher quality employment for those who are furthest from the jobs market, or for those who are in work lacking the resource or the earnings potential to be able to live comfortably by focusing on the development of higher quality jobs and more and better career pathways within work.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary.

The next item, therefore, are the topical questions. The first question is from Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Diolch. Natural Resources Wales are working with the Holyhead marina, the port authority and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency on the clean-up and to minimise further fuel loss or escape of debris into the environment. This includes taking action to deal with the polystyrene that has spilled into the water. I will be visiting Holyhead port and marina tomorrow to meet with all agencies involved. 

Thank you for that response. I was at Holyhead marina on Friday, immediately after the storm, and the scene—many of you will have seen the pictures on television and so on—was truly heartbreaking: utter destruction. There were many pleasure boats there, which are important to the area, but there were also commercial boats in the marina, and many of those had been destroyed or partially damaged.

Now, all of the businesses using the marina make up an important part of the marine economy of Anglesey, and given the emphasis now, at last, thank goodness, on developing the maritime strategy for Wales, I would like to know what kind of support package the Government can put together to support these businesses in their hour of need in the short term. Secondly, and looking beyond the short term, may I be given a commitment that the Government will assist to fund research into the possible need for a sea defence for this part of the harbour in Holyhead? As a question related to that: would you agree that there’s an important role for the oceanography department at Bangor University in this important work, including the use of their research ship, the Prince Madog?

Finally, and crucially—and you have referred to this—in the short term, we are facing a grave environmental problem as a result of the storm. I understand that there wasn’t too much fuel in the boats, and that most of it has been collected, but there is certainly a huge problem in terms of the polystyrene debris of the pontoons in the marina. There’s a real threat as a result of polystyrene. I was on the Institute for European Environmental Policy website earlier, where they discussed the risks to sea life ingesting polystyrene, which can be broken up into very small particles and will then remain for a long time, and the risk when that gets into the food chain and so on and so forth.

Questions have been asked as to whether the response of Welsh Government agencies was swift enough following the storm in terms of the pollution damage. Local people have been told to keep away from the shore and not to participate in the clean-up, but many of them have said that they feel that they have to because they don’t see officials undertaking that work. But whatever happened then, now, five days later, I would like an update on what is being done to deal with the pollution, and an assurance that whatever needs to be done will be done to ensure that we don’t face more environmental destruction than we’ve already seen.

Thank you, Rhun ap Iorwerth, for that question. I would like to say from the outset that I'm very grateful to all those who have been involved in the clean-up operation. I think, because of their hard work, we have helped to minimise the environmental impact of this very unfortunate event, and I absolutely appreciate the effect that the storm damage has had on many people's livelihoods, and that's obviously a very distressing situation for them all. 

You ask a series of questions; in relation to the boats, there are about 85 boats that have been damaged, of which five are commercial fishing boats.

I'm very happy to give consideration to possible financial support for public infrastructure repair. Also if there's any further environmental damage that needs cleaning up, I'm very happy to look at that, and that's obviously something I'll be discussing on my visit tomorrow. You say that it's been a grave environmental impact; I want to see for myself what it is, but certainly, questions haven't been raised with me about our response not being quick enough. I've been having several briefings every day since this happened on Friday, and, certainly, my understanding is from NRW that it's progressed in a very smooth way.

There is a north Wales standing environment group, of which my officials are members; that hasn't been brought together because there wasn't the need to do that. Now, if you are saying that there is a grave environmental situation, when I get there tomorrow, I will want to know why that hasn't been brought together if that's the case. But, certainly, my understanding is it hasn't been convened because they are happy with the way that the clean-up has gone to plan at the current time.So, I'll be very happy to update you following my visit there tomorrow, and, obviously, other Members too.

Whether we need to have a sea defence there is something that clearly needs to be looked at. This was an absolutely catastrophic event that happened on Friday, and whilst I appreciate we haven't seen weather like that for a long time in Wales, I think there are questions to be asked why it was so catastrophic. You said about the pictures, and, certainly, at home last weekend, to see those photographs were just heartbreaking. But as I said, Llywydd, I will be very happy to update the Member following my visit tomorrow.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary. The next question, therefore, is to be asked by Lee Waters.

The Welsh Government recognises that this is a commercial decision, but the Government is deeply concerned about this decision that there will be no free-to-air television coverage of regional rugby in the English language from next season. We are still awaiting the outcome of further negotiations that affect the S4C coverage in the Welsh language and, of course, the red button that would provide for bilingual coverage for viewers in Wales.

Thank you, Minister, for that answer. At a time when the Llanelli Scarlets are flying high, I want as many people as possible to see their success, but giving the English language rights for regional rugby to pay tv, the Pro14 are embarking on a risky strategy. Even on free-to-air, audiences for regional games have been falling, and by encouraging a new pay tv channel to outbid the BBC and S4C's joint bid the clubs are gambling in order to get an early pay day. For this to work relies on fans to pay £10 a month. But as I understand it, only two television masts in Wales are capable of receiving the new free sports tv: Moel-y-Parc in Flintshire, and Wenvoe near Cardiff, which doesn't reach Llanelli.

Would the Minister discuss with Premier Sports how fans across Wales will be able to view the new games next season? I am very concerned about the viability of this bid, not least because the chief executive officer of Premier Sport, Mickey O'Rourke, was the CEO of Setanta Sports, which previously failed. You only have to Google Setanta to know it failed because it didn't have a viable business model. The Minister mentions there's still a hope that S4C will get the rights to show some games, but only some games.

Pro14's approach has deliberately broken up the successful partnership between the BBC and S4C and gone for a small and unknown alternative for an unknown amount of money, but from what I hear, it's not a huge difference and I am puzzled as to why they've done it. It will potentially slash the audience for regional rugby, which is already struggling to get audiences, and though broadcasting isn't devolved, the fallout from this decision is. Without Friday and Saturday night rugby, clubs and halls across Wales will suffer. One of BBC Wales's most popular shows, Scrum V, will all but disappear, and new generations of rugby players will not get to see their region play.

So, this is a staggeringly short-sighted decision. Would the Minister meet with Pro14 to discuss what contingency plans they have if this new pay tv channel fails, and encourage them to rethink their decision? Diolch.

As the Member knows—and I'm very grateful to him for expressing his concerns on behalf of the Scarlets and, indeed, all rugby followers in Wales, but it particularly affects his constituency—the Pro14 competition is run by a body called Celtic Rugby UK Limited, which is a private company limited by shares, and it includes among its owners the Irish Rugby Football Union, the Welsh Rugby Union, the Scottish Rugby Union and the Italian Rugby Federation, with a board of directors consisting of two representatives appointed by each union and an independent chairman. So, these people, clearly, should be well aware of the results of their decision, as they discussed the various bids.

Our understanding is that this was a joint bid from BBC Cymru Wales, BBC Northern Ireland, BBC Alba and S4C, and as we know now, the bid has been rejected, but we have not had clear confirmation from Pro14 of precisely what arrangements are to be undertaken by the successful bidder. I will certainly accede to his request that I should have further discussions, both formally, if necessary, but certainly informally, as I will be meeting the characters involved fairly soon again, as I met some of them this morning, and that we will have those discussions so that we can understand the nature of this decision. But also to take up the point that he has made: what provision can be made to ensure that there is damage limitation as a result of this decision in terms of the ability of Welsh viewers to still participate in these essential games? That may well be in the form of the kind of discussions I understand may be going ahead between S4C at the moment and the successful bidder, about how many games and what permissions they will have to receive, from them, the opportunity to still broadcast both on air and online.

Well, I agree with Lee Waters; this is a very bizarre decision, certainly on the face of it. While there may be some incidental benefit for S4C if it does get some free-to-air viewing, by more viewers switching to S4C just for those games, I don't think that that, in itself, seems to justify the decision that's been made.

You say it's a commercial decision and that's absolutely true, but it's also true to say that Welsh Government has supported the WRU in the past with a range of grants, through strategic regeneration funding, through the community facilities and activities programme and through Sport Wales, of course. So, I think it's entirely right that Welsh Government should ask for some detail about how this decision was made, and very specifically, what arguments WRU put forward to maintain free-to-air coverage on Welsh language television; how hard they pushed that; and, in particular, what effect they think a probably limited viewership is going to have on their sponsorship, because, of course, sponsorship is key to maintaining Pro14, not just the commercial charging. And it strikes me, as I say, on the face of it, that this is an absolutely crazy decision if they're expecting sponsorship in the future.

I'm afraid I can't follow that line of argument. Our relationship with S4C, as Welsh Government, is specifically directed at supporting their activities in developing community rugby. And clearly, there is a close link between the community rugby and the possibility of viewers in Wales being able to follow the Pro14 regional rugby games. I have had meetings recently with the Welsh Rugby Union, both formally and informally, and as a result of this discussion today, which they will have heard, I can assure you that I will pursue all avenues that I can, short of seeking to interfere in a commercial decision. Because we have to make it quite clear that this Government is not in the business of damaging our relationships with bodies that take commercial decisions with which we may disagree.

I'm grateful to my friend Lee Waters for raising this important issue today. As a season-ticket holder at the Dragons, I'm deeply disappointed about this decision to move to pay tv. My love of sport, like many people's, came from watching on free-to-air television. I understand that there's a balance to be struck between using television to promote the game and using television money to pay for professional players, but we have to be mindful of creating a new elitism in which people of all ages who struggle to get to regional games are disproportionately excluded. And there are already examples of this in English and Welsh cricket, and in Irish rugby.

Worryingly, research by Dr Paul Rouse at the university of Dublin gives an example in Ireland of the difference between two Leinster games in the Heineken Cup. The number of women who watched the 2006 Leinster game on national Irish television was 67,000, compared to only 9,000 who tuned in to Sky in 2007. Similarly affected were the over-55s. If the Welsh regions do get more money, as this deal promises, what commitments would the Minister seek from the regions to ensure that they reach a wider audience to make up for the loss of mass exposure on tv, and to guarantee that there's not a two-tier fan base in Welsh regional rugby in the future? And finally, what opportunities does the Minister think exist to boost Welsh premiership rugby exposure from this decision?

I'm very grateful for that further question. It will be clear to those following this exchange that there is no support in this Chamber for the decision that has been taken in terms of the awarding of this particular opportunity to broadcast. It is significantly important, as you pointed out from your own experience, that there should be an opportunity for people to openly follow the coverage of significant sporting events, which leads to participation, recruitment of supporters who offer their lifelong support to rugby, as many of us do here to rugby—and indeed to football—in Wales. Therefore, it is imperative that we should, as a Government, continue to discuss with the sporting organisations that, as was already raised, we in fact do support. These questions that are being raised today are ones that I will personally—I give you this undertaking—that I will personally raise, not only with the WRU, and therefore through them with the Pro14, but also: what are the consequences, both for community rugby and for the premiership? This is certainly something that we would want to explore as a Government, and I give you the undertaking that you seek.

I thank the Minister, and the final topical question, therefore, is from David Melding.

Yes. Help to Buy—Wales is issuing new contract variations to all house builders using the scheme, not just the largest five. These new terms will limit the use of Help to Buy—Wales for houses on leasehold to exceptional circumstances. It will also ensure the leasehold terms for any Help to Buy—Wales home, including flats, are fair. In addition to this, the five major house builders have agreed not to market any new-build homes in Wales as leasehold, unless under exceptional circumstances.

Llywydd, in the past year since the UK Government's announcement of a crackdown on unfair leasehold practices, we have seen this issue become a real focus as well in Wales. Can I welcome the Government's announcement this afternoon? I think it is definitely a good step in the right direction. However, I am concerned that this announcement doesn't come across as an amnesty or a pardon for those big housing companies who have been operating these feudal practices for the past 10 years or more. Unlike the UK Government's stance, your statement doesn't seem to provide any hope for the many people, often first-time buyers, who are already stuck in this exploitative system. And so, does the Minister agree that the Welsh Government needs to provide leaseholders with clear support on the various routes of redress available to them, alongside a wider internal review of the support and advice system that is available to leaseholders where current practices are set to continue?

Thank you very much for those questions, and I would say that the announcement that I have made this week is only the start of my ambitions for leasehold, and the start of the action that I intend to take in this area. You'll recall we had a really instructive and useful debate here in the Chamber at the end of January, and I gave an undertaking at that point to bring forward as many early actions as I could, and the announcements that I've made this week are very much being true to the commitment that I made then, but this is just the start.

I do reiterate that I'm not ruling out the possibility of future legislation. I recognise that legislation may very well be needed in order to resolve the wider issues and to make leasehold, or an alternative tenure, fit for the modern housing market. In order to set out our way forward, we're engaging with the Law Commission's project, which is looking at this issue, and once we have the benefit of the Law Commission's report and our own research, which I've also commissioned into this issue, I'll be able to set out the next steps. But, in the meantime, I will be looking to use all of the avenues at our disposal.

I will say that, in terms of assisting people who are currently subject to those agreements that they've made through the leasehold contracts that they have, I'm very much aware of those problems. I think all of us, almost daily at the moment—I certainly do, anyway—have daily contact with people who are experiencing current problems. Some people think that they were badly advised or not advised at all about what leasehold means for them, and they should seek redress through the established means that already exist.

Disputes relating to the cost of buying freehold, increases in ground rent and service charges—those are things that we all hear about regularly—can all be referred to the leasehold valuation tribunal for resolution, and the leasehold advisory service is very well-placed also to assist leaseholders and help with the task of reforming leasehold tenure in the round as well. LEASE has been established for 20 years. They give free legal advice to leaseholders, landlords, professional advisers, managers and others on the law affecting residential leasehold in England and Wales, and they should be the first point of contact for people who do have concerns in this area.

But as I say, the announcement this week was a first step, and some early actions that I saw could be made fairly straightforwardly, following the discussions we had in January.

I'd like to thank David Melding for bringing this question forward because I think it would have merited having an oral statement from the Minister on this. But in your statement, you wrote that the five developers with which you have agreements would only build leasehold under circumstances judged by you to be absolutely necessary. I was wondering if you could clarify what you and these developers would define as absolutely necessary.

My second point only goes to reiterate what David Melding AM also said. Help to Buy is only one small part of the market, and we want to be assured that those who are already stuck in this particular circumstance will be given the same rights as those under the Help to Buy scheme.

The following point I wanted to make, emanating from what was said yesterday, I think, by Hefin David, was: I think it's a ticking time bomb in relation to the management fees that are imposed in relation to leaseholds. Many people have contacted me saying that they feel that there is a two-tier system in place, whereby they are paying management fees to do the same thing that they are paying their council tax to do, in relation to the management of gardens or the picking up of rubbish. So, I would wish for you to look at this, at a later date, as well as enhancing upon the statement that you've already made.

I thank you very much for those questions. Just to clarify, the exceptional circumstances that were referred to in the statement are highlighted in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. So, they include things like land owned by the National Trust, the Crown, a local authority or within a cathedral precinct, and also includes land of a special architectural or historical interest where it's important to safeguard the land and the surroundings. So, in practice, what this means is that any application that comes through, requesting one of those exemptions to buy or to build a leasehold property through Help to Buy, will have to be raised with the Welsh Government, and then we will seek clarification on whether or not those exceptional circumstances are legitimate in our view. We'll seek that from the local authority.

Any developer registering a site through Help to Buy—Wales will be required to submit a pre-development plan, and that will be required to identify the proposed tenure and any reasons for leasehold. Again, we would have those discussions as to whether or not they fell under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.

The Help to Buy scheme is only a small part of the housing market in Wales—you're right—which is why I'm very pleased that, through our house builder engagement programme, we were able to secure that agreement from those five major house builders in Wales that they'd no longer market homes as leasehold, and that applies to Help to Buy, but also to other marketed homes as well, which are new builds. So, I very much welcome that commitment.

You also raised the issue of management companies. Again, this is something that I'm interested in pursuing. I very much look forward to the debate we'll be having next week, I understand, proposed by Hefin David, into the relationships and the rights of people who own their house as a freehold property but within an estate and are subject to many of the same charges through those management companies as people who have leasehold properties. 

Thank you, Minister.

The next item is the 90-second statements, and the first statement is from David Melding.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. In September 2016, a man named Gary had run most of the Cardiff 5 km Race For Victory before collapsing on the roadside in great pain, suffering from a cardiac arrest. Astonishingly, Gary's heart stopped for seven minutes. The first help to arrive at the scene was the Cardiff cycle response unit of St John Cymru, a group of volunteers who were able to get Gary's heart beating by itself again using a defibrillator. Gary was fortunate that everything came together at the right time, with early intervention and people on hand with the right training and equipment. The work of St John Cymru had saved Gary's life.

Last week, across the country, we celebrated and marked St David's Day, a very special and proud day for us. But this year, for many like Gary, it had extra value, as it marked the centenary of the establishment of the Priory for Wales of the Order of St John, an organisation of which I am proud to be a member. The first Order of St John was founded over 1,000 years ago on the principle that its members should treat and care for every person without discrimination of race, social standing or gender. From those basic foundations, the order has grown to become a vital part of our modern society.

Here in Wales specifically the organisation consists of around 4,000 volunteers who carry out the work of the order on a daily basis. It was in recognition of the dedicated work of the divisions in Wales that on St David's Day 1918 the priory for Wales was established. It is fitting that we mark this centenary of St John Cymru in the Chamber today, and we look forward to the reception you are graciously hosting in the Senedd, Llywydd, next month.

Jane Hutt.

Yesterday we marked International Women's Day Week with the unveiling of the first purple plaque in Wales in memory of the late Labour Assembly Member for Swansea East, Val Feld. Val Feld was a champion for social justice before she become an AM and a passionate supporter of devolution as treasurer of the 'Yes for Wales' campaign leading up to the 1997 referendum. Val saw devolution as an opportunity to further our search for equality and social justice in Wales. I want to pay tribute today to Val's achievement in securing sections 48 and 120 of the Government of Wales Act 1998, and also pay tribute to Julie Morgan, Assembly Member for Cardiff North, who was an MP at the time, supporting the legislation through the House of Commons and working closely with Val Feld on the equality of opportunity clauses. Let us remind ourselves of the clauses in the Government of Wales Act 1998:

'Section 48

'Equal opportunities in conduct of business

'The Assembly shall make appropriate arrangements with a view to securing that its business is conducted with due regard to the principle that there should be equality of opportunity for all people.'

Section 120, 'Equality of opportunity', repeats this and adds:

'(2) After each financial year the Assembly shall publish a report containing—

'(a) a statement of the arrangements made in pursuance of subsection (1) which had effect during that financial year, and

'(b) an assessment of how effective those arrangements were in promoting equality of opportunity.'

Of course, this was updated in the Government of Wales Act 2006 to 'Welsh Ministers', who must make those appropriate arrangements and also publish a report annually. We are duty bound to respect this legislation in everything we do, and I think it's worth repeating those clauses today. Diolch yn fawr, Val Feld and Julie Morgan.

Dai Lloyd.

Diolch, Llywydd. Many of us had the privilege last week of welcoming 18 young women to the Senedd to take part in a leadership event arranged by Chwarae Teg—a day of activities to provide an insight into how the Assembly works and the role of Assembly Members. Now, each participant was partnered with an AM for the morning, participated in a question and answer session and took part in a mock debate to mark International Women's Day. The day proved to be a huge success and particularly positive, recognising that International Women's Day offers an important opportunity to reflect on progress that has been made around the world to achieve gender equality, but that we need to be bold in addressing the barriers that continue to prevent women from playing as full a role as men in the economic, political, social and cultural life of Wales. During the debate, there were some powerful messages put forward. One participant stated, 'We have just as much chance as boys of attending university, but the glass ceiling holding us back from high-level positions is still bolted into place. You can only punch at that glass ceiling alone so many times. You can only handle so much blood on your knuckles. International Women's Day is an opportunity for everyone doing this work to stand together'. And another stated, 'International Women's Day demonstrates and celebrates solidarity and respect for women, not only by women but also by educated men. This day shows the world that we will not settle for anything less than we are worth. This is why International Women's Day is still important in 2018.'

Long may this National Assembly show leadership and solidarity in bringing about equality. Diolch yn fawr. 

A statement now by the Chair of the Standards of Conduct Committee, and I call on the Chair to make a statement—Jayne Bryant. 

Diolch, Llywydd. As Assembly Members will be aware, in November 2017, the Llywydd, leaders of party groups and I, as Chair of the Standards of Conduct Committee, issued a joint statement. We set out a commitment to ensure that inappropriate behaviour has no place at the National Assembly for Wales, and a desire to reassure everyone who works here, and those who visit us, that they will be free from any form of harassment. Whether it's here in the Senedd, a constituency office, or out in the community, everyone should feel as though they are treated with respect as they encounter representatives of this organisation. 

The joint statement set out a number of actions intended to ensure the Assembly is an inclusive organisation, free from intimidation and harassment. These actions included the development of a dignity and respect policy, the establishment of a confidential complaints referral service, and ensuring the complaints procedure is clear and consistent. Work is well under way, and a dignity and respect policy is due to be laid before the Assembly next month. 

The Standards of Conduct Committee agreed to undertake a more wide-ranging inquiry into creating the right culture at the Assembly. We believe that the Assembly must set an example and provide clear and strong leadership on the type of workplace culture we would like to see within Wales. We're considering existing procedures around complaints involving Assembly Members to ensure that they are appropriate and clear. Individuals must feel able to come forward with confidence about any concern regarding inappropriate behaviour.

We've held an open consultation, which aimed to find out whether the current complaints procedure is easily understandable and accessible, and whether there are any barriers to people raising concerns about the behaviour of anyone associated with the National Assembly for Wales. Although the consultation is now formally closed, people are always encouraged to come forward with suggestions on how to improve the process or with any concerns they may have. We're currently taking evidence from groups and individuals who have agreed to talk to the committee about their experiences. And I would like to put on record my thanks to those who have offered their views to the committee during the last few months. I'm particularly grateful to those who have agreed to speak to us. Without understanding the experiences of others it's very difficult to identify the challenges within the Assembly and ascertain precisely how the culture can be improved. As a committee, we're determined that these views will be respected and reflected in the reporting stage. 

While we're still undertaking our inquiry, one of the messages we've heard to date is that better communication and clarity around the complaints procedure would help increase confidence in the system. Building on existing provisions within the Assembly Member code of conduct, the new dignity and respect policy will help to make it explicitly clear that inappropriate behaviour has no place in this Assembly. And I'm sure that Members will agree it's important that inappropriate behaviour must be called out. We're all responsible for ensuring we do not stand by and let things happen. 

I'd also like to take this opportunity to re-emphasise that the National Assembly for Wales has a completely independent commissioner for standards, who impartially examines any concern or complaint raised with him. He can be contacted via phone, email or in writing and he'll always try to help, either by dealing directly with concerns or signposting in the right direction. A helpline has been set up for those unsure whether the commissioner is the most appropriate avenue for complaint. The number is on the Assembly website and posters around the estate. If Members and staff want to discuss any issue regarding the complaints procedure with the commissioner, he will be available in the Senedd during Plenary next Tuesday. In addition to the commissioner, members of the standards committee are also available to discuss any concerns you may have regarding the complaints procedure, and a member of the committee will also be available during Plenary next Tuesday.

It takes a huge amount of commitment, time, persistence to achieve meaningful cultural change. Today I have set out the early stages of the process, ensuring that the National Assembly for Wales fulfils its aims to be an institution that enables and empowers people. I'm confident this aim is shared by all of us here in the Chamber and that everybody will be willing to play their part in making sure this is achieved. Diolch.

As the Chair of the committee has said, it's absolutely crucial that the Assembly promotes a culture of dignity and respect for all its Members and staff so that anyone who has a complaint or grievance against another person has the opportunity to declare it in a safe and secure environment. Therefore, I'm pleased to be a member of the standards committee for this inquiry and work with Members across the political spectrum to implement a system that works for everyone involved with the Assembly.

It's pretty evident from the evidence received to the consultation that people feel that the current system needs improving and that the Assembly needs to change the way that it handles complaints and allegations in the future. Of course, the committee's aware of the work done by the UK parliamentary working group on this matter, and so my first question to the Chair is whether she will agree with me that, whilst we can look at the work of other Parliaments, it's crucial that we develop a system that is bespoke to the Assembly and responds to its needs rather than just being a carbon copy of actions taken from other legislatures.

Of course, any new system must also sit alongside political party processes and those systems must complement, not conflict with one another and it's evident from the evidence that we've already heard that this is a particular concern for some stakeholders. Therefore, perhaps the Chair can tell us whether she intends for us, as a committee, to engage with political party representatives, either through evidence sessions or through written correspondence, to gauge their views on how any new system can work with their current party complaints processes.

The evidence that the committee has received indicates the need to implement a whole new change of culture at the Assembly. Perhaps there's scope here to extend this thinking by delivering training to members of staff to help better understand and prevent harassment from taking place in the workplace. The Equality and Human Rights Commission rightly raised that ongoing discussion in the workplace is one of the steps that can be taken to prevent harassment and therefore any new system must be flexible and under constant monitoring to ensure its continued effectiveness. Therefore, I believe that there is scope here for the Assembly to look at training modules for members and staff in this area, and I wonder if the Chair would agree with me that this is something that could also be rolled out as well as introducing this as part of any induction processes for members and staff as well as providing ongoing communication around any new harassment policies.

Naturally, any new system must keep anonymity at the centre of it in order to protect all individuals concerned and so I'd be grateful if the Chair could perhaps share her initial thoughts on the way in which that anonymity can actually be protected.

Sadly, we now live in a world that is dominated by social media. Members are all too aware of instances of individuals being abused on social media. Indeed, the committee has already heard how harassment on social media is quite quickly becoming the norm, and so any new system or new approach must also include dealing with inappropriate behaviour online. I’m sure the Chair would agree with me that the scale of the problem is quite alarming and so I'd be grateful if she could share her initial thoughts on how we, as a committee, can start dealing with inappropriate behaviour online.

Finally, Llywydd, I'd like to briefly touch on the monitoring of any new policies and procedures and encourage the Chair to ensure that this is fully considered throughout the inquiry. It’s my view that any new system is only as good as its enforcement, and so it's crucial that we ensure the robustness of new policies by monitoring them effectively, and so perhaps the Chair could also share her views on how any new system could be monitored in the future. Therefore, in closing, Llywydd, can I thank the Chair for her statement this afternoon? And I agree with her that it takes commitment, time and persistence to achieve meaningful cultural change. I really can't understate how important this inquiry is, and I look forward to working with the Chair and the other Members of the inquiry to help deliver a system that fosters a much more inclusive workplace, where people are not deterred from coming forward with complaints and where all individuals involved are protected throughout the investigation process. Diolch.

Thank you. I'm very grateful for the comments that you've made. I know that I'm lucky to be the Chair of a committee that's taken on a piece of work that's equally as keen to make sure that we're doing something to address and make sure we've got the right culture that exists, not just for now but in the future. You've made some very important points there, Paul.

I think on your first point about looking at other institutions, we're very much aware of what's happened in the Westminster Government and their new plans. I think it is important to look at similarities and to learn from other institutions as well as organisations, but I do agree that it's important that we have a bespoke system. We're all coming from different times, different perspectives, different issues, but I think where there is similarity, it's important to look to those; but we should be looking to see what we've got here in Wales and how we can really become the leaders and a beacon for the future, to make sure that we've got the right culture and that people want to not just work here but to be Members here as well.

The commissioner is working as well on doing a piece of work with political parties, so that's a piece of work outside of the standards committee. I know that the commissioner has been speaking with other party groups. I'm not sure if they've all been completed yet. I think there are maybe one or two parties that he's left to deal with, but I know that piece of work is ongoing. Because it is important that we're looking at all the processes and the procedures that are going on so that we're not duplicating. I know that's something that we should be doing.

No member of staff expects to make a complaint about an Assembly Member when they start the job. Nobody in any job expects to make that complaint. I did actually ask my staff if they knew how to make a complaint against me in the future, and they told me the colour of the leaflet that they had on their induction day but they weren't able to put their hands on it. So, I think having an induction is really important and making sure that staff are aware and up to speed about how they can make a complaint in the future, but I think that needs to be ongoing as well. It needs to be very clear on the website. We've got the posters up now with the phone number and there is a dedicated e-mail as well. But I think we have to make sure that it's not just at the start we're letting people know, but that we're continually letting people know how they can make a complaint if they need to. But you're quite right; we should be looking at prevention, really. This is something that, as you say, came out loud and clear in our evidence last week. I think we have to really be looking to see how we can stop and make sure there isn't any inappropriate behaviour. We need to be working towards that aim, rather than how we deal with it.

You mentioned online abuse. I've been very worried about that myself. I see it regularly on Twitter and social media, Facebook and all these other things. I think that that is something that we have to be aware of, have to look at, and how we all treat each other, because some of the abuse online—if we're looking to make sure that people feel empowered and able to come forward, I'm not really sure how social media is actually helping anybody to come forward at the moment. So, that's pretty alarming.

As you say, on monitoring, this piece of work that we're doing, the committee's doing, is not the end. This piece of work, the inquiry, when we report—we have to keep a watching brief on this. Because nothing is going to be solved by one inquiry. We need to be making these steps, putting the procedures in place, but we really must be keeping a watching brief on that, and also perhaps having a wider conversation with our partners. You've mentioned that some people are doing some great work at the moment and I think we need to look to them as well.

May I thank the committee Chair for her statement? In listening to the statement, I think it’s become clear that there are three tasks among the many other tasks that we need to deliver here that we should be mainly focused on. First of all, we do need to create a better understanding within this institution of the institution’s expectations in terms of behaviour among Members and staff, and the broader Assembly family. We need to create greater clarity too, I think, among the public, particularly on what we believe is acceptable and what is unacceptable in terms of behaviours. Also, there is an entirely practical job of work to be done: we need to raise far more awareness of the processes in existence to make a complaint, to secure justice for victims and to hold offenders to account.

There is one thing highlighted in the fact that I used the word ‘processes’—the plural—and this has already been raised in the evidence sessions that the committee has had in this inquiry. We do have a code of conduct for Assembly Members, but we also have a different code of conduct for Ministers, and there are important questions to be asked in that regard. Are the expectations of those two codes in alignment? Is there consistency in terms of what is acceptable and isn’t acceptable in the AM codes and the ministerial code? And of course, there are two different processes for making complaints.

Much of this may be very clear to us because we are living among it every day, but put yourself in the shoes of a member of the public and I don’t think that this situation is quite as clear as perhaps we would want. One could approach the standards commissioner, and the standards commissioner may explain, ‘Well, no, you have to take your complaint to the office of the First Minister’. I have every confidence that the commissioner’s office would do that in an appropriate and sensitive way, but it’s another step and it’s another hoop that that individual has to jump through. It’s these factors that make it more difficult for these individuals and make it less likely that these individuals will proceed with their complaints, at a time, of course, when they are vulnerable and they are lacking in confidence. We have to make these processes as accessible and as simple as possible.

Don’t forget, of course, that the AM code is relevant to Assembly Members not only in our professional lives but in our private lives. So, why not encompass the ministerial roles within that single code, and give the responsibility to the independent commissioner for standards to scrutinise that and to make recommendations in the context of Assembly Members to the standards committee and in the ministerial context to the First Minister? So, may I ask: wouldn’t it be better, in terms of meeting the laudable aims that you’ve listed in your statement—in terms of having a clear and consistent process that’s easily understood and that is accessible—wouldn’t having a single process for all Assembly Members in all capacities be more true to those principles, rather than having two separate systems as we currently have, never mind the regimes of the political parties, as we’ve already heard reference to?

There are a number of other questions that have already been raised. Many feel that there is inconsistency in the right to appeal within the current system, where an Assembly Member can appeal against an adjudication but a complainant can’t. The limit of 12 months to make complaints is also something that I think needs to be questioned, because many people who bring complaints forward don’t feel that they’re able to do that or aren’t able to do that for a longer period of time, perhaps, than that 12-month period, and we have to be sensitive to that too.

So, there are many factors that do need to be taken into account, and I know that the standards committee will look at all of these. But, of course, it all comes to the central point of the statement, namely that we need a broader culture change, as you said, and that won’t happen as a result of one inquiry. Everyone recognises and acknowledges that there isn’t a single solution to this. There’s a great deal that must happen in order to tackle all of these issues. Of course, we need broader conversations on some of these important areas that we are covering here—conversations within the institution, yes, but we need conversations throughout society too. I would like to conclude by asking the Chair what role she feels that we as Assembly Members have, and the standards committee specifically, perhaps, in leading that process to ensure that those important conversations do happen.

Diolch, Llyr. Again, you've made some very significant points, and some of the points were raised at the committee meeting last week, so I'm glad you're able to do that today. 

In terms of your comments on the ministerial code, obviously, people understand that the ministerial code is not in our remit or our gift to change, but comments you've raised today have been made in our meeting and I'm sure will be raised in future meetings. 

In terms of the points you put about wider societal issues, that is exactly right. We've also seen that this is not an issue that's just confined to politics. It is important, though, that we do show leadership here and I'm really keen that the Assembly—and I'm sure all Members here are keen—that we're really driving forward on progress and making sure that we are a beacon that can be held up as an example. This is our chance to do our best and get these processes right. That's why it's really important that we're doing that, but it can't be just the end of the conversation as you say. It's really important that we're always reassessing and asking people for their views. Is the process right? Are people feeling they can come forward? We should be looking to make sure, as Paul said earlier, that we're doing that preventative role and we're trying to make sure that this Assembly is seen as a beacon, really. So, I'm really keen that we do that. But the points that you raise are very welcome, and thanks for doing that, Llyr. 

Thanks to the Chair for her statement this afternoon. I'd also like to thank the committee staff for helping to arrange the inquiry and the witnesses that have so far appeared before us. I think we're all in broad agreement that we want the Assembly to be a welcoming environment for everyone who wants to work here. That includes people of different genders, of different ethnicities and different sexual orientations. In the UKIP group, we have had a wide variety of people working for us and hopefully our group room and the Members' offices have been and still are a welcoming working environment for them.

Of course, we recognise that issues can arise. Problems can rear their heads in the relationships between people who work at the Assembly and it's crucial that there is a clear path for people who feel that they are being harassed, victimised, persecuted, bullied or simply intimidated. There has to be a clear guideline of how to proceed with a complaint. And there has to be certainty in the mind of the complainant that the complaint will be dealt with robustly and that the making of the complaint won't have any adverse effect on the complainant's career.

There also needs to be clarity over processes and I think the previous two speakers have raised several issues over that. Paul Davies brought in the aspect that most AMs are also members of political parties, so to some extent you have to bring the political parties on board and their processes have to dovetail with any Assembly process. So, I was glad to hear that the commissioner is working with the different parties. Hopefully we'll soon hear the outcome of that.

Llyr raised the other very relevant point that there is a danger of different parallel processes creating confusion. For instance, you've got the political parties, which can carry out their own investigation, you have the Assembly investigation, and then, of course, the point that Llyr mentioned: if the AM is also a Minister, you've also got the ministerial code. I think it can get confusing with all of these different processes. Now, I know that you just stated that the ministerial code isn't in our remit as the standards committee, so I wonder if you think that does pose a problem in our efforts to get one clear and transparent code for the Assembly. Is there a case that, in some sense, our policy is going to have to encompass in some aspects the ministerial code and dovetail with that?

Thank you for your points, Gareth. I appreciate you were following on from the points of Paul and Llyr. I think the issue you raised about the ministerial code is again something you raised last week as well, so I'm sure that that will come up, but as I said, we have to be mindful that it's beyond our remit in terms of what we can change, but obviously we have to look at all of these issues when people like yourself raise them. 

It is important that there's a clear path, as you say. I think the important point is that the person who is the complainant is in control of those processes as well, because it is important that they know where they want to go with it, rather than just having that decision made for them. I think it is important that people are signposted in the right way, and hopefully if there are people who feel unsure about coming forward, there is this phone number now at the moment. Obviously, this is just an interim measure—whether we extend that, the committee's yet to report on that. Obviously, we're still in the middle of our inquiry so there are lots of things we can look at, but we can have a debate on that when our inquiry reports. 

Can I thank the Chair of the standards committee for her statement and, indeed, thank the Llywydd and all four leaders for their update statement on dignity and respect, which was published on 16 February. I also very much welcome the fact that this is being brought forward on a cross-party basis. As Paul Davies has said, it's fundamental that it is done like that if we're to make progress. I very much welcome all the statements made by, and questions from, the members of the standards committee this afternoon. I look forward to the formal debate on the dignity and respect policy. Can you give us any more information on when that's likely to take place? This will be, of course, a debate on your dignity and respect statement, and I hope that we will all, as was said in the update statement—that's an opportunity for us all in this Chamber to vote on that.

Also, I do welcome the fact that you see this inquiry as an ongoing inquiry, although you have a closing date. Would you confirm that this will be open—this inquiry—an ongoing inquiry, even beyond the debate, so that people can feel confident to come forward at any stage? I think you mentioned that you've taken evidence from key organisations, a range of organisations. Does that include key equality organisations, and are you likely to take any further evidence of that kind? I think the issue of managing confidentiality, as has been mentioned, is absolutely critical. People have got to trust that confidentiality—even responding to points you've made about the role and access to the Standards Commissioner's confidential helplines. Those are processes that people really have got to be confident in. I think Paul Davies's comment about monitoring all of this is crucial.

Can I also just finally welcome something that was said yesterday by Siân Gwenllian in response to the International Women's Day statement, where she—I think I've got this right, Siân—called for a national conversation on sexual harassment? And I think we need to be open to considering those kinds of proposals. Do you agree that all of us have a responsibility to respond to your statement today and to the respect and dignity policy as it's developed?

It does strike me that International Women's Day statements and events—and we've had quite a few this week—can help to create the right culture and a culture in this Assembly, but they cannot be reserved for weeks and days like this. It has to be every day and every week of the year in this Assembly to make this change.

Thank you very much for your comments, and I'm very grateful to you for putting those on the record today. The respect and dignity policy is due to be debated, as I said, in the first week back after the Easter recess, so that will give us all an opportunity to vote on that policy. So, it's still in the consultation period at the moment, but we hope that that will be in the first week back after recess.

The committee members are all willing to speak to anybody. You know, we're here; we're going to be doing that next Tuesday, and we can do that on a regular basis. So, if people do have any questions or comments, and they'd like to share that with us—and obviously staff as well—to ask us about the process, they are very welcome to approach us, specifically next Tuesday or when we do it again in the future or any time. I believe that the Standards Commissioner will also be doing regular drop-ins for members and staff. So, hopefully that will help to make sure that people are understanding of the process.

We took formal evidence in committee last week from, as you said, certain equality organisations, like the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Stonewall, Chwarae Teg, Welsh Women's Aid, and we did write out to as many of those organisations as possible to take part. It was really important to hear from them and to also hear the great work that they're doing. We should share that work and we should do that much better sometimes.

So, we are really doing everything we can, and please—I put out a plea, really, that, while this formal consultation has closed, we are still willing and ready to hear any evidence from anybody. You know, all the comments that you've raised today—this is now on the record and we can take that forward as part of our inquiry as well. So, we're very glad for anybody to get in touch with us about how they see the process could be improved or how it will work in the future.

Your point about the wider public debate—that's crucial. We can't just be having this here. We've got be talking wider, and we have to be making sure that this isn't just one day, or once a year—. You know, we really need to be talking about it as often as possible and making sure that that conversation is had, and I would be very glad to support Siân Gwenllian's suggestion of a national conversation on this, because I think the more times we talk about it, the more times we raise it, the better. So, anything, as a committee, that we can do, I'm sure we'd be very keen to help on that, and how we can drive that forward—we could have those discussions as well. 

Thank you very much, Jayne, for your statement today, and I look forward to the debate after the Easter recess. This has been such an important topic, not just for the credibility and integrity of this place, but other Parliaments and other public institutions as well, because if we can't be a beacon in this, I mean, you have to ask what we're for, in a way.

Just a couple of questions I wanted to raise with you. The first is: I don't think we should flinch away from this difference between the ministerial code and Assembly Member code. I don't want to reiterate what Llyr said, but, of course, every member of the Government is also an Assembly Member, and it can be confusing for an individual to know which of those two paths they should be taking. So, while I'm not suggesting for a second we interfere in the ministerial code, is there any place in our code that says, 'If your complaint arises in these circumstances'—so it doesn't define the complaint itself—'then, really, you should be looking at the ministerial code'? I appreciate that anyone can signpost to anywhere, but in this particular circumstance, where it can be one individual with two hats, I think there's a place, perhaps, in our code, for saying, actually, 'Go there if this is the circumstance in which your complaint arose.' 

The second is, and you mentioned it in your statement: this policy is to prevent intimidation and harassment, and while many of us will have a fairly solid idea of what that might look like, even though we'd feel uncomfortable about reporting it, I'm hoping you can give me some reassurance today that you will also include in this definition this kind of repeated behaviour of tiny actions, which in and of themselves make it very difficult for somebody to complain. They either think they're being silly, but over a period of time, it can result in an individual becoming unhappy at work, perhaps feeling uncomfortable or unsure about their position. I think you know the type of thing I'm talking about—it's very difficult to define, and it's exactly the type of thing you'd feel daft about going to your boss about because you wouldn't have the evidence to support it. I don't know if you want to call it a pattern of behaviour, but if that can be incorporated somehow, I think it would cover a lot of situations, which, at the moment, can't see the light of day because it's very difficult for an individual to find a point on the ladder, if you like, at which they can take their first step. Thank you. 

Thank you very much for your comments, Suzy. The point on the ministerial code: I'm glad you've said it again. You know, it has been raised in our committee, and I'm sure we will be looking at that with the rest of the evidence when we have it—you know, the points that have been raised on that. I'm really glad you mentioned repeat behaviour, because that is something that has been raised already, again, with people last week, and I think it's something, as you say—. You know, how can you tackle things that might be quite small and difficult to report and you might think, maybe, 'Is it right that I do this?' But I think that's something we need to look at because repeat behavioural patterns over years can have—not just to one person, but to many other people—significant impact. But like I said, I'm really glad you were able to speak today, and as to your comments, we'll take them on board in terms of our committee inquiry as well. Thank you.

Thank you to the Chair of the committee, and thank you to all the committee members for the work that you're doing on our behalf here as Members. Diolch yn fawr. 

The next item, therefore, is the Member debate under Standing Order 11.21 on criminal justice, and I call on Jenny Rathbone to move the motion. 

Diolch, Llywydd. We lock up more people in England and Wales than any other country in western Europe. If we go on that way, we are going to catch up with the United States, which currently spends more on its equally ineffective prison system than they do on the education of their children. Ineffective, because it doesn't lead to change in people's behaviour. Even by the UK Government's own admission, two thirds of prisons are overcrowded; people are locked up most of the day; rates of self-harm, suicide and murder are at an all-time high. By no stretch of the imagination can the conditions in Her Majesty’s Prison Swansea or Her Majesty’s Prison Liverpool—described in excruciating detail by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons—be considered rehabilitating. That isn't to dismiss the heroic efforts of individuals who work with prisoners in disgraceful conditions, but we have to acknowledge that the system as a whole is not working and a change of approach is needed. For far too long, penal policy has been dominated by the high-pitched headlines of the tabloids. Until recently, the top politician in charge of the misnomered Ministry of Justice thought it was a whiz idea to deny prisoners books until it was thankfully ruled unlawful by the High Court.

Populist as opposed to effective penal policies are not the sole preserve of the Tory party. During the last Labour Government, I worked in Holloway prison and I vividly recall the then Home Secretary cancelling a children's Christmas party simply in response to some lurid newspaper headlines that completely ignored the needs of children. We constantly had to remind ourselves that the mantra 'every child matters', which had been introduced as a result of the Victoria Climbié scandal, did not apply to the child of a prisoner.

There is no official record of how many children of prisoners there are, but the Ministry of Justice admits to estimates of something in the region of 200,000. We have to bear in mind that some prisoners will not disclose that they have children when they're taken in. The Families and Friends of Prisoners here in Wales estimates that 12,000 children of prisoners are living in south Wales alone. They found that 95 per cent of these children had had to move home when their parent went to prison, which also means moving school and losing your friends. It is little wonder that this upheaval in the child's life leads to depression and behaviour problems in school.

The Visiting Mum project set up by the Prison Advice and Care Trust does enable Welsh children to visit their mums in Eastwood Park in Gloucestershire once a month. For some children, this is 150 miles away from where they live. The evaluation of even this visibly brief contact shows that there is a reduction in anxiety, improved behaviour at home and in school, and less self-harm amongst the mothers.

So, the work that voluntary organisations like PACT and FFOP continue to do is extremely valuable but cannot disguise the fact that having a parent in prison triples the chances of that child themselves becoming a prisoner in later life. For boys, the outcome is even grimmer: two thirds will follow the path of their parent into prison. 

It's now 11 years since the widely applauded Corston report recommended the need to consider the best interests of children in sentencing policy, and the replacement of all women's prisons with small custodial women's centres. Unfortunately, little has changed. Women continue to be more harshly treated than male offenders, and we now have over 13,000 women entering the prison system every year. Nearly half of these are on remand—much greater numbers of them than men—and less than half of those women are found guilty when it comes to court—or less than half of those women found guilty are given a prison sentence once the case is heard. So, they could have avoided going to prison in the first place. Women are twice as likely to be sent to prison for a first offence. Overwhelmingly, they are there for theft rather than violence or other serious offences. Eighty per cent of that theft involves shoplifting. Often they're stealing to feed their kids or to support their partner's drug habit. About half these women have been the victims of crimes much more serious than the ones for which they are being imprisoned.

Many men go to prison for non-violent offences too, and given the prevalence of mental health issues amongst prisoners, it's deeply disappointing that courts in England and Wales are not using the mental health treatment requirement available as a sentencing option since 2003. It directs an offender to undergo mental health treatment as part of a community sentence or a suspended sentence order. They have the potential to reduce the prison population very significantly, but their numbers have been falling in the last nine years and they're now at their lowest point in a decade. In the last five years, they've only been involved in less than 1 per cent of all community orders or suspended sentences, and this is failing to get to the heart of the problem, which is the reason why people are going into prison at all, and why the reoffending rate is so high. In fact, it is higher than similar offenders serving a community sentence. So, being in prison makes it more likely that you will reoffend.

The House of Commons Justice Committee reported that the re-conviction rate for prisoners serving less than a year was 70 per cent in 2008, compared with 38 per cent for those sentenced to carry out unpaid work or other community sentences. This cycle of reoffending costs our economy between £9.5 billion and £15 billion a year. Other countries manage things a lot better. Sweden is closing prisons rather than spending £200 million building new ones. The director general of Sweden's Prison and Probation Service explained in 2014, 

'Our role is not to punish. The punishment is the prison sentence: they have been deprived of their freedom. The punishment is that they are with us'.

So, looking at the needs of their prisoners, he explains, 

'it is not one problem that our clients face, but two or more, sometimes as many as seven or eight...including perhaps drugs, alcohol and psychiatric problems. And these problems did not just appear overnight. These are things that have developed over years. Most of the sentences...are relatively short. The window of opportunity...to make a change is very small, so we need to start from day one. Our strategy is to cover the whole range of problems, not just the one problem.'

Now, Holland, too, has a crisis in their penal system, but it's the opposite of ours—they have a shortage of prisoners. They've already closed 19 prisons and are planning to close even more, unless they can persuade other countries to send prisoners to them. The deputy governor of Norgerhaven, a high-security prison, says, 

'If somebody has a drug problem we treat their addiction, if they are aggressive we provide anger management, if they have got money problems we give them debt counselling. So we try to remove whatever it was that caused the crime. The inmate himself or herself must be willing to change but our method has been very effective. Over the last 10 years, our work has improved more and more.

'Persistent offenders—known...as 'revolving-door criminals'—are eventually given two-year sentences and tailor-made rehabilitation programmes.'

So, a decade ago the Netherlands had one of the highest incarceration rates in Europe, but now, fewer than 10 per cent of them return to prison after their release. This is a great success story. Compare that with England and Wales, where roughly half of those serving short sentences reoffend within two years, and the figure is even higher for young adults. Proportionately, the Dutch prison population is three times lower than that of England and Wales and they save an awful lot of money not sending people to—. Even the most overcrowded jails here are costing us more than a place at Eton.

So, do we have the capacity to change and do we have the political will to change? The new Secretary of State for Justice made a speech yesterday that included some helpful noises about aspirations to bring down the population in prison, and that the prison system needs to be aiming to enable people to go into places of humanity, hope and aspiration. So, I hope that we can persuade the UK Government that we can be allowed to trial some new ways of working on community sentences, on small women's centres or places of detention, and work on the causes of the reasons why people have offended in the first place, so that we don't see them coming back again and again.

In 1920, there were 11,000 prisoners in England and Wales. In 1980, there were 42,000 prisoners in England and Wales. Today, there are 85,500 prisoners in England and Wales. We send many more people to prison than our Edwardian ancestors did. I do find that deeply, deeply shocking, and it is something, I think, that we need to look at very, very seriously.

I believe that imprisonment is an appropriate and a serious punishment for those that deserve it. It needs to be the ultimate last resort that we have for those that commit very serious offences, and those that commit violent offences, serious offences against property, should expect a prison sentence. But the truth is that we have tens of thousands of people in prison who do not qualify under those criteria for the punishment of imprisonment, and, as Jenny Rathbone has eloquently outlined, the actual effectiveness of what we do to those people is highly, highly questionable.

I'm particularly concerned that, as the figures have grown, the focus has gone much more onto containment rather than training and rehabilitation, because those violent offenders usually do come out at some point, and there's a serious job there to ensure that they don't remain a threat to society. They do require very serious treatment and rehabilitation.

I think we ought to look at this whole question from the point of view of the various jurisdictions at the moment, so the jurisdictions that have policy over prisons—penal policy—are England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. While Scotland has a similar pattern of imprisonment to England and Wales, although it is a bit lower, the pattern in Northern Ireland is vastly lower. It approaches much more the best practice in western European countries. I think that if we were to take responsibility for criminal justice, and the reason I've argued, over the years, for criminal justice policy is that it would allow us the most important thing, it would allow us to set sentencing policy and control our prisons. If you look at federal systems around the world, it's very common for community level policing and for most issues relating to criminal justice and the prison system to be at the level of the federal unit, and central Government retains responsibility for very high crimes and misdemeanours, the likes of terrorism and high-security prisons. That division seems to me a very logical one.

I'm very concerned that we don't always realise how bad the situation is in Welsh prisons for which we have responsibility to provide health services and education services. Swansea and Cardiff prisons are badly overcrowded. Both of them are in, I believe, the top-10 most overcrowded prisons; that means over 150 per cent capacity. This, I think, is a serious concern to us.

Jenny has referred to international comparisons, and this statistic that we have the highest level of imprisonment in western Europe certainly makes me uncomfortable. If it were working, I suppose you could then have the basis of an argument, 'Well, you know, we are tougher for very good reason,' but I have to say that I think there is a very, very sound centre-right argument for a considerable reduction in the number of people we imprison. I'd like to go back, if not to the 1920s, when the average prison population fluctuated between 10,000 and 14,000, at least to the 1980s, the age of Thatcher, when the prison population hovered around about 45,000. There was a great increase in the 1990s under both Governments—sorry, both a Conservative Government and then a Labour Government continued this pattern. We really have gone in the wrong direction.

There are some categories of this question that I think need particular reflection, as well: the number of care leavers in prison is something that we need to be very much aware of. Lord Laming's report last year, or just the year before, into the number of looked-after children that are brought into the criminal justice system because of patterns that are not applied to their peer group, but get applied to them because they are, quite frankly, seen as liable to be potential offenders, again, greatly troubles me.

But I do not think this is a particularly partisan issue. There are very, very sound arguments both on the left and the right for a better prison policy than we currently have, both on grounds of humanity, but also in terms of the effectiveness of what we're doing. At the moment, the system is failing, and it needs to change.

Plaid Cymru ultimately believes, with many of these points on this motion, that they won't have a realistic chance of being brought forward until we have proper criminal justice devolution and we can develop a distinct Welsh criminal jurisdiction. I would argue that this is becoming more and more imperative, in part because, as we pass more and more distinct Welsh legislation—particularly over issues that directly affect criminal rehabilitation, such as health, social services and housing—it is becoming more necessary as a natural step to take. We have those powers already, as has been mentioned earlier. Why, therefore, do we not have legislation to administer criminal justice? But my concern is that the Welsh Government doesn't seem to have the fire in its belly to really press this issue, nor are they adequately attempting to boost the legal sector in Wales so that they can cope with any changes in the devolution of criminal justice.

Devolution also becomes more difficult if we accept a larger and larger prison estate in Wales, which is being designed for England's surplus prison population. If the proposed prison in Port Talbot goes ahead, there will be around a 2,300 surplus of prison places in Wales, compared with the total number of prisoners from Wales across the whole of the UK. It's clear that any new prison in Wales is not being developed to meet the needs of Wales, because we already have that capacity. The more prisoners from England serving their sentences in Wales and vice versa will make it very difficult to do the things the Welsh Government says that it supports. Just yesterday, Carwyn Jones voiced his support for the concept of looking at a separate Welsh penal policy, yet he shrugged his shoulders to a huge new prison in his neighbouring constituency. We need a clear position from the Welsh Government, which isn't contradictory, to form part of this debate we are having here as a Parliament, and more broadly, as a country. 

In terms of rehabilitation, we must start moving away, too, from the idea that we can ship prisoners across country and expect an effective rehabilitation at the end of a sentence. The review into prisons by Lord Michael Farmer last year calls family relationships 'the golden thread' to help reduce reoffending, and research shows prisoners who receive visits from a family member are 39 per cent less likely to reoffend.

Will you take an intervention? I've got particular concerns around this question because there are no facilities in Wales to incarcerate women offenders. In general, I think there should be far fewer women in prison, but what can we do in terms of ensuring that we don't have to send women who have to go to prison as far away from their families—even to a different country?

And I would agree with you on that, and I think that's what I was coming onto, as Jenny has mentioned earlier: where we can, try and put policies in place so that they are not put into prison, and whether they're in different types of centres that are developed here in Wales is something that I know you and others—in Plaid especially—have been advocating for many years, and especially with regard to family relationships. It's often the case, although not in all circumstances, that the mother is the main carer of a child, and if they are sent as far away as possible from, say, the Rhondda, to somewhere in the middle of England, well, that's not going to facilitate that relationship that they have with that child. And so I think that's why it's integral that we look at the issues surrounding women and the support that we give to women.

I did want to add a little to bit to this speech that I haven't written today, in that I've had a personal experience recently of being—. My husband's flat was burgled last year, and his court date is imminent. I have a different view to him as to how he should potentially be punished. And what I think is important—this person, I think, is a repeat offender—is how that person can realise what he does, and how the victims' voices are heard. I think the cost to ourselves financially has been enormous, but the cost emotionally is enormous. When you realise that somebody's come into your home at 2 o'clock in the morning to steal your property and to steal your car, it's something that you can't quite get to grips with unless you've been through it. I think what's important is, potentially, more schemes for offenders to meet with victims, as is the case, potentially, in other circumstances, for them to really, really understand how that, perhaps, one piece of jewellery or that one watch might not mean anything to them, but might mean something sentimental to the person that they've engaged with. So, I don't really advocate throwing away the key, but I really do advocate, as Jenny mentioned earlier, looking at rehabilitation, trying to make people understand that what they're doing is going to turn lives around and to try and encourage them to follow a better path in the future.

I close by reminding Members that Wales is blessed with a unique opportunity here—with a blank slate, in many respects. Just as we discussed welfare reform and the necessary ways we should really have some control over welfare reform, we can do things differently here in Wales. Just because England wants to build superprisons does not mean that Wales has to follow its path. We can lead on this agenda. We can show that we can do things better and differently. Much of this has to do with our social environment, poverty. If we can look at anti-poverty initiatives, if we can get people out of the situations they're in, from the outset, they may not then resort to taking part in these types of offences, and therefore they will not be affecting people like me, or somebody down the road who will tonight experience the same thing that I did last year and be put into that anxiety. We can be positive about what we can do here in Wales and I hope that the Minister will be able to reflect that in his response.

I think Bethan is quite right: we are different, we can do things differently and we are leading the way in many things—domestic violence, modern slavery, recycling; we're doing lots of things. We are a thriving nation with capacity to empower people and serve our people, but we are failing one area here. We are failing the citizens who have to go through that system and their outcomes. The problem is, perhaps, that the system is not under our control. It's the system that currently exists, it's a penal system we have imposed upon us, and it's a system that is actually putting our citizens—and those of neighbouring nations, to be fair; it's English prisoners as well—at severe risk. It's failing to deliver an improvement on reducing reoffending, and it's failing on the safe management of the inmates in the system.

Now, evidence from various reports has been mentioned before, including Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons, and its last annual report from the chief inspector, Peter Clarke, identified that several establishments are bad. They're not considered fit for purpose. They're failing inmates, they're failing the inmates' families. He stresses that too many of our prisons have become unacceptably violent and dangerous places. The proportion of prisons that have been considered good or better, following inspection, has fallen from 76 per cent to 49 per cent in just one year. Now, this failure is echoed by representatives from the Prison Governors Association and the Prison Officers Association, who continually raise their deep concerns over the impact that reducing budgets has had on the service and its ability to improve delivery of services against the set targets that it's given.

The recent report on Swansea prison demonstrates that the service is overstretched and struggling to meet the demands placed upon it to manage the penal system and ensure that it's able to help inmates rehabilitate into their communities, thus reduce reoffending rates in Wales. Now, whilst this may be used as an argument to—. Well, basically, because Swansea is, actually, as you highlighted, the most overpopulated prison, percentage-wise in the UK—. Just because you've got more spaces, it doesn't mean to say that the system works. So, it should be ringing alarm bells, actually, to talk about sentencing guidelines and are they suitable for the modern day and the Government's ambition to reduce reoffending rates.

The difficulties faced by prisons across England and Wales are well documented, with many instances of unrest in establishments, some requiring specialist teams to restore order; serious assaults—an increase of over 200 per cent since 2013, according to the Ministry of Justice's own figures; injuries to prison staff and increases in self-harm rates of inmates, including suicides. These all indicate a need to take more radical action to improve the existing service and look at many aspects, which may fall outside the remit of various aspects. At the moment, it's outside our remit, in one sense, but we should be having that, and perhaps we'll come back to that point later.

The former Secretary of State—. We talked about the current Secretary of State—I think it's David Gauke. The former Secretary of State, David Lidington, stated his reasons last August that there need to be moves to reduce the prison population—yes, reduce the prison population—but then they spend £1.3 billion—not £200 million, £1.3 billion—on increasing the prison population. So, it doesn't seem to fit in quite well. We need to reform the penal system, amend the sentencing guidelines, and consider alternative approaches other than incarceration, which would reduce the number of individuals who are given custodial sentences. It's well overdue, and perhaps these changes should now be given to us in Wales because we can act on it, because we will not let it become overdue.

Yesterday I asked the First Minister a question based upon the conclusions of research into the size of prisons that smaller prisons have better outcomes than larger ones, both for prisoners and communities. Small prisons are often more effectively run. They have lower levels of violence, better staff-inmate relationships, greater focus on resettlement, better facilities for contact between prisoners and their families, and, as someone mentioned already, the Lord Farmer report highlighted these aspects. 

Will you take an intervention? Do you recognise as well that there are better outcomes in public prisons as compared to private prisons?

I think it's the way that prisons are being operated in the private prisons. I'm not a supporter of a private prison service. I think the problem they have is the funding to ensure the outcomes can be delivered. If there are budgetary constraints and we have the austerity measures now—[Interruption.] Well, they're getting wages and they're providing a profit for the private owners, aren't they?

But, ultimately, we want to be able to see various issues, and the fewer people in prison the better—alternative mechanisms will be a better solution. We know—everyone knows in this Chamber I have a strong opposition to large prisons, particularly one in my town. I believe—in fact the evidence supports—that large prisons do not work. Berwyn is an example. Just go to Berwyn. I said yesterday: 15 fires, 46 cells have ended up out of use with the damage. Three call-outs to the national tactical response group. That's in six months, and that's not even half full. It does not work.

Dirprwy Llywydd, I'll conclude because I can see that time is against me. We've been shown statistics that 47 per cent of prisoners reoffend within one year. We are setting people up to fail in the current system. Reoffending rates in Denmark fluctuate at about 27 per cent—20 per cent lower than us. Why? Because prisoners are treated with dignity and as though they have the capacity for reform, whereas ours are locked away. They don't have a system of prisons that are degrading and morally disgraceful.

We overuse the prison for petty and persistent crime. We have the highest incarceration rates in western Europe—it's been mentioned. People are wrongly incarcerated and put into a system at a rate that will overtake capacity. We need to take lessons. Our European neighbours actually can show us the way forward, and it's not increasing prison capacity. It's taking alternative mechanisms.

Before I begin, Deputy Llywydd, I believe that I should declare an interest in that I have been a sitting magistrate, a JP, for 15 years, and I'm still technically a JP. My desire to make a contribution to this debate is that I wish to defend certain aspects of the British judicial system and those who administer it, and to reassure the general public who may hear this debate that, in all the time I sat as a magistrate, including a number of years as chair of the bench, I never witnessed anyone being sent to prison unless all alternative interventions had been fully and unequivocally explored. Indeed, throughout my years as a magistrate it was emphasised to all those involved in the judicial—. Yes, sorry, Jenny, of course.

I just wonder, then, if you can explain why it is that we still send women to prison for not paying a television licence. I'm not suggesting that they shouldn't pay their television licence, but there have to be alternative ways of making them comply.

Well, indeed. Throughout my years as a magistrate it was emphasised to all those involved in the judicial system—magistrates, judges and of course the probation service—that incarceration was to be the final and ultimate form of punishment. Yes, on rare occasions mistakes may be made, but that is true of any institution, especially one, such as a judiciary, dealing with almost insurmountable problems linked inextricably to a rising tide of serious crime.

Will you take an intervention?

Of course.

We heard earlier on how, under Michael Howard, when he was Home Secretary, the prison population was 45,000 and within five or six years it had gone up to 80,000. How can that have happened if what you are saying is correct?

Excuse me, I'm just explaining that. I'm saying that it's dealing with almost insurmountable problems linked inextricably to a rising tide of serious crime. This rising crime rate includes violence against the person, sexual offences and widespread trafficking of drugs, as acknowledged by this Ministry of Justice report of 2013. We can add to this new forms of crime increasingly associated with the internet, such as child exploitation and fraud. Yet item 1(a) in this debate seems to suggest that it is the criminal justice policies that have caused this rise in the prison population and it has nothing to do with the rise in crime itself. [Interruption.] Of course.

I thank the Member for taking an intervention, and I bow to his experience as a magistrate. But the question is the sentencing guidelines and the alternative mechanisms that we could be looking at, in which we can work with individuals who are found guilty of an offence. Do you agree, therefore, that we need to refresh those sentencing guidelines, because there are people who are being incarcerated who should be incarcerated? There are different ways in which we can still punish a person but not put them in jail.

Well, I'm sorry, David, I'm very au fait with the sentencing guidelines and I can assure you they are there not to send people to prison.

I will say here that I have a great deal of sympathy with the views expressed in items 1(b) and 2(b). I believe that there should be a substantial expansion in secure mental facilities as an alternative to normal prisons and that some, but by no means all, of our prisons lack the facilities needed to rehabilitate prisoners. I will just note here, David, and I declare no bias one way or another, that there are many in this Chamber who opposed a prison at Margam, which would be able to offer many of the facilities to Welsh prisoners. 

I wish now to turn to item 1(d) and item 2(a) listed in this debate. The first item again suggests that women in this instance are sent to prison for minor offences. This is patently not the case, unless there are multiple minor offences involved. And, again, I reiterate that all other interventions would have been comprehensively explored. Only when the person convicted of a crime refuses to engage or accept the alternatives is the option of prison even considered. 

Item 2(a) suggests that alternative methods of punishment are either not available or are not being used. Again, this is an utter fallacy. Fines, probation, community orders, including work in the community, curfews and electronic tagging are all considered and used extensively before anyone is committed to prison. One extremely worrying consequence of these two clauses is the inference that if the perpetrator of a crime is a mother she should be treated differently to any other person who commits similar crimes, whether they be petty or otherwise. What signal does that send to all the hundreds of thousands of mothers in our society who do not commit crime, even though their circumstances may well make them vulnerable to turning to this alternative?

I will add that non payment of fines is not a minor or petty offence: it means that it is left to the good, honest, hard working and often poorer members of society—[Interruption.] no, David, I have to finish now, I'm sorry—to pick up the bill. 

Finally, although I believe the proposals contained in this debate are well intentioned and those proposing its contents are well meaning in presenting it, I contend that it is ill conceived, naive and does not accurately reflect the British judicial system. I will go on to say that I will agree with all the comments made in this Chamber by all those who have contributed to this debate to say that, post sentencing, we have a diabolical situation within all our prisons and interventions post sentencing ought to be our first and total priority.

I'm very pleased to take part in this debate, initiated by my colleague Jenny Rathbone. I would reiterate her comments and the comments made by the majority of people who have spoken here today that we do lock up far too many people and that we should be having a radical change in our approach to locking up people. I think, actually, we've heard far too often from different justice Ministers from Westminster saying, 'Yes, we're going to stop locking up people, we're going to go and work in the community', but it never happens. I certainly do support the devolution of the criminal justice system to give us an opportunity to try to have a more effective system, because it's clear, whatever David Rowlands says, that the system that he is describing does not work. What we need to do is to make policy based on evidence.

So, I want to reiterate, really, many of the points that have been made here by my colleagues today. But, in particular, two weeks ago—I think it was about two weeks ago—David Ramsbotham, the former chief inspector of prisons, talked about this issue on Sunday Supplement. I believe David Rees was on the same programme. His remarks, unfortunately, were misinterpreted by the media, and they were reported as saying it was a call for a women’s prison here in Wales, which is exactly the opposite of what he said. Certainly, the last thing that we want is a women's prison here in Wales, because there's absolutely no doubt that the number of women who are at such a risk to the public that they need to be locked up, with all the consequent trauma to their families, is just not sufficient to justify a women's prison in Wales. In fact, the number that are actually a risk to society is probably one or two.

So, I think it is absolutely essential that we move away from this misconception that having a women's prison here in Wales would be a good thing for women, because as far as I'm concerned, it would set back the cause of penal reform hugely were we to have a women's prison here in Wales, and would certainly have to be filled up with women from England in a way that would mean that they wouldn't be able to have any chance of having close family links. What David Ramsbotham was actually calling for was women’s centres, which have been mentioned here by a number of contributors today. We've never had one of this particular type of women's centre here in Wales, but there have been a number in England. They have been evaluated, they do appear to work, and evidence-based policy development would mean that we would develop these women's centres in Wales. I would like to see the opportunity for that to happen. 

It’s worth restating that, in fact, women make up only 5 per cent of the overall prison population, and the vast majority only serve very short sentences. The issue of women prisoners is a graspable policy. The numbers are not so great that you struggle to make a change. It is possible to change the policy for women prisoners, and many of the issues that apply to women prisoners also apply to male prisoners. I think if we could make the move with women's prisons, that would lead us on to do the same with male prisons, because I do want to reiterate the fact of the mental health issues, because I think that is so important. We know that the vast majority of prisoners do have mental health issues that have got to be addressed.  

I think we have to go back to the effect on children. We've been told by Jenny Rathbone about the thousands of children—I know the Prison Reform Trust have put forward a figure of thousands of children who are affected by custodial sentences—and 95 per cent of them have to leave their homes if their mother's imprisonment leaves them without an adult to take care of them. So, there is huge disruption to family life. I don't think we can reiterate that enough. 

The evidence as far as I'm concerned on women's centres is clear and compelling. They're important for maintaining family links, we know that the reoffending rate is lower, and, in fact, they cost less than the very expensive option of building prisons. So, I hope that we will get criminal justice devolved to Wales. It was recommended in the Silk report, and we haven't seen much sign of it happening since then, but I think it is something that we could tackle and where we could make a real change.

Jenny mentioned the Visiting Mum project, and I just want to briefly end by saying that I took part in one of the visits to Eastwood Park. I went with the Visiting Mum volunteers who take the children to Eastwood Park, and I can't tell you how heartbreaking it was actually to see those children being reunited with their mothers in a room that wasn't like a prison, where they had toys, where they had food, where every effort was made by the project to ensure that there were two hours when they could have a normal relationship with their mother. But seeing that, I thought that, really, nothing can justify this. When you saw the reasons why those women were in prison, it is just not justified them being there. 

I agree with many speakers today that criminal justice in England and Wales is a story of regressive and unproductive policies. We would do much better, I'm sure, if we had devolution of responsibility for criminal justice here in Wales. As many have said, we have the highest rate of imprisonment in western Europe in England and Wales—those are Council of Europe annual penal statistics. The percentage of the population—this is per 100,000 of the population—imprisoned in England and Wales is 148.3 compared to 77.4 in Germany, 86.4 in Italy and 98.3 in France. So, if that isn't a matter of different criminal justice policies in those countries, then I would say to David Rowlands: what is it? Are you saying that people—[Interruption.] In a moment. I'm just wondering, are you saying that people in England and Wales are much more criminal minded and criminal in their behaviour and nature than the population of these other countries?

Thank you for agreeing an intervention, John. Actually, what I'm saying is simply that it is the return of so many prisoners—. And I am absolutely in agreement with all those in this Chamber. Jenny Rathbone spoke about Holland and the way they treat their prisoners. It's the way we treat our prisoners that means they are returning back to prison when they shouldn't be. I am in absolute agreement with everybody here that we must do something fundamental and radical about the way that we treat our prisoners once they're sent to prison. I agree with that totally. 

I think if the prisons are grossly overcrowded, as they are, and many of the people there shouldn't be there in the first place, it makes rehabilitation much more difficult. There are much better ways of dealing with these unfortunate people, in many respects, with mental health issues, substance misuse problems—probably they may well be illiterate or innumerate or have very poor skills. There are much better ways of dealing with them outside prison than locking them up and incarcerating them. And of course, the impact on families and prisoners themselves of going to prison is obviously very grave indeed, but the impact on communities is very negative because actually reoffending rates are much higher because of the difficulties of rehabilitation because people shouldn't be there in the first place. It actually makes for more victims of crime than would be the case if we had alternative sentencing in the community.

Many reports, a number of reports, have made these issues. The evidence is stacked up. You know, the distance between prisons and home communities is negative in terms of reoffending and rehabilitation. Welsh women going to prison in England has a negative impact on their families and their children. We need community solutions and diversion schemes if we're going to prevent crimes in the future. We need smaller community units. We must meet the complex needs that prisoners have: literacy, numeracy, skills, mental health, substance misuse. That isn't happening at the moment and people with those problems really shouldn't be in prison in the first place unless it's absolutely necessary.

In terms of life after prison, Dirprwy Lywydd, we know that in terms of healthcare, social care and indeed housing, provision isn't what it should be and that then feeds into further reoffending. If we take homelessness, for example, the removal of automatic priority need under the Housing (Wales) Act 2014 that we passed here has in fact made homelessness and rough-sleeping more of a problem for prison leavers. We do have a pathway in place, but unfortunately it's not being implemented and it's not working as well as it needs to. So, we've actually moved backwards and we need to move forwards as far as homelessness and rough-sleeping and prison leavers are concerned. 

Dirprwy Lywydd, I think there's a strong consensus in this Chamber that we could do much, much better in England and Wales in terms of our criminal justice policy. If we had devolution of the criminal justice systems, we would do much, much better. We've heard a lot of evidence here today. Lots of reports point in the direction that Members here would like to move in if we are to reduce reoffending, have fewer victims of crime and fewer of our people incarcerated with the terrible impacts on them and their families. So, I am confident that we will have a much more progressive system here in Wales, a much more productive system, if we have that devolution, and I very much believe that we need to move towards it.

Thank you. Can I now call the Cabinet Secretary for Local Government and Public Services? Alun Davies.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'll start my contribution very much where John Griffiths finished his, by agreeing very much with the points that John made in his contribution but also in the, I think, very strong consensus there's been on all sides of the Chamber this afternoon. I will say, Deputy Presiding Officer, that the Welsh Government will be supporting the motion this afternoon. I hope that goes some way towards answering Bethan Sayed's request for a clear policy on this area, and I will say to Members that it's something that I recognise there's a very clear demand for further policy on and I will be seeking to bring a statement to this Chamber on these matters in due course.

I will also say this: I agree with the points that have been made by many Members—I think Julie Morgan made the points very clearly—that the current settlement is a broken settlement; it is not delivering a holistic policy; it demonstrates a constitutional settlement that doesn't work. It's important to recognise that this doesn't work for anyone. It doesn't allow either the Home Office or the Ministry of Justice to deliver their policies easily in Wales, and it doesn't allow us to develop a policy either. So, this is not a settlement that fails to work just for us and the people we serve; it fails to work for the United Kingdom as a whole. And for that reason the settlement, I hope, will be revisited. I don't want to prejudge the issues of the justice commission that will look at many of these issues, but I will say that, as a Minister who is active in this area, we do not have either a policy framework, the powers or the ability to deliver a holistic policy, and unfortunately neither does the United Kingdom Government either, so there is real failure in this area.

Members on all sides of the Chamber outlined very well how many of the services that are required to manage offenders and ex-offenders to promote rehabilitation are themselves devolved but that we do not have the powers required. David Melding's point about Northern Ireland and Scotland, I thought, was a very, very interesting point, and it's certainly one that I would wish to take up in the future.

I will also say that the points made by Jenny Rathbone in her opening speech, which were also reiterated by David Rees, about some of the prison conditions in Wales are very, very well made. I visited Her Majesty's Prison Swansea in February, and I saw for myself the conditions in which too many Welsh men are being held. I've also discussed and highlighted the concerns in the inspection report with Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons when we met last month, and I have to say that he was very positive in his response to the points I was making and he recognised the very real difficulties facing prisoners on some parts of the Welsh estate. It is absolutely wrong that we have Welsh men held in conditions that are not fit for purpose. Prisoners' partners and children should not have to visit them in institutions that cannot fully respect the human dignity of both prisoners and their families.

I am concerned that we do not have the ability to join up policy in Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service in Wales, and I'm concerned that we do not have the ability to deliver coherent policy responses for people. We have, however, sought to develop a framework to support positive change for those who are at risk of offending in Wales with the probation service. The purpose of the framework is to improve services for those at risk of entering or are already in the criminal justice system. The framework will also promote continued collaboration in order to further reduce the number of offenders entering the criminal justice system, support offenders not to reoffend and keep communities safe.

A number of Members have referred to the Corston report and to female offending. The Corston report, published over a decade ago, argues that equal outcomes for female offenders necessitate a different approach to that for their male counterparts. I agree very much with the points that have been made, particularly by Jenny Rathbone and Julie Morgan, in terms of ensuring that we do not move down the road of simply saying, 'We want a women's prison in Wales', but, actually, what we need is a different sort of facility that performs a different role in a different way, and that's a very different policy, and I recognise the points that have been made. And I think the points that were made regarding female imprisonment, with many women being given summary sentences for offences that, in many cases, would not result in imprisonment for men are well made. Those short-term sentences can have long-term impacts, in many cases leading to a woman losing her tenancy and may result in children being taken into residential care. This results in additional support for devolved services, risking exposure to further adverse childhood experiences for the children of offenders.

I understand that the United Kingdom Government will announce changes to the way in which female offenders are managed, including, potentially, a different secure estate for women. It is previously indicated that there needs to be changes in the wider probation service. I hope that we will be able to ensure that in Wales we are able to take the approach that's been outlined by Members on all sides of the Chamber this afternoon. 

Deputy Presiding Officer, I have had discussions with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice in relation to female offending and youth justice, and we have agreed that our officials should work together to explore such work to develop proposals on how a different justice system would operate in Wales. I think we do need to begin to answer the question that was put to us by David Rees as to what a Welsh penal policy would begin to look like. The point he made to the First Minister yesterday was well made, and I felt that the First Minister indicated in his response yesterday that he wanted to look at how we would begin to develop a Welsh penal policy.

For me, Deputy Presiding Officer, I would like to see a system predicated on the basis of early intervention and prevention, considering how we can further divert people away from crime in the first place, but where we do have to work with offenders, that we do so in an holistic and rehabilitative way. I agree absolutely with the points made by David Rees on smaller institutions, and certainly, I think, if we are to look at a Welsh penal policy, that the focus should be on rehabilitation, on skills, on training, on enabling people to play a full role in our communities and our society. We understand the need, as David Melding said very clearly, for a punitive element to imprisonment; we recognise that. However, the purpose is then not to pursue that, but to give people the opportunity, then, to play a full role in our society, and that is why I'm proposing that we do enable prisoners who are on short-term sentences to vote in our elections. They will be able to continue to play a part in shaping that policy—those communities. 

We have made our position as a Government on this matter clear in our draft Government and Laws in Wales Bill, and our position has not changed. This Bill provided for the immediate creation of a distinct Welsh legal jurisdiction, with Wales and England sharing judiciary and court services and the devolution of policing civil and criminal law, and the administration of justice from 2026. The UK Government's Bill, which became the Wales Act, failed to respond to our Bill and did not address the crucial issues of jurisdiction and justice, which I think we all believe require urgent attention. The First Minister's established a justice commission, chaired by Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, to undertake a fundamental review of the justice system in Wales and how to strengthen it in the long term.

I would oppose sending anyone to prison unnecessarily. Equally, however, we do need to protect our communities from harm, and prisons clearly have a role to play in that. We cannot pre-empt the conclusions of the justice committee, but we do need to ensure that we do begin the work of developing a justice policy.

Can I say, in closing, Deputy Presiding Officer, a justice policy, for me, is part of our overall approach to safer and cohesive communities? A justice policy that is holistic, that seeks to bring people together and does not seek to simply incarcerate people—it's a justice policy that is based on some of our work on safer communities, and we do need to have a frank and open conversation with UK departments about what a different approach in Wales would involve. We have begun those conversations with the Ministry of Justice, and I look forward to concluding those conversations and the development of a Welsh penal policy that puts the future and cohesion of our communities at its heart. 

Thank you. Can I call on Dai Lloyd to reply to the debate? 

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer.

Can I commend everybody who's taken part in this individual Member's debate on criminal justice? Some very powerful contributions, and, obviously, a wide variety of issues covered, so it's a bit difficult to—in the time I've got left—try and summarise everything. But can I commend Jenny Rathbone in opening very powerfully, setting the scene very well, and also David Melding similarly so? Bethan Sayed emphasised the 2,300 surplus places that we would have of building the superprison in Baglan and also her own experience of the requirements for restorative justice as a way, also, of making criminals face up to the effects they've had on people.

Can I also commend David Rees for his contribution, as well as David Rowlands in a different way, but also coming together, I think, in the end in terms of that we do need to tackle reoffending? Julie Morgan—a very powerful contribution as regards women's centres; that was a very valid point also. Jenny covered that point and John Griffiths as well. Can I also commend the Cabinet Secretary, not just in supporting the motion, but also in emphasising the need for holistic policies? And can I wish him well on his development of a Welsh penal policy? We look forward to that coming to fruition.

Back in the day, over 35 years ago now, I was a psychiatric doctor in Bridgend—a psychiatric senior house officer for six months—and Bridgend at the time had three psychiatric hospitals: Glanrhyd, that's where I was based, Penyfai and Parc hospital. They're all shut now, for very good reasons, and the Parc hospital site is the site of the Parc private prison now, but it's still housing many with huge mental health issues, much like the old Parc hospital on the same site. Sometimes we think, 'We haven't moved on much, actually', because tackling reoffending is the big challenge to properly rehabilitate offenders to prevent that revolving door of reoffending, as Jenny and others have said.

Yes, as David Melding said, evil people require incarceration, but for many in prison, dealing with the underlying causes and enabling rehabilitation and rebuilding of life and relationships is pivotal. Tackling mental health issues is one of the most important—mentioned by several people, and, really, we have to get to grips with that—from my old psychiatric service back in the day.

Similarly, housing, physical health, social services, education training and employment, drugs and alcohol services—all of these are devolved public services. They need co-ordination and we need offenders having ready access to them. But we suffer from a lack of co-ordination at the moment because, as we've heard, prisons, policing, courts and probation remain non-devolved. So, there's a fundamental disconnect, and thereby there's the huge challenge to tackle the revolving door of reoffending, and we need policing and criminal justice devolved to this National Assembly for Wales—as in now—for all of those reasons, and also we can avoid those out-of-the-blue announcements of a superprison in Baglan. Here in the Assembly, we've only been able to react since the announcement. This huge warehousing of prisoners is not wanted, and will pile huge pressures on our already overstretched devolved public services: mental health, housing, drugs and alcohol and all the rest. Health boards with a prison in them are already poorly compensated now for the additional pressures on local housing, health and education services. That's why the prospect of a superprison on a floodplain, on Welsh Government land designated for business and employment, is viewed with such alarm.

So, I look forward to the Cabinet Secretary bringing forward and marching on with that proud vision for an independent Welsh penal system. That's what's required for all of the people of this land. More power to the Cabinet Secretary. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you. The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we defer voting under this item until voting time.

Item 7 on our agenda this afternoon is the debate on the petition 'Calling on the Welsh Government to ban the use of wild animals in circuses in Wales', and I call on David Rowlands to move the motion.

Diolch, Llywydd. I'm pleased to open this debate on the petition 'Calling on the Welsh Government to ban the use of wild animals in circuses in Wales'. I want to begin by paying tribute to the petitioner, Linda Joyce Jones, whose passion and dedication to this issue and to animal welfare in general has been clear for the committee to see. Members of the Petitions Committee and, indeed, a number of other Members witnessed this first-hand when Linda and her supporters came to the Senedd to hand over her petition during January.

I would like to formally thank Linda for bringing the petition forward and for prompting the Assembly to consider this important issue. The petition collected a total of 6,398 signatures. Those signatures were collected online and on paper and from across Wales and further afield. Clearly, this is an issue that concerns many people in Wales who object to wild animals being used for the purpose of entertainment in this way. Of course, the use of wild animals in circuses has received considerable public attention over a number of years. In fact, the Petitions Committee in the fourth Assembly considered a petition on this issue from RSPCA Cymru, and I know that some Members here today were involved in that work at that time.

In response to that petition, the then Deputy Minister for Farming and Food, Rebecca Evans, announced an independent review of the evidence on the welfare of animals in travelling and non-travelling circuses. The resulting report was published in January 2016 and it concluded that the scientific evidence indicates that captive wild animals in travelling circuses do not achieve their optimal welfare requirements set out under the Animal Welfare Act 2009. It also stated that life for wild animals in travelling circuses and mobile zoos does not constitute either a good life or a life worth living. These findings paint a strong picture and it is right that they should lead to serious consideration of whether travelling circuses should continue to use wild animals in the future.

However, further to this work, the Welsh Government chose not to move forward with a ban on circuses using wild animals. Instead, at the end of 2016, the Welsh Government announced that it intended to develop a licensing system for all so-called mobile animal exhibits, including circuses featuring wild animals, but also a variety of activities such as animals visiting schools and winter reindeer parades. 

Then, last year, the Welsh Government ran a public consultation on the feasibility of introducing such a licensing system. This consultation also sought views on whether the use of wild animals in circuses should be banned. Following the consultation, the Welsh Government also did not commit to a ban, though its report acknowledged that the majority of respondents believed that the use of wild animals in circuses should be banned and that wild animals cannot be cared for appropriately whilst in a travelling environment.

The petitioner has explained that the current petition arose in response to this decision not to proceed with a ban. In her written evidence to the committee, the petitioner outlined the situation with circuses visiting Wales. She named three companies that have visited Wales in recent years, and shared concerns about the ability of local authorities and others to inspect the conditions that animals are kept in when circuses are in their area. She also noted that a licensing system for travelling circuses that use wild animals has operated in England since 2012. She believes that licensing documents demonstrate that this model fails the animals, and that companies have breached the conditions of their licences on a number of occasions, and have suffered suspensions as a result.

The petitioner raised further concerns and these include the conditions that animals are often kept in, particularly when travelling, and the availability of vets experienced in the care of exotic animals, such as camels, lions and tigers—understandably, this is rather a niche speciality in Wales. Her conclusion is that the independent report from 2016 and the result of last year's public consultation give the Welsh Government the scientific evidence and public support to introduce a ban. She also told us that a ban on this practice is now either in place or planned in around 35 other countries, including Scotland and the Republic of Ireland. Most recently, the UK Government also appeared to indicate that it was giving greater consideration to ending this practice.

In response to an initial letter from the Petitions Committee, the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs stated that she had

'not dismissed the possibility of working with the UK Government to bring in a joint ban on the use of wild animals in circuses.'

As Members will be aware, subsequently, the Cabinet Secretary issued a written statement on 14 February, which announced that the Welsh Government is now exploring opportunities to bring forward legislation to ban the use of wild animals in circuses. These proposals appear to be at an early stage and, as yet, limited information about the scope and future timescales is available. The committee hopes that the Cabinet Secretary will be able to provide further detail about her thinking and intentions during her reply to this afternoon's debate.

I would like to note here that the RSPCA recommends using the powers under section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 as a method of effecting a ban. This was used successfully in 2010 to bring about a ban on electric-shock collars, and a similar method was used by the Irish Government to effect a ban on circuses in the Republic of Ireland. It also has the added advantage of saving on the cost of allocating valuable Government time in bringing forward new legislation. 

Nevertheless, I understand that the announcement has been welcomed by Linda Jones and the signatories to her petition. Whilst this is not yet the end of the story, and I am sure that further views will continue to be aired, I believe that it is right that we recognise the significant steps that have already been achieved by Linda and other members of the campaign. I also believe that this is an illustration of the potential power of petitions, and of the strength of the processes that exist at this Assembly for members of the public to highlight issues to this Assembly and to Ministers. I am sure that this debate will be of great interest to those people who have taken the time to petition us about this issue and I look forward to listening to Members' contributions this afternoon. Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd.

Thank you. I have a significant number of Members and so, therefore, I am strictly going to apply the time limits. So, when the clock goes red, don't smile at me, because I'm going to call the next speaker. [Laughter.] Paul Davies.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm delighted to add my name to those Members that, for some time, have been calling for the use of wild animals in travelling circuses to be banned in Wales. I think most people across Wales believe that the practice is outdated, unnecessary and puts the welfare of animals travelling as part of a circus at risk and, therefore, I'm not surprised at the level of public interest in this particular issue. As we've heard, the petition before us gathered over 6,000 signatures, and I think that gives us a snapshot of the strength of feeling on this issue.

However, let us remember that this is not a new campaign. Indeed, it's one that has sadly taken us far too long to reach this critical point, and whilst I welcome the Welsh Government's commitment to finally delivering a ban on the use of wild animals in circuses, it's disappointing to see that Wales has not chosen to tackle this issue before now. Indeed, it seems to me the whole issue surrounding the use of wild animals in circuses has been de-prioritised and considered as a secondary issue, as part of a wider review to look at ways of registering and licensing mobile animal exhibits more widely. Let us remember that the Welsh Government's recent mobile animal exhibits consultation, referred to earlier, asked only one question on the use of wild animals in circuses, and yet we know from the summary of responses to that consultation that almost 900 responses were received on that question alone, which demonstrates the strength of feeling on this matter. Therefore—

Will the Member give way?

Therefore, it would have been entirely appropriate for the Welsh Government to consider this issue on its own, as originally considered by a former Minister for environment, farming and rural affairs, rather than making it part of a wider consultation on mobile animal exhibits. And I will give way to the Member for Mid and West Wales.

I'm very grateful to him for giving way. I support what he's saying, of course, but does he share my concern that that consultation on the wider question was actually allowed to be dominated by external consultants, if you like, who brought their own agenda, rather than settling this question, which is the one the public in Wales are interested in?

Absolutely, that's why, obviously, this particular issue should have been looked at independently of those other issues.

Whilst I want to see a ban on the use of wild animals in circuses, there are still several questions that need to be asked following the Welsh Government's recent statement confirming a ban, and so, perhaps in responding to this debate, the Cabinet Secretary will be able to provide some clarity on a few details. For example, is this ban being implemented on the grounds that there are concerns surrounding the welfare of the animals travelling? Or is it being implemented on the grounds that these animals are made to perform? If the intention is to ban the use of wild animals in circuses based on the welfare of the animals travelling, then will the Welsh Government be looking to extend this ban to other travelling animals, such as livestock attending markets and shows? However, if the ban is being implemented because the animals in these circuses are made to perform, then there is a question on how far this ban could go. As the Chair of the Petitions Committee said, does this include bird displays or reindeer parades, for example? Clarity on these issues is needed to confirm exactly what the rationale for this ban is, so that the public can categorically understand the Welsh Government's intentions.

Now, as I've said before, I'm pleased that the Welsh Government has finally decided to commit to implementing a ban, and I sincerely hope, as this agenda progresses, the Cabinet Secretary will be looking at existing legislation across the UK, such as the Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (Scotland) Act 2018, which prohibits wild animal performance, display and exhibition in travelling circuses, to ensure that any legislation that is brought forward is as robust as possible. Therefore, I would also be grateful if the Cabinet Secretary could tell us what the Welsh Government has already done in analysing the measures taken by other countries on this issue, and perhaps she would commit to publishing a statement on the work that has been done so far, so that we can follow the Welsh Government's direction of travel.

Of course, there may be some scope for the Welsh Government to work with the UK Government to deliver a joint ban, and I understand that, in the past, Welsh Government officials have met with their counterparts in DEFRA to discuss this very issue. Perhaps the Cabinet Secretary, in her response today, could therefore confirm whether the Welsh Government is still considering the possibility of a joint ban with the UK Government? And could she also tell us what discussions have taken place recently between her and her officials on this specific issue?

Finally, I'm also keen to hear what plans the Welsh Government has to enforce the ban here in Wales, as the ban will only be as successful as its enforcement. As a result of introducing a ban, will the Welsh Government devolve enforcement powers down to local authorities, so that they can perform inspections or spot checks on any travelling circuses? If so, is the Welsh Government confident that local authorities in Wales have the resources to carry out these additional functions? These are the sorts of questions that now need to be asked, and so I hope the Welsh Government will now provide some more information and clarity on how they will implement a ban, and what that will mean in practice, moving forward. 

In closing, Deputy Presiding Officer, as I said at the start of my contribution, I am pleased to see the Welsh Government move ahead with this agenda, because it's something that all sides of the Chamber have been keen to see for several years now, and because the public have made it very clear that they want to see a ban. It's important, therefore, that the Welsh Government now comes forward with more detailed information regarding this ban, so that the public can be confident that the Welsh Government is serious about tackling this issue, and that it is doing so in a way that is effective and efficient. Thank you.

This is an issue that is close to my heart. I've tried to make an effort in my time here in the Assembly, and particularly over the last year or two, in drawing attention to these issues. This is in part because, just as it is close to my heart, it's also close to the heart of the vast majority of people in this country. How we treat animals is a reflection of who we are as a society and as a country, and although many people sometimes claim that there are other more pressing things the Government should focus on, I think it's important that we focus on vulnerable animals, and how we demonstrate that we are supportive of protecting them.

But we are making a stronger focus on this issue because of the work of campaigners and the public, and this petition should be congratulated as another example of the people of Wales showing their dedication and resolve to try and provide answers and input into some of these questions and bring pressure on us here too. I would like to thank my colleague Siân Gwenllian, also, who has been working diligently with some of the petitioners here today, namely Linda, who has been e-mailing us on a regular basis to raise this as an important issue in the Assembly.

The issue of circuses is one that, to my mind, isn't that complicated. As the petition notes, 74 per cent of the public have demonstrated via polls that they are against wild animals in circuses. They rightly recognise that circuses featuring wild animals are outdated and are harmful. Twenty-five countries have already banned the use of live animals in circuses, and we've already heard about bans in Scotland and elsewhere in Europe. What concerns me, however, is the slow nature of progress on this issue in Wales. I don't want to go through the timelines that have already been outlined by the Chair of the committee, but now I understand that the formal line from the Welsh Government is still—and I quote:

'I am exploring opportunities to bring forward legislation to ban the use of wild animals in circuses in Wales.'

Any more exploring of opportunities and I worry that the Cabinet Secretary is going to get lost. I understand that we have a duty to get legislation right the first time, here in Wales, and I appreciate that the public would expect this and that the Government wants to ensure that that is the case, but it's not as though we are pushing for a particularly untried and unique path on circuses, because other countries have already banned this. Wales risks being left behind the curve. There is a chance that, while we are in limbo, circus operators could apply and get a licence here in Wales. Already, we know that, in 2015, a circus operator was denied a licence elsewhere in the UK, but managed to conduct a circus tour in Wales, which, in my view, could be very harmful. I've also been told today—earlier—by campaigners that the same operator is planning another tour, is unlikely to get a licence in England, and will likely attempt to obtain a licence in Wales soon. If that was to happen, it would be an embarrassing failure, in my view, directly tied to our lack of policy speed in recent years.

We are clearly seeing a huge movement of sentiment and opinion on animal welfare. I've raised the issue of an animal abuse register many times, and campaigners have delivered almost 0.75 million signatures on that particular aspect of this debate alone. I've been critical of the Welsh Government on this agenda, but I'm pleased to see, on this particular issue, that the Welsh Government doesn't reject campaigns on any of these issues out of hand, and that the Cabinet Secretary does make her preferences clear.

I'm also pleased that there is at least movement on the questions surrounding animal welfare and some actions on a range of them, but I am concerned, as are campaigners, that the movement is too slow. We really need a timeline now as to when this ban will come into place so that Wales can, again, lead the agenda. As with many of the debates we've had this afternoon, let Wales be put on the map. Let Wales show the way and make sure that animals are protected here, in Wales, as they are in other parts of the world. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

You know when an animal circus is in town because they fly-post across the community in which you live. You can't miss it. In fact, I know of a council officer who used to fill the boot of his car with the fly-posted posters that he used to tear down. But, as soon as they're torn down, they're put back up again by these animal circuses. I've noticed that that actual reference was made by Linda Joyce Jones in the petition. These people do not care about local bye-laws; it takes a national law to make a change.

It was a cold and dark night, a rainy night, in October or November 2015, when I was invited by a constituent, who I'm pleased to see is in the gallery today, to attend a protest against an animal exhibition called 'An Evening with Lions and Tigers', which was in my council ward—the area that I represented as a councillor. We were really pleased to see the number of people who turned out for the protest night after night, in the dark and in the rain, turning away people—well, they didn't actually physically turn them away, but they were persuading people not to enter the show. It was reasoned argument that these people made. They had banners and they had petitions, and they had very clear literature explaining why they felt that the evening with lions and tigers was a cruel show and one that should not be visited. We were pleased to see car after car leaving Tir-y-Berth, and leaving Hengoed, when we made these points. Therefore, I'm delighted to support this petition today. One of the things that that show didn't get was a licence from DEFRA to operate in England, and that's represented in the petition, yet they were able to operate in Wales. Therefore, it's time that the Welsh Government took action.

I've read the Dorning, Harris and Pickett report, and it highlights a lot of the things that have already been covered by Members. The fact that also needs to be said is that legislation has been addressed in other parts of the United Kingdom, and therefore the Welsh Government needs to take action. My predecessor, Jeff Cuthbert, raised this with the then Minister, and had some sway in getting the Harris report commissioned, but now is the time to take this to a stage of legislation to prevent these circuses from touring Wales and causing harm to the animals that are exhibited there.

Firstly, I would like to thank all of those people who signed the petition and submitted the petition on behalf of animals that have no way themselves of ending the suffering that profiteering circus owners impose on them. I would urge the Welsh Government to take action in light of the petition and the 74 per cent of the Welsh public who want a full ban on wild animals being used in circuses, and go ahead with the ban.

In 2016 the Welsh Government said that they'd look into a licensing system, and that really worries me, and I very much hope that the Cabinet Secretary has had a change of mind on this. Because a licensing system has operated for some time and yet operators have been found to be in breach of the licence. The point is that animal suffering has still taken place, and no penalty after the event can turn back time and prevent the ill treatment from having happened in the first place. And, when we look at the effectiveness of licensing in Wales, we can see that introducing it for circuses would be entirely useless. When this Government introduced licencing for puppy farms, they delegated responsibility for its enforcement to local authorities. Councils up and down Wales that were already too cash-strapped to do anything meaningful were asked to make sure that licences were and are being adhered to. The problem of atrocious conditions in puppy farms continues virtually unchanged. This isn’t the fault of the local authorities; they have limited budgets. It's the fault of a weak decision by Welsh Government.

Licensing is only as good as its enforcement, and, on that basis, rather than preventing animal cruelty, licensing merely regulates misery. There is a general principle at stake here: how do we see the role of animals in our day-to-day lives? Are they here for our amusement and entertainment? If not, how can anyone suggest any form of licensing? Licencing a circus to keep wild animals purely for entertainment is basically saying that there's a level of misery you think is justifiable for an animal to suffer so that the rest of us can be entertained, and I find that abhorrent.

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate my full support for the petition and the motion, but ask that the Government actually looks to implement a full ban on wild animals in circuses, not mere licensing, so that we can send the signal out that there is no level of animal suffering that is acceptable for our entertainment. Thank you.

As a child in the early 1960s I regularly visited circuses, as did most kids, and there was a certain irony at the time because then you used to get circuses sponsored by companies such as Brooke Bond and other companies like that, and of course they would all give out to you the cards you used to get with packets of tea, which were cards of wildlife, and you'd go to the circus and you'd have the irony of going to see the caged animals and at the same time be given these wonderful card collections of the wonders of wildlife animals. I just mention that because it's an indication as to how far we actually have come in taking more seriously the respect for wild animals and for wildlife.

I'm supportive of this motion, and I'm supportive of legislation. As part of the consultation, when it took place I did my own consultation on my Facebook site and I had 71 members of the public complete the Facebook survey. That's a relatively small number, but it's still a significant number, and indicated there was overwhelming support for the Welsh Government's proposals, with 70 people—that's over 98 per cent—agreeing with the Welsh Government's proposed ban on the use of wild animals in circuses. We also asked, 'Do you agree with the Welsh Government's proposals to introduce a licensing scheme for mobile animal exhibits such as travelling falconry and exotic pets taken into schools?' Over 95 per cent agreed. 

One other comment, though, that was made, was that people almost overwhelmingly expressed a view on animal welfare—the regret that fox hunting wasn't devolved to the Welsh Assembly because of the need to actually have stronger legislation also in respect of the ban and ending of that, the cruelty. I think we have to see it within that context in terms of the welfare of all wildlife and all animals.

But, that having been said, I am supportive, and I'm glad this debate has come forward. I do hope that we will take action, because the way in which we treat wild animals and wildlife generally is an indication, I think, of the quality of civilisation and of the society we live in.

I'd like to reiterate a lot of what has been said already, and to thank Linda and the many people who signed the petition: 6,398. It certainly does make the work of the Petitions Committee very relevant when such an issue with such engagement from the public has taken place.

In 2015, the then Deputy Minister for Farming and Food stated that the Welsh Government were considering whether it would be appropriate to act alone in banning the use of wild animals in live circus performances. Here we are, three years later, and we remain with no current legal barriers to prohibit the use of wild animals in circuses in Wales. This debate, therefore, is exceptionally important and I do commend all who have signed.

The case for a ban has been well documented and evidenced over a number of years—a YouGov poll showing that 74 per cent of the public in Wales support the ban. We know that the complex and unique needs of wild animals simply cannot be met by any circus. Crucially, the Welsh Government's own review by Professor Harris backs this up, stating that scientific evidence indicates that captive wild animals in travelling circuses:

'do not achieve their optimal welfare requirements, as set out under the Animal Welfare Act 2006'.

Further stating that:

'Life for wild animals in travelling circuses and mobile zoos does not...constitute either a "good life" or a "life worth living".'

In 2016, the Secretary for environment and rural affairs stated that the Welsh Government was working towards a licensing system and has now pledged to bring forward a public consultation on mobile animal exhibits. Well, right now, I'm here today about the principle of banning wild animals in circuses. That is a separate issue, the mobile animal exhibits. The competency to bring in a ban under primary legislation has been under the Welsh Government's ability since the 2011 referendum, yet this power has not been used yet. I ask the Cabinet Secretary: you have this power, you have the legislation—please, for the animals, and also for all those who feel so strongly on this, please use that power. 

Given how far behind we are now from other legislatures in places like Bolivia, Bosnia, Paraguay, Peru, Costa Rica and Croatia, as well as, closer to home, Scotland and the Republic of Ireland, it is clear that the time has come. The RSPCA have highlighted the potential to use section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act rather than primary legislation to allow for the Welsh Government to easily make the regulations to bring in a ban with immediate effect, saving parliamentary time, resources, and possibly some animals. 

I would be interested to know what consideration Welsh Government has made of using these powers in this regard. We know that this method has been used in 2010 to introduce a ban on the use of electronic shock collars on dogs and cats in Wales, and more recently by the Irish Government to bring in a circus ban in the Republic of Ireland. If it's good enough for them, it has to be good enough for Wales.

Evidence provided by the petitioner noted concerns about injuries sustained by wild animals within a circus environment, notably detailing an injury to the rear leg of a lion in a circus near Carmarthen and the open and weeping sores on the legs of a baby young camel. Cabinet Secretary, these are clear animal welfare issues. The evidence is there, backed up by your own Government. The support is there. We know a majority of people in Wales support a ban and we have had this in our manifesto—the Welsh Conservatives—for many years. Please confirm today that you will in fact implement a ban. 

Finally, a huge thank you to Linda Joyce Jones, because she is not a politician, she's just one very determined lady. When Bethan said earlier about how she's written to you, she hasn't just written, she has pestered us, and she has done it in a lovely way, and I thank her for pestering us, because she hasn't let this go for a moment. If she hasn't got us through letter, through e-mail, through phone, she's got us on social media. She has done what you as a politician now could actually finish—the end result of this. Don't just make Linda happy, make us as Assembly Members, make our constituents, make our visitors, but, most of all, make those animals happy. No more wild animals in circuses. Thank you.

As Chair of the Finance Committee, it’s not often that I am lobbied on issues of animal welfare, but that’s what happened to me when I and the Finance Committee visited Anglesey. The petitioner, Linda Joyce Jones, ensured that she crossed the Menai strait in order to speak directly with the Finance Committee on these very issues.

But I’m speaking today as the Plaid Cymru spokesperson on animal welfare issues, stating that we too support this petition fully and believe that action should be taken immediately to ban the use of wild animals in circuses, and to do that without clouding the waters, as has been done to date, with the valuable but different consideration of licensing animals in other contexts. Can we focus, therefore, on the matter that we’re considering today, this important petition to ban the use of wild animals in circuses?

Plaid Cymru has campaigned on this for some years. Siân Gwenllian has raised the issue, and Bethan has done so too on a number of occasions and has done so consistently. Because of that, it was in our manifesto for the last Assembly elections. As well as hearing from the petitioner, we have personally received a number of e-mails from constituents who are very concerned about this, and there’s also been strong campaigning by the RSPCA.

I will take advantage of the opportunity not to rehearse what’s already been said, but to say that there’s a broader question of zoos, which we need to consider given recent events in Borth in Ceredigion, and the licensing by local authorities not just of circuses but of zoos. The fact is that the legislation that we’re talking about here is very old—it’s ancient, if truth be told—and is not fit for purpose.

I understand that the Government does have to carefully consider how we can tackle this issue and ban the use of wild animals in circuses, so I’m in a position today to tell the Cabinet Secretary that if you use the approach that I’m going to suggest to do this—to ban the use of wild animals in circuses—then Plaid Cymru, and I make this pledge on behalf of Plaid Cymru, will support this so that we can move ahead immediately with a ban.

So, what I'm about to outline is, of course, using section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which allows 'the appropriate national authority', which is the Welsh Ministers—not the Assembly, mind you, it's true; the Ministers—to make regulations

'as the authority thinks fit for the purpose of promoting the welfare of animals for which a person is responsible, or the progeny of such animals.'

Now, the advice that I've received is that it would be perfectly legal, therefore, for the Welsh Government to use section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act to ban wild animals in circuses in Wales. The regulation-making powers would go through the affirmative procedure here in the Assembly, so we would be able to approve or reject them, so the onus would be on the Welsh Government to get them right, of course, but the regulation power also allows for the creation of an offence that is triable on indictment and is punishable by way of imprisonment for no more than 51 weeks or a fine exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

So, I think both the ability to create this ban and the ability to police the ban at a national level are sufficient and appropriate on the face of the Animal Welfare Act. Yes, ideally, we would prefer to take through an Act of the Welsh Parliament, but we do have other Acts we have to take through in the next 18 months—Brexit being not the least of the concerns that we will have. This is an appropriate narrow power that can be used in this regard. It doesn't allow us to get tied up with the wider considerations about wider licensing engagements.

So, I would very much like to say to the Cabinet Secretary that, if you are minded to use section 12, bring forward those regulations and I promise you Plaid Cymru will do everything in our power to allow those regulations to pass in this Assembly, so we end up as a Parliament banning wild animals in circuses. 

I've lived in my constituency for my whole life, and I'm pleased to say I can't remember the time that there was last a travelling circus with wild animals, because they're certainly not welcome in Cynon Valley. But, despite that fact, I've had a deluge of correspondence from constituents since I've been elected to this place on this very issue of banning the use of wild animals in circuses. And I think what that shows is that there's a great strength of opinion across Wales about this matter. As many Members have already said, the statistics show that three quarters of people in Wales support a ban on the use of wild animals in circuses. 

The briefing that we've all seen from the RSPCA sets out the scientific evidence that demonstrates that life in a circus will, in all likelihood, have harmful effects on animal welfare. It cites the causing of stress and behavioural issues, and the temporary nature of circus housing obviously cannot adequately meet the needs of wild animals. They suffer in unnatural conditions where their physical and mental stimulation needs simply cannot be met. And that’s without factoring in the effects of travelling too. Life for these animals is not worth living. PETA have also highlighted some truly horrific practices in terms of training the wild animals used in these circuses. Moreover, these animals are being kept in these conditions—as other Assembly Members have already noted—purely for our own selfish entertainment. These are points that have been made to me by my constituents, and I believe that they are completely right.

Finally, I want to make the point that this ban is overdue. It is welcome that the Cabinet Secretary is exploring opportunities to bring forward legislation to ban the use of wild animals in circuses in Wales. However, I really do hope that this can be expedited. I agree with Simon Thomas, who said that a ban could be introduced under section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, or indeed via primary legislation. If we look at Scotland and the Republic of Ireland, they've already introduced these bans. Even the UK Government is apparently supporting such calls. And that’s from a party who went into the last general election supporting relaxing the rules on fox hunting. We used to have a really good reputation in Wales for leading on animal welfare policies. I do hope that the Welsh Government will seize this opportunity to get us back in the forefront of this policy area.

As I close, I just want to mention Ysgol Gyfun Rhydywaun in my constituency, who are taking part in a regional heat for the RSPCA Cymru animal welfare great debate, along with Aberdare Community School. Ysgol Gyfun Rhydywaun will be debating this very topic. I wish both schools good luck. But I want to implore the Welsh Government to take prompt action so wild animals in circuses become just a cruel quirk of our distant past—like bear-baiting and cockfighting—and not something that our Assembly and our schools have to keep on discussing.

I would like to thank the Petitions Committee for their work on this petition, everyone who signed it and RSPCA Cymru for leading on the petition. I fully support the petition, as do nearly three quarters of the Welsh public. The use of wild animals for human pleasure is barbaric and needs to be outlawed as soon as possible.

Thankfully, just two circuses in the UK have wild animal licenses, Circus Mondao and Peter Jolly’s Circus. Between them, they have 19 animals: six reindeer, four zebra, three camels, three racoons, a fox, a macaw and a zebu. In England, wild animals must be licensed but there is no law to stop circuses using certain types of animals. In Wales, there is no licensing requirement. And there is nothing stopping Wales becoming a dumping ground for animal circuses that have been legislated out of other European countries. At the beginning of the year, Ireland became the twentieth EU state to ban the use of wild animals in such a way. It is past time we implemented a similar ban. How can we justify allowing animals being coerced into doing tricks that they wouldn’t do in the wild? How can we justify allowing these majestic creatures to be abused from birth and forced to travel in cramped, unsuitable conditions? And how can we justify allowing animals who should be free to live a life in captivity and to be cast aside or worse still killed once they can no longer entertain the masses?

The UK Government have been promising a ban for many years and now plan to introduce a ban in the next five years. We can’t wait that long. We need to ban the use of wild animals in circuses today. I welcome the Cabinet Secretary’s statement last month in which she said she was exploring opportunities to bring forward legislation to ban the use of wild animals in circuses in Wales. It’s now time to act. RSPCA Cymru have outlined how we can utilise section 12 of the animal welfare Act to introduce such a ban without resorting to new legislation. We used the animal welfare Act to lead the way on banning shock collars. I urge the Cabinet Secretary to use the Act to end the barbaric cruelty that is the coercion of wild animals to perform in circuses. I urge Members not to only support the motion before them today, but to put pressure on the Welsh Government to introduce a ban urgently, as soon as possible. I urge the Welsh public to keep pressing for a ban. Let's ensure that we don't have to wait five years for action from the Welsh Government. Diolch yn fawr.  

I'm delighted to speak in this debate today. I was really pleased last month to see this statement from the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs when she said that she would be exploring ways of bringing a ban forward. Fellow Members know that this is a subject that I feel really strongly about, and I've raised it in Plenary on numerous occasions over the years. I believe that an outright ban on wild animals in circuses is the only way that Wales can show the rest of the world that we too, like Scotland and the Republic of Ireland, do not welcome what is an outdated and cruel form of so-called entertainment. It's a view, as has been said already, shared by three quarters of the population. Well, one thing is certain: it isn't entertainment for the animals. If you read the reports about the cruel conditions—and they've been outlined here today—that, very often, these animals are subjected to, there is no entertainment whatsoever in that for them. Lots of people have mentioned that the RSPCA have contacted all of us, it seems, about using section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to bring that forward. Simon Thomas has also outlined that that is somewhat limiting, but I would like to see legislation brought in as quickly as possible but also as comprehensively as possible.

I am also concerned about animals like reindeer being used as an attraction for passers-by in city centres and outside church nativity displays, being used to draw people, particularly children, towards their exhibits. I think this is also cruel. I don't think that reindeer are meant to stand for hours on end on concrete yards, and I don't want us to legislate in one area to the detriment of another area is what I'm really saying. I think we really need to look at everything that we can do and do it as comprehensively and as quickly as we can. To coin a phrase, or to misuse another phrase, if we keep to reindeer, reindeer are not just for Christmas; they're supposed to actually have a life.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs, Lesley Griffiths.

Diolch, Llywydd. Thank you very much. I'm very grateful to the Petitions Committee and, of course, to the petitioners for bringing the petition forward first and then obviously for the debate today. Although there are no circuses based in Wales, they of course do visit, and I think today's motion absolutely highlights the very strong public feeling surrounding the use of wild animals in circuses. So, the Welsh Government is very happy to support the motion today.

I want to put on record my commitment to exploring all opportunities to bring forward legislation to ban the use of wild animals in circuses in Wales. I just want to reassure Bethan Sayed that I certainly won't get lost. I don't think anybody should underestimate my personal commitment to doing this. So, there are two things: one is looking at the legislative programme to see where we could bring that legislation forward. As Simon Thomas, I think very pertinently, pointed out, it would be good to have a Welsh Parliament Act, but we do have, obviously, a very crowded legislative programme, but I'm continuing to explore those opportunities, and also section 12, which several Members have raised. When I first came into this portfolio, I did look at section 12 and took evidence on this. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs also did the same, and they were advised that imposing a ban on welfare grounds through regulations could be challenged in the High Court, but I think it is something that we are continuing to look at.

One of the strategic outcomes within the Wales animal health and welfare framework implementation plan is that animals in Wales have a good quality of life. Several Members referred to my intention to develop a licensing scheme for mobile animal exhibits in Wales, and I reassure Janet Finch-Saunders: of course I understand it's a separate issue, and it's really interesting to see that other parts of the UK are now following our approach. I announced that in my written statement in December 2017. That was following a public consultation on the matter. And whilst I was seeking views on that subject, I took the opportunity to ask the public's view on the use of wild animals in circuses. At the same time—it was about the same time, the winter of December 2016—I met with UK Government Ministers. I think it was Lord Gardiner; I've met with him a couple of times. Paul Davies asked whether I had been working with Ministers, so I was working with Ministers, and my officials were working alongside DEFRA officials. Because the UK Government previously announced that it was their intention to ban the use of wild animals in circuses, so I was very happy to have Wales included in that programme because I thought it would be quicker. However, progress has been incredibly slow, and that's why I then decided to take the approach that I have done, and that was to look at all the options.

Paul Davies also asked about the Scottish Government's recent Act that they brought forward. It gained Royal Assent—I think it was towards the end of January. So, we're absolutely looking at that model, and, of course, other models. The Scottish Government proposed a ban on a number of ethical grounds, which, again, received overwhelming support. So, I think that is a very good model for us to look at. So—

Will you take an intervention?

Yes.

You talked about looking at different kinds of models: what is the timetable with this now? I mean, that's what people are asking. They understand your commitment to having a ban, but what is the precise timetable and when will we see this coming into force? 

Okay. So, this work is ongoing and has been ongoing since the winter of December 2016, and probably before that as well, before I came into post, but it's absolutely going on at the moment. The timetable is—obviously, we will be looking towards year 3 of the legislative programme, so that's my aim now. But the section 12 is also—. And I was very grateful to Simon Thomas for the commitment of Plaid Cymru to support it, if that's the way we can do it. So, the timescale is current and I would hope to be able to bring forward a statement probably by the summer as to whether we would be in legislative programme year number 3, or earlier if we can look at whether we can use section 12.

I want to go back to the mobile animal exhibits, because we know there are not that many wild animals in circuses—I think it's about 19—but we don't know the number of mobile animal exhibits that we have in Wales. We all know of schools that are visited by them, so I thought it was very important that we developed the licensing of the mobile animal exhibits, and as I say, we have other parts of the UK now looking at our approach. I think the approaches taken by all the different parts of the UK need to be compatible also, so again, officals are working very closely with officals in Scotland, Northern Ireland and DEFRA to ensure that the development of our licensing scheme is not done in isolation. 

[Inaudible.] 

Can I just carry on? I'm aware of the time, sorry. We're also engaged in the development of other cross-cutting policies to reinforce animal welfare, and I think it's really important to hear other people's views about circuses. I'll now take an intervention. 

I'm very grateful. What I wanted to try and ascertain from her—because she's set out the options: a standalone Bill or a section 12, and she's also set out the other things that she's looking at. I mentioned another one, which is zoos, as well, which has also come up—

Sorry; I meant zoos as well. 

Well, yes. Obviously, a Bill would allow the wider animal welfare considerations to be addressed, whereas a section 12 has to be specifically targeted at a particular animal welfare issue. Is she, at least, able to give us where her thinking is on that at the moment? Because what the concern, I think, around the Chamber would be that is that we don't want to let something that we can do now be put off because we have a wider agenda that needs to be delivered over a longer period of time.

I mentioned earlier that I'd looked at section 12 as soon as I came into post, and clearly that had been looked at Rebecca Evans, my predecessor, and also by DEFRA. So, the advice I was given was that that would not be the most appropriate way forward, but I am having a look at that again. I know third sector organisations don't agree with lawyers on that, but I'm very happy to continue to look at that. And sorry; I did mean that we were looking at—. You brought a very pertinent point up about zoos, because, clearly, we had that incident in Ceredigion, and so I think it's really important that we look at the whole package in relation to animal welfare.

I want to develop a licensing scheme for mobile animal exhibits that delivers a lasting impact on animal welfare standards in Wales, and I am, again, monitoring developments of the similar schemes that the UK administrations are bringing forward because I do think it's very important that all the schemes are compatible. We've got a very porous border, obviously.

I think the Welsh Government, the public, the enforcement agencies and the courts have to continue to promote the fact there is already a duty of care on all animal keepers to protect the animals in their care, and that's whether it's on a temporary or a permanent basis. That's obviously embedded in the Animal Welfare Act 2006. But I think there's also a responsibility for us as a Welsh Government to ensure the moral values that Wales adheres to are modelled in strong messages and actions, and the responsible animal ownership mantra has never been expressed more strongly than I think it has been today.

So, I just want to reiterate once again my commitment to exploring opportunities to bring forward legislation to ban the use of wild animals in circuses in Wales at the earliest possibility.

I call on David Rowlands to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Llywydd. I'd like to thank all the Members for their contributions to the debate and, again, to the petitioner for bringing this petition forward. It's obvious by the numbers who have wanted to speak during this debate that there is huge cross-party support for the ban on wild animals in circuses.

Paul Davies spoke about it being mixed up with mobile animal exhibits, and he was supported in that by Simon Thomas. The joining of these two items could cause problems for how we deal with it in the future. Bethan Sayed—I'm reminding you of your new name—talked about the pressure put on by the petitioners and the high percentage of members of the public supporting this ban. She also made the point of the tardiness in making a decision on the ban and asked for a time frame.

Hefin David talked about a night with the lions and tigers, or at least making sure that there wasn't a night with the lions and tigers, and the success they had in turning away many potential visitors to that exhibit. Michelle Brown gave thanks to those who signed the petition and spoke again of the non-desirability of licensing and the weakness of enforcement of such licensing legislation. Mick Antoniw mentioned the results of the poll he took. I believe he said that there was support for licensing mobile animal acts. Am I right in saying that? Yes. And I think there is support for that in the Chamber in general. Janet Finch-Saunders again mentioned the slow progress by the Welsh Government in bringing in a ban. She made a distinction again between mobile animal exhibits and the use of wild animals in circuses.

Simon Thomas reiterated the desire for the ban on wild animals and circuses, but again, to make a distinction with mobile animal exhibits. And he also brought up the necessity for proper regulation of zoos. Vikki Howells mentioned the scientific evidence from the RSPCA that animals are affected adversely, both physically and mentally, when they are travelling with circuses.

Caroline Jones mentioned the use of wild animals in circuses as barbaric, and having no legislation in Wales could result in a dumping of these circuses in Wales. Joyce Watson welcomed the statement by the Cabinet Secretary—the earlier statement I'm talking about, of course, Joyce—and she also mentioned that this is a cruel form of entertainment, and it certainly wasn't entertainment for the animals involved in this practice. She also mentioned the reindeer that are used as exhibits or attractions over the Christmas period.

I must say, the comments from the Cabinet Secretary, whilst welcome to a certain extent, say that she is still looking at the possibility of legislation—an Act—and, of course, she then mentioned time frames of something like three years—[Interruption.] Well, that's the time frame you said for bringing legislation—. 

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, I'll be corrected on that, of course, Cabinet Secretary.

I said year 3 of the legislative programme, which begins this summer.

Yes, thank you. Well, I would urge her to seriously consider the use of section 12 of the animal rights Act, because it's obvious, throughout the comments made in this Chamber today, that we need urgent action with regard to this, otherwise we will be falling behind other legislatures and Wales will be looked at as an easy option for these circuses.

So, I will mention the fact that we will, as a committee, be returning to this subject in the future, and, again, can I thank all those who contributed to this debate, especially those who brought the petition? And I'll thank Linda again and her supporters for doing just that. Thank you.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? The motion is therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

We now reach the debate on the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee report on the scrutiny of regulations made under the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. I call on Mick Antoniw, the Chair of the committee, to move the motion. Mick Antoniw.

Thank you, Llywydd. I can feel the excitement in the air in that you've all waited for this report, and I will do my best not to disappoint. We laid our report on the scrutiny of regulations made under the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill on 16 February, and made seven recommendations. Before I talk about our findings, I wanted briefly to explain the context within which this work was undertaken and also set out what we were seeking to achieve.

For clarity, I'd like to rehearse the purpose of the withdrawal Bill, which is to end the supremacy of EU law in UK law and to convert EU law, as it stands at the moment of exit, into domestic law. It also creates temporary powers to make subordinate legislation in the form of regulations that will enable corrections to be made, ensuring that the law operates appropriately once the UK has left the EU. This will enable the domestic legal system to continue to function correctly outside the EU. In order to do this, Members will know that the Bill replaces the framework of the European Communities Act 1972 with a new framework called 'retained EU law', which provides a basis from which the UK Parliament and the devolved legislatures can make their own laws. I told you so far I wouldn't disappoint.

The Bill splits retained EU law into three types: EU-derived domestic legislation under clause 2 of the Bill; direct EU legislation under clause 3 of the Bill; and rights, powers, liabilities, et cetera, that arise under the European Communities Act 1972 under clause 4 of the Bill. As currently drafted, the Bill gives the Welsh Ministers powers to amend one type of retained EU law, and that is EU-derived domestic legislation. Now, while the Bill was amended at Report Stage in the House of Commons to allow the Welsh Ministers also to amend direct EU legislation in devolved areas, that power is only exercisable where it has been agreed that a common framework in a particular devolved area is not needed. With regard to making regulations in devolved areas, the Bill includes a complex mix of powers that may be exercised either concurrently or jointly by Welsh Ministers and UK Ministers.

The main aim of our work was to look at the scope and nature of regulation-making powers to be exercised in relation to Wales by the UK Government and the Welsh Ministers, including the procedures to be attached to the scrutiny of those regulations. Our report focuses mainly on amendments we believe should be made to the Bill, and in so doing they address the questions that were raised by the Secretary of State for Wales in a letter to the Llywydd in January of this year, which is available on our website.

Our report was informed by a stakeholder conference held last September, a general consultation and a panel of experts with experience of the making of subordinate legislation. We are grateful to all those who contributed. We also considered the reports of other parliamentary committees in the House of Commons and the House of Lords who examined the making of subordinate legislation on the Bill.

As it is currently drafted, the EU withdrawal Bill has been strongly criticised for the way in which powers to make regulations are to be exercised, with many parliamentary committees from UK legislatures expressing concern at an excessive transfer of power from legislature to government. In particular, this is to be achieved through the use of extensive Henry VIII powers, with the affirmative procedure to be applied in more limited circumstances than would normally be expected.

In some of our initial statements on the implications of legislating to leave the EU, we set out some important constitutional principles that we believe should apply to the role of the National Assembly. These include the National Assembly passing primary legislation in devolved areas, delegating powers to the Welsh Ministers to make subordinate legislation as the National Assembly considers appropriate, and the procedure to be applied to scrutiny of that subordinate legislation.

Now, we recognise that the UK's withdrawal from the EU represents a unique as well as a complex legislative challenge that must be achieved within a short time frame. In these circumstances, and for practical reasons, we accept that the Bill will need to delegate powers to the Welsh Ministers to make subordinate legislation and that, accordingly, it will need to set the procedure attached to those powers. We emphasise that this approach should not be regarded as conceding these important principles or our general concerns about the Bill's approach to devolution, particularly as regards clause 11. Rather, this is a pragmatic response to the scale and the challenge of the unique task ahead to ensure a functioning statute book.

I'd now like to divide the speech into two parts. First, I will consider recommendations 1, 2, 4 and 7, which deal with matters we consider require amendment of the UK Government's Bill and are the subject of point 2 of the motion, and then, secondly, I will consider the other recommendations and their implications for Standing Orders, which will need to be addressed at a later date.

With regard to recommendations 1, 2, 4 and 7, during its passage through the House of Commons, the Bill was amended to apply a sifting mechanism to all regulations to be made under clauses 7, 8 and 9 using the negative procedure, which relate to dealing with deficiencies arising from withdrawal, complying with international obligations and implementing the withdrawal agreement. Within 10 days of laying, a sifting committee must decide whether the regulation should instead be subject to the affirmative procedure, although any such recommendation is not binding. We believe that the sifting mechanism for the House of Commons now contained within the Bill is a positive step forward, improving the level of scrutiny attached to subordinate legislation to be made under that Bill. Accordingly, recommendation 1 provides that the Bill should be amended to apply the sifting mechanism to all regulations laid before the National Assembly and that a committee here is responsible for making a recommendation as to the appropriate procedure for the regulations.

However, we share the concerns of the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that the current mechanism within the Bill lacks teeth. Therefore, recommendation 2 requires that the Bill be amended to require that a recommendation of a sifting committee is binding, save where the National Assembly resolves otherwise. This recommendation will ensure that the National Assembly can have the final say as to what procedure will apply to the making of subordinate legislation laid before the National Assembly. This is an important part of ensuring that the sifting mechanism is robust, and I'll come on to explain other ways of ensuring that the sifting mechanism is robust by making changes to our Standing Orders.

However, a sift mechanism, no matter how robust, is no substitute for a clear declaration on the face of the Bill as to when the affirmative procedure must apply. Therefore, we believe that the limited circumstances where the affirmative procedure must apply under the Bill are broadened. Recommendation 4, in effect, says that the Bill should provide for an application of the affirmative procedure in relation to any measure that involves the making of policy, and the affirmative procedure should apply to regulations including those made by the Welsh Ministers under clauses 7, 8, 9 and 17 and Schedule 2 that amend or repeal primary legislation. In our view, the same should apply to regulations made by the Welsh Ministers. Henry VIII powers contained in the Bill should not be used to amend the Government of Wales Act 2006 and that, as a result, the Government of Wales Act 2006 should be included in the list of enactments in clause 7(7) that cannot be amended by regulations. We also believe that the Bill should be amended as set out in recommendation 7, namely that the 'made affirmative' procedure for urgent cases should also apply to regulations made by the Welsh Ministers, whether acting alone or acting with UK Ministers in composite regulations, or acting with UK Ministers in joint regulations, in order for there to be consistent treatment of Ministers of all Governments.

However, we echo the concerns raised by the Hansard Society in respect of the scrutiny procedure that applies in certain urgent cases. These concerns are that the Bill does not impose a statutory duty on the Ministers of the Crown to explain the urgency; that there are no defined limits to the cases, which may or may not be urgent; the sift mechanism can be bypassed completely, again without the Minister of the Crown having to give reasons for bypassing the sift mechanism. We believe there should be safeguards included on the face of the Bill to address each of these concerns.

With regard to recommendations 3, 5 and 6, these concern matters that are related to Standing Orders, and cover matters to be decided at a later date. As I mentioned earlier, the sift mechanism set out in the Bill needs to be more robust. Therefore, we believe that the sifting criteria should be adopted to give clarity to the sifting committee as to what criteria to apply when coming to a decision about what procedure should apply.

Our report details five sifting criteria that we believe should be adopted, and they focus in particular on the need for clarity and transparency in any explanatory material that accompanies the regulations. We believe this will help the sifting committee to come to an informed decision as to what procedure should apply to regulations made under the Bill. A lack of clarity and transparency around things such as what changes are being made, what consultation is being carried out, and what the impact on equality and human rights is will only serve to keep the committee in the dark and make the whole sift mechanism slower and less robust.

Whilst we would prefer the sifting criteria to be included on the face of the Bill, we do not see merit in the Bill setting out detailed criteria that will apply to a sift committee of the National Assembly, while at the same time not setting out such detail in respect of the sift committee of Westminster. Therefore, recommendation 3 says that the sifting criteria should be set out in the National Assembly Standing Orders. Those criteria will then send a clear message as to the kind of information that must be included in explanatory materials that accompany regulations made under the Bill.

Recommendation 1 states that the committee of the National Assembly should be responsible for making the recommendation as to the appropriate procedure for the regulations. Recommendation 5 sets out our view that the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, we consider, is the most appropriate committee to perform that task. We have experience and expertise in respect of regulation-making powers, and the various procedures that could apply, through our consideration of Bills introduced for scrutiny in the National Assembly. In addition, we also perform the technical and merit scrutiny of all statutory instruments laid before the National Assembly, in accordance with Standing Order 21. This can often include making judgments on whether the appropriate use of the negative or affirmative procedure has been made by the Welsh Ministers where the parent Act allows a choice of procedure to be made. In our view, this would represent the most efficient and pragmatic approach to dealing with this huge and time-pressured legislative task.

We also made a recommendation, recommendation 6, about applying the sifting mechanism to categories of regulations that we describe in the report. One of these categories concerns regulations made by UK Ministers acting alone. Using the broad powers they are given, they could make regulations in devolved areas. This could lead to regulations of the kind the National Assembly sees on a day-to-day basis being laid before the UK Parliament only. Not only that, but the UK Ministers could also use their broad powers to affect the legislative competence of the National Assembly. Executive action could lead to changes in the scope of the Assembly's legislative competence. The constitutional impropriety of this approach we consider to be clear. So, while such regulations will not be laid before the Assembly, we believe that the sift committee at the National Assembly should be given some role in the scrutiny of regulations made by UK Ministers in devolved areas that are laid before the UK Parliament. At the very least, that sift committee should be made aware of any such regulations at the same time as the House of Commons sifting committee is made aware of them. The National Assembly committee can then make representations to, or advise the House of Commons committee where appropriate.

Our report also highlights that other operational matters will need to be considered, particularly in terms of how a sift committee of the National Assembly will need to work with a sift committee of the House of Commons, where regulations are made by the Welsh and UK Ministers acting concurrently.

Our report was published before the Welsh Government's own continuity Bill was introduced in the Assembly. We are taking evidence from the Cabinet Secretary on the Bill next Monday. One of the issues we'll seek to explore with him is whether the Welsh Government intends to have access to regulation-making powers made available to the Welsh Ministers in both Bills and the merits of such an approach. Thank you.

Can I thank the Chair of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, Mick Antoniw, for outlining things so clearly? Can I just say to Members that there are times when the seemingly obscure is actually of vital importance, and this is one of them? I just want to underline one or two things that Mick has said because there is, obviously, no need to add to the description of the situation that we now find ourselves in.

The EU withdrawal Bill is a remarkable Bill, and it changes, obviously, completely our relationship to Europe, but also the devolution settlement. How we manage all that is of vital importance, and it is really important that we have a sifting mechanism. That's obviously the central recommendation here, and it will mirror the likely practice now in Westminster to govern the administration, then, of ministerial powers there. But we need to do the same over devolved issues. I think, as members of CLAC realise, it's probably CLAC that will have to do that work. So, we are making this recommendation to you, but we're also saying that we are prepared to do the work.

It's very important that the decision of a sifting committee should be binding. Most of the time, the recommendations that the Ministers make are going to be accepted. We're talking about a vast number of items that can come through on secondary powers—500 or 600, I think, have been mentioned. So, the number of statutory instruments are going to be very, very large.

So, accepting the wide-ranging regulation powers that Ministers must have, the appropriate check and balance here is a sift mechanism. If we don't have a sift mechanism, there's a real danger, however inadvertently, of a significant shift of power from the legislature to Ministers. I'm sure that the Welsh Government don't want that. So, this suggestion is a very practical way forward.

On some points, I think any use of Henry VIII powers should require, at the very least, an affirmative procedure. That's a very important principle, but in general, it's difficult to see how our duty to scrutinise can really work effectively unless we have this check and balance and have a sift mechanism. Thank you.

I can see the Chamber is energised by this debate, but it is, actually—as the Chair of CLAC outlined—fundamentally very important. We are discussing the EU withdrawal Bill—most of the EU withdrawal Bill. I know we've been discussing, in recent weeks, the parts that are involving devolved areas and stuff, but this is the large body of the EU withdrawal Bill itself. We've debated the power grab, we've debated legislative competence motions and, obviously, the continuity Bill, which has appeared since this excellent report was produced. Can I commend both the leadership of the Chair and also the hard work of our clerks, researchers and our legal support, who have been tremendous over the last few weeks, certainly when we've been producing report after report?

You'll recall that last week we had a CLAC debate on inter-governmental relations, which was predicated on the need for all of the legislators in these islands to regard one another with equal respect and equal parity. What we've got in front of us today is the latest attempt by this National Assembly to make sure that our voice is heard equally with other similar committees in other legislatures. Yes, we're working together with the similar committees in the House of Lords at Westminster and the Scottish equivalent, but it is, at the end of the day, about parity of legislatures and respect all round, not just getting some powers, somebody else decides what we're dealt with, and we just have to get on with it. This is a meaningful attempt to do something about it and to try and influence the way things are happening. Because there's a power grab possible here, as David Melding was outlining, the power grab being two Ministers from the legislature here now not losing powers from this place, although that is in the background, obviously, still an inherent threat, which is why we have all these other mechanisms happening. I would reiterate what we decided last week: to support a reformed joint ministerial council and also a Speakers' conference as regards the way forward. I can see the Counsel General nodding enthusiastically, which I welcome.

Now, in terms of the sift mechanism, which is the central contribution here, we have to have a way of dealing with around 600-plus extra pieces of legislation just coming our way, and, really, we have to have some control over that, and that control is the sift mechanism, which is in those recommendations that I heartily recommend to everybody following our Chair's lead. But also, it's not just going to be a rubber-stamping exercise. A committee here—and we suggest in recommendation 5 that it is actually the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee—does that sifting, which is also an active process, to make sure, as David Melding outlined, that regulation-making powers must not be used to shift the balance of power excessively towards governments and away from legislatures, as we outlined and he outlined. Because there's a danger, in trying to be quick and expedient because you've got so much to deal with, that we just give it all to the relevant Ministers without any involvement of the National Assembly for Wales. That is not right. That's why we need a sifting committee.

The same thing about regulation-making powers—the old Henry VIII powers that we debate most weeks in the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee. I have to say to David Melding, I think Henry VIII represents one of his golden ages; the 1920s is another one. The 1540s is another one. But there is a very inherent danger with Henry VIII powers, because basically we need to be able to scrutinise the performance of those as well, rather than we just have Ministers of the Crown imposing their views on this legislature without us as a legislature being able to do anything about it. So, any imposition of Henry VIII powers must be clearly defined and at least be subject to the affirmative procedure as outlined here. That is a long-standing view of CLAC, by the way; it's not just here directed towards this particular situation.

So, it's an expansive report. It's a coherent way of dealing with the large amount of legislation that is going to come our way. This is a coherent way of dealing with it, and I wholeheartedly recommend the report, and I wholeheartedly also expect, and hopefully will see realised, the unanimous support of this Chamber. Diolch yn fawr.

Can I first of all thank the Chair of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee for a very detailed presentation of the report and the arguments as to why we need to support that. We are talking about the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, clearly—something that may not happen, depending on what happens in the weeks ahead of us. But it is important that we get this right, because whichever Bill we end up with, we need to ensure we have the proper scrutiny process for that particular Bill.

The External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee did look at the EU withdrawal Bill in quite some detail as well, and we had some shared sessions with the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee on this. But we put forward amendments to the EU withdrawal Bill to Members of Parliament, and they were all accepted and all taken forward by Members of Parliament in the Committee Stage. Unfortunately, none of them were accepted by the Government. But we highlighted at that stage six objectives, one of them being to ensure powers available to Welsh Ministers under the Bill are strictly limited, and far more tightly drawn than those currently set out in the Bill. Because we recognise the important need to have the Ministers accountable to this legislature and not to be have the wide and broad-ranging powers that the Bill was proposing. As has been mentioned, Henry VIII powers are very wide, and very often negative procedures. We did not agree with that. We had to ensure that Welsh Ministers were accountable to this institution, and that we were able to restrict their powers in that sense. I would recognise that CLAC has the same views and concerns on that as many, by the way, have expressed in other committees across the Commons and across the Lords. So, that's not new, but we focused upon that. 

We also highlighted that objective 6 was to ensure that the Assembly can set its own scrutiny arrangements, which I think is very crucial. It's acknowledged by the powers provided to the Assembly by the Government of Wales Act 2006 that it's for the Assembly alone, as the democratically accountable institution for Wales, to set its own procedures. That's an important fact that we should remember. The Bill, as it is drafted, actually, would undermine that constitutional aspect by seeking to set, on behalf of us as the Assembly, the procedures that will apply to scrutiny of secondary legislation. I appreciate the sifting mechanism that's put in place—that actually doesn't take that away from us—in the Bill; that's still there. So, we need to address that and we highlighted this. The withdrawal Bill does seek to impose procedure on us, as an Assembly, without any consultation. And, in the absence of acknowledging our view expressed in our report on the White Paper, the Government was going ahead with that.

Professor John Bell, in written evidence to the committee, said that 

'The provisions on Scrutiny are inadequate...The Bill does not recognise the magnitude of the task and therefore the need to have differently designed procedures to ensure adequate scrutiny...The Bill assumes current procedures will be used, but that is simply not possible. Very serious attention needs to be given to how scrutiny will operate.' 

I appreciate very much the work done by CLAC to look at those aspects of scrutiny, because we were deeply concerned about how we, as an institution, would be able to scrutinise secondary legislation that was going through Parliament in particular, which affected devolved competency, but we would have no ability to comment upon it.

The Institute of Welsh Affairs gave us written evidence:

'Corresponding powers are conferred on devolved institutions by clause 10 and schedule 2, meaning that Welsh Government Ministers could also take Henry VIII powers under this Bill should they wish. It would of course be unsatisfactory to see this power replicated in Wales, without action to rebalance the scrutiny mechanisms available...Defects in parliamentary scrutiny ought not to be replicated in Cardiff.'

So, this Bill needs to be amended. This report needs to be supported to ensure that we are making the message quite clear that the devolved institutions should have the right to set their own scrutiny procedures and we should also follow the example of the sifting mechanism, and allow a committee to take on the task when there is a negative procedure, to assess that particular item of secondary legislation. So, I fully ask Members to support the motion.

First I would like thank the Chair of the committee, the Assembly Member for Pontypridd, for his work on this report. I’d also like to thank all of the team that supports the committee for all their efforts in this regard and, finally, my fellow committee members whom, I know, have put a lot of time, effort and thought into this report.

My contribution today is going to be relatively short, as I have to agree with a lot of what my fellow committee members have already contributed to this report and to this debate. The part of the report that I would like to highlight, because I do feel it is of great importance, is the sifting mechanism for the House of Commons now contained within this Bill. It is a positive step towards improving the level of scrutiny attached to subordinate legislation to be made under the Bill.

I hope all Members would agree that, from the evidence gathered in this report, it is clear that the same sifting mechanism should apply here at the National Assembly. This report recommends that the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee should be the sifting committee for the Assembly. It is something that we, as committee, have discussed in great depth and find it would be the most pragmatic approach to dealing with the anticipated volume of subordinate legislation to come before this institution. Thank you.

Thank you. Can I now call the leader of the house, Julie James?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I want to start also by thanking the committee for examining the scrutiny of regulations to be made under the powers contained in the UK Government's European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. 

The Welsh Government has not yet had an opportunity to formally respond to the report, which was only published a couple of weeks ago. However, we completely understand why the committee has been so keen to debate this report and its recommendations in the Senedd, as the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill continues to make progress through the House of Lords. The Government will be supporting the motion today, but with one qualification, which I will come to.

We've consistently been clear about our concerns about the breadth and scope of the delegated powers contained within the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. The proposed amendments that we published jointly with the Scottish Government included provisions that would remove the various restrictions placed on the Welsh Ministers' regulation-making powers in that Bill. Our amendments would have brought the powers of Welsh Ministers into line with those of the UK Ministers, as a large number of people have pointed out during the debate earlier. We were also clear that we would support proposals to narrow their scope and improve the scrutiny requirements attached to them, so we entirely agree with all of the remarks made about the transfer of powers, and that point has been well made by everybody who's contributed today.

We therefore welcome the amendments to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill that provide for a sifting committee, and we agree with the committee's first recommendation for the sifting mechanism to cover all regulations made under the Bill and for them to be laid before the Assembly.

We are reserving our position on the committee's second recommendation, which states that all the sifting committees' recommendations should be binding. I have listened very carefully to the arguments and we haven't yet formally responded, so I'm not saying we're not saying that, but we are currently reserving our position while we consider thoroughly what all the consequences of that might be. Because we believe that in the vast majority of cases Welsh Ministers will accept the recommendation of the sifting committee that a set of regulations should be subject to the affirmative procedure rather than the negative procedure, for example—whatever the outcome of that sift might be. However, we think there may be situations where, for reasons of urgency, for example, Welsh Ministers will need to act more quickly than the affirmative procedure provides for, and it's essential that Government retains the flexibility to do so, notwithstanding the recommendations of the sifting committee. I also believe there's a case for maintaining consistent arrangements between the National Assembly and the UK Parliament, particularly for joint and composite instruments where both the Assembly's and Parliament's sifting committees would be making recommendations on the appropriate procedures. In certain circumstances it's possible that UK Ministers might, for legitimate reasons, disregard the recommendation of their sifting committee, but Welsh Ministers might not be able to do so if we accepted that recommendation. We want to think about it. We want to reflect on that further as we respond formally to the report.

I want to reiterate that we welcome scrutiny. The Law Derived from the European Union (Wales) Bill includes more rigorous procedures for the scrutiny of delegated powers than the EU withdrawal Bill does. This demonstrates our commitment to providing the Assembly with the right tools to scrutinise how Welsh Ministers use their delegated powers. But we must strike the right balance between the Assembly's scrutiny role and the need for the Executive to be able to respond quickly and flexibly to what is likely to be a fast-moving and fast-changing legislative landscape as we approach Brexit. Making the sifting mechanism recommendations binding will not strike this balance, in our view. [Interruption.] Of course.

It is a check and balance, and you will be making all the initial recommendations, which will then be sifted. Also, all this work is going to be done well before exit day, so I'm not quite sure there's the level of urgency, certainly at the volume you are anticipating, and I don't think it's going to be the action of the sift committee to make many calls. It will just be where we really think that something should, in effect, go from negative to affirmative.

Yes, I take that, but I think we want to reflect a little bit more on that as we go forward. So, as I say, we're taking it under advisement rather than rejecting it outright at this stage, which is why we are supporting the report overall.

So, in respect of the committee's recommendations 4 and 7, we agree with the amendments set out in paragraphs 44 to 46 of the committee's report, and we agree that the provisional affirmative procedure should be available for regulations made by Welsh Ministers.

Turning briefly to the remaining recommendations, we agree that the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee should act as the sifting committee, but we believe the Assembly may need to consider whether there should be any change to the committee's current arrangements to enable it to deal with the level of the work.

Turning to recommendation 3, the sifting committee will need to agree the criteria by which it performs the sifting process. It will be important that these criteria, and any changes to Standing Orders, are consistent with the final framework for the sifting mechanism that is set out in the Bill. To be fair, the Chair of the committee made that point very forcefully, I thought. We're not yet persuaded that the criteria should be included in Standing Orders. We believe we should return to this matter once the final sifting mechanism is agreed. So, again, this is one of those complex weaves where we try to make several pieces of legislation and our Standing Orders and procedures all line up together.

Finally, we're minded to agree with recommendation 6, which sets out the categories of regulation to which the sifting mechanism should apply. We do however note the potential logistical challenges in respect of joint and composite regulations, where both the Assembly and the UK parliamentary sifting committees will be engaged.

So, overall, we very much welcome the report, we're very grateful for the work that the committee's put in, and we will be supporting the motion overall. But, as I said earlier in my response, we'll reserve our position on recommendation 2. Diolch.

Thank you. Can I now call on Mick Antoniw to reply to the debate?

Firstly, thank you to all those who've contributed and spent time going through the detail of this report. I welcome, again, my fellow committee members on this, who've worked very hard in very narrow time frames, and also the staff, who've also done that as well. And it's fair to say this is probably one of the most boring, geeky reports that will ever come before this Chamber. [Laughter.] But it is also one of the most vitally important reports dealing with the whole issue of the balance of powers and the rule of law emanating from this Chamber. And here we are, 500 years on, and we're still blaming Henry VIII for an awful lot.

Can I thank Dai Rees, also, for his comments and also for the joint co-operation we've had in a number of areas, looking at these common areas? I think that has actually been very much invaluable.

I welcome the comments that have been made by the Government, but I make this particular point, that one of the reasons why the motion is in this format, in terms of endorsement, is because of the specific invitation by the UK Government to actually consider a number of these points of amendments with regard to scrutiny. So, there was a particular window of opportunity that had to be responded to, but also it would not be appropriate for us as a committee to be making recommendations of that type that at least did not have the endorsement of this Chamber. And of course, in all these matters, the ultimate principle is this, and I welcome very much the comments made by the Government and the fact that they will reflect on these very important issues, because this has to be something that is workable. But, when it comes to the exercise of governmental power and the scrutiny of that, the issue of scrutiny is a matter, ultimately, for this Chamber, not for Government. It is not for Government to set the rules for its own scrutiny. Ultimately, the rule of law requires that the scrutiny is by this Assembly, and that's why I believe this report is robust, but I welcome the positive response that has been received and from Members. Thank you.

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

We'll now move to voting time. Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will now proceed to the vote. Okay, thank you. So, we now move to vote on the Member debate under Standing Order 11.21 on criminal justice, and I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the names of Jenny Rathbone, Jane Hutt, Bethan Sayed, Dai Lloyd, David Melding and Julie Morgan. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 32, four abstentions, eight against. Therefore, the motion is passed.

We now move to the short debate. We're now moving to the short debate. Will Members who are leaving the Chamber please do so or resume your seats? Thank you. I now call the short debate, and I call on Julie Morgan to speak on the topic she has chosen. Julie.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. My short debate is entitled 'Secure housing—stable families. Why section 21 needs to be repealed to give greater security to families in the Welsh private rented sector.' I'd like to start by saying 'thank you' to Shelter Cymru for their work and for their help on this subject, and to declare an interest in that my daughter works for Shelter Cymru. I have agreed that Dawn Bowden, Joyce Watson, Mike Hedges and Jenny Rathbone should speak after I've concluded my remarks. So, thank you very much for your interest.

So, what is section 21? The Housing Act 1988 halted the creation of Labour's Rent Act 1977 protected tenancies. On 15 January 1989, the assured shorthold tenancy came into force. Alongside, came the procedure to accelerate recovery of possession, namely section 21 of the 1988 Act, which in lay terms is the 'no-fault eviction'. In practice, it means landlords can evict people living in privately rented homes with no reason whatsoever. 

There are 460,000 people living in Wales in the private rented sector, and I believe that they should not be in constant fear of being evicted without good reason. They need to be able to sleep easy in their homes. When we talk about people living in the private rented sector, we're not just talking about young people who want the freedom to up sticks and move at short notice. We're now talking about families who need a solid base so that they can get their children into schools and single parents who need to find local work. The private rented sector has changed enormously, and now it is widespread and many families need it. Imagine the disruption and cost of having to move at the landlord's whim. Imagine you've just painted the children's bedroom and they're enjoying their new school, imagine you've just finally found a good part-time job that fits in with school hours, and then the landlord decides to evict you, which they can do without giving a reason.

Assured shorthold contracts can be either fixed periods or periodic rolling contracts from month to month. A landlord cannot bring section 21 possession proceedings during the first six months of the tenancy or during a fixed contractual term. Where the fixed term is about to expire or the tenancy is periodic, section 21 allows a landlord to serve a two-month notice to quit. If the tenant does not vacate, so long as the notice is correct, a court must order possession. No reason for requiring possession has to be given. Whether the tenant is at fault is not investigated, and there is no weighing up of the tenant's need against the landlord's. And, lest we forget, we are speaking of people's homes, described in the case of Uratemp Ventures Limited against Collins as where a person

'lives and to which he returns and which forms the centre of his existence.'

This inequality of bargaining power has led to significant abuse and severe hardships. Landlords have been able to serve notice capriciously without restraint by the court, with tenants made homeless at short notice with all the attendant costs and distress this causes. In a recent Shelter Cymru survey, 22 per cent said that having to move had pushed them into debt—credit card, overdraft, pay-day loan, bank loan—and the average cost of moving was £1,100-plus. 

Originally, maybe this private rented sector was seen as a vehicle for young single professionals or childless couples, but, increasingly, as well as housing families with children, it's older people and people with vulnerabilities who are in the private rented sector. The Housing (Wales) Act 2014 allows local authorities to discharge their homelessness duty via an assured shorthold, but this minimum security of tenure can result in a housing merry-go-round, with children and their education or vulnerable adults needing a close support network becoming the victims. For parents employed in part-time jobs, it becomes a nightmare, and not only because of the logistics of delivering and collecting children to from school. This causes stress on relationships and contributes to family break-up. Stable housing is fundamental to improving well-being and its fundamental to relationships and self-development. It's at the heart of family life, allowing people to integrate and become part of a community, build social relationships, build a sense of identity and plan and envision their future. And, of course, there is evidence that section 21 disproportionately impacts women, who are more likely to have dependent children, rely on means-tested benefits, have rolling monthly contracts, experience poor housing conditions and fear revenge eviction if they complain.

Now, does it have to be like this? Quite simply, no. For most of the twentieth century, private sector tenants enjoyed significantly greater security of tenure. Will ending section 21 result in landlords being unable to easily regain possession of their property? Again, no. Landlords can recover possession via section 8 of the 1988 Act, whether within a fixed term or not, provided they can establish a ground, for example where anti-social behaviour or rent arrears or damage to property are alleged. And, even under the rent Acts, landlords have been able to recover possession of premises for use for themselves or their sons and daughters so long as that's a reality, not a pretence. In Scotland, where the equivalent of section 21 has been repealed, landlords who need to sell up are able to recover possession to facilitate a sale. In terms of justice and fairness, is it not infinitely preferable that the landlord must establish a ground, that the tenant has a chance to defend himself or herself against allegations, and that the court brings to bear its independent judgment?

Now, will landlords baulk at a change and invest elsewhere? That was the warning issued when plans for Rent Smart Wales were introduced, but it didn't happen. Between 2013 and 2014, until 2015-16, the sector actually grew by almost 7,000 dwellings. Greater security of tenure does not restrict a landlord's ability to earn a reasonable return. Moreover, as the Residential Landlords Association observed, landlords themselves do not want to see tenancy end as empty properties mean lost rent and increased costs for themselves. In Shelter Cymru's recent survey, 64 per cent of tenants said that, with a five-year tenancy, they would be more likely to make home improvements themselves. Greater security for tenants would promote a more professional approach.

In Wales, the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016 will shortly replace assured shortholds with a standard contract. Instead of section 21, we shall have section 173, but, broadly, with restrictions on landlords in default on tenancy information or security or deposit requirements, the section 21 regime above is replicated in the 2016 Act, except for a new retaliation defence under section 217. This gives the court a discretion to refuse an order where the tenant can show that the landlord served the notice to quit to avoid repairing or fitness for human habitation obligations, but this is a narrow defence to be raised when proceedings are under way, with the burden of proof on the tenant.

So, to conclude, tenants want more security. They end up having to move when they don't want to. Moving home is costly. Lack of security of tenure is undermining family life, children's education and networks of support. Absence of security of tenure means that tenants don't get a fair hearing in court. There is no evidence that a change will lead to the private rented sector drying up.

In the last 12 months, tenants' demands have become increasingly louder. Scotland have made the change and, in England, Labour has recognised that the minimum six months' security of tenure afforded by section 21 is wholly inadequate, and pledged in the last general election to raise this to three years, and I don't see the issue resting there. I do believe that this Assembly will have to address this inequality, and I very much hope that Wales will go ahead and get rid of section 21, because we do have, actually, the power to do this. If tenants are left in this state of insecurity and we have the power, surely we have the duty to move ahead and take this action. So, thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, for hearing my case. I now hand over to my colleagues.

Well, you didn't tell me who you've given a minute to, so I think it would help if you did.

I did at the beginning, but—

Oh, sorry, I missed that. I was—

Dawn Bowden, Joyce Watson, Mike Hedges and Jenny Rathbone.

Okay. Fine. Thank you very much. I missed that. I do apologise. Dawn Bowden.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I thank Julie for giving me a minute of her time in this debate on a really very important issue? Now, Assembly colleagues will be aware that, for some time, I've been raising the profile of the so-called 'sex for rent' problem that can face some of the most vulnerable people who are seeking to find a home. Indeed, the recent broadcast by the reporters on the programme Ein Byd showed the sickening reality of this particular problem, and I was left wondering how many people have faced a no-fault eviction because of this. In reality, if landlords don't have to prove a reason for the eviction, then we may never know.

We also hear of section 21 evictions being used when a tenant has done nothing more than to seek repairs to a property. Because, given the high demand for accommodation in our communities, landlords know that another willing tenant who is prepared to put up with poor conditions can easily be found. In both of the circumstances that I've outlined, section 21 can be used by an unscrupulous landlord to rid themselves of tenants who won't comply with unlawful demands or merely seek to exercise their rights.

So, in addition to all the reasons outlined by Julie in her submission, these are just two more reasons why I support this motion. Improving the stability of tenure will be another piece of a jigsaw that I'm keen for us to put together, because housing and homes must be an ever higher priority in our work.

I thank Julie for bringing this debate. Far from actually asking landlords to meet certain requirements reducing the availability of homes, it will only, actually, in my opinion, get rid of bad landlords, because good landlords will want to honour their commitment to their tenants. They will want to look after their investment, and I know an awful lot of good landlords. I equally know tenants who haven't been grateful for that and destroyed those homes, so what we're really talking about here is a balance. I also know an awful lot of bad landlords and very, very poor housing. So, I think by repealing this, by giving some balance back into the system that is clearly not there at the moment, it is the right way forward, and what we will see, I am fairly confident, is really good landlords coming forward with people having the right to a secure home and a secure tenancy that is well maintained, and that, when they ask for a job to be done, they won't be thrown out on the street to the cost of them, their family and also society, because, at the end of the day, those families to have to be housed. They have a right to be housed, and it's the local authority that is picking up that tab. 

Can I thank Julie Morgan for bringing this debate? I don't think we talk about housing in this place anywhere near enough. If we talked about it half as much as health, we might have a healthier place. 

We've had a growth of private rented accommodation and a shortage of accommodation. The pressure is on private renters. Are we really telling people, 'Don't complain, don't object', no matter what the landlord does or how poor the accommodation is, or how many repairs remain to be done, because the landlord can use section 21 to evict you and your children? And, whilst you can try and defend it in court, the likelihood of winning is probably fairly low. 

Section 21 gives bad landlords a charter for continuing to poorly maintain their properties, because I've had several cases of tenants being evicted simply because they've asked for the leaking roof to be repaired, or the faulty lock to be repaired, and this is no way of treating people who otherwise behave completely appropriately. But it also—if they think they might be moved on at the landlord's whim, it doesn't give any incentive for the tenant to bed into the property and the community and actually put the paint on the children's bedroom or whatever. So, I think that section 21 should be removed for the reasons that Julie has suggested. 

Thank you very much. Can I now call on the Minister for Housing and Regeneration to reply to the debate? Rebecca Evans.

Thank you very much, and I'm very grateful to Julie Morgan for choosing 'no fault' section 21 notices as a subject for this debate today, and I'm also grateful to Julie for the very helpful meeting that she organised last week to give me and my officials the chance to explore the issues in more depth with Julie, with Dawn Bowden and with Shelter. I've been really pleased to have some further discussions on this particular issue with Crisis earlier on today. 

Whilst I'm committed to working with landlords to build a vibrant private rented sector, this cannot be at the expense of tenants. How some landlords use section 21 notices is quite rightly of concern to many people, as we've heard during this debate, and it is to me. As we've heard, having to find a new home, covering the cost of moving, finding the deposit for a new tenancy before the current one is repaid, and suffering the potential stress and emotional upset of a move are all very real concerns. And that's before you take into account issues such as finding a new school for the children, moving away from families and social support networks. 

Section 21 notices mean that a family can face massive upheaval in a very short time, and all without the landlord needing to justify the issue of the notice in the first place. So, I do think that the time is right for a wider discussion on the use of 'no fault' notices. There are many aspects to be considered, and today's debate has certainly served to highlight some of them. I believe that, with imagination and partnership, we can have a private rented sector that works for both landlords and tenants. 

I think it's helpful if we look back as to how we got to where we are today. The ability of a landlord to issue a minimum two-month 'no fault' notice to end a tenancy was introduced under the Housing Act 1988. The 1988 Act saw the start of a prolonged growth in the private rented sector, which was further boosted by the availability of buy-to-let mortgages.

As well as growth in the private rented sector since the 1988 Act, the overall quality of properties has improved. Some have attributed this to removal of rent controls and the introduction of section 21, which gave landlords greater certainty over regaining possession. The growth in the private rented sector followed decades of decline. While the previous system of rent Act tenancies provided far greater security of tenure, the lack of landlord investment due to associated rent controls resulted in very poor housing. We have to make sure that in making changes to no-fault notice arrangements we avoid any unintended consequences. That's why I've asked my officials to open up discussions with the private rented sector on this issue and I'm pleased to say that following the meeting that we've had with Julie those discussions have already started. 

So, yes, there are still bad landlords and not all tenants are perfect either, but we are taking positive steps. Rent Smart Wales, introduced under the Housing (Wales) Act 2014, requires that a landlord pass a fit-and-proper-person test prior to becoming licensed and to undertake mandatory training. This training has been very well received with 96 per cent of people trained saying that the felt the training would make them a better landlord. The Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016 will make further improvements. It will help avoid disputes by ensuring clarity on rights and responsibilities, and it will also introduce significant new protections for tenants. For example, landlords will have to ensure that homes are fit for human habitation. Certain common law rights that are not currently immediately apparent to all tenants have been made statutory and will be included in all occupation contracts. This includes the right to occupy the dwelling without interference from the landlord. 

While the renting homes Act provides for a no-fault notice that is similar to section 21, there are important differences. For example, under the renting homes Act, a no-fault notice is valid only for four months. This will stop the current practice whereby some landlords issue a section 21 notice at the start of the tenancy, so that after two months they're able to make a possession claim at any point in the future. The renting homes Act also provides protection against retaliatory eviction where a landlord responds to a request for a repair by issuing a no-fault possession notice. Under the 2016 Act, the court may refuse the possession claim if it is satisfied that the landlord was seeking to avoid the repair. Therefore, the implementation of the renting homes Act will provide additional protections. However, I do recognise that it still allows a landlord to obtain possession on giving two months' notice. So, the concerns that we have heard during this debate today will still be very relevant. In looking to address them, we need to consider the potential for those unintended consequences that I mentioned earlier arising. 

For example, where section 21 notices can often lead to homelessness, it is important to note that roughly half of all homeless households are currently being rehoused in the private sector. Careful consideration would therefore need to be given to the potential impact of abolishing no-fault notices on the willingness of landlords to accommodate homeless households and the subsequent potential negative impact on the availability of accommodation. This is why those discussions with the landlords are so important. Also, according to the Residential Landlords Association, 52 per cent of section 21 notices are issued due to rent arrears and 12 per cent due to anti-social behaviour. If abolishing section 21 led to more claims being submitted specifically based on rent arrears or antisocial behaviour grounds, this could cause other problems such as greater difficulty finding a new home or not getting credit due to a county court judgment. Again, these are issues that I'd be keen to pursue further with Shelter and Crisis and others. 

Beyond the potential impact on our ability to address homelessness, we will still need to be alert to the other wider potential impacts on the private rented sector, including on any willingness to invest and potential cross-border issues. These are all matters that I'm currently examining and why the discussions with the sector across the piece are so important. I'm also watching the developments in Scotland, where they've recently abolished no-fault notices, very closely. At our meeting last week, Julie, Dawn, Shelter and I agree to do some further work together to explore the issues and to widen the evidence base in order to establish what will be the best way forward. In the meantime, we can do and are doing much to mitigate the effects of section 21. The Early Doors service being piloted in Bridgend is a good example. The service enables landlords to contact a support provider if tenants fall into arrears and provides intensive support to tenants to help prevent eviction. 

So, today's debate helpfully further raises the profile of the issues relating to no-fault evictions and it's a very useful contribution to provoke what I hope is a wider discussion on what can be achieved through mitigation and potentially through legislative change to ensure that our private rented sector is vibrant, of high quality, and fair to everyone involved. 

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