National Assembly for Wales

I call Members to order.

The first item on our agenda this afternoon is questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Education, and the first question is from Simon Thomas.

Diolch yn fawr, Simon. I have had no direct discussions. It is local authorities, in this case Carmarthenshire County Council, who identify the preferred sites for their school building projects.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary for that initial response. She will be aware, however, that three Estyn reports have now said that the current condition of the school is having an effect on learning in that school, and that the pupils of ysgol Dewi Sant deserve the best possible education, and that’s the purpose of the twenty-first century schools programme that her department is responsible for. Today, as it happens, the planning application was formally submitted for the new school. There have been some delays because there have been complaints that the school will replace what they call a greenfield site. It’s important to underline that the planning application includes public access to the school playing fields and therefore retains a community element, as everyone, I’m sure, would welcome. If delays arising from this local disagreement were to hold up the project, would the Government be in a position to ensure that the capital funding would still be available for this school, given that the pupils, who should be our focus in this context, deserve a new school, and deserve a school of the quality that she and her programme put forward?

Thank you, Simon. You'll be aware that the Welsh Government considered the outline business case for the project in April 2017 and that I gave my approval to the local authority to move forward with the business case. I am aware of the delays, but, because of the rules around planning applications, it would not be right for me or, indeed, any other Welsh Minister to comment on those plans. I am pleased that there is community access—that's an important part of all the projects that come forward. Indeed, it's one of the core elements of the twenty-first century schools programme that we provide not only fantastic educational facilities, but that those facilities are available for wider public use. The allocations to Carmarthenshire stand at many, many millions of pounds, addressing many schools throughout that area, and my officials will be keeping in close contact with Carmarthenshire about the ability to deliver on those plans and, indeed, their applications for investment under band B of the programme.

I strongly support the call for the money to still be available to build a new school. There's no doubt that the pupils of ysgol Dewi Sant desperately need a new school, but I'm afraid that Carmarthenshire County Council have let them down badly in the way they've gone through a process. If you read the business case sent in to the Welsh Government, it's a masterclass in retrospective rationality. It's quite clear that council officials have decided this would be an easy site to build on and worked backward from that assumption. This is green land in a deprived part of Llanelli, and there are alternative sites available, most notably the Heol Goffa site, which is now going to be vacated, with a new school being built in Delta Lakes for the special school. So, I will be asking the planning Minister to call in this application if the village green application is not successful, because this is not the right place to build a school. But a new school is essential, and I hope the Welsh Government gives clear assurances that funding will be available.

Well, Lee, I can confirm that all education department approvals for business cases that are submitted by local education authorities, across Wales, are not to prejudice any processes—statutory processes—that are needed. Schools in Carmarthenshire will have seen investment of £87 million in the band A programme, and a further £130 million will be invested as a result of the band B programme. And, as I said in my answer to Simon Thomas, my officials keep in very close touch with all local authorities to ensure that their programmes are delivered in the best possible way for the benefits of the children who attend those schools.

Diolch, Mohammad. Our adult learning in Wales policy statement was published in July and set out our priorities for adult learning. I will shortly be consulting on proposals to restructure the delivery and funding of adult learning, with the aim of providing a sustainable and secure future for this important provision. 

Thank you very much for the reply, Minister. Community learning has a significant impact in helping people gain the skills needed to achieve sustainable employment in the future. However, Welsh Government figures show that the number of community learners in Wales has fallen by more than half in the last five years. Arad research has described the sector has described the sector as being under severe pressure, and they state that,

'it is essential that there is sufficient support for adult community learning to ensure high quality delivery across Wales that is consistent and accessible.'

Will the Cabinet Secretary commit to properly funding community learning for the benefit of our communities and social care in Wales please? 

There's no doubt that in terms of what we'd like to do, we'd like to have put a lot more money into adult community learning, but that's been really difficult when we've seen a £1.4 billion cut from the UK Tory Government. So, that's been the problem for us. But let me be clear that, in deciding then what our priorities should be, we have concentrated on the importance of training people up for employment. We've concentrated on basic skills in particular, on core skills to encourage people to learn English, for those who have it as a second language, and really making sure that we have those essential skills that allow people to access the workplace. 

Minister, I wanted to ask you about individual learning accounts. What are your plans in terms of the launch of pilots, and will you ensure, and how will you ensure, that the lessons to be learnt from previous versions of the ILAs properly inform the new version?

Thank you. I think this is quite an exciting opportunity for us, and one of the first things I did when I was appointed as Minister was to go and listen to what a lot of the think tanks had to say. And this was an area where they said, 'Actually, there's a real opportunity.' Now, it's true in the past that the individual learning accounts had a bad name. In Wales, there wasn't a problem, but there was a degree of problems in England in relation to money exchanging. Now, I think we're in a different place because we now have the opportunity to do things digitally, so money won't change hands. We have now gathered, last week, a group of people who are experts in this field to shape what that pilot should look like, to look at what the pitfalls might be. So, progress is being made, and I would hope that we would be able to launch something in about September. 

The reality is, of course, that some of these education services are moving further and further away from communities across Wales. You will be aware, for example, that the college in Denbigh is now going to close in the summer. I’ve spoken to some of the students and they are concerned that they won’t be able to juggle their studies and the part-time work that they have because they will have to travel further to access that education in Rhos-on-Sea or in Rhyl. So, may I ask what the Government is doing to ensure that these services will remain in our communities and that post-16 education is accessible to all?

I do understand that there’s been quite a lot of response to what happened in Denbigh. What is important, I think, is that we respect the independence of the colleges—they make the decisions. But, of course, we have to ensure that we enable people in every community to have access now to further education. So, we will have to look, I think, at ensuring that we find ways of ensuring that people from those communities can get to those centres where the teaching exists. Of course, cuts have had an impact on the sector, but what’s important is that we have the experts to teach people in the best way possible.

Questions now from the party spokespeople. The Welsh Conservative spokesperson, Darren Millar.

Diolch, Llywydd. Cabinet Secretary, will you tell us when you'll be in a position to publish the new school organisation code?

Thank you, Darren. My intention is to publish the code before the summer recess. Subject to approval by this National Assembly for Wales, I would expect the new code to be in operation for the new academic year. 

I'm very pleased to hear that, Cabinet Secretary, because, as you will know, I share your aspiration to make sure that the code is balanced and that it doesn't disfavour or do a disservice to rural schools in particular, many of which, of course, as you will appreciate, are small, Welsh-medium schools. Given that concerns have been raised by Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg and many others about the fact that some local authorities appear to be pressing forward with school reorganisation in the interim, because there is no change in the code at present, what is your message to those local authorities who might be attempting to get one under the barrier, as it were, before the door closes in terms of the changes in the school reorganisation code?

Thank you, Darren. All 22 local authorities have had the opportunity to respond to the consultation. It is fair to say that some have responded more positively than others regarding my proposal to establish a list of rural schools and to ensure that there is a presumption against closure, as a starting point for local authorities. What I would say to local authorities that are considering this matter at the moment is that I have been very clear about my direction of travel and my policy intention, and I would urge them to take the spirit of that into consideration between now and any formal publication of the new organisation code.

They are very warm words, and I'm sure that the spirit of the code is something that responsible local authorities will, of course, adopt, but the reality is that we have local authorities in Wales—Ynys Môn, Denbighshire and others—that are progressing with school closures in rural communities, and by and large Welsh-medium schools, as a result of the code not being sufficient at present. Can you give absolute assurances, Minister, that you will look carefully at the impact of your changes and make sure that they are measured against the proposals in your new code and not the provisions in the old code, which you said you'd sort out a long time ago?

Darren, whilst I recognise that the new code cannot be applied retrospectively, as I have said quite clearly, my expectation is that local authorities should be working with the grain of the new code. They are well aware of my intentions and my policy intentions. Any application that is submitted by a local authority, under either the existing code or the future code, is looked at extremely, extremely carefully because I recognise that, for many of those involved in that process, they need the code there to ensure that any consultation and any proposals are tested to the very highest of standards. As I said, I expect the code to be published this term. Subject to the approval of this Assembly, that code will be available for implementation from the new academic year in September.

The UKIP spokesperson, Michelle Brown.

Thank you, Presiding Officer, and good afternoon, Cabinet Secretary. In 2016, there were two reports about school closures. One said that, in the previous 10 years, there'd been 157 school closures across Wales—three out of five of those closures being rural schools. The other said that there were a further 50 schools earmarked for closure. At the same time, local authorities are trying to encourage families to move into villages, and yet some schools in those villages are in danger of being closed or are already closed. What more can you do to reassure parents in Wales that their local school will not be closed in the near future?

I would refer you to the answer that I just gave Darren Millar. I have made it absolutely clear that my intention is to revise the current school organisation code to create a list of named rural schools and to establish a presumption against closure of those schools. Importantly, as well, with regard to rural education, we cannot just rest on our laurels by keeping institutions open. Those institutions need to provide rural children with a first-class educational opportunity. Buildings alone are not enough; it is the quality that goes on in those buildings that is absolutely crucial to me and that's why we've introduced a small schools grant to be able to support local authorities to improve standards in small, rural schools that have particular challenges when it comes to delivering the curriculum.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for that answer. My question wasn't really specifically about rural schools. I possibly fogged the issue a little bit by mentioning rural schools. My question was actually about local schools, as in schools that children can walk to every day. Children who travel to school by car are exposed to an increase in pollution  of 40 per cent for that journey, compared with those who walk. Increased school runs also lead to increased pollution generally and in the vicinity of the schools. Do you agree with me that allowing school closures to go ahead is at odds with that, necessitating children to stop walking to school and be put in their parents' car or somebody else's car to be driven to school? It's at odds with the Welsh Government's claims to be serious about fighting pollution, as an increasing number of children don't live within walking distance of their nearest school.

I would encourage all parents everywhere, if they do indeed live within walking distance of their schools, to ensure that their children use active travel measures to attend local schools. Welsh Government supports that by providing a safe routes to schools grant—it's not my grant, it is my Cabinet Secretary colleague who has resources for that—which enables—. I know in my own constituency, for instance, in Presteigne, we have been able to put in new pavements and new crossings to encourage parents to do just that, to actually walk their children to school. Of course, in many rural areas, that is simply an impossibility. My own children attend a school some 25 miles away from home and I think even I would be asking too much of them if I expected them to walk. But, where it is possible, I would encourage parents and local authorities to work together to create an environment where people make that choice to actively travel to their school, whether that be on foot or on bike.

Well, do you not—? You've just given me a lecture about walking to school and safe routes to school, but you didn't actually answer the question, because I wasn't talking about children who can walk or travel in some way under their own steam, taking exercise to school. I was talking about children who have to be put into vehicular transport to be taken to school. Don't you think it's a contradiction that on the one hand you're forcing parents to put their children into a car to be driven to school and at the same time hectoring people to stay out of their cars and make fewer journeys?

The Member will be aware that rules regarding access to school transport are defined under the Learner Travel (Wales) Measure 2008. All children who live two miles from a primary school are entitled to local authority transport. All children attending secondary school who are three miles away from a secondary school are entitled to local authority transport. 

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Siân Gwenllian.

Thank you very much. These are questions to the Minister for the Welsh language. Yesterday, my colleague the Member of Parliament for Dwyfor Meirionnydd, Liz Saville Roberts, appeared on the Daily Politics programme defending our language following the latest attack on our language by Rod Liddle. Unfortunately, we live in an age where such attacks are seen increasingly acceptable. Attacking the Welsh language, and therefore attacking Welsh speakers—you, me and a number of us here—that, in reality, is a hate crime. But, the law does not reflect that. The European Union has been supportive of minority languages in the UK and the rest of the EU and has acted in order to safeguard the Welsh language and other minority languages. So, what is the Welsh Government going to do to safeguard Welsh speakers from terrible attacks following the period after we leave the European Union?

Thank you very much. I do think it’s important that we condemn any attack on people who speak any language that is a minority language. I do think that the kerfuffle that’s been created hasn’t helped things particularly. The question is: how should we respond? I do think it’s important that we underline how complex it would be to do something in legislative terms in this area. But, I also think it's important that we understand that it isn't acceptable for journalists or anyone else to insult our language in that way.

Complex or not, it’s clear that there’s a need to look in detail at the situation following losing some of the safeguards that we have at the moment through being a member of the European Union.

Ensuring rights to users to receive services through the medium of Welsh is the basis of the 2011 Act and the standards that have followed that. The standards in health are deficient—they don’t provide anything in terms of the need for a service though the medium of Welsh in our hospitals and they don’t, either, place standards on a number of primary care providers, who are the main link between users and the health service.

Despite these deficient standards, it’s important that the Government moves on with safeguarding these rights through medical contracts, as has been promised. Also, it’s important to introduce all of the other standards that have been on the Minister’s desk, and that of your predecessor, and his predecessor, for a number of years. We’re still waiting for the standards relating to the housing sector, water, postal services, buses, trains a railways, gas and electricity, and telecommunications. Is it a lack of political will that’s behind this? Are you dragging your feet intentionally on this?

No. May I just say that it was important for me that I was in the House of Lords on Monday, protecting the charter of fundamental rights for languages? I do think and believe that that will be carried over and that that will provide some safeguards for us—legal safeguards that may otherwise have been removed.

In terms of your question on standards, you will be aware that the negotiations on what should happen in primary care are ongoing. Medical contracts—a great deal of work has been done on those already. One other thing we’re doing, of course, is that we’ve established a pilot with Working Welsh in order to ensure that we’re aware of what the problems are in terms of introducing these changes in primary care, just so that we can see how easy it would be, or otherwise, and how much support would be required in that area.

In terms of other standards, you will be aware that we intend to bring a new Welsh language Bill forward, and what’s important is that we do have some sort of assurance that what we have on the table will comply with any changes that we introduce. So, I don’t think it makes sense, at the moment, for us to bring new standards forward until we have far more clarity on what the future holds.

That is my concern, of course. The feeling is that the new legislation, whenever that is going to see the light of day, is holding things back substantially at the moment, and is, therefore, holding back the rights of Welsh speakers.

I mentioned that perhaps it’s political goodwill that’s behind this. Perhaps it’s a lack of staffing that's the problem in introducing the standards. I’m still awaiting an answer to a written question that I sent in January asking how many staff have been located specifically in the Welsh language unit, namely the staff that are responsible for preparing the regulations regarding the standards. When I asked you this in committee, you said that there were a number of people working on them—'loads', you said. When will I have a proper answer? I think that there aren’t loads working on the standards specifically in your Government at all, and that you’re ashamed to announce that there is only one—two, perhaps, at the most—doing this important and vital work. You look surprised, but I haven’t had an answer, so I can only speculate. 

Fair enough, but I think what’s important—. You have received a response from me. You'll be aware that staffing issues are issues for the Permanent Secretary, and I will push her to respond to you on your question. I do think it’s important that we now focus. If our target is to reach a million Welsh speakers, then I do think it’s crucially important that we emphasise the importance of promoting the language. And one thing that I do hope to see in future is that we change the emphasis; that we shift it from legislation to ensuring that people are able to use the Welsh language and that we promote the use of the Welsh language. That’s what’s important. You can’t force people to speak a language. We have to convince them that that’s the way forward, and that’s what I want to see happening in the future.

Thank you, David. The teaching of languages is highly valued in our schools, which is why the 'Global futures' plan was published in 2015. Three years into this plan, there is continued commitment and ambition across the education system to improve the teaching and learning experiences of modern foreign languages for all of our learners. 

Thank you for that answer, but as you well know, there's been an incredible decline in the teaching of modern foreign languages in Wales, as was demonstrated by the British Council. It is sadly also the case in other parts of the UK, but here in Wales between 2002 and 2016 the number of pupils studying a foreign language to GCSE standard declined by 48 per cent, and at A-level declined by 44 per cent. So, the actual absolute numbers now are embarrassingly small, and various reasons have been attributed to this, including the predominance of compulsory subjects and even the operation of the Welsh baccalaureate. So, how is the 'Global futures' project going to deliver any substantive change? Because I understand the trend is still downwards. 

Thank you, David. I would agree with you that there is still more work that we can do to ensure that more children take the opportunity of studying modern foreign languages at GCSE level. One of the projects that is proving particularly successful in achieving that aim, which the Welsh Government funds, is the student mentoring project run in conjunction with Cardiff, Swansea, Bangor and Aberystwyth universities, and this will run for a fourth year this year. The project offers targeted intervention to improve MFL take-up at GCSE in schools through improving pupil engagement with the university student mentor. In 2016-17, 50 per cent of all pupils mentored continued their learning into GCSE compared to a national average of under 20 per cent, so that project we know is making a real difference. 

What I can say, though—and I would like to take this opportunity, Presiding Officer, to congratulate the high standards that are being achieved by those students that do go on to take this subject. Now, I don't particularly like making comparisons across the border, but it is fair to say that GCSE results last year showed that Wales had a higher A* performance and a higher A* to C performance in Spanish, French and German than students across the border in England. So, where students do take these subjects, they are excelling.  

Question 4, Rhianon Passmore. 

Cabinet Secretary, you recently wrote to schools in Islwyn to inform them of the Welsh Government's—

You need to ask the question on the order paper. 

That's the question that I have in front of me. 

That is indeed the question.

I got there. 

Through the regional pupil development grant, we continue to invest unprecedented amounts of funding—in this case, £187 million over the next two years—to support schools across Wales to improve outcomes for our disadvantaged learners. Islwyn are benefiting from the regional allocation to the Education Achievement Service of more than £19 million per annum over this period.

Okay. Thank you. The pupil deprivation grant for the youngest learners—pupils aged three to four—has increased from £600 to £700, building on last year's doubling of financial support from £300 to £600 per learner in the early years, a stark contrast to the UK Tory decimation of support for poorer learners. Will the Cabinet Secretary outline, then, what difference the continued investment in the pupil deprivation grant will have in Islwyn schools, and the impact the Welsh Government believes it will have on disadvantaged learners in Islwyn communities?  

It's now called the pupil development grant, because we want to focus on the primary purpose of this grant, and that is to develop the opportunities for some of our most disadvantaged learners. What we do know, Rhianon, is that by targeting investing in our early years, with our very youngest learners, we can address the effects of deprivation on their educational outcomes even more quickly. I have huge confidence in the pupil development grant. If you talk to teachers, which I'm sure you do in your own constituency, they are quite clear about the difference that this money is making. We're increasingly seeing a number of our primary schools that have pupils who are entitled to a free school meal—they're performing at a level on a par with those better-off counterparts, and, indeed, in some primary schools, we even see children on free school meals outperforming their better-off counterparts.

Parents of children disadvantaged by poverty in Islwyn will have heard with dismay of the Welsh Government's decision to scrap the school uniform grant for poor families. Last week, the First Minister failed to give assurances regarding funding and eligibility of your planned replacement scheme. So, Cabinet Secretary, can you confirm that there'll be no reduction in the amount of funding provided for school uniforms under your new scheme and that all year 7 pupils in receipt of free school meals will continue to be eligible for the school uniform grant also?

Thank you, Oscar, for that question. I am very keen to address the impact of disadvantage on children's education in a variety of ways, and for some families, assistance with school uniform is really important. But as we heard yesterday, in a question to the First Minister from Julie Morgan, there are other ways in which more deprived communities cannot take advantage of the full range of opportunities that may be available to them, and that can have a direct impact on that learner's capabilities to progress. That's why I and officials are currently working on a replacement grant for what was previously called the school uniform grant. It will include access to support for school uniforms, but I'm also wanting that grant to be able to provide greater flexibility for parents, for instance, who may not have the financial ability to allow their child to go on a school trip or to allow their child to participate in extra-curricular activity, which could affect their outcomes. So, yes, grants for uniforms will continue, but I'm looking to expand that grant to cover a wider variety of opportunities that, potentially, pupils from deprived backgrounds can't participate in.  

Thank you, Mick. Education is just one of the means to address problem gambling. One recommendation in the Chief Medical Officer for Wales’s report was to provide those responsible for the health and well-being of children and vulnerable people with further information on the potential harm that gambling can bring.

Thank you for that answer. I wonder if you'd perhaps go a bit further. What we know, from the Gambling Commission, is that about 0.5 million pupils across England and Wales, between 11 and 15, are now gambling on a weekly basis. That would correlate to around 25,000 children in Wales between the ages of 11 and 15 gambling on a weekly basis, a number of those now being problem gamblers. In the light of the chief medical officer's report, I wonder if you will be meeting with the chief medical officer to actually develop, as part of the overall public health strategy, a strategy dealing with what is a growing gambling problem for the future amongst our children, who are working and living in an environment where, through things like sport, gambling is almost being normalised in our society and presents us, I think, with real challenges for the future.

I understand your concerns, Mick. You'll be aware that the leader of the house and the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services recently agreed to write to the Advertising Standards Authority with regard to that specific point about the prevalence of gambling adverts. Gambling sponsorship is an issue because many, many children are getting to see those. I am very pleased to let you know that questions on gambling were included in health behaviour in school-aged children's research network survey for the 2017-2018 survey, so that we can get a better understanding from children themselves about the effect that gambling may have on them as individuals, and that gives us baseline data that we can really take action from.

I think it's really important that we use our opportunities via the personal and social education part of our existing curriculum to be able to explore the dangers of gambling with our children and young people, and you'll be aware, as we develop our new curriculum, that there are opportunities in the new health and well-being area of learning and experience for schools to address these issues but also via our numeracy AoLE, where I would expect schools to be talking about financial literacy and how to make positive choices about how you utilise your money.

Via our healthy schools network as well as our adverse childhood experiences hub we're also better equipping schools to deal with issues around problem gambling if they become aware of that within their school community. I believe that in the cross-Government approach, whether that be health and social care or planning, there are many things that we can do to address this agenda head-on.

I share the concerns that have been expressed by Mick Antoniw and agree with him wholeheartedly that we need to take more action in our schools to address problem gambling. One of the concerns that has been raised with me is that, in the Welsh baccalaureate, there is a task that has been assigned to some pupils in Wales that asks them to imagine what it's like to win the lottery and then to spend that money. Now, it seems to me to be wholly inappropriate in terms of encouraging people to imagine that sort of task and it's at odds with the public health messages that we want to send as a nation to our young people. So, what action are you going to take to work with the WJEC, Qualifications Wales and others to make sure that all of our examinations, all of our textbooks, have gambling eradicated from them in terms of promoting it in this way and that the only message they see about gambling is one that is negative?

Thank you, Darren, for that. I would expect all examination questions and Welsh baccalaureate tasks to be written in an appropriate way. Can I be absolutely clear that what we're talking about here is problem gambling and recognising that as a health issue, an addiction issue, just in the way that there are other addictions? I think we need to be slightly careful when we equate playing the lottery with problem gambling. I think we need to be slightly careful about that, but I would expect all questions in all examination papers to be written in a way that is appropriate for children reading them and using those resources.

Further to those comments—and I agree with all the comments thus far—Mick Antoniw would know that a recent University of South Wales study showed that a quarter of gamblers do not consider themselves to be gamblers, and that applies to children as well. So, pushing further on this issue of education in schools, obviously my colleague Bethan Sayed previously has raised the principles of financial education, which would incorporate this sort of education, but really we need to be highlighting this strongly, as has been mentioned because of the insidious nature of the gambling industry inculcating itself into every form of life and trying to normalise the issue. It is not normal to be a gambler, and I'd value your support on the issue.

Dai, you're absolutely right: we need to look at these issues beyond simply the health and well-being AoLE. Financial education will be a key element within the new curriculum, offering robust provision to help learners develop their financial skills, including the management of their money. I was very fortunate recently to attend a pioneer school in your own region, Olchfa, a year 8 maths class, where they were indeed talking about the tax system and how you would manage your money and work out your tax liabilities. So, we already see on the ground lessons in this regard happening in our schools at the moment and, of course, as we move towards a statutory take-up of the curriculum, I would expect to see more of that going on. It was absolutely fantastic to see relatively young learners in their secondary education career having the ability to develop their numeracy skills but at the same time learning and understanding about how tax works and actually having a very moral debate about whether people should be taxed more or less.

Thank you, Julie. Will the Cabinet Secretary provide an up—. Oh, sorry, that's your bit. [Laughter.] I am the Cabinet Secretary. [Laughter.] For a minute, I forgot myself and I was back over there, Presiding Officer. I've just done a Rhianon Passmore. [Interruption.] You never know. You never know.  

Julie, I am delighted to say—[Laughter.]—that band A of the twenty-first century schools and education programme will see an investment of over £164 million in schools in Cardiff over the five years ending in 2019—which might postdate when I'm going to end here. [Laughter.] A funding envelope of a further £284 million has been approved in principle for the band B programme, which will start in 2019.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for that response. I was very pleased to visit last week the new site for the schools of Gabalfa primary and Ysgol Glan Ceubal in my constituency, Cardiff North, for the topping out ceremony last week. This is one English-medium primary and one Welsh-medium primary, which are co-located, and the building's been designed in such a way that there are joint facilities for lunchtimes and playtimes. I wondered whether there were any other plans for schools in that sort of way throughout Wales, where the Welsh language school and the English language school are co-located on the same site.

I am sure that there are other examples where we have co-locations of facilities like that. What the twenty-first century schools programme is allowing us to do is find new and innovative ways of providing school places, whether that be in a shared location, whether we see the growing number of through schools, where children are educated on the same campus from the age of three right the way through, in some cases, to the age of 18. This unprecedented investment in school buildings, the largest since the 1960s, is giving us the opportunity to provide local authorities the options of a wide variety of ways of providing educational facilities. And one of the ways in which we judge cases that come in, as I said earlier to Simon Thomas, is also on community access to those facilities and, increasingly, as we work together across Government on the childcare offer, the ability to see whether we can combine education and childcare facilities in our new builds also.

Minister, twenty-first century schools has offered the opportunity for local authorities to work with Government in redeveloping their school estate. You may or may not be familiar with the closure plans for a small rural school in the Vale of Glamorgan, Llancarfan school, and relocating to a new site in the village of Rhoose. One of the concerns—

This is a question about Cardiff.

South Wales Central area—twenty-first century schools. I thought Cardiff was part of South Wales Central. Sorry, Presiding Officer. 

The Vale of Glamorgan isn't.

It is part of South Wales Central.

The question is about Cardiff.

I withdraw the question, then.

Question 7, Dawn Bowden.

Thank you, Dawn. The gross schools expenditure in Merthyr last year was budgeted to be over £50 million. That's 3 per cent higher than in 2016-2017. Merthyr Tydfil delegated 87 per cent of the funding to schools, giving a delegated budget of over £43 million. That's a 4 per cent increase on the previous year, and I'm pleased to say that's the highest percentage increase that we saw in any local authority in Wales. 

Indeed, and I know that the Welsh Government has a long-standing commitment to school funding, in spite of the UK Government's continued austerity programme, and this year's local government settlement, as you've already outlined, has reflected this. However, we also know that local authorities have successfully argued for education funding not to be ring-fenced, and I appreciate that much of that funding now is used for their school budgets. It is a matter entirely for them. Nevertheless, I was concerned to see that Merthyr Tydfil council, despite what you have said, has effectively cut their school budget, with schools being advised that they must make savings of some £400,000 in this financial year, with more to follow. Now, given that Merthyr Tydfil's education service was only brought out of special measures in 2016, can you assure me that you're closely monitoring the needs of schools in Merthyr Tydfil so that we do not allow that situation to slip backwards again?

Thank you, Dawn. You are correct in saying that local authorities are responsible for school funding, and, indeed, that is set out in current Welsh law. You will also be aware that Estyn, the independent inspectorate, not only has a role in inspecting individual schools, but also has a role in inspecting the performance of individual local education authorities. They have trialled a new inspection framework, the first of which took place in Neath Port Talbot, and that is a very good way in which we can ensure the performance of local education authorities.

I am aware that for some authorities that have recently been in special measures, there is a need to keep a very close eye, and, of course, you'll be aware that one of the reasons why we work in partnership with the middle tier of the regional consortia is to ensure that there is high-quality support for school improvement in that area, rather than dissipated across all the local authorities.

But can I just take this opportunity? I understand that budgets are under pressure across Wales, not just in Merthyr Tydfil, but despite that, individual schools are not letting that hold-back on their ambition for their children. I recently had the opportunity to visit Afon Taf High School, and I was so impressed by the accelerated reading programme that they have introduced in that school, which is seeing the pupils' level of literacy jump immeasurably. And only last week, at the festival—the literacy festival that was held in Merthyr—I had an opportunity to speak to a number of the pupils who were attending the festival. It gave me huge hope to see young boys, who we know are particularly challenging when it comes to reading, speak so eloquently about their love of reading, the literature and the books that they're choosing at the moment, and their passion. And also, not only their passion for the individual book, but their understanding that by practising their reading, using this opportunity, that they were giving them the very best chance for themselves, not just in English but, actually, to access the entire curriculum. I commend schools like that that are not using tight financial times as an excuse not to introduce new and innovative approaches within their schools. They're to be commended.

Cabinet Secretary, you said earlier that all children attending secondary school were entitled to free transport, but that surely doesn't apply to children attending sixth form. And in the case of Merthyr, is it really appropriate, if sixth-form provision is only going to take place for that age group at Merthyr college, for the council to be consulting on making all children of that age group pay for their transport to that one site?

Sorry. I apologise to Mr Reckless if I did not make myself clear in my answer to Michelle Brown. The learner travel Measure provides free school transport for compulsory-school-age children to the age of 16. For post-16 learners, individual local authorities are able to make provision if they see fit, and there is a mixed approach taken by local authorities across Wales.

Thank you, Bethan. Responsibility for the planning of school places rests with local authorities. When proposing substantial changes to schools, local authorities and other proposers must comply with the oft-mentioned schools organisation code and must consider a range of factors—the prime consideration being the interests of learners.  

Thank you for that reply. I have raised this issue with you here before with regard to the proposal to close Cymer Afan Comprehensive School in my region, and I heard you earlier speak about the choice of active travel for learners. But in this instance, if Cymer Afan is closed and they are expected to travel nearly 10 miles to either Cimla or Margam, it may mean that they do not have that particular choice. Clearly, the future generations well-being assessments must take into account sustainable transport, so I'm trying to understand what conversations you've had with the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales to ensure that when there isn't that option of sustainable transport, what actually happens to those children and to their well-being.

I have had no conversations with the commissioner on that particular subject. The organisation code does require local authorities to carry out an impact assessment with regard to the well-being of learners. It also does give indicative timings of what would be regarded as a length of travel time that would not be suitable for children, but it really is for the individual local authority to ensure that, in carrying out its consultation with local people, it does that in line with the School Standards and Organisation (Wales) Act 2013 and the code.

Cabinet Secretary, I know that the future of small rural and semi-rural schools has been a huge issue in your constituency, and it's Councillor Brigitte Rowlands now, who represents the Mawr ward in Swansea, who's facing the same sort of challenges you've had yourself in the past, because there are two schools there that are earmarked for closure—shall I put it that way? I recognise the awkward position that the local authority is in, but I also recognise that a significant number, across Wales now, of our smaller schools have either already gone or are in the process of going, leaving a much smaller number of small schools that have survived the 90-pupil test, if you like. I heard your answers to earlier questions in this session, but do we need to be looking now at tweaks, shall we say, to the 90-pupil count guidance, in effect, to allow for the fact that, sometimes, it's not surplus places that are the priority argument in keeping schools open and there might be other considerations that are more important?

The primary consideration that all local authorities should have when planning their school places and thinking about school organisation is the interests of the learner and the quality of education that that institution is able to offer young people. You'll be aware of the answers I gave earlier. We are pushing forward with the designation of a list of rural schools and then a presumption against closure. Does that mean that there will never be any changes? I have to be honest and clear with people: no. But what it does mean is that the local authority will have to demonstrate that they have exhausted all other options and they have considered all other options before they take a decision to close a particularly small rural school.

Crucially, as I say, we also need to support the delivery of rural education. There are particular challenges about maintaining high standards, especially in small rural primary schools. So, for instance, you and I will both be aware of schools where, perhaps, the classroom teacher has pupils who are year 4, year 5 and year 6 within a single classroom, and that presents particular challenges in the differentiation of work, for instance. That's why we have made available a small rural schools grant that local authorities have been able to apply for to be able to look at innovative approaches to support the quality of education in our small rural schools, because keeping them open is one thing, but they have to offer excellent opportunities for our young people.

Cabinet Secretary, in your responses to both Suzy Davies and Bethan Jenkins, you talked about the interests of the learner and the well-being of the learner, which I fully support. But, of course, the well-being of the learner also depends on the well-being of the communities the learner lives in and is educated within, and, as has been pointed out, Cymer Afan is actually proposed to be closed with pupils transported and transferred a distance of over 10 miles. The experience they have of getting home post school education—in other words, they often stay behind for after-school activities, and that's an important part of the well-being of the learner, to be able to do that—means that there will be difficulties in that aspect. When you look at this, because it might well come across your desk, will you also consider the well-being of the community and the well-being of the learner beyond just the educational experience inside the school itself? Will you also look at, perhaps, whether there needs to be a consultation under the new school reorganisation guidelines, and not the old ones?

Could I assure David and, indeed, all Members here that any applications to close a school that do find their way onto my desk are scrutinised forensically and are done so in accordance with existing Welsh law and statutory guidance?

While holding a surgery in Maesteg, I was asked by parents about school closures in their area. They stated the new super-sized school being built in Port Talbot did not have sufficient children living locally in the area to fill the places and, therefore, children were coming from much further away and expected to fill these places. Their concern was that some children living a distance away would mean that, in one day, they would be on the school bus for almost two hours. Therefore, what discussions have you had with parents raising these concerns and do you not agree with me that that is an unreasonable expectation of both parents and children?

I would encourage all those, and I'm sure they already have—if they have concerns about the statutory notice that has been put out by Neath Port Talbot, then they need to participate in that consultation. As I said earlier, there is some guidance available that talks about notional travel times, what would be regarded as a disproportionate amount of time that one would expect a child to travel to education, but I'm not able to comment any further on any particular proposals, just in case they do arrive at Welsh Government for me to determine.

Thank you. I’m in close contact with campaigners who are very concerned about consultations on the closure of a number of rural schools on Anglesey. I do understand the pressure on the council and I would like you to consider one element of those pressures, namely that one set of your officials, to all intents and purposes, is promoting the closure of rural schools by suggesting that funding from the twenty-first century schools programme won’t be available unless the local authority presents new building proposals that include the closure of existing schools. And on the other hand, you have officials who are completing the work on the new school organisation code, which will set a prejudice in favour of keeping rural schools open. In the current case on Anglesey, we need a new school in Llangefni and the expansion of the school too, but the conclusion that the council has come to is that as part of that, they would have to close other schools—Bodffordd, Henblas and Talwrn are being considered for closure. Are you in a position to tell the council that those two things, namely the availability of funding for a new school and the need to close existing rural schools, do not have to be linked together and that one isn’t dependent on the other?

Rhun, it really is a matter for the local authority in Ynys Môn to plan their school places, but let me be absolutely clear: any application under the twenty-first century schools programme for capital moneys is judged on a criteria, is examined by an external board to Welsh Government, with independent people looking at the value behind that individual application, and I'm not aware of applications being predicated on a need to close schools otherwise. With regard to the availability of the twenty-first century schools programme to build new schools, the programme is available for school refurbishment of an existing site, replacement schools, as well as newly constituted schools, and there are examples across Wales of all three, where the money is being used to refurbish an existing school, to replace an existing school building, or in some cases—and I was in Anglesey opening some of them recently—where there has been an amalgamation of schools, to create an area school with new facilities.

Thank you, Lynne. 'Education in Wales: Our National Mission' is clear on our commitment to ensure that all learners in Wales are fully supported to reach their potential. Working with partners, we are determined to overcome the particular challenges that face some groups of learners, including Gypsy, Roma and Traveller learners, whose achievements, for instance, at 16 are not where any of us would want them to be.

Thank you. As you're aware, I recently visited the Torfaen Traveller education service based at West Monmouth School, and it was absolutely fantastic to see how well the young people are doing, how they're getting really good qualifications, and some of them are considering going on to university. As you also know, I'm very much behind your efforts to tackle early entry, but one of the issues that was raised with me by the young people is the fact that having the facility of early entry is absolutely vital for Traveller children, because some of them take the summer off to go travelling. What assurances can you offer that changes to early entry will take account of the needs of the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community? But also, will you join me in congratulating the Torfaen Traveller education service, and also the staff who work there, for the fantastic work they're doing?

Well, I would be delighted to recognise the success of that school, building on what Estyn did in 2016, where it recognised that what happens at West Monmouth School provides fantastic opportunities for young people and children from the Gypsy/Traveller community. They are keeping those children in school, and they're going on to achieve really well, and they have focused very much on building really strong links with families and parents in that community. I am aware of the importance of allowing some schools, where there are Gypsy/Traveller children, to have early entry, especially in the autumn series of exams, because we do recognise that that may be the only opportunity that those children have to take a public examination. That's one of the reasons that was at the forefront of my thinking last year when we made our decisions about early entry, and why we did not ban early entry outright, because to do so would have been to deprive those schools, and those children, of the opportunities of sitting their formal examinations. It is perfectly appropriate, in those cases, that children are entered early, and that's why we still allow schools to have that option, where they can allow children to enter exams early when it is in the best interests of the children, and West Monmouth School have shown they certainly have the best interests of these children at heart.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary.

The next questions, therefore, to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services. And the first question, Jayne Bryant.

Thank you for the question. The Welsh Government recognises the importance of breastfeeding, and is committed to its promotion and increased uptake. Public Health Wales have responsibility for delivering this programme, and are leading national breastfeeding week, from 20 to 26 June. This will include a social media campaign and supporting professionals with local events, and I do hope that AMs across the Chamber will support and promote that week, and breastfeeding more generally.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. The benefits of breastfeeding for mothers and babies are well documented. However, it's really important that new mums receive the support that they need. Last year, I was really proud to attend the maternity unit at the Royal Gwent Hospital to see Aneurin Bevan Local Health Board receive the prestigious Baby Friendly award, and to pay tribute to the midwives and support workers for their commitment on this. In addition, progress has been made, with Newport City Council and the health board launching Breastfeeding Welcome. Through displaying a Breastfeeding Welcome logo, organisations show that they'll be friendly and supportive to mothers wanting to breastfeed. How can these initiatives of good practice be supported? And I wonder if you can give us an update on the task and finish group and the progress on that group and indicate when you expect it to report.

Thank you for the follow-up question. I welcome the steps made by Newport to make it expressly clear—no pun intended—that breastfeeding is welcome across the city. There's a model for other people to follow, because it is about encouraging mothers to breastfeed when they're out of the home, and actually encouraging all of us to be supportive in that environment as well. I did set up a task and finish group to look at improving breastfeeding rates in Wales last year, following a meeting with the Royal College of Midwives. Our breastfeeding rates have improved over the last 10 years—up to 61 per cent at birth—but we know that (a) we want that rate to be higher, but also for breastfeeding to continue. I am expecting the task and finish group to report to me within a month with those recommendations, and I expect to update Members not only on receipt of the report but the Government response to that report and its recommendations.

Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I will stick to the subject. As a huge supporter of breastfeeding, having four children who were all breastfed, I can see the benefits of that. But, sadly, many new mothers give up after a short period of time and cite a lack of support, or a perceived lack of support, that they might have had from a designated midwife, because of pressure on community and maternity services. Have you, in the time that you've been health Secretary, identified that lack of support in the community, in particular the amount of time that expectant mothers can spend with a dedicated midwife to support them in breastfeeding and allowing them to continue right the way through the child's best part of its life?

I recognise the point made about how people are practically supported to both initiate and then also to continue breastfeeding. There's something about the broader expectation on mothers themselves, through pregnancy, as well as partners, family members, and broader society. And the point made about who is the right healthcare professional to support that mother, to support that family, is part of what I'm expecting the report—the task and finish report—to come back to me on. And if we need to think again about the mix of staff that we have—because it may not need to be a midwife; there are other healthcare professionals, including those who are experienced healthcare professionals who might be coming back in to work, as well, indeed, as volunteers. Because lots of what women say they have found effective are actually peer-to-peer support groups as well. So, there's a broader piece of work that I'm expecting to be done by that task and finish group to understand what we need to do, both employed healthcare staff, volunteers, and the broader changes that we all need to be part of helping to support within our society.

Thank you. We have a well-established national population bowel screening programme in Wales, with nearly 147,000 men and women screened during 2016-17. We continually look for ways to increase uptake, and recently announced the introduction of a better and more user-friendly testing system, which will be rolled out from January 2019.

The Cabinet Secretary will know that, in the latest year for which figures are available, the uptake of those eligible decreased from 54.4 per cent to 53.4 per cent, so a 1 per cent reduction. I hope this does not become a trend. And, also, at the moment, screening is not offered to anyone over 75. And I have a constituent who's been very anxious about this because he has taken part in the programme. They arrive at their 75th birthday then they cannot get the screening kits, and I do think this aspect of the screening programme should be reviewed. 

I recognise the concern. This is part of the difficult choice and challenge in making decisions. We, as every UK nation, are advised by the UK National Screening Committee, and that does recommend routine screening up to the age of 74. The Wales Screening Committee actually recently considered whether to offer bowel screening for those people who self-referred over the age of 74, but their recommendation to us is that the evidence does not support doing that; the position remains unchanged. Part of our challenge, as always, is where we have the greatest impact on health, and that is difficult because individual circumstances will arise where people say, 'I would like a different choice to be made by the whole system.' Our focus is on the successful roll-out of the newer and better test to the population that we currently have, and, actually, on increasing the uptake. The positive news is that pilots of the new test have shown an increased uptake in those pilot areas. So, I look for a significant improvement as we roll out the new test, and, of course, we'll continue to be guided by the best available advice and evidence. And, if that changes, then I'll be happy to consider changing the choice that the Government and the national health service make. 

Cabinet Secretary, I also look forward to the uptake being increased, because the new faecal immunochemical test is obviously more sensitive and a better test. But there are two issues. I also look forward to you perhaps looking at the age 50 to 60, because we don't have that age being accepted, but there may be individuals who have a history in families doing that, which you may want to specialise in. But those types of things mean more referrals, and, if you actually you do the FIT test, which is more sensitive than currently being proposed, you will definitely have more referrals and we have a problem with endoscopy and nurses and doctors in that area—we have a problem with diagnostics. What's the Welsh Government going to do to, basically, attack that problem, so that we can ensure that, if we get more referrals, they will be seen as quickly or quicker than they are now?

I recognise the issue that David Rees raises on both points, both about the fact that we don't currently offer the test for people who are in the age bracket between 50 and 59—. And, again, our ambition is clear: we want to be able to do that. But, actually, our challenge is that, when we're seeing a falling level of uptake in the screening for the current population we provide screening for, we need to understand better how to implement that more successfully as we then are ambitious to actually roll out to the younger age group as well, which is in line with the advice we've received. So, we have advice not to roll out for 75-year-olds and above. We do have advice that we need to get the position where, with a successful uptake, we then roll out to people over the age of 50 up to 59. 

On your second point about diagnostics, we've actually made significant progress on reducing diagnostic waits more generally, but it is recognised that, with the new test, we'll expect more demand. That's why health boards have been investing in endoscopy services over a number of years, and we're also expecting to see that the endoscopy implementation group will come up with more plans and proposals on improving both the efficiency and the quality and the capacity within those services—it's not just in this area, but on the greater diagnostic capacity.

Last week, we had a meeting of the cross-party group on cancer, where we were looking at the diagnostic workforce in Wales, and the issue that David Rees has brought up came up strongly, about the lack of endoscopy nurses, with a vacancy rate of 11 per cent. And, with evidence given about nurses leaving to go to private companies, I wondered what more the Government could do to try to ensure that we do manage to keep these nurses, who are obviously vital if we're going to develop our screening programme in the way he's described.

Well, there are two points. One is about what we do to retain our current workforce into the future, and the second is our planning for the future, both in terms of increasing our capacity and actually being able to have training numbers that match that future capacity. And that is the work that Government is already undertaking. I reported on this issue, actually, in a meeting at the start of this week to the Wales Cancer Alliance. They raised concerns they'd raised within the cross-party group, so I recognise the issue that exists, as I said in answer to David Rees. We will need to come forward in the next stage of our planning—and the work of Health Education Improvement Wales is part of this in understanding what we need to do to plan for that future, as well as making sure that the current working environment is one where we'll retain more and more of our staff and, of course, our experience in this area of work. 

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

Thank you, Llywydd. Cabinet Secretary, England and Scotland publish data regularly on cancelled surgery. Is there any reason why you don’t do that for Wales?

We don't regularly publish—we answer responses to publish operations that are cancelled. I don't have any plans to add to official statistics on this matter unless there is a compelling case to do so. I'm happy to listen to that case as it's made.

It is something that concerns my constituents. In January, you apologised for cancelled surgery, saying, at that point, that is was the onset of winter, which came from somewhere, that was to blame. But surgery is still being cancelled week on week. I’ve had a number of constituents coming to see me recently to tell me about treatments being cancelled not once, not twice, not three times, but even more than that. There was one man who was starting to see mental health problems emerge in his wife because of the strain of having these treatments cancelled time and time again. The question is: what do we do about this? Is there scope to introduce financial incentives in order for health boards not to cancel? Is there scope to compensate patients even, or why not just ensure that these treatments aren’t cancelled time and time again?

I do recognise that this is an issue that causes significant inconvenience and worry for any patient or their family when an operation is cancelled, whether it's a minor or a more significant one. There's challenge about individual issues, and if he wants to contact me with the particular circumstances that he's mentioned then I'll happily take them up with the health board about the reasons behind that. As well as those times where there are individual issues, there are system-wide challenges that we recognise and actually the majority of operations that are postponed are postponed by the individual in question as opposed to by the health service. Our quest is both to understand why that happens and to avoid those operations being cancelled, whether they're by the citizen or by the service. And, on that, I have to say I'm rather more sceptical about the value of financial incentives or sanctions to do so in terms of the impact that will have on the system, because, when the health service cancels an operation, it is largely because they don't have the capacity to do so and that is often about the overtopping of unscheduled care into the primary care system or is due to unforeseen staff unavailability. I don't think that financial incentives or sanctions would necessarily help that. What I do think, though, is that our ability to plan and deliver across the service is more important. That's why we've brought together regional planning fora in south-east Wales, in mid and west Wales, and it's why we continue to support the health board in north Wales not only to achieve a significant improvement in referral-to-treatment times to the end of the financial year that's just finished, but also they'll continue to receive support for the future.

You talk about patients cancelling their own operations, and it is something that we hear from you and your Government quite often, that it's often the patient's fault for turning up in hospital when they shouldn't and for being ill perhaps when they shouldn't. I can tell you about stories of people having their operation cancelled when they're on the trolley at the door of the theatre, and not for the first time—for the second, for the third time. We cannot continually blame the patient for taking the wrong course of action. We know that cancellations happen for all sorts of different reasons, and, yes, of course, some patients cancel their own treatments. We know of administrative problems—operations being booked in for when clinicians are on leave. It shouldn’t happen, but, okay, it happens from time to time. We know we have staff shortages. I won't go there today—I'll have plenty of opportunity to come back to that one. But, quite often, at the heart of why an operation is cancelled is that, somewhere in the system, there's a bed missing. We've lost 1,000 beds since 2011, either at district general hospitals or in community hospitals. And, yes, we need to get patients home or to their usual place of residence as quickly as we can, but I am absolutely convinced that the loss of community beds is costing our NHS very, very dearly and it's costing our patients very, very dearly. Will you agree with me that the time has come to reinstate lost community beds? Because otherwise what we will see is patients being trapped in a system and operations, yes, being cancelled time and time again and the detrimental effect that that has on patients, not just in the short-, but in the long-term too.

Thank you for the follow-up question. I do think it really is unfortunate that you recast my words in a way that have absolutely not been provided. I'm not blaming the patient for being sick or inconvenient to the health service. It is a fact, though, that over half of the operations that are cancelled are cancelled by the patient. We need to understand why that is, to understand how we can help patients to plan what they wish to do and to understand the impact on the service. In addition to that, we need to deal with those matters that are in control of the service as well. I think I'm pretty clear in stating that, both in writing and on each occasion when questions are asked. Part of that is actually the challenge about beds, and not just the numbers but the numbers of staff you need to staff beds, but also the bed mix and where that is, because actually it's about having appropriate beds for step-up and step-down through the hospital system, and that may be about the rehabilitation focus to get people out of an acute hospital.

But we have seen a significant increase in efficiency through the service already. There is a significant increase in day surgery rates within the national health service in Wales. It's why we're able to be more efficient in actually undertaking a greater amount of surgery than ever before. But, in particular, it is about the planning of that activity through the whole year. Part of that challenge, honestly, is that, in the last quarter of each year—from January to March—we plan too much activity. We're not able to frontload that activity through spring and the summer, and that's part of the challenge that I set for the health service again this year: to do even more of that activity that can be planned and delivered in the summer months. Trying to deliver the greatest amount of activity between January and March obviously leaves a risk, and we saw that this year, where there were significant weather events, and that has affected not just the unscheduled care part of the system but the planned care part of it as well. That is absolutely part of our challenge. The health service understands that, I understand that, and I expect to see significant improvement within the first six months of this new financial year.

The Conservatives' spokesperson, Suzy Davies.

Diolch, Llywydd. To the Minister, these questions, I think. In July 2016, your predecessor told us that the carers strategy was being refreshed and, 

'That will be happening later this year',

which, of course, meant 2016. It's now 2018, and the most recent carers strategy for Wales is still branded 2013, and, in a written statement last year, you still referred to the strategy as being a 2013-16 strategy. I know about your ministerial advisory group, but I think it is a surprise that a change of Minister seems to have comprehensively derailed the publication of a strategy that was, to the naked eye, virtually ready for publication. Can you tell us what's happened, please?

Yes, indeed. Thank you for the question, Suzy. It's not the case, actually, that the strategy refresh and review has been derailed. It is under way, but we're not waiting for that either. We're getting on with a range of matters in respect of carers, and not waiting for the carers ministerial advisory group, either, to do it as well. I refer back to the statement that I made previously here, in the Assembly. So, for example, we only recently launched the toolkit for schools on identification of carers. So, there's some tremendous work going on, and it's focused on identifying, providing the advice and support for those carers, including on respite—and flexible respite as well—but also focus on bringing together the third sector, local authorities and other public bodies that can actually provide that wraparound service for carers. But the critical thing is that we're getting on with it while we also look to refresh and review that strategy. Strategies are fantastic, and we need them refreshed and reviewed. We also need to get on with the actual actions that will deliver the right outcomes for carers as well.

Thank you, Minister. I'm always happy to welcome action, as long as that action is both forthcoming and effective, shall we say. I don't think your answer quite explained what's happened in the last 18 months, in terms of what happened to a strategy that was nearly ready. Perhaps I could move on to some of the other points that have been raised with me by carers in meetings, one of which is the variety of understanding of carers' rights that there is between different local authorities, and actually within some departments within local authorities. Can you clarify who is responsible for ensuring consistency of assessment in different councils, and why this is an ongoing problem?

I think you rightly identify an issue that follows on from the approach that we've taken of co-production, which is supported by all Members here, that, in terms of assessing the needs of carers, it should be something on which we work in collaboration with the individual who is looking to see the right care package—the right package of support and advice for them—but they also, of course, have the right to advocacy as well, and they also have the right to make representations when they don't think the right package has been put forward for them. All of those places are not only there in terms of the legislation, but also the codes as well.

Now, if there are specific instances, Suzy, that you want to draw to my intention, I'm more than happy to look at them. There will, of course, be variability in the way that this is done between local authorities, but our expectation, as the Welsh Government, is that the entire focus in every individual circumstance is that this is done with the individual to provide them with the right package of support for them as a carer, and, if they're not satisfied with that, then they have that recourse to advocacy, they have that right to challenge that package that's been put forward. There's tremendous work, I have to say, being done on the ground as well by people such as the Carers Trust, who I meet regularly, and take these issues up on behalf of individuals who aren't happy with the package.

There is the backdrop to this as well, I have to say, which is the context—that in putting the right support and advice package together, including respite support for carers, we do it against the context in which we exist. You will see local authorities in the region that the Member represents as well saying, 'Ideally, we would like to provide something that is more enriched, more deep, wider for that individual. We cannot do it because of the cutbacks in local authorities', and that is the reality of some of the decisions that are made in a co-productive way. It's right to do it in a co-productive way, but when a local authority says, 'Well, because of the financial constraints we're under, which is because of where we are with austerity funding, we cannot provide the entirety of services that we wanted', that has an impact on the individual at the end. It's a tragedy to see, and I saw it when I met recently with young carers in Carmarthen; they liked the approach that we were taking to this, they liked the fact that their voices were being heard now more than ever, but they were frustrated when, with the best will in the world, in their local area they were being told, 'Well, that day club, that evening out, that whatever—it isn't available anymore. We'll have to look at something else'.

So, we have to wrestle with this all the time, about how we put the right package together. But they have advocacy, they have the right to co-determination of this package being put forward, and I think that's the right legislative framework to be put in place. 

Thank you for the answer. I can't say that I'm particularly happy with your response that co-production might be responsible for the variety in terms of delivery, because of course we all agree that, if this isn't patient centred, then no strategy is going to work. My question was about assessments, and the standard and consistency of those assessments, and I don't think you captured that. I think we're all aware, of course, that when it comes to giving people rights, the delivery against those rights is pretty spasmodic and very, very variable in a range of areas across Wales. 

You mentioned the Carmarthenshire young adult carers. You may be aware that I'm supporting the principle that's been captured within that petition, to help young adult carers take better advantage of post-16 education and apprenticeships without unnecessary financial disincentive. I think combined with the Welsh Conservative offer on free or discounted transport, which doesn't depend on renationalisation of any buses, this is a new policy targeted at helping young adult carers find a future alongside or after caring. 

You must have had the results of the assessment of the 2013-16 strategy by now. What are the findings for meeting the education and employment needs of young adult carers in that strategy?

I'm more than happy to write to Suzy with the details of the outcomes of that, but also the wider strategies that we are taking forward for employability. But, of course, there is also a wide range of other measures of support that we can put in place for young adult carers as well, and I know that she will join me—and I'm happy to write to her on that specific issue—in welcoming the number of local authorities that are now also providing exemption for carers on their tax as well. 

So, I'm happy to write to her on that specific issue to give her an update on that, but also happy as well, and I'm sure she will support the fact, that the ministerial advisory group for carers now will be looking to take forward many of these issues and develop workstreams around them.

The UKIP spokesperson, Caroline Jones.

Diolch, Llywydd. Cabinet Secretary, according to the national survey for Wales 2016-17, obesity in Wales is worse than in any other nation in the UK. Fifty-nine per cent of adults are considered overweight, and 26 per cent of children starting primary school are classed as obese or overweight. What steps are the Welsh Government taking to tackle child obesity in Wales, and in particular in the economically deprived regions of Wales, such as my own region, South Wales West?

We have a range of measures in place already, for example the healthy schools network, the 10 steps to a healthy weight, and, indeed, the daily mile introduced by my ministerial colleague Rebecca Evans when she was the public health Minister. There is a range of things we're already doing to undertake both greater physical activity, greater awareness of health behaviour, including diet of course, but we're looking also to the obesity strategy, which this Assembly passed as part of the Public Health (Wales) Act 2017, and I'm looking forward, before the summer, to reporting back formally to this place on the steps that we're taking to take forward a consultation on the future of that strategy.

Thank you for that answer, Cabinet Secretary. Troubling research undertaken by the University of Southampton has shown that only 15 per cent of schools provide two hours of physical exercise each week for seven to 11-year-olds, and it is felt that the Welsh Government should engage with schools, nutritionists and parents to reverse the increase in child obesity and that this engagement is the key to maybe solving the obesity crisis in Wales.

There are a range of measures here and, actually, when we think about the challenges that we face, this is part of the common challenges we face in a range of public health outcomes: smoking, alcohol intake, diet and exercise, and in particular diet and exercise where it refers to obesity but also alcohol as well. As to the role of schools, it isn't just about the children when they're in school of course, but that is a significant part of it, which is why I'm really pleased to be continuing to work with my cabinet colleague, the education Secretary on curriculum reform and the health and well-being domain about behaviour we want children to take on board whilst they're at school.

But there's actually a broader point about the family and the community that children live in, and what are expected behaviours within that family and the choices people make, as well, of course, as encouraging people to alter the way in which they provide food. So, steps that have already been taken, for example to reduce sugar content in drinks, are to be welcomed. There are more steps that I'd like to see food manufacturers undertake. I'm thinking about the fat content and other issues too, but we can't simply see it as one part of it. That's why I see the child in their context, the family in their context, and our obesity strand needs to think carefully about how it addresses each of those, the levers the Government has available to us, and the partners we need to work with to make a real difference for public health now and in the future.

Thank you for that answer, Cabinet Secretary. It's positive to hear that family engagement is a priority for you, and I'd like you to also look at exploring avenues of increasing the range of extra-curricular activities. I appreciate the Welsh Government has been working in this area. Forty-eight per cent of school pupils in years 3 to 11 in Wales are taking part in organised physical activity. I wish to highlight Wales's success in the Commonwealth Games. We must encourage all children to be as active as they can and encourage children who excel at sport at the same time. So, what is the Welsh Government doing to encourage the 52 per cent of children who do not participate in any physical activity, whilst at the same time encouraging and assisting the local sports clubs who are struggling financially along with individuals who have a talent but lack the necessary funding to excel in their sport?

I'll try and give three particular points there. On organised sport, whether it's elite sport, and the role it can have as regards role models, not limited in terms of a media profile, but actively going and engaging within their community, and its role linked to community sport—. In work that I did previously with Rebecca Evans when she was a public health Minister—work that I'm looking to repeat and undertake with my ministerial colleague Dafydd Elis-Thomas—I'm looking at the continued contribution of organised sport to broader physical activity, and the role that governing bodies have to play and the role that significant and elite sporting organisations have to play in promoting community engagement are part of what we're doing. That is organised as opposed to incidental. I'm looking forward to more information on that.

In terms of physical activity, and this is, of course, not just about activity within the school, but it is about how people choose to live their lives and how we encourage and enable that and make it easier. That's why active travel is a particularly important policy to normalise walking or cycling to school, and to normalise walking or cycling outside of trips to and from the school. And that is also why we continue to fund activities like the summer holiday enrichment programme—additional activity linked to physical activity, linked to learning within the school, and also, importantly, as I said at the start, linked to proper engagement with the whole of that family, making a real and lasting difference.

We are working closely with health boards through our successful national and international marketing campaign ‘Train. Work. Live.’ Health boards are using the campaign to recruit and retain healthcare professionals with positive results.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for that answer. You'd be aware of the considerable residential developments that are going on around the city of Cardiff, and in particular I draw your attention to the developments in the west of the city, where surgeries and practices have issued notices to say they are unable to take on more patients because they haven't been allowed any more resources to recruit and, importantly, retain staff to meet the increased demand of new housing. Do you recognise that as a problem in the system of provision of primary medical services, and what discussions have you had with the health board in the Cardiff and Vale area to try and address that resource issue that new developments are creating to the west of the city on GP surgeries?

There are challenges about population growth where it exists, and it's not just within the Cardiff area—though that is the most significant part—but it's also within north-east Wales. We've seen some areas of population growth there also. So, there's a broader challenge about managing that. There's something about the number of staff we have, but also the way in which those staff are organised, and so the way in which we organise local healthcare will matter, the numbers of doctors, but other professionals too.

There are conversations I've had with the local health board, both in my capacity as a constituency Member but also as the Cabinet Secretary, about what the future will look like. The challenge in resourcing, as ever, is that when we put extra resource into one part of the health service, it does not necessarily exist for another. That's also a challenge the Government faces when we are allocating our budget after eight years of reduction in the real-term budget. But we always need to look at how we have a more effective use of the resources we currently have, as well as the continual campaign for greater resources for public services here in Wales.

I'm grateful to my colleague Dai Rees who's going to be bringing forward a short debate later on today about the impact of austerity, which is clearly at the heart of so much that we can and can't do. So, continuing that theme, Cabinet Secretary, even though you've been able to protect nursing bursaries in Wales, which the UK Government in England has cut—and the Royal College of Nursing have made significant comments about that today during a debate—would you agree that the Welsh Government could have done even more for nursing and front-line NHS staff, whether that's in training or recruitment, if we'd not faced over £1 billion of cuts since 2010? And would you further agree that many of us in this Chamber are just getting a little bit tired of hearing Tory benches constantly calling for more investment in health when it's their UK Government in Westminster that have chosen to make such deep cuts in our budgets? [Interruption.]

Despite the noise of outrage from the Tory benches, what the Member says is factually and undeniably correct. Members on Conservative seats in this place need to recognise that they have been champions of austerity for three successive general elections. For three successive general elections, you have been champions of austerity. You cannot now avoid the unavoidable consequence of that austerity. Despite eight years of Tory austerity, we have record numbers of health service staff, because of choices made by this Welsh Labour Government. Despite eight years of Tory austerity, we have record numbers of registered nurses, because of choices made by this Welsh Labour Government. The Tories will stand up for austerity, they won't stand up for the health service, they won't stand up for a proper funding settlement for Wales, because it is in their interest and because it is their ideological obsession. The Tories will always be the same.

Cabinet Secretary, as has been highlighted before, the cross-party group on cancer last week highlighted some concerns over recruitment of staff. It also highlighted that staff banding in speciality areas is actually lower in Wales than in England. Some are band 6 in Wales, where the equivalent post is a band 7 in England. Staff therefore are either migrating to an equivalent job with better pay in England or actually not even coming into Wales. What's the Welsh Government going to do to ensure an equality of staff banding for equivalent work across the UK?

These are negotiations that are ongoing with our trade unions, as representatives of the workforce. In England, they imposed a variety of measures into the contract. I am proud of the fact that we listen to and engage with our trade unions as workforce representatives. I look forward to a future conversation about Agenda for Change terms and conditions. If there is to be, finally, more money from the UK Treasury, we can have a conversation here in Wales with our partners about how to allocate that money to our hard-working NHS staff and those areas where we think it will make a particular difference to the service provided and outcomes for people here in Wales.

Health boards are expected to deliver care in line with guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence on referral for suspected cancer and the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Our approach to helping health boards and supporting them is set out in the cancer delivery plan for Wales.

Last month, I called for a Welsh Government statement on multiparametric—or mp—MRI scans for NHS patients for suspected prostate cancer. Subsequently, you wrote to a patient to say that Betsi Cadwaladr university health board does provide mpMRI scans in line with the current NICE guidelines for prostate cancer. The guidelines state that multiparametric MRI should be considered

'for men with a negative transrectal ultrasound 10–12 core biopsy to determine whether another biopsy is needed.'

One of those men you were writing to was one of many men who have contacted me in north Wales who were not offered an mpMRI scan following a negative biopsy, unless they paid around £1,000 to have it carried out at a private hospital. Given that Wrexham Maelor is the only centre in Wales that participated in the England and Wales PROMIS—prostate MRI imaging study—which found that whereas the painful transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy offered by Betsi Cadwaladr is only 47 per cent accurate, the mpMRI scan is over 90 per cent accurate, how are you ensuring that men in Wales participate in or take advantage of the £75 million research project launched by the UK Prime Minister, which will recruit 40,000 men into trials for better diagnosis and treatments for the disease using mpMRI scans?

The pilot you refer to in England is a London-only pilot, so it's not a national pilot that takes in the whole of England in any event. We have pilots that are being run here in Wales in a variety of health boards. As I say, we will continue to provide a service that is in line with NICE guidance. The NICE guidance is due to be updated in April 2019. If we have the Welsh urology board—again, our clinicians here in Wales—if they reach a clinical consensus in advance of that, we can make different choices right across the service, but at this point, the provision is evidence based. Actually, there is a high satisfaction rate from prostate cancer patients here in Wales. I'm satisfied that health boards are doing what they should do, but, of course, we will always have more to learn from pilots in every part of the country, just as, indeed, pilots in north Wales will have much to teach the rest of the country in a variety of areas; for example, in a different area of the advanced paramedic trial in north Wales, where there'll be learning for the rest of the country to learn from there. It is entirely normal to have pilots to take learning from and then improve the whole service—that is exactly what we are doing with prostate cancer as well.

What's just been outlined in Betsi is also true of Hywel Dda, and I have a constituent who's also been told to pay £1,000 for a multiparametric MRI scan. The reason for that is that, as you say, the NICE guidelines talk about such a scan following a biopsy, but we have health boards in Wales—Cardiff and the Vale, Cwm Taf and Aneurin Bevan—that offer these scans as a routine diagnostic tool with, as has just been set out, improved pick-up rates of some 93 per cent, and less risk of bleeding, infection and sepsis following the more invasive other tools that have been used for prostate cancer following raised prostate-specific antigen levels.

I don't understand—I did write to you regarding this constituent—why it is we have this postcode lottery on prostate diagnosis in Wales. Yes, the NICE guidelines are there, but they are the minimum requirement. Since we have three health boards in Wales offering more, then surely all of those health boards in Wales should offer more, because, as you say in your letter to me, there is evidence that this is good practice. Well, if it's good practice and it's evidenced, offer it for everyone and offer it for my constituents in Hywel Dda as well.

As I said in my first answer to Mark Isherwood, there are pilots running in Wales. If there is a new clinical consensus, underpinned by evidence, in Wales, we can make a system-wide shift. That is where we are. There are pilots in the three health boards that you mention. The evidence base for that is gathering and growing, and we will then be able to make a choice on the basis of the evidence and on the basis of the very best clinical advice. Until then, I don't think any health Minister would say that they wish to direct the health service to offer a service that is not underpinned by the very best available clinical evidence and advice.

The cancer delivery plan outlines our vision for cancer services in Wales. It brings stakeholders together to drive improvement in cancer services and outcomes. The plan was updated and re-published in November 2017 and will take us through to 2020.

Earlier this month, my constituent Mr Huw Thomas of Bargoed brought to my attention a new initiative for cancer treatment that is being introduced by NHS England, which is the creation of one-stop shops for cancer diagnosis with all of the necessary tests to diagnose the disease being carried out in one centre. The aim is to speed up the identification of particular types of cancer. I understand that there are two such pilots in Wales—I may be wrong about that, but that's what I was told last week. I'm aware of the Welsh Government's strategic document you made reference to, but it doesn't specifically mention that. So, can the Cabinet Secretary clarify that and give us his thoughts on whether such an initiative would be of benefit in Wales?

Yes, and I'm grateful to the Member for raising the issue. It highlights, in some ways, how an announcement made in England will often grab attention and headlines, whereas work we are already doing in advance of England often doesn't reach the same pick-up. In this area, we've actually been looking at what we're calling a vague symptom pathway, which is essentially a one-stop shop, and those pathways are being piloted in both Cwm Taf health board and the Aneurin Bevan health board. It's a two-year pilot. We've already undertaken about a year of that. After a second year, we'll have an evaluation to understand the impact of it. This is part of the cancer implementation group's work for that focus on earlier identification. It comes from work done by Welsh clinicians when they visited Denmark to understand what they had done more successfully on the early identification of cancer. So, it's an area where we're actually ahead of the pilot they're undertaking in England, and I expect to have results earlier than that. Then, of course, I'll be more than happy to report back to this place and the wider public about what we continue to do to improve cancer outcomes here in Wales.     

Cabinet Secretary, April is Bowel Cancer Awareness Month. According to a report by Bowel Cancer UK, patients at five out of seven health boards in Wales are waiting too long for tests to diagnose bowel cancer, and less than half of people eligible for screening tests have had them. Given that bowel cancer survival rates in Wales are among the worst in Europe, what action will the Welsh Government take to address the lack of capacity in our hospitals to meet existing demand and increase awareness of the need for screening tests among at-risk groups in Wales? Thank you. 

The points on staff capacity we've discussed in answer to a previous question on work that is already under way, about the fact that our diagnostic capacity is showing an increase, an that there's an improvement in waiting times for people here in Wales. We've also discussed what we're doing to improve outcomes in answer to the question raised by your colleague David Melding. I'm looking to improve bowel testing and screening uptake. And actually, the biggest challenge there is getting the public to undertake the screening test themselves. That's why we're going to introduce a more effective and more sensitive test in January next year.

So, we are already taking steps and, actually, when you look at our rates compared to the rest of the UK, we actually compare pretty well in terms of cancer outcomes. In terms of cancer waits, we could talk at length about the fact that we generally have a better performance on cancer waits in Wales than in England and, actually, our direct survival rates are directly comparable with England. When they have a more advantaged and wealthier population as a whole, you would actually expect their outcomes to be better. 

But the real challenge for us is not just to say that we compare well with England and the rest of the UK; the real challenge for us here in Wales is that every nation in the UK is at the wrong end of the survival table across Europe. Our ambition is not to continue to maintain a gap positively with England, but to do much better so that more people survive cancer after one year and five years, and when we're looking at our comparators in Europe, we can be much happier about where we are, and then again reset our sights on the next stage of improvement.  

Hywel Dda university health board is currently consulting on its proposals to transform community and hospital services in mid and west Wales. I encourage everyone with an interest to engage in and participate in the consultation, and have their say in helping to shape future services for the region.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for the answer, and I will of course participate fully, as I'm already doing, in that conversation, but I think the people of west Wales deserve excellent healthcare delivered at a reasonable distance, and this includes the best healthcare possible, including urgent care and teaching hospitals. Bronglais in Aberystwyth looks after the northern part of the Hywel Dda area, and is in all scenarios being kept as it is. The question is: how do we deal with those aims and ambitions in Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire?

Now, you know that the options put forward by Hywel Dda involve a new hospital, potentially, in that area. if we're going to have a genuine conversation about really revolutionising our community beds, our mental health and our hospital services in west Wales, then we need to understand that this is a genuine consultation based on understanding that this can happen. That means that, since we have not had major hospital investment in west Wales for the last 30 years, a new hospital is a potential way of delivering excellent healthcare. So, in order to ensure that this consultation is not a sham to hide further cuts, will you commit now that if the outcome of this consultation leads to Hywel Dda recommending a new hospital in the Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire areas, you as Welsh Government will work with Hywel Dda to realise that ambition?  

I can't answer all of that question, because otherwise I'm in danger of putting myself into a position of not being able to make a decision at the end of the consultation. What I would say about healthcare in every part of Wales is that every community in Wales deserves excellent healthcare, and I agree with you about every community deserving excellent healthcare. As ever, when we talk about the future of healthcare, in committees we talk about primary and community care needing to do more of our activity and more of our budget in primary community care, and then we spend all of our time arguing about the hospital network. What I would remind Members of is that when, in the Gwent area, they had their clinical futures strategy, it took them some time to build support from stakeholders and it took them time to develop a business case for a new hospital that was part of that. They delivered in a variety of areas and then we were able to get alongside them and deliver the new hospital that is being constructed at this moment in time as the Grange university hospital.

What I would say about every area of Wales, rather than any specific proposals, is that if there are proposals that are designed to deliver and there's clinical support and evidence that they will deliver a better healthcare system, then we will of course get alongside any and every organisation to try and help them do that, bearing in mind the ability of the Government to do so. So, yes, we will think positively about every area of Wales when real and significant proposals are made, but I just can't comment specifically on the potential for proposals in Hywel Dda, because it is entirely possible that I will have to determine those at a point in the not-too-distant future. 

Cabinet Secretary, all three options in this consultation will result in the downgrading of Withybush hospital from a general hospital to a community hospital, which is totally unacceptable to the people that I represent. The consultation, as far as the people I represent are concerned, is worthless, given that they have no choice in this matter whatsoever. Surely this cannot be right. In the circumstances, I urge you to intervene in this matter and force the health board to actually bring forward proposals that are actually fair to the people of Pembrokeshire. Will you now intervene—'yes' or 'no'?

I've been very clear that this is a public consultation for members of the public to get involved with. I've also been very clear there's got to be clinical leadership about any other proposals, which is why it was important that clinicians took part not only in a presentation and conversation at board, they've got to be part of the conversation with the public. If I intervene now and if I say that, actually, it does not matter what clinicians themselves have come up with—it does not matter what comes from the public consultation—I will determine that for them, that actually will stop healthcare innovation and progress and reform in every part of the country. It matters that a conversation takes place, it matters that people are focused on delivering better healthcare and it matters that we're in a position as a country to make difficult choices. That is the challenge set for us by the parliamentary review. It tells us on the one hand that there is a good evidence base that some specialist services should be delivered in a smaller number of centres across the country—that will involve, for any community, greater travel—but also that we're able to provide more services within a wider network of community healthcare. Where those proposals come forward, where they're agreed with a clear clinical strategy, the Government will do what it can do to get alongside that. If we are to do that, if we are to meet the challenge set for us, which everybody in theory accepted in the parliamentary review, then we have to be able to have a difficult public consultation and the Government has to play its part as the potential ultimate decision maker. 

Cabinet Secretary, I do welcome the fact that we're moving into a consultation period and I did hear what my colleague Simon Thomas was asking, and I might well ask the same in the not-too-distant future, but what concerns me at this stage, at the moment, is that people have been in touch with me saying that the opportunities for them to engage in this process are limited, that they are geographically far apart from where those individuals might live and at times where people might not be able to attend these public events. My question to you today is if you could encourage Hywel Dda health board to widen the scope in terms of time and geographic location of their public consultations at this stage.

I'm happy to respond positively and say that Hywel Dda should respond positively to requests for further public engagement. It is in everyone's interest to have the maximum level of public engagement, not just with the health board at a leadership level but actually with clinicians in their local communities, whether in general practice or whether in hospital-based services or other community-based services, to make sure there is real clinical engagement with each other and with the wider public. I'm more than happy to say that I would want Hywel Dda to maximise all of those opportunities to engage with the public, including at locations and at times of the day that are properly convenient for everyone to engage and have their say. 

Yes. We will consult on a cross-Government strategy to prevent and reduce levels of obesity later this year. It will outline the actions needed at a Wales and UK level to complement existing measures like the Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013, our Healthy Child Wales programme, and, of course, nutritional standards in schools.

Thank you. As the Cabinet Secretary knows, Welsh Government will be receiving some £57 million as part of the new soft drinks levy, and I was concerned to see how little of that money is going to be spent on measures to tackle childhood obesity, which is very different to the approach being taken in the rest of the UK. I know that there are good schemes out there. The Health, Social Care and Sport Committee has taken lots of evidence on things that would make a big difference to children and young people and I know that the Welsh Local Government Association have been talking to officials about an exercise referral scheme for children and young people and also a scheme working with Public Health Wales that would ensure better use of things like third generation sports facilities in Wales. Will the Cabinet Secretary look at that money closely to ensure that we do use a much better proportion of that to tackle what is really a major public health challenge of our time? Thank you.

I recognise this is a major, significant public health challenge. That's why we've already taken some of the steps we've already taken, but it is about looking at what we do next, and I'd be very interested in the committee's report and its recommendations because we have not yet signed off a consultation on our strategy. Then I will finalise what the strategy should be and how we'll use our resources to make it real, because part of the challenge often is moving from strategy and well-meaning objectives that broadly everyone signs up to into how we persuade and get around certain members of the public to make different choices. That's not just making unhealthy choices more difficult or expensive; it is actually how we make healthier choices easier to undertake as well. So, I will definitely be interested in the evidence from the committee. I'll be interested in what other partners have to say and, yes, we'll engage in a range of—[Inaudible.]—before signing off not just the strategy but the recommendations, the action we'll take and how we'll fund that because, as I say, I do recognise that this is a real and significant public health challenge that has the potential to overtop significant parts of health and social care.

And finally, question 8, Adam Price.

Yes. The treatment of kerataconus in adults is currently determined by health board local guidelines, which will include specialty guidelines and college guidelines and other best practice.

Cross-linking treatment was available for Welsh people who had this condition at Bristol Eye Hospital until 2015. Since then, I've had one case of an 18-year-old young woman whose eyesight was deteriorating, and she was advised that the condition was developing quickly. Her mother decided to pay for private treatment because she feared blindness. Since then, Abertawe Bro Morgannwg is providing this treatment once again. But we've experienced a situation where many people have been caught falling between these two time periods where they had no option apart from to go private. Can the Cabinet Secretary look into these cases and look at the anxiety that this caused and the possibility of repaying the costs of my constituent and others?

I'd always want to consider how—. I think you recognise that it's a rare and complex condition, and the challenge is how we provide a proper service for people in this position, even if that is commissioning a service at some distance, whether within Wales or outside. I'm actually due to have a review that's been undertaken by both the Welsh Health Specialised Services Committee and Health Technology Wales. We expect that to be available in the next month or so and it will be published, which may then help that moving forward into the future, but if you want to discuss the matters around your constituent, it may be more sensible for us to exchange more correspondence, and I'm grateful for the fact that you've written to me previously. But it may be sensible for us to actually have a discussion, and maybe to have a discussion when the report is published, and we can then link that to the position of your constituent to think about their circumstances and the broader picture in this specialist service.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.

Point of order. David Melding.

Llywydd, I'd like to raise a point of order under Standing Order 6.15 and Standing Order 12.50. Big announcements by the Welsh Government, such as a review of a major public policy, surely need to be made orally to the Assembly. This permits timely scrutiny, and thereafter allows the Assembly to monitor and evaluate performance. In the Chamber yesterday, the leader of the house gave a cursory and unsatisfactory response to my concerns on the announcement of the review of affordable housing supply. She said it was for the Government to decide whether an oral or written statement was appropriate. The Welsh Government's press statement on this matter includes endorsements from Community Housing Cymru and the Chartered Institute of Housing specifically, and I quote:

'If we get this review right, it will be a big step towards solving the housing crisis.'

And, quote:

'We welcome today’s announcement of a review into housing policy in Wales.' 

The importance of the review can be clearly inferred from these statements that were sought in advance by the Welsh Government, yet we have had no opportunity to scrutinise its scope or the suitability of those asked to conduct it.

Finally, there was a comprehensive review of housing need in 2015 sponsored by the Welsh Government. This was conducted by the UK's leading authority on housing need. It has not been acted upon. Why a new review? These are obviously vital questions. Llywydd, what powers do you have to require a Minister to make an oral statement in such circumstances?

Thank you for the notification of your intention to raise this as a point of order. As I said following a similar issue that was raised in a point of order yesterday, Government business is a matter for Welsh Ministers, not for me. But Ministers are accountable to this Assembly, and it is my expectation that they should not undermine that principle by making major policy announcements outside the Chamber. I expect that major announcements should be made directly to this Assembly so that there is the opportunity that you have sought, David Melding, for Members to scrutinise the Government on issues such as this.

Of course, it's important to remind Members as well—as I'm sure you're all very familiar with—of the various routes available to you to bring issues to the Chamber if the Government does not provide opportunities for examination. Those include emergency and topical questions, oral questions and opposition debates, and in addition, I'd say that Members can make representations about proposed Government business through the Business Committee, and I would hope that the leader of the house would give serious consideration to any such representations made by political parties here.

The next item is topical questions, but no topical questions were selected.

And we move to the 90-second statements. Mike Hedges. 

Diolch, Llywydd. I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to congratulate the Baptist Union of Wales on its hundred and fiftieth anniversary. I speak as a member of Seion Newydd, the Welsh Baptist chapel based in Morriston. Yesterday, I attended an event in the Pierhead to celebrate the hundred and fiftieth anniversary of Welsh Baptists, and I'm very pleased that so many Members, including you, Llywydd, were present.

I want to highlight the role that the Welsh Baptists, along with other Welsh nonconformist chapels, played in the continuity of the Welsh language during the early part of the twentieth century. It also played a major role in Welsh politics, and provided many members to the Liberals, Labour and Plaid Cymru. The success of the Baptists' cause can be seen in the villages, towns and cities of Wales where there were in excess of 1,000 Baptist chapels.

Welsh Baptist ministers have played a major role in Welsh politics at hymn writing. Lewis Valentine was a famous hymn writer, whose most famous hymn was Gweddi dros Gymru, but was also an early member of Plaid Cymru and one of the three who in 1936 set a bombing school on fire. Thomas Price was a leading figure in the political and religious life of Victorian Wales, and a minister at Calfaria Baptist Chapel, Aberdare, whose first job was as a pageboy. Joseph Harris, Welsh Baptist minister—who had 'Gomer' as his bardic name—on 1 January 1814 launched the first Welsh language weekly Seren Gomer in Swansea. We, as a nation, owe a great deal of gratitude to the Baptist Union of Wales for what they've achieved for the last 150 years.

On 1 April 1918, David Lloyd George approved the creation of the Royal Air Force, the world's first entirely separate and independent air force. The RAF would become the most powerful air force in the world, with more than 290,000 personnel and 23,000 aircrafts. Then, at a crucial point in world history, the RAF defended our island against the Nazi onslaught, in what became the most famous air battle in history, the Battle of Britain. But we in Wales are no strangers to the RAF's history and success. The famous bouncing bomb of the dambusters was tested in the Elan valley. Factory workers at Broughton built the Lancaster plane, which still flies today with the Royal Air Force in the Battle of Britain memorial flight. And the idea behind the RAF red arrows was formed in Wales, with the creation of the RAF yellowjacks at RAF Valley, in 1963.

Llywydd, to mark this momentous year in the RAF's history, there will be special events, activities, and other initiatives at local, regional and national levels, which will be running from this month until the end of November. One of the most notable events will be the centenary baton relay, which will see a specially designed baton visit 100 sites associated with the RAF, in 100 days. The baton will be visiting several locations in Wales, from 1 May to 11 May, starting in St Athan, and ending in RAF Valley.

We have so much to be thankful for, as the RAF has valiantly defended our freedom. If I could finish with the words of David Lloyd George, who said, 

'The heavens are their battlefield. They are the Cavalry of the Clouds.'

The next item is a statement by the Chair of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, and the National Assembly's decision in relation to subordinate legislation procedures. I call on the Chair of the committee, Mick Antoniw, to make his statement.

Thank you, Llywydd. Six weeks ago, on 7 March, this Assembly debated the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee’s report on the 'Scrutiny of regulations made under the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill'. Our inquiry that preceded that report considered the appropriateness of the scope and nature of delegated powers provided in the Bill to UK and Welsh Ministers, and the procedures that should to be used to scrutinise that delegated legislation. Given the Bill’s passage through the House of Lords, the report focused on amendments that we believed should be made to the Bill, and addressed questions that were raised by the Secretary of State for Wales in a letter to the Llywydd on 16 January.

Our report made seven recommendations, four of which recommended amendments to the EU withdrawal Bill. And for that reason, we believed it important and appropriate to seek the National Assembly’s views on those recommendations, and therefore the motion asking the National Assembly to note the committee report also requested that it endorse recommendations 1, 2, 4 and 7. And, on 7 March, that motion was agreed unanimously—there were no objections.

Consequently, on 22 March, the Llywydd wrote to the Secretary of State for Wales drawing his attention to the recommendations within our report, and that he receive the letter as formal notification of the National Assembly for Wales's position on what amendments should be made to the Bill in respect of procedures for the scrutiny of subordinate legislation made under its provision.

Members may not be aware that, subsequent to the events that I have summarised, the Leader of the House and Chief Whip formally responded to the committee’s report. In addition, the First Minister wrote to the Secretary of State for Wales in relation to both our report on the EU withdrawal Bill and the Bill’s sifting committee provisions. In both pieces of correspondence, the Welsh Government reject recommendation 2 of our report—that the recommendation of the sifting committee should be binding, save where the Assembly resolves otherwise.

On 17 April, I wrote to the First Minister to seek clarification on the reasons for the approach the Welsh Government has adopted. In particular, I have asked whether he could explain why, having advised in a letter to the Secretary of State for Wales on 5 February that matters relating to the sifting committee were for the National Assembly to determine, he subsequently wrote to the Secretary of State on 29 March rejecting a recommendation that had been unanimously endorsed by the National Assembly about the operation of that sifting committee. The First Minister has responded to my letter of 17 April this morning, for which I am grateful, and I note the comments that he has made.

I recognise that, during the Plenary debate, the leader of the house told the National Assembly that the Welsh Government was reserving its position on recommendation 2, pending thorough consideration. However, the leader of the house did not seek to amend the motion to reflect that position, which, as previously stated, was then unanimously endorsed by the whole house.

Without prejudicing the will of the Government—or without prejudicing the will of any Government—the National Assembly for Wales should not find itself in the position where it expresses a formal, all-party position that is then subsequently, or very soon after, called into question within correspondence of which the Assembly as a whole is not aware.

I've made clear to the First Minister in my letter to him that, as a committee, we are concerned generally at the transfer of power from legislatures to executives. The approach the Welsh Government has adopted on these matters undermines the prerogative of the legislature. Equally, it confuses the roles of parliaments and governments and makes proceedings here harder to understand for members of the public, to the detriment of devolution.

To make matters worse, the approach of the Welsh Government and the confusion around roles has now regrettably found its way into a UK Government supplementary memorandum on delegated powers in the EU withdrawal Bill. The memorandum was published on Monday this week, and states,

'The Welsh Government, having sought the views of the National Assembly for Wales, has requested the sifting committee procedure should apply where the Welsh Ministers lay negative instruments under their Schedule 2 powers.'

It would therefore appear that the UK Government has been influenced by the views of the Welsh Government rather than the National Assembly in making decisions on the procedures that should apply to the scrutiny of regulations made by the Welsh Ministers. I therefore welcome the letter I received this morning from the Llywydd, indicating that she shares the committee's concerns and will be giving further consideration to this matter. 

Can I thank Mick Antoniw for seeking to defend the prerogatives of this Assembly so strongly? I think it's another example of Executive overreach. We were told at the dawn of devolution that we would do things differently. We would take what was best in the British parliamentary tradition, but we would ensure that we had openness and scrutiny, especially over—irony of irony—secondary legislation. And now we see the Welsh Government commit a deeply hostile act.

They weren't prepared to argue their case in open sight, despite the fact that this is a very long-standing principle that the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee has had, in terms of that we should really be setting the procedures for this type of subordinate legislation and other vital matters. But, really, not to argue the case, to allow a motion to proceed and not oppose it, but then, in a calculated way, to petition the UK Government not to act on our recommendation. And, indeed, we don't even know that they told them what our recommendation was because it was a very strange reply we received in terms of the comment that was read out by Mick Antoniw. 

As I said, this is part of a general trend by the Welsh Government when it seeks to set and mark its own homework in terms of the procedures that should apply. And, then, the other defence is, 'Well, Ministers are following the Counsel General's guidelines', as if the Counsel General is in charge of what sort of procedures the legislature should apply in its scrutiny of legislation. It really is a remarkable tangle, and now we have it in this most important part of the constitution when we're repatriating so much law that had previously been passed over to Brussels. 

I really think it's shabby. Can I just assure Mick Antoniw that in all his efforts, as Chair of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, to take this matter forward and hold the Government to account, he'll have our full support?

Thank you for those comments, and they very much reflect, I think, the views I hope I've expressed, although we've not had the opportunity obviously to have a detailed discussion of what happened. When the report was presented, I actually went off message and made a very specific comment that I thought was important, and that is: it is not for Government to determine the mechanism for its own scrutiny. It is a fundamental part of the legislature. And I think the Government's response at that time was actually supportive of that. It is recognised. It is almost the rule of law of parliaments. So, this statement is not so much to do with the actual issue of the binding nature of the role of a sifting committee; it is actually about the principle whereby Government agrees, we all agree, that it is for the Assembly to determine the scrutiny of Government, and where that has been breached, it is certainly my role as the Chair of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, and its members, to actually stand up and draw attention to the fact that this is a matter of principle.

I recognise the points that were made and I recognise the comments that have been made by the First Minister in the letter to me, but time I don't think is a justification for that sort of breach. I note that when the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee was asked to scrutinise, for example, the continuity Bill at very short notice, Members went to considerable lengths to ensure that they were available and put the time in to actually carry out that process. So, this is a matter that I think is very important that it does not happen again.

Can I welcome the statement by the Chair of our committee, the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, Mick Antoniw? I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments expressed and those expressed by David Melding, a fellow member of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee.

This is a serious matter—absolutely serious matter—because, and I won't go over the history again, but obviously there's always a tension between governments and their individual legislatures. We'll hear, doubtless later on this afternoon, of the tension of powers lost between here and Westminster, but this is an issue of powers lost between us and the Government—a power grab internally, if you like, between Welsh Government and the Assembly itself.

Recommendation 2 that was passed unanimously here says that,

'The recommendation made by the sifting committee under recommendation 1 should be binding, save where the National Assembly resolves otherwise. This requirement should be reflected on the face of the Bill.'

I've got to say that that is not the most radical piece of legislation we've ever passed in this place. We've agreed unanimously and it puts the onus firmly on the National Assembly for Wales, where it should properly reside, in terms of the importance of scrutiny in this place. It is difficult enough performing scrutiny to a detailed degree as it is, with the various pressures on us, and obviously only about 40 or so Assembly Members can legitimately take part in that scrutiny process, and then when things are taken away from us, which we thought were previously agreed, that does not stack up.

Also, in correspondence, it has been embarrassing, not just for CLAC, but also, I would contend, for Llywydd here, when the position has been agreed and the Secretary of State then discovers that actually that agreed position of the National Assembly has been overridden by the First Minister here without recourse to this National Assembly for Wales. So, it is a moot point to ask what value we can place on unanimous votes placed and passed in this legislature when the First Minister can subsequently, and without warning, reject one of the main recommendations that had been passed unanimously, as Mick Antoniw has said.

The other important point, as regards the EU withdrawal Bill itself, which doubtless we will be discussing more in the next statement, is that the primacy of Welsh Ministers over the legislature here in the Senedd, as regards the sifting process, has found its way into the UK Government's supplementary memorandum on delegated powers in the EU withdrawal Bill itself. This is totally unacceptable and it undermines the decision-making processes of this Assembly, of which we are all proud members.

I seek reassurance. I note all the communications that have gone back and forth and the apologies, but at the end of the day, this is plainly just not good enough and it's a poor signal of the way the rest of the negotiations are going on as regards the totality of the EU withdrawal Bill, if we cannot get this situation correct.

The Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, we can respond in an emergency. We did that within a day with the continuity Bill, despite David Melding, to be fair, on a policy ground—even though that is not a legitimate concern for CLAC—not being totally involved in that procedure. We managed to turn it around in an urgent situation in a day. So, the First Minister's argument about the urgency of the situation trumping our recommendation does not hold water, and I look forward to further discussions on the matter. Diolch yn fawr. 

Thank you for those comments. This is a matter of constitutional principles with regard to the separation of powers. We know we have all had serious concerns about the very serious transfers of powers and the way in which powers will have to be exercised as a result of the withdrawal Bill and the developments around Brexit. We have all expressed the very serious concerns and recognised the real challenges and dangers that exist with regard to the exercise of Henry VIII powers.

The reason for bringing this statement today is very simple: this is a significant matter and the danger is if it was not challenged at this stage there would be a precedent established. So, my hope is that that principle of separation of powers is recognised and also that what did happen should not be a precedent in respect of any future matters, particularly when we come to the issue of the exercise of Henry VIII powers. 

I thank the Chair of the committee. 

The next item is a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill and I call on the Cabinet Secretary to make his statement—Mark Drakeford.

Thank you very much, Llywydd, and thank you for agreeing to the making of this statement about developments in respect of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill.

As Members will be aware, over recent weeks and months, intensive discussions have taken place aimed at resolving the disagreements between ourselves and the Scottish Government on the one hand and the UK Government on the other about clause 11 of the EU withdrawal Bill.

Llywydd, UK Government Ministers are today laying amendments to the EU withdrawal Bill in the House of Lords that reflect an inter-governmental agreement that has also been published this morning. Taken together, these are sufficient to enable Welsh Ministers to recommend that the National Assembly gives its legislative consent to the Bill in a motion that we will debate next month. This should also pave the way for the UK Government to withdraw its reference of our Law Derived from the European Union (Wales) Bill to the Supreme Court, and for the Government here to initiate a process to repeal that Bill, which, as Members will recall, was always intended as a backstop in the event that these negotiations did not reach a satisfactory outcome.

I would like to explain why the Government believes that the agreement that we have reached provides sufficient protection for our devolution settlement and allows us to support the UK Bill. In doing so, I want to acknowledge the significant contribution made by the Scottish Brexit Minister, Michael Russell, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in the work we have carried out together on these matters.

Llywydd, there are a series of ways in which the agreement represents a major advance over the original proposals. Members will recall that, at its most fundamental, the disagreement was about the principle of powers currently exercised through a common European Union rulebook, and whether the UK Government had a unilateral right to decide where those powers should rest the other side of Brexit. The original clause 11 diverted all these powers to Westminster. We argued that powers in devolved areas belong here, in the National Assembly. Today’s amendment reverses the UK Government’s original position. It creates a default position in which powers over devolved policy lie with the National Assembly, as they have done since 1999. Now, we recognise that, without the rulebook provided by EU legislation, there is a need for UK-wide frameworks in specific areas to avoid disruption to the UK’s own internal market. Some of these UK frameworks will be underpinned by legislation and will be subject to a new, temporary, constraint, which simply ensures continuation of current common arrangements. Llywydd, this is clearly much more compatible with the reserved-powers model of devolution. 

Llywydd, the second way in which today's agreement represents a significant advance is that it recognises that the Sewel convention will apply to secondary regulation-making powers—the powers that will be used to put in place these new temporary restrictions on competence. The UK Government will not normally put such regulations to Parliament for approval unless the devolved legislatures and administrations have given their consent. Moreover, in the event of a legislature withholding consent, Parliament will be asked to decide if the regulation should be made on the basis of even-handed information. That is to say, legislators will not only have to rely simply on the UK Government's own account, but they will be supplied with information provided independently by both the Welsh and the Scottish Governments.

Thirdly, Llywydd, the UK Government has always claimed that the constraints envisaged would be temporary, but there was nothing in the original Bill to substantiate this. The agreement now guarantees sunset clauses, which the amendments put on the face of the Bill.

Llywydd, the fourth way in which this agreement represents a major advance is, as you will know, that the original clause 11 was constructed such that primary legislation to put in place new UK-wide frameworks, for example, on agricultural support, could be pushed through Parliament without obtaining, or even asking for, the Assembly’s consent. The agreement specifically rules out this possibility. 

In a fifth development, a significant concern about the original UK Government approach was that, whereas the current restriction on legislating in contradiction of EU law applies to all legislatures, including Parliament, there was no parallel restriction on Parliament legislating in respect of England to that imposed on the devolved legislatures by the original clause 11. Here too the agreement contains a firm commitment from the UK Government that it will not bring forward such legislation while frameworks are being negotiated.

Penultimately, Llywydd, by spelling out a more collaborative process of inter-governmental working to develop the regulations, the agreement also takes a first significant step towards an equitable approach to inter-governmental working of the sort that we argue should be characteristic of the post European Union United Kingdom.

Finally, in terms of the concurrent powers in clauses 7, 8 and 9 of the Bill for Ministers of the Crown to reach over to make correcting amendments to legislation within devolved competence, the agreement codifies assurances already given by Ministers in Parliament that such powers will not normally be used without the consent of devolved Ministers, providing a further layer of certainty.

Llywydd, the outcome is not perfect, of course. We would have preferred there to be no clause 11 and for each Government to trust each other’s undertakings not to legislate in areas where we agree UK-wide frameworks are needed until such frameworks have been agreed. We have repeatedly been clear we were prepared to give such assurances and to accept similar assurances from the other Governments. Others have sought stronger reassurances that no part of the United Kingdom, including England, could develop its own legislation in relation to these areas where a UK-wide framework is needed until such a framework had been negotiated and agreed, and this agreement provides that reassurance.

Of course, there are those who argue that it is unacceptable, even in extreme circumstances,  that Parliament could act to impose constraints on devolved competence. But until a new constitutional settlement for the whole United Kingdom is negotiated—for which this Government has long argued—it is the constitutional reality that Parliament retains that role. This agreement, like the Sewel convention, does no more than recognise that fact while underlining the political imperative of Parliament acting on the basis of consent where devolved issues are at stake.

And, in practical terms, Llywydd, we accept that there has to be a backstop, a way of bringing disputes to a close that cannot be resolved by inter-governmental negotiation. Until and unless we agree an alternative to proceeding by consensus—and I remind Members that we put forward just such a proposal to achieve that way of acting in our 'Brexit and Devolution' paper last year—then that backstop will lie with Parliament. 

Now, Llywydd, of course, I had hoped that the inter-governmental agreement could have been agreed by all three Governments, including our Scottish colleagues. We remain strongly committed to working closely with both the Scottish and the UK Governments to take forward further discussions on future frameworks and on the negotiations with the EU 27. I have made it clear that we will continue to work with both Governments right up to the last possible moment to see if any further helpful refinements to the current agreements can be made, and the JMC(EN) will meet again next week to track any such progress.

Llywydd, this deal represents very substantial progress from where all this began, and soundly defends the devolved interests of this National Assembly. It has meant compromise on both sides. That is the art of negotiation, and I believe the outcome is a mature agreement between Governments that is respectful of each other’s interests.  

With this matter approaching resolution, we will be able to focus with renewed attention on the wider context of the UK’s future relationship with the European Union. Here too we will be advocating negotiation, realism and compromise. We want an agreement that protects Wales’s and the UK’s vital interests while showing respect and realism towards the interests of our European partners. 

I commend the agreement and the amendments related to it to Members and look forward to bringing forward the legislative consent motion in due course.

Unlike the perhaps predictably Pavlovian response from certain quarters, may I start by thanking and congratulating you and David Lidington, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, for the measured, mature and pragmatic way you've conducted negotiations to secure agreement on clause 11—

I do need to hear Mark Isherwood, please. Carry on, Mark.

—of the EU withdrawal Bill, reversing the current clause 11 so that returning EU powers in otherwise devolved areas will pass to the devolved Governments and legislatures? I also thank you for the inclusive way you've approached this with regard to myself and David Melding, and not only the evidence that you've consistently given to the external affairs committee, which I'm sure my colleagues will refer to, but the way that you've shared information confidentially with us that's helped us to work with you as matters move forward. I think we all hoped and believed that we could reach this point and share, I think, perhaps your, if not delight in all aspects of this, relief that we are now where we are.

We've long recognised that powers and competencies held at a EU level that apply to devolved matters will pass to this place on the point of exit or the date or time of exit, unless there was UK Government intervention, and we recognise that you have now simply agreed not to legislate in areas where UK-wide frameworks are needed until such frameworks have been agreed.

You have stated in the agreement, the inter-governmental agreement, in the EU Bill, on establishment of common frameworks, that there's a duty on UK Ministers to regularly report to the UK Parliament on progress on implementing common frameworks, removing temporary clause 11 regulations and powers, that the UK Minister will formally send such reports to the devolved Governments, which, in turn, will share these with their own legislatures. In what form will that sharing with the legislatures occur? How regularly does 'regularly' mean in terms of UK Ministers? Is that a time-specified regularity or is it something that will be triggered by particular events or circumstances agreed between yourselves?

You've indicated that you will continue to engage with the Scottish and UK Governments. I wonder if you could just expand a little bit more on how, particularly given the Scottish position—and I think, the will, certainly, of ourselves, that Scotland are ultimately also part of this agreement—how that will be progressed other than through the established JMC mechanism, unless that is all that currently exists. 

There is a duty on UK Ministers to seek the agreement of the devolved legislatures each time they propose to make regulations to put a policy area into the clause 11 so-called freeze. Will these regulations first be subject to agreement with the Welsh Government prior to their presentation to the devolved legislatures? Or what mechanism will exist to seek to secure that agreement before we're asked to consider them? We understand that this will allow the UK Parliament to approve regulations creating the freeze if a devolved legislature's agreement is refused or not provided within 40 days, subject to UK Ministers making a statement to the UK Parliament explaining why they decided to make regulations despite the absence of a devolved legislature's agreement. What, in your discussions, have you considered with the UK Government to be the likelihood of that situation occurring? Or, more likely, what safety mechanisms have been put in place to minimise the risk of that situation being arrived at?

We're aware now of the sunset or time limit on the regulation-making powers: of two years after exit day if not brought to an end sooner, and, on the temporary clause regulations themselves, of five years after they come into force if not revoked earlier. How will the different approaches that could then challenge agreed frameworks be adjudicated and addressed? Because clearly, at that point, when all the powers come out of the freezer and return to this place, there's a possibility that different approaches might occur. A list of 24 areas has been consistently referred to as being in the so-called deep freeze. We understand it's still 24 areas, although there might still be discussion over a smaller number, possibly in relation to state aid. Again, if you could perhaps give us some indication of the position regarding state aid, because as far as we're concerned, there is logic to state aid being subject to UK framework agreement.

I had—if I can find it—a final question. You stated that this should pave the way for the UK Government to withdraw its reference of the Law Derived from the European Union (Wales) Bill, or the continuity Bill, to the Supreme Court, and for the Welsh Government here to initiate a process to repeal that Bill. When I questioned you on this in committee last week, you indicated a number of possible mechanisms that might be applied, but have you had any further thought about how and over what time frame you might seek to repeal that Bill? Thank you.

I thank the Member for those detailed questions. I'll do my best to answer as many as I can. Mr Isherwood referred to a duty on UK Ministers to report regularly to the UK Parliament on progress in relation to frameworks. I believe that is likely to be on a three-monthly basis. We were keen on that because it puts real pressure into the system to reach agreements quickly on those matters. That report will be shared with the Assembly, as Mark Isherwood said.

I repeat my commitment to continuing to engage with the Scottish Government and the UK Government on outstanding matters, as the Scottish Government sees it, within this agreement. I spoke to Michael Russell, the Scottish Minister, last week and earlier this week. We commit ourselves to continued work on the issues that the Scottish Government has identified, and if anything can be done to improve the agreement in a way that would allow the Scottish Government to sign up to it and is acceptable to other parties, then we will work right up to the last minute to try to bring that about, and that's why we will go to the JMC again next week, with Scotland and the UK Government, to track progress on that. 

Mark Isherwood asked me how likely I thought it was that there wouldn't be agreement in relation to the matters that are to be placed in the freezer. I think that is very unlikely, because, as Members will have seen in an annex to the inter-governmental agreement, we set out the 24 areas that all three Governments are agreed are potentially subject to framework agreements, and there are two other matters—state aid and food geographical indications—that remain the subject of continued discussion between the administrations.

On the Supreme Court, as you will see, this is a reciprocal agreement that we have come to. The Attorney-General, if and when a legislative consent motion is passed on the floor of this Assembly, will go to the Supreme Court and seek to withdraw the reference that has been made there. We will then come forward with proposals to the National Assembly that would lead to the proposition being placed on the floor here, but the Law Derived from the European Union (Wales) Bill, as it still is, would be repealed. You cannot repeal a Bill that has not yet received the Royal Assent. This Bill is yet to be in that position, and the timings of matters are therefore dependent on that course of action. But we will come forward once the Attorney-General has taken the actions he has committed to taking, and put that proposition before this National Assembly for its determination.

I apologise, Cabinet Secretary, for missing your opening remarks, but I have read your statement in full.

'A significant achievement', 'A strong statement', 'Let's get on with making the most of the opportunities Brexit brings'. These are the statements from Alun Cairns, Ruth Davidson and Andrew R.T. Davies. Even the Prime Minister was thanking you today. Tories are clamouring over themselves to hail Labour's capitulation and their willingness to hand our Parliament's powers back to Westminster. Now, I believe that, by co-authoring 'Securing Wales' Future' with us and voting to support our continuity Bill, Labour in Wales had understood the threat to Wales and the undermining of our powers that Brexit brings. Our leverage has gone, leadership lost, and Parliament weakened. This is a Labour-Tory stitch-up like no other.

Llywydd, an answer to my letter, received this morning from the Cabinet Secretary, claimed that my tone was inflammatory. When he sells this Parliament and my country's democracy to Westminster, he can excuse my lack of conciliatory tone. The fact that he and all of the rest of you are not as incensed by this idea that this Assembly will be weakened by Westminster, as I am, shows where your priorities lie. 

In his oral statement, the Cabinet Secretary said that he would prefer if clause 11 were not included. My first somewhat obvious first question is: why has he therefore made a deal with the Tories that allows for clause 11 to stand? Does the Cabinet Secretary believe, as he has previously said, that this will lead to fewer powers for the National Assembly, or does he agree with the Prime Minister that this deal means more powers for Wales? Can I phrase it in another way? How many, and what powers, are you handing back to Westminster?

Llywydd, I have many more questions, but I have one final crucial question, for now. In his letter to MPs—and as you have outlined in your letter to me, and in your statement today—the UK Parliament retains the authority to legislate over this Parliament if agreement is not reached on issues. Can the Cabinet Secretary explain why he is happy for Westminster to act on devolved issues without, as is stated by David Lidington, the devolved legislature's consent?

Well, Llywydd, thank you very much for those questions.

I continue to regret some of the language that has been used by the leader of Plaid Cymru. The progress that she describes as capitulation and as a stitch-up was described by the First Minister of Scotland, in her letter to the Prime Minister today, as 'substantial progress having been made'. That is what Michael Russell said to the Scottish Parliament yesterday, when he described the many—the many—advances that have been made as a result of the negotiations. Considering the many steps that we have gained through collaboration with our Scottish colleagues, to call what we have achieved a capitulation and a stitch-up is so far removed from the facts that the Member is a victim of her own hyperbole. I'm afraid, really, it bears no relation to what is in front of this National Assembly.

When clause 11 was inverted in the amendments put forward in the House of Lords earlier in proceedings, we said, Llywydd, that there were four unanswered questions. All of those questions are answered by this agreement. We said, 'How are powers to be placed in the freezer?' to use Mark Isherwood's analogy. Well, now we know that they will be placed in the freezer with the agreement of this National Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. We said, 'What use can be made of the powers while they are there? Because we are prevented from using those powers by legislation.' Now, English Ministers are prevented from using those powers as well. Then we said, 'How will those powers be taken out of the freezer?' And now we know that we have a process for agreeing the frameworks that moves us into an entirely new constitutional space, and I think represents a major step forward in achieving the sort of arrangements that we want to see for the future of the United Kingdom.

Now, of course it is true that this party is a devolutionist party. We therefore recognise that in the constitutional arrangements we currently have, if agreement cannot be secured, there is a need for a backstop arrangement to ensure that arrangements can go forward, and as things stand, that lies with the UK Parliament. We have put forward proposals that would amend that and place all of that on a far more equal footing, but that's because we believe that Wales's future is best secured in the United Kingdom—in a United Kingdom that operates effectively, that operates on the basis of parity, that operates on the basis of equal esteem. If you are a nationalist party, then it is absolutely proper that you are clear with people that you do not share that belief. You are not a devolutionist, you are a separatist. You simply believe that Wales should be entirely responsible for everything that goes on. It's a perfectly respectable position to take, but I think people are entitled not simply to have it respectably, but also to have it openly and in a way that is clear about what people believe. That's why, when the Member asks what powers are being retained at Westminster, I point her to the list agreed with the Scottish Government—the list that is appended to the inter-governmental agreement. It's there for everybody to see.

'What happens if agreement is not reached?' the Member asked. I believe that this agreement puts us clearly in a space where we are dedicated to achieving agreement. If you can't, somebody has to be able to take action to resolve matters that cannot be operated otherwise. Our proposals, and this agreement, take a step on that journey that would make that position resolved by all four component parts of the United Kingdom, coming together for that purpose.

Can I welcome the statement and commend the finance Secretary for the serious, reflective and unmelodramatic approach that he has brought to this negotiation, and, I think, has produced a conclusion that is acceptable to all those in this Assembly who believe in Wales being a part of the United Kingdom? I said at an early stage that the Welsh Government's approach to this by promoting a continuity Bill was not necessarily a position that would be expected for any member of UKIP to go along with, but I was prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't a delaying tactic to avoid the consequences of the referendum, and I'm pleased that today's announcement fully justifies the confidence that I had in the Welsh Government in that task. Of course, I realise that those to the left of me on these benches will not agree with what I have to say on this, but I appreciate that it doesn't give Plaid Cymru all that they would like to see, and that there is a certain element of confidence that the UK Government will not resile from the promises of good behaviour—if I can put it that way—which are included as part of this agreement. 

I do think that if, in due course, there were to be an attempt on the part of the UK Government to launch a power grab that that would provoke a constitutional crisis of a very serious kind, and in those circumstances even Members of UKIP, who believe in respecting the results of referenda, would be on the side of those who want to preserve the powers of this Assembly. I don't believe, therefore, that any United Kingdom Government would be likely to wander into that territory, even inadvertently. 

I must say, I think it's rather bizarre that Plaid Cymru have taken the hyperbolic attitude, as the finance Secretary described it, to this, considering these are all powers at the moment over which we have no control whatsoever because they're vested in Brussels, in the hands of European Union Commissioners who we can't even name, let alone elect or dismiss, an in which institution, through the Council of Ministers, the United Kingdom has only 8.5 per cent of the votes. The European Parliament, which has very limited powers to effect legislation in the EU—in the European Parliament, Wales has only four MEPs out of 750-odd. So, there is a massive enhancement of democracy and prospect here, even if temporarily some of these areas of policy will remain in the hands of the United Kingdom Government rather than being devolved to the Assembly here in Wales. 

There are three aspects of this agreement that I think are worth while pinpointing on this point, in particular the sunset clauses that are referred to in paragraph 7 of the inter-governmental agreement, which really establish that these powers are going to be returned to the Assembly in full measure in a relatively short time. Up to seven years is not a tremendously long time in the life of a legislature, even one as young as the National Assembly for Wales. We all accept that to have a working internal market in the United Kingdom there will have to be common frameworks and there will be a process of negotiation that will be ongoing, in which, although we don't ultimately have the power to legislate, the voice of the Welsh Government and the Welsh people will be heard in its negotiations with the United Kingdom Government.

The second point I'd like to draw attention to is in paragraph 8 of the inter-governmental agreement, the last sentence of which says that

'the powers will not be used to enact new policy in devolved areas',

by the United Kingdom Government, but that

'the primary purpose of using such powers will be administrative efficiency.'

So, what we're talking about here is just a working arrangement, the very opposite, actually, of the power grab that is said to be taking place. 

The last point I'd like to make on this is on paragraph 9. It says that the National Assembly for Wales of course can amend directly applicable EU legislation in all the areas that are not covered by that part of the agreement that gives the power of legislation to the United Kingdom Government. So, we will be getting powers back, even in this period of seven years when we don't have complete control over these areas. So, this is a great advance in democracy in Wales.

I do hope, though, when we do have complete freedom, ultimately, that the existence of common frameworks will not be too sclerotic and that we will have the capacity to diverge, because I see one of the great advantages of returning powers from Brussels to Cardiff, Edinburgh, Belfast, as well as to Westminster, is that we can have a certain amount of legislative competition between the various parts of the United Kingdom. There are different ways in which we can work together, and we don't all have to do things in the same way and move together at the same speed. By a process of internal competition, we will discover which is the better process and which is the better form of legislation, and everybody in the United Kingdom, not least the people of Wales, will benefit from that process. So, I congratulate the finance Secretary on his achievement, and I think it bodes well for the future.

Llywydd, thank you very much for those questions.

I'm just going to reply to a small of number of them. What would happen, the Member asked, if the UK Government were to resile from the inter-governmental agreement that we have reached with them? Well, he is right: it would then be a genuine constitutional crisis. I don't think that will happen, because I think I have to proceed on the basis that if a Minister in another Government, after many weeks and months of patient negotiation, comes to a conclusion on which they have to seek agreement from all of their UK colleagues to turn it into legislation and into that agreement, when they have gone to all of those efforts and it is codified between us, I think we have to assume that they mean what they say and that they will abide by it. There is no other possible basis on which inter-governmental relationships can be conducted.

He pointed to the sunset clause. I think frameworks will be released far faster from the freezer than the seven years that it sets out, and there's an additional reason in this agreement why that should be the case, because this agreement prevents English Ministers from making changes in English policy until those frameworks are agreed. There is every incentive now on all partners equally to come to those arrangements as fast as possible, and I believe we will see rapid progress in that area. Of course, that was the second point that the Member made himself: that the powers cannot be used to enact new policies. It simply preserves the status quo—the status quo in the European Union rule book—the European rule book that many Members in this Chamber took to the people of Wales and tried to persuade them that we should remain in perpetually, which I agreed with. All this does is to say that this position, which was supported, will remain the case—will remain the case and not change. It will remain the case—the position we argued for in the referendum will remain the case until we have an agreed way of change.

Finally, he asked about what happens to the areas that are not being kept in the freezer. Well, he was right on that: they come back here immediately. In the original clause 11, all of them were to be held at Westminster. Now, the bulk of them return here immediately, and we can get on with the business of devising policies and ways of doing things that suit Welsh circumstances.

Can I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his statement, and can I put on record my recognition of the commitment he, personally, has given to this work? He has undoubtedly been leading from the front. Also, I thank Mike Russell, the Scottish Minister who's been involved, and, if I have to, David Lidington as well—also, the officials of the Welsh Government, who have, behind the scenes, on a far more frequent basis, been involved in these discussions. We have come a long way from where we were in the original European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. I think the word 'maturity' has been mentioned, and it is important to recognise that if we wish to be considered as being in a mature relationship with the UK Government, there are things sometimes we have to expect and agree on. Perhaps my concern is that history has shown that it isn't always reciprocated, and we have some concerns in relation to other sides being able to also show maturity.

The agreement, Cabinet Secretary—obviously, we haven't seen the amendments, and we look forward to that. The committee will look forward to seeing those amendments, and the particular legal implications of those amendments, in the coming weeks, before we debate the LCM, which you have indicated that you will be laying at some point in May. But on the agreement, and the memorandum, there are a couple of concerns that I have on that. The word 'normally' is often used, as has frequently been commented on. I think we do need to have an understanding of what 'normally' means, because the law courts often talk about what is normal and what is unreasonable, and there's clarification there, because there's a question that we shouldn't withhold things when it's unreasonable to do so, but perhaps the UK Government could also move faster on what is reasonable force upon them to ensure that they deliver. This agreement says, 'Nothing can go on in England whilst that's in the freezer', but what happens if it suits us to actually get it out of the freezer but not England, and therefore they're being unreasonable? How do we take that measurement forward, to push the agenda, so that we get a solution that suits everybody, if that agreement comes? I think that's important, because it could otherwise perhaps be used to block progress within the devolved nations. 

The mention in paragraph 7 about the time span and the temporary five-year period on it—the sunset clause; I couldn't remember the word. That's seven years in total, actually, it could be: two years to the time at which that expires, and from that point another five years. That actually takes us halfway through, if not all the way through, the next Assembly. So, it actually does restrict us as an Assembly to make policy decisions, and even for those policy decisions to be put to the people for decision during elections. So, it is a long time span, and I think we need to look at what circumstances will actually be five years, and which ones we can get done quicker that, because there's a blanket five years at this point in time, and it is a long period to restrict us on making some decisions that would be of benefit to Wales, and would be of benefit to the policies of Wales. I think that's a very important issue there. 

The progress report in paragraph 9 of the inter-government agreement indicates that UK Government Ministers will formally send reports to the Ministers, and the Ministers will obviously share these reports with their own legislatures as part of the reporting arrangements. But how can we feed back on that report as a legislature? Where is our input into the debates on that report, and the progress on that? That's not quite clear. 

In the memorandum that also accompanies it, it says that UK Ministers may make recommendations where they are approved by the UK Parliament, but will they ever be presented to us? It's approval by the UK Parliament, but it doesn't say that we'll actually have any consideration, in circumstances where there is perhaps a clause 11 regulation being made. It says that if the consent of the legislature has not been provided, they can take action with a written statement setting out why they've done that. You consider the written statement, but where's our input into that? Where do we get that information? Where is the report to us as to why they've made that decision, and how can we respond to that report? I think it's important that we also address that. 

And finally in point 9 of the memorandum, the final sentence says: 

'which cannot be amended by the devolved administrations because clause 11 regulations have been made, the UK Government commits that it will first consult the relevant devolved administration(s)'—

the word 'consult' is there again, and not 'seek consent', either of Ministers or the devolved administrations. So, again, we have a situation where only consultation takes place and no consent is sought, or agreement is reached.

So, I still have some deep concerns over the issues that there are still areas where we will not have an opportunity to have an input into that process as a legislature, never mind as Ministers, and I would hope that you will perhaps reflect upon those, because the 24 areas identified are actually quite huge—agriculture, organic farming, animal welfare, environmental quality, food labelling, fisheries management and support, hazardous substances—and I assume that includes hazardous waste—public procurement, nutritional health claims. There's a lot in there that those 24 areas cover. A lot of areas could be frozen for the next seven years.  

Llywydd, thank you. First of all, can I provide the Member with an assurance that an LCM will be brought forward between Report and Third Reading Stages in the House of Lords? He's right to say that the 'not normally' obligation on the UK Government is balanced by the 'not unreasonably withheld' obligation on the devolved administrations. 

Let me deal with what he said on the sunset clause. Let's be clear that the first two-year period will be covered by the transition agreement that the UK Government has now agreed with the European Union, So, for that period of time, we are all committed to the existing rule book and existing arrangements being in place. I said in my earlier answer to Neil Hamilton that the five years that would follow thereafter is a long stop, and let's remember that the original clause 11 had no long stop at all. Those powers could have indefinitely been retained at Westminster, and securing a sunset clause, I can tell you, has required weeks and weeks of argument between our Government and the Scottish Government on the one hand, and the UK Government on the other. And it is a very significant step forward on the part of the UK Government that they have been prepared to insert that backstop into the legislation. I think we will be over and done with on all of this well before we reach that time.

I echo what David Rees said about the work of officials in this area. Officials of the Welsh Government, the Scottish Government and the UK Government have worked tirelessly, particularly over the last two months, to secure the position that we have arrived at today. They deserve the thanks of all Members of this Assembly.

David Rees referred to the progress reports that are identified in the agreement. I said to Mark Isherwood that I think they will be produced every three months and they will be made available to this Assembly. David Rees, as Chair of a major committee of the Assembly, quite rightly points to the need to flesh out the detail now of how scrutiny of this agreement will be carried out by the National Assembly. I'm absolutely happy to commit on behalf of the Government that we will want to talk with the committees that will discharge those responsibilities about the best ways in which that can be carried out.

It would, Llywydd, have been premature, I believe, for me to have agreed anything with the Scottish and UK Governments on the actions that lie with the parliamentary side of this institution without first having had an opportunity to talk to those who are responsible for discharging those scrutiny responsibilities. We have provided, I believe, in this agreement the raw material that guarantees that those scrutiny opportunities will be available to the National Assembly. Now we need to work with you to make sure that the practical ways in which that is discharged here are ones that meet the requirements of committees and allow the Government to discharge its responsibilities too. 

I'm sorry to heap another encomium on the Minister, but I think his commanding performance throughout this matter—I've not always agreed with what he's done, but I do think we're now seeing the fruits of a very imaginative compromise that will respect the results of the referendum and strengthen the British constitution.

Llywydd, devolution was predicated on EU membership. It probably would have been designed very differently if Britain had not been in the European Union in the 1990s. We ended up with a very maximum type of devolution—remarkable really, given our history as a unitary state. As a result of your negotiations, that nature of the devolution settlement is not only unchanged, but it appears to me that it will be radically strengthened.

Let us not forget, a lot of these powers that will be frozen—the things that will be required to run frameworks—at the moment, in reality, are not with us; they're at the level of European governance. It does seem to me that you have strengthened the role the Welsh Government and this legislature will have as we now see the emergence of shared governance over vital matters to the whole of the United Kingdom.

Indeed, the Scottish Government, from the start, as the Welsh Government has, has accepted the need for frameworks to govern areas of common interest. We are hearing constantly from, for example, environmental groups, that this is very, very important. So, I think framework governance is essential and I particularly welcome the inter-governmental agreement and I hope this sets a precedent for the future conduct of these frameworks where they will need to operate and be amended in years to come. So, I do congratulate him on defending the powers of this Assembly and, indeed, as I said, on preserving in a very imaginative way the expansive form of devolution that we have. 

Can I finally say that I think the equal treatment principle of those powers in the freezer—I have to use that analogy as well—is a remarkable achievement? It does preserve our rights and interests, and it forms a basis, I think, as I said, for proper shared governance in the future. 

Llywydd, can I thank the Member for what he has said and for the very careful attention that he has paid to all of this and for the opportunity along the way to discuss developments with him, as I have with other parties here? He is absolutely right to say that this agreement delivers a strengthened role for the Welsh Government and for the National Assembly for Wales across a whole swathe of very important responsibilities.

The UK Government have said today that everything that we have agreed will be made available to the Scottish Government, and I believe that the Scottish Government has also indicated that, despite the fact that they wish that this agreement could go further and we continue to work with them on that, they too will operate fully within the frameworks that our agreement has laid down, and that means not simply that our powers have been strengthened, but that devolution across the whole of the United Kingdom will be in a different place than it would have been had we not been able to reach the agreements that we have. And the equal treatment principle that we have secured, in which English Ministers will be in exactly the same position as Welsh Ministers and Scottish Ministers is, indeed, a fundamentally important new piece of ground that we have gained, and I think it will put a new impetus into the whole of this agreement to get the processes that it sets out done, completed, and powers entirely returned to the institution in pretty short order.

Can I say how personally devastated I am by your statement, Cabinet Secretary? And, in the interests of time, I will just concentrate on some questions. Over the years, we've gained powers here in response to referendum results that we've had here in Wales. Twenty four of our powers are about to be frozen for up to seven years in a deep freeze. That's handing powers from this place to elsewhere—powers that have always come to this place from Brussels to Cardiff without any intersection.

On Monday afternoon, in the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, we had a discussion on clause 11. You say in your statement: 'This outcome is not perfect.' I agree with you there, Cabinet Secretary.

'We would have preferred there to be no Clause 11'.

I also agree with you there. And obviously you made the point in CLAC on Monday afternoon that the inversion of clause 11 in March that the UK Government had suggested still wasn't enough for you—still wasn't enough for you; there was too much ambiguity. It still looked as though Westminster were going to run the timetable, the powers and everything, despite the fact that they inverted it. In other words, the powers weren't going from Brussels to Westminster and then, potentially, on to Cardiff. Now they're going from Brussels to Cardiff with some retained in London—the inversion bit. So, I was with you up to that point and I was with you with your dissatisfaction at the current state of play on Monday afternoon. So rapid things have happened in those 24 hours. Obviously, 24 hours is a long time in politics, but can you just explain what exactly happened between Monday afternoon and Tuesday afternoon—yesterday?

In the interests of time, my only other question is about shared governance, because we are where we are. It's about the frameworks and who decides. In other words, what we want is confirmation that the old diktat of 'Westminster decides and then it tells us what to do' is not good enough. There is lots of creative use of the word 'normally' here, and people can interpret 'normally' in several ways. We want an assurance in this desperate situation that the shared governance as regards vitally important frameworks is actually truly shared. In other words, that our input here from the National Assembly for Wales and from Welsh Government will actually be acknowledged, and that there will be parity of esteem and parity of performance, as opposed to just Westminster deciding and us lamely following. Because it is disappointing that Welsh Government has put its trust in a Tory Government in Westminster. 

Daily here, we hear disparaging remarks from Labour Assembly Members about the Tory Government in Westminster, the very same Tory Government now that you have entrusted with the details to make sure that we do not lose powers. Trust is a very fragile commodity, particularly when you're dealing with the Conservatives. We've had people judging Conservative performance today, even, as regards austerity, welfare reform, women's pensions, all the rest of it—last week as well. Now, you are trusting that very same Government that has driven our people into poverty.

And my final point, people always say: why has Wales got fewer powers, less influence than Scotland, than Northern Ireland, than Manchester, where there's devolved policing, than the London assembly? Well, you know why? Because, at the end of the day, Westminster Government always knows that Labour in Wales will always capitulate.

Well, Llywydd, I feel sure that when the Member has an opportunity to study what has been agreed, that some of the anxiety he has expressed this afternoon will be assuaged. He is a reasonable individual, I know, and I genuinely believe that when he comes to look at the detail, some of the points that he has made he will feel can be regarded differently.

He said that inversion of clause 11 was not enough, and of course he's right, and of course we agreed with that. And then he asked what had happened yesterday to reach such a rapid agreement. Yesterday was a very rapid day of to-ing and fro-ing between all three participants in the Joint Ministerial Committee. It was a judgment: it was a judgment that this Government made, that if we had not indicated yesterday that we were prepared to bring a legislative consent motion before this National Assembly, that everything that we had achieved during these negotiations, everything that I've set out this afternoon that is different and an advance for devolution on the original clause 11, that without an agreement with ourselves and without an agreement with the Scottish Government, the UK Government would simply revert to the original amendment that it had put down in the House of Lords. Everything that we had achieved, everything that the Scottish First Minister refers to as 'substantial advances': none of that would have been secured. And that's what changed yesterday: the statement from the Scottish Minister; further negotiations and discussions between ourselves and the UK Government; and the securing by this Government of everything that jointly we had secured over weeks and months of painful and detailed negotiation. I think that that is why I think of this as a major achievement.

Dr Lloyd asked a very important question about who decides on the frameworks that will emerge as powers are handed back to the devolved administrations. Well, decision making will happen in two different ways. First of all, we have secured a parity set of arrangements in which all three—and if we have a devolved administration in Northern Ireland, all four—Governments will jointly work to secure those frameworks. It will not be a matter, as it far too often has been in the past, of the UK Government working on these things alone and producing a piece of paper at the eleventh hour and saying to us, 'There it is, you can have it if you want it.' No. This is completely different. We all work together on the frameworks, and that's how they are agreed.

And then, who decides? The National Assembly for Wales decides. Because where these frameworks require a legislative underpinning, whether that is through primary or secondary legislation, the Sewel convention will apply. And that, as well, is a major step forward in this agreement. For the first time, Sewel is guaranteed in regulations. It's always applied to primary legislation, and it will if frameworks need primary legislation. Now, it will apply to frameworks that require regulation making as well, and that will come here, to the floor of this National Assembly to decide. That's why, in the end, if you are negotiating in good faith with other governments, trust has to be allowed to operate.

It's not a trust, of course it's not a trust in the policy programme of a Government with which we have so many profound disagreements, but it is a trust-based arrangement between Governments when those arrangements are set out in legislation, when they are accompanied by an inter-governmental agreement, and to which all parties that are prepared and able to do so have formally and publicly signed up.

Can I, first of all, welcome your statement and the detail with which you've answered the various points that have been raised? It is right, as you will expect, that we adopt a cautious approach until we actually know the full details, until we've actually seen the amendments themselves and where they actually fit within the legislation. That is our role as a legislature: to scrutinise that, to also look at the interaction of all those sections. And, I have to say, having read through the papers on a number of occasions, the interrelationship between them is extremely complex; it's almost going back to the resurrection of dialectical material as I'm trying to work out precisely what the arrangements are. But I do recognise also, as you've said, that there will be a full debate and decision in this Chamber, in the sense that there will be a legislative consent motion. Can I also recognise that, in many ways, it has been a testimony to your input and the Welsh Government's input that, at times, the statesmanship from Wales has almost been the only part that has actually created a certain degree of sanity and kept these negotiations and discussions in movement? I think it's very, very important that that is recognised.

There are a number of questions I want to ask, but I will make one comment on the point that you made about the section about consent not being unreasonably withheld. It seems to me that that's a bit of a tautology in the sense that any decision that might be taken in this place to not give consent could in no way ever be unreasonable, because, as a Parliament, we take decisions on behalf of the people and as such those decisions clearly cannot be unreasonable in the constitutional sense. So, I'm not quite sure what that phrase means, and I would like you to comment a little bit, in due course, on whether you think this would eventually lead now to a proper consideration of the inter-parliamentary arrangements and the actual JMC structure, because much of what you've mentioned about the framework arrangements and discussions continuing are absolutely dependent on that procedure actually being reformed, and the make-or-break, in some ways, of that actually working is going to be dependent on those changes taking place.

It's clear that the issue of consent is not in the strict sense a red line, and one of the areas that I will want to explore and consider very carefully is the way in which consent or agreement is achieved, but also the particular implications this agreement will have, for example, for the Trade Bill, because the trades agreements that could be achieved—you'll be aware of the concerns that have previously been expressed—could undermine frameworks. They could have a significant impact on frameworks, potentially overriding frameworks, and it is absolutely fundamental that the legislation that is pursuant to the withdrawal Bill also reflects the principles of agreement—if they are approved and if an LCM is eventually granted to those—or the whole arrangement, the whole agreement, could actually fall apart or be overridden. 

I'd just like a view on the reference in the memorandum—clause 11 regulations—because there is in there, of course, the 40-day arrangement, whereby action won't be taken for a 40-day period. But, of course, we have a slightly different constitutional arrangement to Scotland because, in terms of secondary legislation here, there is a requirement for legislative consent that doesn't exist within Scotland. I wonder if you could clarify how that might actually operate, because my reading of it seemed to imply that, after the 40-day period, the UK Government could proceed, and that would seem to be a lesser position than we have at the moment in terms of legislative consent. Now, I may be misinterpreting that, but I'd be grateful for some clarification on that.

The only final thing is, in respect of the ongoing discussions that are taking place, particularly with regard to Scotland, I welcome what you say in terms of the ongoing nature of this agreement being available and so on, but were there to be an agreement with Scotland that offered a position that actually was what we could see as better than what we have at the moment, is it the case that there'll be no question of anything other that arose that we thought was preferential that we would not be able to take advantage of as well?

Other than that, what I'll say is that I do look forward to your attending the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, because the scrutiny side of this is really the key, and that's why I think it is so absolutely important that we don't come to premature judgments of what has been agreed and what its full implications are.

Llywydd, can I thank the Member for all those observations? Can I begin by just expressing my regret that Members have not actually seen the amendments? They had to be laid in the House of Lords by 4 o'clock this afternoon. With your help, Llywydd, we scheduled this statement for 4 o'clock here—that was our best way of trying to ensure that those amendments would have been available to Members. It's not in our own hands, as you can see, but we have done our very best to engineer things so that Members would have seen the amendments. They will see them, of course, now, and Mick Antoniw is quite right to say that the amendments have to be seen in their interrelationship with both the memorandum of understanding that we have agreed and the inter-governmental agreement.

Can I just say to the Member that, in negotiations, there are, as he will know very well, trade-offs always between what different parties require? We required the UK Government explicitly to commit themselves to not normally refusing to do things in the way that we would expect, and, in return, they wanted us to commit to not unreasonably refusing to give consent. He may well be right that when you burrow beneath the words both of them are statements simply of the way things are always done, but that's the way that negotiations are conducted. If you want to gain something, you sometimes have to give something too.

He made three very important points, Llywydd, that I want us to deal with. Parity of esteem is not simply parity between Governments, it's between Parliaments as well. A very good point was made to me in the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee yesterday that if information is to be supplied to this legislature in relation to frameworks, for example, then that should be the same level of information that is available to Parliaments elsewhere, that there should be parity of treatment across the United Kingdom to make sure that no Parliament is treated less advantageously than anywhere else, and there is a real and necessary pressure to conclude new inter-parliamentary arrangements to ensure that the rights of Parliaments are fully observed.

He made a very important point, Mick Antoniw, about legislation that will follow the withdrawal Bill. Another reason why we were convinced that we needed to come to an agreement is that everything that we have agreed here, everything we have agreed about consent and so on, will cascade forward into the Bills that the UK Government will now bring forward, such as the Trade Bill. So, this is not simply about gaining ground in the withdrawal Bill, it's about permanently securing the advances we have made here in all the subsequent EU Brexit legislation.

And, finally, let me give him that assurance that if any further refinements can be obtained to the agreement that take it further forward and can secure Scotland's participation then anything that is secured will be secured as a result of the three Governments working together, and all of those advances would apply equally to us.

We are way over time on this statement, but it is an important statement. I've got four more speakers wishing to speak. I'll call them, but you all need to be very succinct in your questions. Simon Thomas. [Laughter.]

Diolch, Llywydd. I'll do my best. Can I say to the Cabinet Secretary that the disagreement here, I think, is not around the work that he has undertaken or the hard work that he and his officials have done? It's between those of us who do not have the touching faith that he has exhibited today in the UK constitution to deliver for Wales, and who want to take a much more critical and much more robust line on protection of this Parliament's powers. If I may say, he over-relies on an inter-governmental agreement to deliver equity for this Parliament, and I think that's where I have a fundamental disagreement with what he has set out today.

As I don't have much time, can I just urge him to listen and revise the very pertinent questions put to him by both Mick Antoniw and David Rees, who have gone to the heart of some of the questions I would have wanted to rehearse with him as to the weaknesses in such an inter-governmental agreement delivering on a parliamentary side? In effect, though we have a reference to the Assembly in these agreements and in the memorandum, ultimately, Westminster, after 40 days—not in the wilderness, but after 40 days—can take action in these 24, plus 12 other fields that have yet to be agreed on. So, that could increase by 50 per cent. And if I can also just make the point that we are talking about eight years, not seven years—this agreement comes in on leave date plus two years, plus five years. That's eight years. So, all of us who have an interest in being Government in Wales have to realise that we are selling away our ability to take action in these 24 fields for eight long years. 

Now, there are practical ways that the Cabinet Secretary set out as to why that won't happen, because England's frozen as well, but I don't see much progress in England, thank you very much. And when we're talking about the devolution of agricultural support policy, for example, I don't want us to wait eight years for England to decide what they want to do; I want us to take action from day one. We are stopped from doing that in this regard.

If I conclude with two particular questions, first of all, he talks about this agreement having the ability to move on. He says it's a significant step in terms of working co-operatively. Yet the agreement only sets out what he has in the past described as little better than St Fagans parish council. What actually in this agreement sets out that co-operative working? He hasn't got the joint council of Ministers that he wanted to have, working in the way he wanted. There's no independent arbitration. There's no way of referring things to an alternative dispute mechanism. If you compare this agreement with the fiscal framework that he agreed and which Plaid Cymru, by the way, fully supported, you see those elements there, and you don't see them in this agreement. That's the first weakness, in practical terms, that will happen here.

He describes the final decision of Parliament here as a 'backstop'. I would describe it as a veto. When we look at the agreement that has the exercise of this veto, it is peppered with the term 'normal'. It's been raised several times, but you have not yet replied to this: what does 'normal' mean in these circumstances? It's clear from the agreement that—. We've talked about clause 11 here, but it's also clear from the agreement that it's now allowed for the UK Government to use clauses 7, 8 and 9 to interfere directly in the other areas that already are devolved—not the 24 that are being returned, but the ones that come here. The UK Parliament can still reach in and scoop out our powers in those areas—again but will not normally do so. What does 'normal' mean? I put it to him that politics has changed the meaning of 'normal' in politics over the last two years in a very fundamental way.

Llywydd, the first proposition that Simon Thomas made, I think, is an entirely reasonable statement of how a disagreement between two parties can be understood. If the position of his party is that they are welcoming the ground that has been gained but believe it doesn't go far enough and that there's more that could have been done, that seems to me entirely reasonable for them to take. That isn't what I think I've heard from other Plaid Cymru members, I have to say; they have described what we have achieved in very demeaning terms. The way Simon Thomas put it, that what we have achieved is something that he welcomes—I don't want to put words into his mouth—but that there is more that he thinks ought to have been done and therefore he can't accept it as it is, that seems to me to be an entirely proper way to put it and, indeed, that is the way that Michael Russell put it when he made his statement in the Scottish Parliament yesterday. And, in that sense, there is a disagreement between the way that the Government here has concluded and the way that Simon Thomas would have wished to see things. We do put weight on the inter-governmental agreement, because we think that the effort that went into securing it, the public way in which it has received commitment, means that we can put some trust on it.

Simon Thomas says it doesn't deal sufficiently with the rights of the Parliament here, and I see the point he made. It was, indeed, a point that was made by David Rees, but I provide the same answer: that it would have been an odd thing indeed for me, as a member of the Government, to have made commitments on behalf of the legislature in an agreement between Governments. What we now need to do is to do the work that David Rees pointed to, and to make sure that the parliamentary processes that go alongside the inter-governmental agreement are agreed here—not agreed between the Scottish Government and the UK Government and the Welsh Government, but agreed here, on the parliamentary side, where those responsibilities will lie.

Simon Thomas made three points at the end. As I say, I don't for a minute myself believe that this will take eight long years, as he put it, for powers to return here. Let me just say to the Assembly just what hard work it was to get an agreement that English Ministers would not use the powers while these things were in the freezer. Do you think they just signed up to that on the spur of the moment? I can tell you that they were very reluctant indeed to be in that position, and they will want to be out of that position, as we do, as fast as we can possibly agree it.

He asks about what does 'normally' mean. Well, 'not normally' is not used in this agreement for the first time, either in legislation or inter-governmental agreements. It means here what it means in all the other places where that phrase is used, and the way that this—[Interruption.] I think that he will struggle to find too many examples—I'm sure there will be some—where that way of working has been used to the disadvantage of this legislature, and we would expect the commitments that have been made here, echoing, as they do, that phrase from other ways in which legislation and agreements are drawn up, to operate just as effectively here as they have in other places.

I'd like to thank the Cabinet Secretary for his statement. I know that this represents many months of hard detailed work by the Cabinet Secretary and by his officials. I think he has listed significant achievements today, and I'd like to congratulate him for those results. I think it's absolutely right that the Government feels able to recommend that we do give legislative consent when this comes before us.

Most of the questions I wanted to ask have already been asked, thankfully, I'm sure, Presiding Officer, but one thing I did want to ask: during these months of negotiation, was there, at any point, a tipping point when you felt that, now we've achieved that, there is, really, the hope of getting to an agreement?

I thank the Member for what she said. I don't think I would describe the negotiations as having a tipping point. Right up to Monday of last week, when the three Governments last met together, there were further points that both Scotland and Wales wished to include in the agreement, further ground that we wanted to gain. It has been an incremental process in which, step by step and bit by bit, we have inched our way to the point where I feel able to come to the Assembly today and to say that we will put a legislative consent motion and recommend its agreement to you. Scotland are committed, and we are with them, to inching that process even further forward. If we can achieve that, we'll be very glad to play our part in it. But that's the way I think these negotiations have worked—not a sudden point at which things tip from being unacceptable to being acceptable, but a long slog, week in, week out, with officials particularly putting long, long hours into things to reach the point that we have finally reached today.

I do understand, of course, that a great deal of hard work has gone into it, but that's our job—to work hard on behalf of the people of Wales. As a Welsh person and a democrat, I've been shocked at how easily you've given in to the Tories and have transferred these powers to them in London—the powers that the people of Wales have stated in two referenda that the Welsh Parliament should hold.

I will restrict myself to one question. You do say in your statement that the outcome of the negotiations with the Tories aren't perfect, and that this agreement is a compromise. Now, we need to compromise, of course; we need to compromise occasionally in politics and I’m enough of a pragmatist and a realist to compromise, quite regularly if truth be told. But compromising on the democratic future of Wales is unacceptable. A power grab is a power grab, and we cannot compromise on such a fundamentally important issue as that.

A little over a month ago, this Parliament voted in favour of a continuity Bill that would have ensured that the UK Government couldn’t have undertaken that power grab. All of the cards were in your Government’s hands. So, why on earth did you need to compromise on this?

I thank Siân Gwenllian for what she said at the outset in recognising the hard work that’s gone into the agreement that’s before the Assembly today. No-one is making any power grab from the National Assembly, because we’ve agreed on things and the National Assembly will also have to agree when the powers come onto the floor here.

On the continuity Bill, we said from the outset that that wasn’t our first choice. I said and the First Minister said and the Counsel General said, on every occasion, that if we can come to an agreement with the UK Government on the Bill, that was the best way to deal with the problems in the original Bill. That’s what we’ve succeeded in doing and that’s why I had thought that I could come to the Assembly floor today and tell Members that this is an agreement on which we can all agree. 

Finally, Jane Hutt.

Can I finally thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for your statement this afternoon? We're aware in the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee of your unwavering commitment to deliver the best deal for Wales in your negotiations, and I think it is important to remember that the Cabinet Secretary and indeed the First Minister have always said that the Welsh Government's preference was to secure an agreement on the withdrawal Bill, and of course that's why we put forward those important amendments.

The two questions I want to raise are about your response to whether you think you've secured a commitment to a real step change in inter-governmental working in terms of, particularly, the crucial role of the JMC European negotiations vehicle, because that's crucial in terms of being able to deliver on this agreement, and for us also to be confident that we can scrutinise you and the Welsh Government and indeed the inter-governmental implementation of that agreement. And, of course, that has to be supported by, as a result of your good working relations with the Scottish Brexit Minister, Mike Russell, and I'm sure that that will be strengthened. So, just that one point.

Secondly, last night I attended with Eluned Morgan and a few others the Gina Miller lecture. There were hundreds of people there. I think we have got to recognise that people will want to know about this agreement, not just here in this Chamber or in your external advisory committee, but how can we actually share this news and explain to the people of Wales what has been achieved.

I think it's so important, finally, that we just translate: what does it mean? Today's amendment reverses the UK Government's original position. That's such an important statement. It creates a default position in which powers over devolved policy lie with the National Assembly, as they have done since 1999. The people of Wales want to hear that.

Can I thank Jane Hutt, Llywydd, for what she has said? She asks about the process of inter-governmental agreement. It was a point that Simon Thomas raised and I failed to address it in my answer to him. It's there in paragraph 7a of the memorandum of understanding, and that is one of the very late additions to this agreement, secured in the very final run of discussions between the Scottish Government, ourselves and the UK Government, because it commits us all to a process that lies behind the bringing forward of regulations. It guarantees that there will be discussion between the Governments on the basis that we have been conducting discussions to reach this agreement, to agree the scope and the content of the regulations. As I said earlier, it will not be a matter of the UK Government alone coming forward with proposals for us to accept or reject. We will have been there at the table on the basis of equality, and that's why this does represent a way forward. Of course, it doesn't achieve everything that we want to achieve in the way that Simon Thomas set out, but you have to find a way into these discussions. You have to find a step forward that allows some things to change for the better, and then to use that as a platform for achieving more. That clause in that part of the agreement will allow us to do just that. 

Jane Hutt is absolutely right to say that there's a simple message at the heart of all of this. When we started on this process, we had a clause 11 that said, 'Nothing comes to the National Assembly, everything stays at Westminster, any decisions on what happens after that will be for UK Ministers alone to decide and we can't tell you how long it's all going to take'. Now, we have exactly the opposite of that: everything comes to the National Assembly unless we agree that it should be retained at Westminster, while it is at Westminster, the only use that can be made of these powers is use that we agree, and we have a final backstop beyond which no powers can be held away from us, and everything will return here. That's why this agreement is such a difference, and that's why people in Wales do indeed deserve to know all about it.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.

The next item, therefore, is the Welsh Conservatives' debate on local government reform. I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to move the motion. Janet Finch-Saunders.

Diolch, Llywydd. I move the motion in the name of Paul Davies AM. The recent announcement of the Green Paper by the Cabinet Secretary on 20 March, without any prior discussions with us as AMs, is the third attempt by this Welsh Labour Government to reform the structure of local government in Wales. One would have thought, as a result of two previous failed attempts to bring forward legislation to futureproof our local authorities, that this attempt would have been done in a more strategic, considerate and engaging manner. Despite previous rhetoric about wanting to work in a respectful manner with local authority members and AMs, the proposals going forward actually show a distinct lack of acknowledgment of the effect that this top-down diktat has on those working within the sector. 

How disappointing also that the promises by the previous Cabinet Secretary, Mark Drakeford AM, who did engage with us, actually, in offering up a regional form of working and assuring councils of a 10-year stable platform from which to take forward reform, have simply been rubbished by such a heavy-handed and dictatorial approach. The WLGA have raised concerns, accusing you, Cabinet Secretary, in their words, of 'recycling failed plans', through the continuance of top-down politics towards local authorities that we saw fail in the fourth Assembly under the previous proposals for forced mergers. Your intent to use statutory frameworks to force mergers through is an insult to those in this sector who have more than jumped through enough hoops to satisfy the Welsh Labour Government over the past 20 years on your watch. The WLGA and others have stated that most academic analysis concludes that such reform programmes rarely deliver the savings or changes in performance that were hoped for. 

When scrutinised on these proposals, you clearly stated that you have engaged and consulted with the sector. However, I know, from my own visits to local authorities across the political divide, and through talking to many elected members, that they were as surprised as we were by such a bullish approach in announcing these disruptive and counter-productive plans. Councillor Thomas, leader of Vale of Glamorgan, categorically stated that

'Typically there has been no meaningful discussion or engagement with councils, or more importantly the local residents that will be affected, ahead of these plans being published.'

A Wrexham councillor has also termed the proposed merger with Flintshire an expensive disaster waiting to happen, whilst the council's independent leader described the ongoing debate as 

'a cross between Fawlty Towers, Some Mothers Do 'Ave 'Em and Yes Minister'.

The Welsh Local Government Association stated to the ELGC committee during the previous proposals for forced mergers that it would be impossible for authorities to meet merger proposal costs without significant cuts to front-line services. Without a joined-up, strategic and professional approach, yet another set of proposals for forced mergers, lacking in any cost benefit or risk analysis, is destined to fail. This ham-fisted top-down approach from here is not the way forward. In a business setting, reform would start and it would finish by being led from within the very sector that one is looking to reform—incidentally, in this instance, a sector for which I have a tremendous amount of confidence and respect. As the leader of the WLGA, Councillor Debbie Wilcox, said,

'We didn't need Welsh Government to mandate us to work regionally. We just got on with it, because we recognised it was in the interests of the people and the communities we serve.'

Indeed, Councillor Peter Fox has said:

'Councils in south-east Wales have been working hard towards the last recommendations from the Welsh Government, which asked us to work collaboratively on regional footprints.'

And what a splendid example: the Cardiff capital region's city deal, with 10 local authorities all working together across the political divide to improve the economic prosperity of the region, brilliantly epitomised by the leader—

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, go on.

All I was going to say is that exactly the same has been done in the Swansea city region.

It was brilliantly epitomised by the leader of Cardiff council, Huw Thomas, when he said:

'We would have concerns about any process of reorganisation or of renationalisation which distracted us from our delivery agenda.'

Time and time again, we have seen bullish and defiant responses from you, Cabinet Secretary, in scrutiny here and during a meeting with the WLGA, in stating that opposition to your proposals made good television but not good politics. Do you not realise that you are playing with the hearts and minds of the very people who deliver such vital services to our most vulnerable, to our children and all of our residents on a daily basis, 24 hours, 365?

There is no doubt that all of us within this Chamber are seeking to improve our public service delivery across Wales, with many believing, though, that this is a bigger mandate than local government alone. If we go back to the Williams commission's original report, solid recommendations for public service reform were there in their entirety. The Green Paper mentions the delivery of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 through local government reform, but this cannot be done alone. Speak to any experienced and honest broker working within the public sector across the length and breadth of Wales, and they will tell you: Wales does not need another set of local government proposals. What Wales fundamentally needs, however, is a thorough review of our whole public services sector. We know that to fulfil our obligations under the Well-being of Future Generations Act, we must ensure better working between local authorities, health, social services, education and housing. Cabinet Secretary, why are you not being more radical here? Why are you not seeking a wholescale reform of public services in Wales? Why are you not opening this up to a much wider debate? How will you bring this to your Cabinet Secretary colleagues around the table to ensure that this is actually taken forward in a uniform and joined-up manner?

Time is running out, Cabinet Secretary, for this Government—your Welsh Labour Government—to futureproof our public services across Wales. You are in a privileged position, with the population of Wales depending on this Welsh Government to get it right this time. You have the levers, you have the power and you have the resources to achieve a fundamental ambition—a fundamental reform of our public services across Wales, working with them, not against them, and working throughout all of these sectors, as I have mentioned. You cannot do this alone—you cannot take local government reform forward alone. It has to be far more strategically planned than this.

I've got to be honest with you. It's not a phrase I like, but these are fag-packet proposals—written-on-the-back-of-a-fag-packet proposals—that you are intending to put forward. It's a fundamental betrayal of all of those who work in our public services across Wales. They're all hungry, they're all anxious and they're all keen to work with you to actually see a radical reform of our public services going forward, and that will sustain us for years to come. I would say these proposals are a lazy ambition once again, and I sincerely urge you now to go back to the drawing board, speak to your colleagues in Welsh Government, and please bring back some strategically well-planned, costed proposals for a total and radical public service reform. With a model worthy of any Government in Wales, maybe then, and only then, we will get behind you on such a mission.  

I have selected the four amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will be deselected. And I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Local Government and Public Services to move formally amendment 1, tabled in the name of Julie James. 

Formally. 

Diolch. I call on Siân Gwenllian to move amendments 2, 3 and 4, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. 

Thank you very much, and thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Green Paper on local government reform, which is the result, of course, of an unexpected u-turn by this Government. ‘Strengthening Local Government: Delivering for People’ is the title of the latest document, and I agree entirely with the need to strengthen our councils. Local government that is resilient and sustainable, that provides support for the most vulnerable in our communities, is important in a nation where fairness is one of our core values. But I am not entirely convinced that introducing expensive reorganisation at a time of austerity is the most effective way of strengthening local government. 

The services that are provided by local government are creaking following years of cuts that stem directly from the objectionable ideology of the Tories in Westminster. Our councils have already had to trim their budgets to the bone, and the councils are in the process of finding millions upon millions in savings again in order to be able to set budgets for the next financial year. I heard yesterday that Ceredigion council had lost 700 jobs already, so it’s a huge challenge, and the focus of leaders, heads and councillors is understandably on how to maintain services with a shrinking budget. Plaid Cymru councils are trying to do this in a way that protects those who most need support, while also supporting staff who provide the support often.

Even at a time of austerity, I am pleased to see that Gwynedd Council has introduced the living wage, or higher, for all staff and eliminated zero-hours contracts entirely. But by now, it’s not always possible to protect groups with needs from cuts as the austerity policies really start to bite. No wonder, therefore, that there is no appetite for reorganisation among Welsh council leaders, as the Cabinet Secretary found when he recently attended the lion’s den at the Welsh Local Government Association.

A great deal of efficiency savings have already been made, and it is now a question of how much additional savings can be made by merging councils, given the significant costs involved in the process itself. The councils have already established regional arrangements in many areas, and the evolutionary approach of the former Cabinet Secretary was proceeding smoothly in many parts of Wales.

Although the current Cabinet Secretary has claimed that local government leaders have told him that they did not want to move forward with the suggestions and proposals relating to regional working, I think the mandatory element was the bone of contention, not the regionalisation itself. What the councils did not like was that Mark Drakeford's White Paper was taking the councils into regional arrangements through legislation in three areas, and this is an example of one of the ongoing tensions that exist between local government and central Government, of course. But not liking being forced to work regionally has turned into real anger regarding this u-turn, regarding the attempt to return to the unsuccessful proposals of the previous former Cabinet Secretary, who raised the hackles of everyone, of every political stripe. Maintaining constructive relationships and collaboration between the Welsh Government and local authorities is at the heart of improving services.

Any reform or reorganisation needs to happen for a purpose, and Plaid Cymru has set out a number of core principles that should be at the heart of any reform, namely making the services provided by local government more effective for users, strengthening local democracy, moving towards the integration of health and care, and strengthening the Welsh language.

Just to mention, in closing, one of those principles, there’s a lot of good practice happening in terms of integrating health and care for the elderly, and it is best done if it happens from the bottom up and happens entirely naturally if the needs of the person for whom the service is provided is given priority. In Gwynedd, there are five integrated teams for older people working across the county, where social workers and community nurses and so on—people from both sectors—work together putting the person at the heart of everything they do. At a regional level, the councils are commissioning social services jointly.

Therefore, there is change happening. The councils are working together and working to be more sustainable, and I’m afraid that this new Green Paper is not very welcome.

I'm grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate, and I'll be focusing my contribution on the effects that any local government reform could have on my area.

Members will not be surprised that I remain completely opposed to the proposals for local government reform in Pembrokeshire, which would see the whole of west Wales returning to a Dyfed model of governance. It's my view that any proposals for the merger of Pembrokeshire with Carmarthenshire and Ceredigion will not result in a more effective delivery of public services in west Wales. Of course, the people of west Wales have previously lived under a Dyfed model of governance and that model was abolished in 1996. And why was that? Well, it was quite clear that the geographic size and diversity of the whole Dyfed area presented significant challenges to the authority and, as a result, Dyfed County Council was seen as remote and unpopular by many local communities. Therefore, it's my view that the current Welsh Government's proposals will only return west Wales to an outdated, unpopular authority unable to cope with the challenges that it had already failed to address in the past.

Now, in analysing local government reform, the Williams commission recognised that a return to the Dyfed model would, and I quote,

'cover the largest area of any UK unitary authority outside the most rural and remote parts of Scotland while having a significantly higher population than any of those areas.'

The report also recognised that only the Scottish council areas of Highland, Argyll and Bute, Dumfries and Galloway and Aberdeenshire are geographically larger than the proposed Dyfed style authority, however each of these Scottish council areas have a population that is much less than the proposed Dyfed model. So, if the Welsh Government commits to returning to a Dyfed model, it will have to manage a similar geography to those Scottish council authorities as well as a substantially higher population. Therefore, perhaps in responding to today's debate, the Cabinet Secretary could confirm why a Dyfed model is even being considered at this stage, particularly given that the proposals confirm that Powys would continue to be a stand-alone authority, presumably because of its geography and population.

The Cabinet Secretary knows that I believe that creating bigger authorities does not mean better services and ultimately takes the 'local' out of local government. Surely, it would be far more appropriate to be discussing what specific services we want to see delivered by local authorities in the future before deciding on an actual structure. 

Now, the people of Pembrokeshire have already seen the impact that centralising services has had on their communities, following the continual downgrading and removal of services from Withybush hospital. The centralisation agenda has had a detrimental impact on local communities and I fear that we in Pembrokeshire would see the same with council services if we allow these proposals to go ahead.

In my own constituency, there are also very serious concerns regarding the impact of these proposals on the Pembrokeshire brand. Only last month, Countryfile magazine named Pembrokeshire 'destination of the year', recognising the quality of its natural beauty and wildlife. Given its coastline and ports, Pembrokeshire is fast becoming a global leader in the marine energy market, both as a generator of energy and as an exporter of marine energy knowledge. And last but not least, Pembrokeshire is famous for its first-class food and drink, such as Capestone bronze turkeys, Pembrokeshire cheese and Pembrokeshire potatoes. All of these variables contribute to creating a strong and unique global reputation for Pembrokeshire, and I believe that reputation is at risk if the county is submerged into a wider authority under the Dyfed model.

However, perhaps the most important consideration of all should be for the people who will have to live under this proposed authority. Three years ago, Pembrokeshire County Council—Labour councillors, along with others—voted in favour of a motion that recognised that these proposals will not help economically, socially or provide better local services. Therefore, perhaps the Cabinet Secretary will tell us in responding to this debate whether he agrees with his Labour colleagues on this matter.

In closing, Deputy Presiding Officer, it's my view that a merger between Pembrokeshire, Carmarthenshire and Ceredigion will simply see a return to a time when local government was distant and unrepresentative. There is no public appetite to create this new mass authority. Indeed, it seems that this is the only ambition for local government reform in west Wales, rather than a discussion on the general power of competence to local authorities and what services we want to see delivered at a local level.

The WLGA, in their evidence to the Williams commission said that, and I quote:

'Wales is a nation of communities and community identity and loyalty are powerful mobilising and unifying characteristics that Wales must seek to capitalise on in the coming period.'

Therefore, I encourage Members to support our motion and help protect those local communities and identities.

The bleak truth is that, without an end to austerity, public services as we know them are under threat. This is understandably a difficult thing for a Labour Government that cares about these services to face up to, but pretending that changing the number of councils will avoid that difficult truth is sticking our heads in the sand.

So far, the debate seems not to have progressed beyond the superficial '22 is too many' gut reaction that the Welsh Government seems to struggle to get away from. That is clearly not a sufficient evidential basis for a very costly course of action. Surely, the burden of proof is on the Welsh Government to find out what the cost of reorganisation would be and what benefits would arise from it. I certainly think the financial benefits are in danger of being overstated. Whether you have eight, 10, 12 or 22 councils, they still have to educate the same number of children in the same number of schools, collect the same number of bins and care for the same number of vulnerable people. These are the key drivers of cost.

This is especially true as, since the last investigation into wholesale reorganisation, massive savings in administration costs have been made by Welsh councils. In Torfaen council last year alone, they saved £1 million from their administrative and business services review, and there have been countless other efforts to reduce central costs. I know that Torfaen will continue to pursue collaborations and different ways of working, but recent experience suggests that, increasingly, these have service, quality and resilience benefits rather than cash savings. The danger is that, without looking objectively and in great detail at the evidence, the cost of reorganisation is understated and the benefits overstated. So, Welsh Government would spend a lot of money—over £200 million—and save very little, whilst disrupting service delivery for several years.

And what evidence is there to show that bigger is better? While some of the smaller authorities have in the past faced challenges, it has been some of those small authorities that have shown some of the best performance or had some of the best inspection reports. In the latest performance bulletin from Data Cymru, Torfaen was the ninth-best performing authority and ninth-most improved. What the data shows is that size is no determinant of performance, with smaller authorities generally better performing. While capacity is critical, this suggests that factors such as leadership and culture are critical to success rather than scale.

Lastly, what consideration has been given by Welsh Government to the sort of organisations they would be creating? What are the faults of local government as currently constituted? And I'm not pretending there aren't any, but, crucially, how would reorganisation make them better? Contrasting the current situation with some imagined perfection is not a sensible starting point. The danger with large units would be that they would be distant from people, parochially divided, and would resist the collaboration and creative thinking that would still be needed however large they were. It is leadership and culture that drives improvement, not scale.

When I spoke on this issue in the debate on the Williams commission report back in 2014, I made clear my view that reorganisation is not a panacea. In the four years that have passed, we have gone from proposed reorganisation to more regional collaboration and now back to consulting on reorganisation again. Four years on, I am more convinced than ever that reorganising local government in a time of austerity and with Brexit on the horizon would be a disaster.

Thanks to the Conservatives for bringing today's debate. The proposed local government reorganisation—or rather the latest version of it—is a big issue, and it's bound to be controversial. Whatever change a Minister decides to make to the composition of a local council, somebody will complain about it. So, to be fair to the Minister, as I said at the last Minister's questions, whatever he does, it's bound to be controversial, as you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs. Or to use another metaphor, you can't smoke the fags without breaking open the fag packet. That said, the Welsh Government have really made a meal of this reorganisation over the past three years. We are on to the third different Minister and the third different plan, although, as Siân Gwenllian pointed out the last time we discussed this, the latest version is not so very different to the original plan, which was Leighton Andrews's model.

So, we do have to acknowledge, as the Conservatives are doing with today's motion, that this whole saga has created a lot of uncertainty among the staff who work in local government. In some cases, it can lead to a kind of paralysis, whereby councils can't really plan on a major scale as they have no idea whether they will still exist in a few years' time, and it can also make officer recruitment difficult.

Another issue raised by the WLGA is that the latest plan interferes with the regional working that many councils were already pursuing with other bodies and authorities, and I think that this is also a valid point. We also have a lack of clarity over whether the proposed new, larger councils will actually deliver cost benefits, which is the main reason for creating them in the first place. So, in UKIP, we think these are valid points, and we will be supporting the Conservative motion today.

Lynne Neagle just spoke about the need for a base of evidence before we undergo any reorganisation, and I think a lot of the points that she made were also very valid. They were also touching on things that Mike Hedges mentioned last time. He reminded us that every time we have a local government reorganisation in Wales, which is roughly every 20 years, we are told that this one is the definitive one, and the reorganisation to end all reorganisations, but this never actually turns out to be the case. We've had the reorganisations in 1974, and again in 1995, and now another one is looming, and after each reorganisation, within a few years, we hear from Government that the councils in Wales are too small and they aren't sustainable. At this rate, we will end up with another reorganisation in 20 years' time, which will leave us with four or five councils. I'm afraid that once you get to that level, you are really moving away from any meaningful sense of people being represented by local ward councillors, and you are merging together areas with no real historic connection and that may be completely different in terms of their economies and their demographics, which is what we are in danger of doing with this current reorganisation.

The other point that has been raised, again by Lynne Neagle, is to do with the actual cost benefits, and Mike Hedges also made this point last time. We haven't had any real cost-benefit analysis, so we don't know whether larger councils will actually deliver the savings that the Government is promising. We've already seen mergers of health boards in Wales, and we've ended up with larger bodies, which don't seem to be universally performing particularly well. So, the worst aspect of this local government reorganisation is that it may cause more job losses, deliver fewer services to the public, and still not save any meaningful money in terms of councils' operating costs.

We do agree with the Welsh Government that we are consulting on a Green Paper on this, and we agree with them broadly that 22 local councils is not sustainable. So, we actually agree in very broad terms with their amendment.

What we do want is more shared working, but we know that there is shared working between different councils going on already. To some extent, this has been driven by financial imperatives because the councils are dealing with reduced budgets, so they have to pursue shared working in order to reduce costs.

A potential problem is that shared working is taking different forms. In some areas, two neighbouring councils are working together, in other cases, three or four different councils are pooling resources. And to add to the mix, we now have two city regions in Wales and two other regional areas connected to growth deals. On top of that, we also have strategic development plans coming in that will require another combination of different councils. So, there is a danger that, unless the Welsh Government Minister keeps a firm grip on this, the pattern of local and regional government in Wales could suddenly become very piecemeal, very complex, and for the voter, very confusing. So, the Minister does have a major role to play in guiding local government. However, we would prefer this to include a larger measure of consultation with the affected councils.

So, we do agree with the Conservatives; we think they're right to be raising these issues today and we do support their motion. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I'm grateful for this opportunity to speak on this latest set of proposals from the Welsh Government to reform local government. This document represents the third set of proposals in the last three years, and who knows, after the Cabinet reshuffle coming at the end of this year, it may not be the last.

Local government in Wales is in need of reform. The Williams commission set up to investigate local government reorganisation recommended merging councils into 10, 11 or 12 new authorities. However, after inviting local authorities to submit proposals for voluntary mergers, the Ministers at the time rejected plans to merge six local authorities into three. The Minister then published his own unilateral proposal to cut the number of local authorities to eight or nine. This plan proved controversial across Wales. The Welsh Government policy of deliberately bypassing the concern of local authorities, the WLGA and communities has created an atmosphere of considerable uncertainty that continues today.

Councillor Peter Fox, the great councillor of Monmouth, this week called the Welsh Government's plan—your plan—'unsettling'. That is his wording on the first page of the local newspaper. He went on to say that council leaders have already made great strides on working together. All the mergers would see would be modest financial advantages, but that would be minimal when compared to the cost of merging.

Cost is just one of the questions left unanswered by this Green Paper. Genuine concern has been raised about council tax harmonisation. Band 4 council tax payers in Monmouthshire and Torfaen could face paying up to £300 extra under the Cabinet Secretary's new plans. What level of financial support can local authorities expect from the Welsh Government to assist with mergers and to take into account the potential impact on the delivery of public services in the short term? Newport is one of the areas, Deputy Presiding Officer, for relocating asylum seekers, refugees and other migrants. There is an increasing demand on Newport to provide specific services to support these vulnerable groups. The effectiveness and ability of local authorities to deliver quality services in this field must be maintained.

How will the Welsh Government engage with the local communities themselves to ensure they are fully involved in the merger process? What reassurances will be given to the local authorities' workforce to provide them with the stability to deliver high-quality services when faced with an indeterminate scale of redundancies?

These questions need to be addressed, but any proposal to reform local government in Wales must also address the democratic deficit. Poor voter turnout is indicative of the lack of engagement between councils and the communities they serve. Black, minorities and ethnic people are significantly under-represented in the world of politics in Wales. A local government candidate survey in 2012 showed that only 1 per cent of councillors in Wales are from non-white backgrounds, and that's the figure.

As a result of last year's local elections, just over 28 per cent of councillors are women. The absence of any real diversity of gender, age and ethnicity in Welsh local government persists. Local politicians need to be able to relate to their constituents, understand their needs and to speak up about the issues that directly affect them. Deputy Presiding Officer, local government reform offers opportunities to rethink how council services are delivered and to renew our democracy. I urge the Welsh Government to consult and engage to maximise the benefit in terms of cost and service delivery, and not try to impose a top-down programme—and it's not fit for all, which is really what we need to look at. Thank you very much.

The Welsh local government reorganisation of 1974 created eight county councils and 37 district councils, ending county boroughs, which were unitary authorities. The reason? We needed larger authorities and uniformity, and many of the urban district councils and rural district councils were too small. Then, in 1992, 22 principal councils were formed, and it's these unitary authorities that have governed Wales since 1996.

Both the Williams commission established by Carwyn Jones, and subsequent proposals put forward by Leighton Andrews as public services Minister, have recommended reducing the number of Welsh local authorities further still. Local government mergers are again being considered, and there's a political consensus that we need larger authorities, although calling a reconstituted Dyfed a local council does—at least to me—seem a little strange. Perhaps it's based upon the great success of Hywel Dda as a health board. This is built upon the belief that larger councils perform better and are more efficient. Well, England and Scotland have several unitary authorities larger than Cardiff, but Scotland has five smaller than Merthyr—Inverclyde, Clackmannanshire, Western Isles, Orkney and Shetland—and England has one, Rutland.

If larger authorities were more efficient and effective, two things would happen: council tax would be lower and performance would be better. The larger authorities and Powys, for which merging has not been deemed necessary, should charge the lowest amounts. I'm always amazed by why Powys is treated differently to anywhere else in Wales, but—. Whilst the two smallest authorities have the highest council tax, medium-sized authorities appear to perform better than either large or small authorities when it comes to the cost of council tax to residents.

Does council performance show that the larger authorities by population perform better? According to the Western Mail, 

'the quality of services delivered by local authorities in Wales is not determined by the size of the council'.

The Western Mail figures are based on 28 indicators across a range of local government areas, including education, social care, housing, environment and transport, planning and regulatory services, leisure, culture and corporate health, with four points on offer for councils that performed in the top quartile of each indicator, and one point for those at the bottom. From this data, it is not possible to conclude that larger councils and Powys perform better, because medium-sized authorities take three of the top four places. 

In Scotland, the variation in council tax is much less than in Wales, but the lowest council tax is in the Western Islands and Shetland, two of the smallest authorities, and the largest council tax is in Glasgow, which is the largest.

Over the last 25 years, there have been service reorganisations that have created larger organisations throughout the whole of the Welsh Government-controlled public sector—health being a classic example. There is generally a political consensus at the National Assembly that these larger organisations are better than small ones and mergers are generally a good thing.

Mergers are expensive, not just with redundancy costs and the cost of rebadging the organisation, ICT—and, for those people who have been following it, after the creation of Natural Resources Wales, the number of times they came back to ask for more money to borrow in order to meet their ICT problems was continual. And it's inevitable; ICT is the bit that hangs over any reorganisation of any organisation. Yes.

Thanks for giving way, Mike Hedges. I don't disagree with a word you've said so far. Will you undertake to abandon these plans when you become Cabinet Secretary for local government? [Laughter.]

I thank Nick Ramsay for—

I'm interested in this answer. [Laughter.]

Can I thank Nick Ramsay for his comments? I don't think these proposals are the right way forward. That's all I will say. [Interruption.] 

Because, ICT, people are under contract, they need to be updated or closed down on merger and sometimes you pay—[Interruption.] Sometimes you pay—

Calm down.

—so much per 1,000 or 10,000 items in your database or in your structure, and that means that merging doesn't necessarily save you any money, because, if you go from 10,000 to 15,000, you don't say, 'Oh, we've merged two', you actually—. And you have to produce the same number of payslips. You're not going to pay fewer people because you've merged.

All these are up-front costs and whilst the cost of local government reorganisation was approximately 5 per cent of annual expenditure last time, we also know there are other things now that have happened in terms of the change in terms and conditions.

If you follow the simplistic conclusions of some, then, following a merger, all senior post duplication is removed and thus substantial ongoing savings are made. Economic theory predicts that an organisation may become less efficient if it becomes too large. Larger organisations often suffer from poor communication, because they find it difficult to maintain an effective flow of information between departments, divisions or between head office and outlying parts. Co-ordination problems also affect large organisations. 'X-inefficiency' is the loss of management efficiency that occurs when organisations become large and operate in uncompetitive markets. Such losses of efficiency include overpaying for resources, including senior staff—that might be something that some people might be thinking about—and excessive waste of resources.

Can I just add, if the Cabinet Secretary's got evidence—empirical evidence—that larger organisations in the public sector, and especially local government, anywhere in the world are working more efficiently and cost effectively, will he publish it? Because I'm unable to find any.

I'm sorry to come back to this, Cabinet Secretary, but I do think that it's very telling that both the motion and one of the Plaid amendments reflect that the Cabinet Secretary hasn't really embarked on this process in the most politic of ways. Both refer to an inadequate approach to engaging with and influencing current council leaders. I think we all understand the need to take some action on this agenda, but in serving up old hash rather than engaging councils in preparing the menu, you really are starting to lose hope of nourishing those you need to take with you. I'm sure you remember the mess within Labour ranks in Bridgend the last time somebody kindly suggested who they should be teaming up with. There were splits and expulsions, which, of course, while they might have been a little bit of fun for other political parties, were a huge distraction, which damaged the council's authority and soaked up a lot of time when the council could have been doing something useful for its residents. And I don't actually think it was all about self-interest on the part of those who were caught up in the fight. What still lingers there is the feeling that they were pushed into having a fight by proposals that they didn't design, and where opportunities for damage limitation weren't offered in the early stages of policy development. I think a post facto consultation like the one we have now is not really going to allay that resentment.

I suspect you're also going to run into difficulties with the existing collaboration models, which have already been mentioned, and the desire for coterminosity. Your Government introduced the regional partnership boards and, at the moment, Western Bay in my region mirrors not just constituency boundaries, more or less, but also Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board's. Moving Bridgend-based hospital care into Cwm Taf, which is as definitely on the cards as it can be, I think, completely throws that coterminosity, but, of course, would restore it if your idea of a merger between Bridgend County Borough Council and Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council goes ahead. A change of local health board responsibility, which was viewed with some understandable anxiety to begin with, has now become a change sparking anger and, again, resentment, because it looks like Welsh Government has jumped the gun by presuming that its version of local government reform will go through. 

And what's going to happen to those regional partnership boards? I guess there will be some amendments to the Local Government (Democracy) (Wales) Act 2013, but I'm quite keen to find out what you're going to do to the Local Government (Wales) Act 2015 itself. If you remember, it was based on a November 2015 deadline. So, will you be taking this off the statute books as it's otiose now? If there was ever a nonsensical piece of legislation, it was that—imposing deadlines on local authorities only for them not to be met, or, where they were, preferred plans ignored. And Janet Finch-Saunders laid bare that, the glaring faults of that legislation, as it was going through, but it was dismissed out of hand, as were, indeed, the views of council leaders.

So, if you're planning, Cabinet Minister, to be a little bit more conciliatory than the Minister at the time, perhaps you could give us an indication of which bits of that Act you will be looking at retaining, because I see some familiar phrases in the Green Paper, but I do urge you to drop the idea of powers to block local authorities designing themselves along the principles of mayoral cabinets. Why should it be Welsh Government who decides that? This place has recently been successful in acquiring the powers to determine its own structures and electoral system, opening up discussion. So, why would Government now consider closing down discussion on what councils, including merged councils, could look like?

Two final points, as others have talked more generally about cost—can you tell me whether you will be thrashing out the effects of merger on council tax and council debt before even considering any exercise of Executive power? As the terms of the withdrawal from the EU must be agreed before exit, then so should the terms of merger be agreed before merger of councils—up front, not at secondary legislation stage. And will you tell me also what you've done to ensure that this new wave of uncertainty does not impact one jot on the progress being made by the two city deals that affect my region? Plans for the new Dyfed—and Paul Davies has raised plenty of problems with them already—they're not just completely at odds with coterminosity ambitions, but it places any new merged council in a very difficult position as regards the residents of Ceredigion and their exclusion, at the moment, from the economic uplift for which only Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire councils are contracted.

Now, of course, it's always going to be pretty lairy with the council leaders. I think we probably could all have anticipated that, but I am left wondering what has happened to the Alun Davies who, when he was Minister for Welsh language, made great play in this Chamber of how he was all about his low-pressure reasonableness, strewing flowers along the path to enlightenment and bringing local councils to a place of understanding, rather than bringing them to heel, which is what we have now.

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

For the second time in a few months I'm left speechless, Deputy Presiding Officer. I seem to have left my floral tributes in another place, and I'm left only with my wit and wisdom. So, this could be a very short contribution. [Laughter.] But I will answer the point because I thought it was a very interesting and thoughtful speech that we've just heard from Suzy Davies, who did challenge me, I felt, in a very fair and reasonable way. We do not wish, of course, to impose. We wish to reach agreement. And there is agreement, actually, and there is agreement across local government and, I believe—. We heard from the UKIP spokesperson this afternoon, and we've heard in other places politicians on all sides of the Chamber, recognising that the current structures we have are not sustainable. And, in the first meeting I had with the WLGA in Cardiff city hall back in November, the WLGA themselves were very, very clear then that the current structures are not sustainable: 22 local authorities in a country of 3 million people is simply not a sustainable structure, and that is—

Will you take an intervention?

I will allow you to intervene.

And that was coming from the WLGA, and not from Welsh Government.

How does that compare against the rest of western Europe?

Well, the WLGA didn't go as far as that, I'm afraid to say, but I will say to my very good friend from Swansea East, who has made a speech that isn't entirely unfamiliar to me, that, as a country, we are not the greatest population on the planet. The population of Wales is slightly more than Paris or Rome, but below that of Berlin and Madrid. We need the structures that reflect properly the communities that we serve, and I thought the points made by Paul Davies in that respect were fairly made and were good and reasonable points. We, of course, both lived in Dyfed in those days, and I would very gently remind the Member for Preseli that some of the problems of Dyfed were caused, of course, by a Conservative Secretary of State who, at that time, cut local government significantly, and we saw significant issues not only in Dyfed but across Wales.

When I talk to local government leaders—. I'm delighted that the Conservative spokesperson Janet Finch-Saunders is on a tour of Wales. We might even bump into each other at some point, and we'll look forward to those conversations. But, when I travel Wales, and I travel to visit and to speak to councillors, councils and council leaders, they do make, sometimes, some very robust points, let's face it. We have very robust and challenging conversations. But, do you know, not one of them—not one of them—nobody anywhere has said to me, 'I wish we had a Conservative Minister delivering Conservative policies, as they are doing across the border in England'. Not one of them. Even your Conservative councillor. I agree with Oscar's description of Peter Fox—he's a great local authority leader—but I have to say I'm still awaiting the correspondence where he seeks to influence me as to following Conservative policies in England, which have reduced, in the last six or seven or eight years, the spending power of local authorities by 49 per cent. [Interruption.] I always know when I'm making progress because the Member for Clwyd West begins to pipe up.

The spending power of local authorities in England has been reduced by 49 per cent. Now, the Conservative spokesperson, the Member for Aberconwy, said that we needed to respect local government, and I agree with her—we do. But cutting by half the support for local services is not showing respect, it is showing disregard. It is showing that they don't give a damn for those services or the people delivering those services, and that's the reality of Conservative policy. The Conservatives have stood this afternoon amid, at times, I will agree, some reasonable and fair points about a programme of mergers. But what they haven't reminded the Chamber is that the Conservative Government in England hasn't just compelled and enabled mergers to take place, but has done so without any support and any funding at all, anywhere, at any point. So, it's not right or proper for them to come here and oppose policies that have been pursued by a Government here that seeks to support and empower local government whilst at the same time not taking responsibility for some of the policies they themselves support across the border. [Interruption.] I want to make some progress, if I could. I can see that time is against me.

Because I want to go beyond the conversation that perhaps we've had this afternoon. All too often when we debate and discuss local government we discuss lines on maps and we discuss a programme of mergers. I believe that a programme of creating larger local authorities is a prerequisite to something else, and it is the something else that is important to me. I will let Members here into a secret. When I go to bed at night, I do not—[Interruption.] I'm going to finish the sentence. I do not—[Interruption.]

Can we all calm down?

I do not place either a copy of the Green Paper or a map of the new authorities under my pillow. I do not do that. I do not dream, I do not wake with a start at three o'clock in the morning dreaming of new authorities in the Vale of Glamorgan or in the Vale of Clwyd or elsewhere, or the return of the flag of Dyfed and the kings of Deheubarth. I don't dream or think of things like that, and I am not committed to a particular model or a particular geography, but I am committed to something else. I am committed to empowered local government. I am committed to stronger local government and better local democracy and democratic accountability. And do you know what motivates me, what does keep me up at night? It's knowing that 700 people in Ceredigion have been made redundant because of what is happening to local government today. What keeps me awake at night is knowing there are people who are afraid of seeing the council tax bill because councils are struggling facing austerity and facing difficulties in balancing their budgets, and that is in the context where this Government has protected those budgets and protected those services. We haven't seen anything like the cuts in Wales that we've seen in England, but we've seen the disruption to services and the failure to deliver services at different times because we have a structure that is simply not fit for purpose and is not sustainable, and the WLGA agree with that analysis, and I know people on all sides of the Chamber agree with that.

But let's go beyond a dry and tired debate on lines on maps and mergers. Let's look at the vision. It isn't good enough—it isn't good enough for any Member on any side of the Chamber here today simply to stand up and make a speech telling us what they oppose and what they don't like. We are not paid to tell people what we don't like. We are not paid to tell people about the problems they already know about. We are paid here to find solutions to those problems, to find solutions to the difficulties that people face. And let me say this—I know that time is against me, Deputy Presiding Officer—Welsh Labour believes in this policy of creating larger, stronger councils because we want to protect our services, we want to protect the people who deliver those services, and we want to deliver greater democratic accountability. We want a new culture, we want a new relationship between this place and local government. I said in my speech on the weekend in Llandudno that it is time for a new settlement in Wales.  

We have seen and we have campaigned, and we have discussed this afternoon, about devolution to Wales. But I believe we also need devolution within Wales—greater powers to robust local authorities with the capacity to use them and with a strategic vision to deliver services across Wales, and greater powers to every local authority, every reformed local authority in Wales. I've given a commitment that we will start to look towards delivering the EU charter of local self-government into Welsh law, and I want to go further than that. I want to look towards shared services and an improvement body for Wales to give local government the powers and the responsibility for improvement in local government.

For too long, this place and local government have been like unhappy siblings, arguing with each other. We need a mature relationship with local government. We need a new relationship with local government. We need a new settlement for local government. We need empowered local government, stronger councils, working alongside Welsh Government to deliver services for the whole of Wales, and I believe, Deputy Presiding Officer, that that is what the people of Wales want as well. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

I'll decide who goes on too long in this Chamber, thank you very much, and some of you may want to speak in other debates later today. Can I now call on Nick Ramsay to reply to the debate, please?

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Can I just put on the record at the start of my contribution that I don't lie awake at three in the morning either thinking, or sleeping and dreaming, about the Cabinet Secretary's plans for local government in Wales, despite rumours that might have gone around after the last statement you gave on this subject, Alun Davies, when I said I'd be more than happy to live adjacent and next to the Cabinet Secretary but would be less than happy to live with him in the same authority, and I'm sure that you would agree with that as well, Cabinet Secretary. 

Perhaps I should be asking Mike Hedges to round up this debate, as he's probably a little bit more against these plans than I am, despite the fact that it bears the name of a Conservative debate on it. But, I won't do that, Dirprwy Lywydd, because I know that would incur your annoyance at this point. 

Look, I've got to say, I started feeling a bit sorry for you, actually, Alun Davies, as it was probably a little bit like you addressing the WLGA or a Labour Party meeting, this debate today. You really did—well, I can't think of a single person actually who supported your plans. You did make—I mean, he's not a bad chap. I'll give you that, Cabinet Secretary—you're not a bad chap. And you're not unintelligent, so I know that you have given thought—perhaps not as much as you should have—to some of these proposals, and that is to be welcomed. 

What I would say is that you made a very important point about a third before the end of your rhetoric earlier, where you said that you are fed up with this dry debate. I think we all cheered at that one, didn't we? I think we're all fed up with it as well. But, of course, the reason why we're having this dry debate is because you have brought this discussion to this Assembly by putting forward these proposals that have died in the water several times over the years since we've had this Assembly. I can't count the number—Mike Hedges will remember the exact number of times we've debated this—and we've put these proposals to bed before.

So, you brought the debate to us. And if what you say is true, which is that this is a prerequisite to what you really want to discuss—which is, I assume, the modernisation of public services in Wales, and which is, I assume, putting the citizen at the heart of the system, and how often do we discuss that—then why on earth, I cannot fathom why you are not having that debate and why you are not bringing those proposals to this place and other places first, and then let's have the discussion about the structure that follows. And, who knows, you might actually carry people—you might carry one person with you. I'm sure you've done that—I won't go there. I'm sure you have carried people before with you. But what was blatantly obvious from this debate today was that, regardless of your original desire to engage with people and carry the public and AMs and politicians and local government with you, that simply does not seem to be happening.

You have to—well, the Cabinet Secretary has pointed out this is a Conservative debate, but it doesn't escape our notice that it was not just Conservatives, or indeed the other opposition Members, who were supporting the tenets of this debate today. You are clearly not going about this in the right way. You go about many things in the right way, I do not doubt that. But this, Cabinet Secretary, is not one of them. 

It's been quite clear by the response today from Members, some of whom I'll refer to now, that there are concerns. Siân Gwenllian, who spoke, is right. Yes, we do need to strengthen our councils. Leaving aside the banter that often happens in this place about cuts, and whether they're UK cuts or cuts here, yes, of course, modernisation of local authorities and of public services is something that we need to do not just in times of cuts but in times of prosperity too. Remember that phrase, 'We've got to fix the roof when the sun is shining'? Well, it wasn't just relevant at the UK level, it was relevant in devolved politics as well. So, regardless of the economic situation, local government needs to modernise. The Cabinet Secretary is right about that, Labour Party members are right about that and opposition party members are right about that, so let's get on with having that discussion.

Lynne Neagle—well, what do you really think, Lynne? A stoic defence for the status quo—the status quo but, clearly, modernised. Your comments were very similar to those of the WLGA, which I know that the Welsh Government often dismisses and says, 'Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?' Well, yes, they would say that, because they represent countless people in local government, and not just elected officials but public servants in local government who are doing their best at these difficult times to make sure that public services are delivered as well and as efficiently as possible. I am sure we are all with them in spirit in wanting to achieve that.

Oscar, you spoke about engagement and what assurances workers in those local authorities are getting. Obviously, I'm closer to a Conservative local authority that I represent than I am to other local authorities, but I'm not entirely sure what assurances you have put forward to our workers in local authorities at this time, because they are under the cosh. They really are trying hard to do things in an increasingly difficult situation. They are certainly not reassured by the arguments that you've made.

Paul Davies—well, actually, before I came here today I should probably have popped to the bookies to put a bet on that you would oppose a return to Dyfed. In the same way that you're used to some of the responses you've had today, Alun, Paul has been stoically against the return to Dyfed over a long, long time.

The argument about brand is key. I haven't reiterated that yet, because I did so at length in the last statement that you gave. I can have discussions with you about issues I have with the reformation of Monmouthshire. You will respond to me that if you put Monmouthshire and Blaenau Gwent back together, you are somehow romantically recreating an old Monmouthshire county that you grew up in and that I grew up in, and that, actually, people are nostalgic for. You can make that argument in the case of Monmouthshire, and you may well rename the authority that in the longer term, but how on earth are you going to persuade people in Aberystwyth that the Pembrokeshire brand is really going to work there? How are you going to persuade people in Carmarthenshire that the Pembrokeshire brand is going to work there? It just doesn't work, and that is the problem with these proposals, Cabinet Secretary.

Sorry—

I think I'm out of time—sorry, Mike.

It doesn't work. Now, do what you said you wanted to do originally—go back to the drawing board. If you have written these proposals on the back of a fag packet, I might try to FOI that fag packet, actually, because it does sound quite interesting to see it written somewhere. But, for goodness' sake, let's get on with the job of modernising public services first then decide on the structures. Everyone here thinks that that is the way to do it. Listen, engage and let's get on with the job of delivering better public services in Wales.

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

For item 8 and item 9, I appreciate that they are half-hour debates, and I know that I've got a lot of speakers in both. I have requested that you consider a three-minute speech. I appreciate you've all probably written and researched, but, if you can, it will allow us to get everybody in in the debates. So, that's a gentle reminder. Item 8, then, is the Plaid Cymru debate on the proposed renaming of the second Severn crossing. I call on Dai Lloyd to move the motion.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I move that the National Assembly for Wales calls on the UK Government to hold a public consultation on the proposed renaming of the second Severn crossing. Naturally, I would hope that you would agree with that and vote against the Labour amendment.

Adam Price mentioned the broader context last week—that to force this decision on renaming the bridge without discussion or consultation with the people of Wales is a clear pattern of a lack of respect from the UK Government and the Welsh Labour Government towards representing the interests of our nation.

There has been a series of events that have emerged: no decision on the Swansea bay tidal lagoon, dropping plans to electrify the rail line to Swansea, the absurdity of the proposals of the iron ring at Flint castle last year, the renaming of the second Severn crossing without consultation, not giving a fair share of HS2 investment to Wales, and a bung of £1 billion for the DUP and not a penny for Wales. And the most recent one: the ceding over the European withdrawal Bill, which will mean a roll back of powers for this Parliament—the unionist parties of Britain trying to turn the clock back and bring Wales closer to England.

Now, I'm an easy-going sort of bloke, but I thought I would remind you of the history in terms of princes of Wales. In 1282, the last Welsh Prince of Wales was killed. Edward I glorified in the passing of Wales's royal family and proclaimed his newborn son as the new Prince of Wales from the ramparts of Caernarfon castle and, in an act of sophistry, reassured the people of Wales that this new prince of Wales could not speak a word of English either, like themselves. Llywelyn's baby daughter, Gwenllian, was not killed but exiled to a convent in rural Lincolnshire for the 55 years of her little life, isolated and bereft until her death in 1337. 

So, the firstborn son and heir to the English crown has been anointed as Prince of Wales ever since, and on our knees since then we have just gone along with it, some with more enthusiasm than others, which brings me to the Secretary of State for Wales. Now, I know people are saying we should be discussing more important things, but that's entirely the point. The Secretary of State for Wales should be doing more important things. I haven't detected a clamour to rename the second Severn crossing at all. I have detected lots of clamour for having a tidal lagoon in Swansea bay, rail electrification, not having a superprison in Baglan—lots of public clamour—but Prince of Wales bridge? Public clamour came there none. What we expect from a Secretary of State for Wales, while we still have one, is Cabinet assistance to bring about these truly transformative ideas and plans into action. 

The First Minister here offered no objection to the Secretary of State's plan to name the bridge—so much for standing up for Wales, or have we redefined standing up for Wales now as lying down? 

Following your direction, Deputy Presiding Officer, I will keep things brief. It’s possible that many of the people of Wales would propose alternative names to the Secretary of State. Perhaps there will be proposals that the bridge should be named after some of the true princes and princesses of Wales, such as ‘Hywel Dda Road’, ‘The Gwenllian Highway'—

Will you give way? 

Oh, here we go. Come on, then. 

You talk about Norman-era princes of Wales. Will you accept that Prince Charles, through the Tudor line, is not only descended from an ancient Anglesey family, but from Cadwaladr, the last ancient British king with a truer claim than the post-Norman claimants?  

Desperate stuff. It brings me back to the Bil ymadael. 

But why bother with the naming of bridges in any case, when there are far more important issues to be resolved? Our demands as part of this debate today are simple: give the people of Wales a chance to have their say on the name given to one of the most notable structures of our nation, or not to name it at all, rather than allowing the Conservatives to trample all over the welcome mat of Wales.

Thank you. I have selected the amendment to the motion, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport to move formally amendment 1 tabled in the name of Julie James.  

Move. 

Thank you. John Griffiths. 

Diolch, Dirprwy Llywydd. First of all, I would like to make the point that names do matter. They really do matter. They send signals and they're symbolically important, and they do mean something to people. Dirprwy Lywydd, I would much prefer to be living in a republic with its strong messages of citizenship, empowerment and position from achievement and ability, rather than accident of birth. Sadly, that is not the case, but neither do we live in a principality. Wales is not the fiefdom of a prince, so the renaming of our national stadium as the Principality Stadium was unhelpful. It reinforces incorrect, misleading and careless descriptions of Wales as a principality and is therefore, I would argue, demeaning and belittling. And now the proposal to rename the second Severn crossing 'Prince Charles bridge' threatens to add to damaging misconceptions. It's ironic as well, I believe, that just as the crossing has returned to public ownership, it is proposed to rename it, not with a name the people have decided upon and want, but with one handed down from on high without even a public consultation. Many tens of thousands of motorists use the bridge every day but had no say in whether it needed a new name and, if so, what that new should be. Dirprwy Lywydd, I would say that the UK Government's actions in this matter could rightfully be characterised as—

Will the Member take an intervention, please?

Um—

You can, go on. 

Yes. 

Thank you. Am I correct, though, that it came to the Welsh Government for their opinion and they actually didn't reject the suggestion? 

Whichever way you look at it, Janet, it's a UK Government matter. The UK Government decided that a new name was required, decided what the new name should be and decided to take it forward without public consultation. So, that's where the responsibility lies. 

Dirprwy Lywydd, let me say that I believe that the UK Government's actions in this matter could reasonably be characterised and should be characterised as ham-fisted, wrong-headed and indeed patronising. If the second Severn crossing is to have a new name, it should be decided by those who have endured the tolls over so many years and indeed still endure those tolls today. In short, it should be decided by y werin nid y crachach. 

There we go. Russell George. 

Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I say to Dai Lloyd that he won't be surprised that the Welsh Conservatives won't be supporting Plaid's motion today? I have to say it is curious for Plaid to call on the UK Government to hold a public consultation on an issue that has already been agreed and decided in consultation with the Welsh Government. What I can also say is that I find it strange for Plaid to suggest that it's reasonable for us in this Assembly to tell the UK Government and Parliament what they should be doing on an issue that rests with them. If the situation were reversed and Parliament were to tell this Assembly what to do on an issue within our responsibility, Members opposite would soon have something to say about that issue. 

Turning to the point of the renaming of the bridge, unlike John Griffiths I am a proud monarchist. But even if I wasn't, I believe not only does the name 'Prince of Wales bridge' mark the lifelong contribution that he has made to Wales and its society, but perhaps more importantly, this decision recognises the role of the second Severn crossing as one of the most iconic landmarks in Wales, a symbol of Wales's strong economic contribution—

Will you take an intervention?

I will in a second—to the UK, a contribution that will be boosted to the tune of an estimated £100 million a year following the UK Government's decision to abolish the tolls on the Severn crossing. 

Thank you for giving way. I'm a republican myself, but as a monarchist, would you not recognise that perhaps the person most embarrassed by all of this is the Prince of Wales?  

Well, the Prince of Wales was also consulted on the issue and was happy about the naming of the bridge in this regard.

I will say—and I've got Oscar sat next to me here as well—when we think about the £100 million and the decision to abolish, of course, the tolls on the Severn bridge, Newport is now home to the UK's fastest moving property market, according to Rightmove, and I suggest this buoyant market can be directly attributed to the imminent scrapping of the tolls. As many as 25 million motorists could save around £1,400 a year and Wales's hospitality and tourism sectors are expecting a surge in day visitors from England, while of course the haulage industry as well and the property market could also see those benefits. Now, this is what we should be talking about. I can hear Plaid Members sighing, but this is what we should be talking about today—not about the naming of the bridge. So, while I believe that the renaming of the second Severn crossing is a fitting way to formally recognise the Prince of Wales's decades of contribution to our nation on the occasion of his seventieth birthday here, the name 'Prince of Wales' is, of course, a brand as well in itself, which is recognised all around the world. So, let's focus our time today in this Chamber on the important issues of how the scrapping of the tolls will support the Welsh economy. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer.

It is a quixotic debate that we're having this afternoon on a matter that I'm sure is not exactly at the forefront of what people are talking about in the Dog and Duck or any other pub—

Well, they are. It's one of the few things they are talking about.

In that case, they're putting the Assembly on the map as well, and a very good thing it is too. But in terms of the amount of time that we have available for debates in this Chamber and the massive problems Wales is confronted by, I think there are better subjects for debate than this, although I always enjoy listening to Dai Lloyd's journeys down memory lane and his innovative responses to the problems that we have to grapple with. But I personally have no difficulty whatsoever in supporting the Welsh Government's decision on this. For better or worse, like it or not, we are a constitutional monarchy, and the monarchy is one of the unifying factors of the United Kingdom. We inherit these institutions from predecessor generations, and the idea that somebody like me might end up as the president of the United Kingdom or the president of a republican Wales would be far more horrifying, I think, for Members of Plaid Cymru than for the current Prince of Wales to hold the position that he has. That is always the danger, of course, with democracy—that you sometimes turn up rogue candidates for jobs. We might well have had a President Tony Blair, for example, at one time, when he was riding high in the public affections.

The overwhelming majority of people in Wales, as in the United Kingdom, do support a constitutional monarchy as the ceremonial head of state. We don't have an executive monarchy in this country, and a very good thing that is too. Power resides with the people through representative institutions like the National Assembly for Wales. I think we should glory in our monarchy because it gives massive prestige to our country in the world at large. Who could actually name the president of Germany or the president of Italy and other countries? You can't, whereas the Queen is one of the most famous people in the world and there is a massive economic benefit—although I disdain to justify the monarchy upon such a materialistic basis—but there is a massive economic benefit to this country—

Will you take an intervention?

If the Deputy Presiding Officer—

You may take an intervention.

Do you realise that Legoland in Windsor actually gets more visitors than the actual Windsor palace? This economic argument is simply not one that we should be following. Plus they make lots of money through the public purse, such as pensions and such, and through the Duchy. It's not something that we should be supporting, and that's something I would like to debate here in this National Assembly, because it is important. We should have a Welsh republic here in Wales.

Well, I'm sure that those of us who support the monarchy would be delighted to have Plaid Cymru supporting something that the people of Wales don't support. So bring it on, I say.

Of course people visit Legoland at Windsor. Maybe they're just the ones who can't get into Windsor castle on that day. Who knows? There is no doubt that there is massive popular support for the institution of monarchy in this country, and it seems to be entirely proper to name the second Severn bridge after the Prince of Wales. I would like to propose, as I did the other day, that the other Severn bridge should be named after Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, Llywelyn Ein Llyw Olaf, to represent both traditions of this house, and that would be a unifying factor, perhaps.

The motion proposes that the National Assembly for Wales

'Calls on the UK Government to hold a public consultation on the proposed renaming of the Second Severn Crossing.'

Well, what's wrong with that? I can see nothing at all wrong with that, yet we have an amendment from Labour that talks about just abdicating responsibility. It's as my colleague across the Chamber said. 'Oh, it's not our responsibility. It's not us, Guv. It's the UK Government.'

Moving on, the amendment welcomes the local consultations on the renaming of trunk road bridges in Wales. Well, wow—trunk road bridges, when we have the gateway to Wales renamed with no public consultation whatsoever—none. I heard about this and I got in the car and I drove to the Severn bridge and did a video. It's had over 50,000 views, and it kickstarted a campaign. There's a petition. Again, tens of thousands of people have signed it because this matters. This isn't actually about the monarchy. This is about dignity and democracy, and people in Wales having their say. People in this country have had enough—[Interruption.] Simply had enough. It's interesting to be in this Chamber debating this and to look at the conversations going on as I'm speaking. Clearly, this is not a matter of interest for everybody in this Chamber, unfortunately. The sooner that we have individual sovereignty in Wales for our citizens, the better. The sooner we have community sovereignty in Wales, the better, and the sooner we have national sovereignty so that we can stand on our own two feet with dignity and make our own decisions, then so much the better. I'm embarrassed listening to the so-called great left-wing republicans to my right over there. They're going to vote down this motion, I would imagine, because they're whipped by their party, as ever, with Labour. Party first, country second.

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

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'd like to start by clearly thanking Members for their contributions and for this opportunity to respond. As I stated in Plenary just last week, this is a bridge owned by another Government, and we've made repeated calls in the past for transfer of ownership of the crossing to Welsh Government. However, these calls have historically been resisted. Therefore, it is a UK Government decision whether or not to hold a public consultation on naming the bridge. The request to ask the UK Government to rethink its decision was also raised last week. But to reiterate, the Welsh Government will not be asking the UK Government to rethink its decision.

I have to say, at times, it's concerned me that, sometimes, the language that's been used, not in this Chamber but certainly on social media, would suggest that people who support the royal family are less Welsh than those who don't, that you're less Welsh if you support the naming of the Severn crossing the Prince of Wales Crossing. I would urge all citizens of Wales to be more tolerant of other views and to support the diversity of views. I wouldn't wish anybody outside of Wales to think that we do not tolerate other people's views and opinions. I'd also rather we focus on the removal of the tolls of the bridge rather than the renaming of it. There was an informed and meaningful cross-party support in the Senedd for the removal of the tolls on both bridges, as well as amongst business and industry. This support, I really do strongly believe, enabled us to construct a powerful and consistent case for the UK Government for their removal, which I believe played no small part in the UK Government's eventual decision.

If we look to the future, as Russell George has said, productivity of the Welsh economy is set to be boosted by over £100 million per year. It's essential, as we exit the EU, that we take every opportunity to promote Wales globally and, indeed, at every single level. Removal of the tolls sends a very strong message internationally that Wales is open to business, and that there are no barriers to the free movement of traffic between us and England and the rest of the UK. I now call on the UK Government to ensure that there are no barriers between us and the rest of Europe.

Now, as a Government, public engagement is key to our policy making. Indeed, under the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, the ways of working determine that we must work in a collaborative way, in which people are participating fully. We will continue to consult with the public on proposals for our own assets in Wales to help to drive quality of place and local identity. I'm pleased to confirm that we will conduct local consultations on the naming of new trunk road bridges in Wales. We are currently considering consulting on the naming of the Gateway bridge at Brynmawr for section 2 of the A465, and I've recently begun discussions with Flintshire County Council over the naming of what's known currently as the new Flintshire bridge; it is the gateway to Wales in the north. And I'm also keen to conduct a local consultation over the naming of the third Menai crossing. I must stress that these will be local consultations, giving the people of their communities they provide identity for the say over their names.

I look forward to seeing what these local consultations result in, and I would urge all politicians, and all people, wherever they represent, and wherever they reside, to respect the views of local people, regardless of whether they choose a royal name or not for the infrastructure that lends them and their communities their identity.

Thank you very much. Can I now call on Adam Price to reply to the debate, please?

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. A fo ben, bid bont: he who would be a leader, let him be a bridge. That's the old saying in the Mabinogion. Well, of course, in the wake of the intervention by Alun Cairns, maybe we should overturn that to: a fo bont, bid ben—he who would be a bridge, let him lead. Why did he do this? And why did 40,000 people sign a petition opposing it? I think John Griffiths was right: in a name there is power. Symbols are important; they are significant because they do carry a message about who we are. That’s why people are concerned about these things, and I don’t think there is anything intolerant about feeling passionately about what this represents in terms of our values, as John Griffiths said.

I’m a republican as well and I don’t think it’s about being a republican or being a monarchist; I think it’s about whether you’re a democrat, to tell you the truth. Where was the voice of the people of Wales in this decision? A decision that has been imposed on us, of course, like something from days gone by, before devolution and before democracy. That’s why people are responding and saying, ‘Well, this is unacceptable.’

Several nations in the world have been going through a process of renaming things in order to free themselves from colonialism. In Canada, they’ve recently renamed Langevin bridge in Alberta—the great oppressor of native peoples—and it's become Reconciliation bridge. In Australia, of course, we know about Ayers rock, which became Uluru. Only in Wales, of course, has the process gone the other way. John referred to the Principality Stadium, and we have this bridge now. Of course, we’re still losing local Welsh place names, as we’ve been doing for centuries—a process similar to what happened in Ireland. Well, you will remember the Brian Friel drama, Translations, about the power of place names. They’re a central part of understanding who we are and our history.

Place names are the place where language and power meet. The second Severn crossing was only a bridge, but what is it now? It’s a symbol; it’s a symbol of our lack of authority. It’s a symbol of our lack of voice in our own country, a symbol of a lack of democracy: half the bridge in England, but 100 per cent of the power. [Interruption.] There’s no time. Wales has paid the majority of the tolls, and yet we had no opportunity to voice our opinion. It reminds me of that Calcutta monument—Victoria's monument—which was paid for by the Indians themselves. They and us, before long, will be the only people in the world who have paid for symbols of our own oppression, but with one big difference: they are independent. I hope that that will soon be true of Wales as well.

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

Item 9 on the agenda this afternoon is the Plaid Cymru debate on the school uniform grant, and I call on Llyr Gruffydd to move the motion. 

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I move this motion in the name of Plaid Cymru, which regrets the way in which the Welsh Government has scrapped the school uniform grant, because the grant, as we know, has provided crucially important support to many families—those poorest families in Wales—in order to ensure that their children can have an appropriate uniform to attend school. Over the last year alone, 5,500 pupils have been supported under this grant. It is appreciated by local authorities, by schools—we hear stories from the teaching unions as to how individual teachers sometimes have to go into their own pockets to buy items of school uniform for pupils. So, any question as to whether that kind of support is needed is an empty question, to all intents and purposes. And, of course, most importantly, it is appreciated by those parents who find it difficult to make ends meet, and for those children, of course, who are in receipt of free school meals. 

It is a disgrace that a Labour Government, or a Labour-led Government at least, is cutting that crucial support for the poorest and most deprived in our society, and at a time when it is needed as much as ever, if not more so. At a time when the Conservatives in Government in the UK are cutting the welfare budget, and cutting support for the poorest in our society, when living costs are increasing and salaries are shrinking, the last thing we would expect from Labour is this.

And let us put to bed this claim that it has always been the intention to introduce an alternative scheme. Certainly, there was no-one on the Labour backbenches who were aware of that when this news emerged. There was no talk of an alternative proposal when this was first mooted in the media. If it was an intention, well, fine, but shouldn't that alternative proposal have been in place before the current grant was scrapped? That is, we could have avoided all of the confusion and all of the concern among the most vulnerable people and the most needy people in our society.

And the first response of the Welsh Government, of course, when the news emerged, was to say, quite carelessly, if I may say so, that the cost of school uniform had reduced in any case. Well, I and others have seen on the Bevan Foundation website how they described this as a mealy-mouthed justification for a cut that would save a relatively small sum for Government, but, of course, would be of huge cost to those most needy parents. We know that the average cost per annum to pay for secondary school uniform is now £316, according to the Teaching Times, and simultaneously the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that the working-age families who are poorest and who have children will see their incomes reduced by 20 per cent between 2015 and 2020. So, those poorest families need this support more than ever.

It is not a matter of going to a supermarket to buy the cheapest school uniforms now, of course. An increasing number of schools insist that school uniforms have to be bought branded from specific suppliers. Now, I'm a parent at Ysgol Brynhyfryd in Ruthin, and they went through a process of introducing a new school uniform recently—and I should declare an interest as a parent, I'm sure, in that issue, and I will do so. But at that time, many of the parents argued in the local press that you could buy school trousers that are three-times cheaper from other suppliers. There was a similar story recently in Monmouthshire, and I know that many Members here will be familiar with that story. 

Research by the Children's Society shows that more than 70 per cent of parents say now that they do have to buy some or all of their children's school uniform from a designated supplier. Their analysis demonstrates that parents across Britain could save hundreds of millions of pounds if they were allowed to buy school uniforms from cheaper suppliers. But the Welsh Government's response that school uniform is cheaper anyway by now, I have to say, was insulting, cold-hearted and demonstrated to many of us how out of touch they are with the reality of everyday life.

Now, I share the disappointment, and, indeed, the despondency of the Children's Commissioner for Wales at this decision. It wasn't clear in the Government's budgetary motion, and it hasn't been subject to any sort of public consultation. It was a unilateral decision by Government. Has there been an impact assessment on the rights of children? Has an equality impact assessment been prepared? Has the Government given due regard to the public sector equality duty or the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child? These are all questions that remain unanswered and which should have been answered before the decision reached this point. 

In the meantime, of course, some counties are now saying that they're going to try to step into the breach in certain circumstances, and are looking at where they can make other cuts in current budgets in order to do that. So, something will have to give in those areas. I have spoken to local authorities across north Wales and at least half of them have said that there will be no support available from them as local authorities, and therefore the prospect is very real that that support will not be available in those areas.

And there's a pattern here, if I may say so, there's a pattern emerging: cutting a grant or a budget, there's a response out there on the ground, then they scramble to restore the situation and then there's huge confusion about a quick fix to try to restore the situation. We saw that with the minority ethnic achievement grant, the MEAG—it was scrapped, there was a strong response to that cut, the Welsh Government then found some funding from reserves and cobbled an alternative proposal together, and local authorities are still unclear as to how that will be distributed at a regional level. The same thing is happening again here: they cut the school uniform grant, there's a negative reaction and then they make an announcement, 'Oh no, there's an alternative proposal'—which is pretty vague at the moment—'in train'. But, you're not conning anyone. It's a total shambles. Our poorest families deserve better; our most disadvantaged pupils deserve better and Plaid Cymru insists that the Welsh Government restores the school uniform grant.

I have selected the amendment to the motion, so I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Education to move formally amendment 1, tabled in the name of Julie James.

Formally.

Thank you. Lynne Neagle.

Thank you. The Cabinet Secretary is well aware of my concerns about the potential loss of this grant, and I'm grateful to her for her engagement on this and for meeting with me about it yesterday. I have no doubt that she is personally deeply committed to supporting our poorest pupils, but on this issue, we need some urgent clarity and assurances.

In the last five years, the school uniform grant has benefited 1,107 pupils in Torfaen—young people whose families would otherwise have struggled to afford school uniform. This year, there are 202 pupils who should be eligible for the grant. We've had assurances about a new scheme, but there remain important unanswered questions about which I would be grateful for a response from the Cabinet Secretary today. Firstly, will the Cabinet Secretary guarantee that every pupil who was eligible for school uniform support under the old scheme will be eligible under the new scheme?

There has been a suggestion that the scheme could be more flexible and fund other school-related activities that families are struggling with. Now, I welcome any extra help for pupils on free school meals, but that help must be additional and not at the cost of existing support for school uniforms. There are too many activities that children from low-income families are excluded from—things like school trips, which is worthy of a debate in its own right here. Back in 2015, the predecessor Children, Young People and Education Committee published our report on our inquiry into educational outcomes for children from low-income households. A recommendation calling for Government to strengthen and clarify guidance for schools on charging for activities related to education was accepted in principle. I believe that it is now time to look again and strengthen that guidance.

I'd like to ask the Cabinet Secretary: what will be the delivery mechanism for this new grant? I would have serious concerns about that money going directly to schools. There is already a well-established delivery mechanism in place through local authorities, which families are familiar with. Families are used to having discussions about the sensitive matter of family incomes with a larger, more anonymous body that is the local authority. I would not want to see families having to go cap in hand to the school office to ensure that their kids have got the uniform they need to attend school. If it is the Cabinet Secretary's contention that schools are better placed to provide this support, then I would like to see the evidence for that and to know precisely what consultation there has been with those families likely to be affected.

I really welcome the indication that the Government has given that they will look at putting the 2011 guidance for governing bodies on school uniform on a statutory basis. It is good guidance, but it is not being implemented. Proper implementation of the guidance will deliver affordable school uniforms for all families. We must ensure that as many generic items that can be bought in supermarkets as possible are used. The guidance currently states that schools should only stipulate basic items that can be bought from retail chains at reasonable costs rather than from one supplier. High-cost items like blazers should be avoided, and logos restricted to one reasonably priced item, but this is just not happening. A quick look at the year 7 uniform list for just one school in Torfaen includes a number of items that can only be bought in one specialist shop: a blazer, £27.50; school tie, £4.50; and the PE kit alone, £44. So, £76 in total for one set, and I know this is replicated in schools across Wales. It is not good enough.

I wanted to conclude by highlighting two wider points about the way we make decisions about resources for our neediest pupils. The first is on the approach to the budget round this year, and this is not just directed at the Cabinet Secretary for Education, but across Government. I believe it has led to the situation and also the controversy around ongoing support for minority ethnic and Gypsy Roma Traveller pupils. I do not believe that the decision to effectively just pass the responsibility for funding to local government without clearly identified and sufficient resource is going to meet the needs of the young people we are trying to benefit. The ring-fenced funding was there for a reason.

Secondly, I would question the processes that have led to these decisions in the first place across Government, in particular, around consultation and the lack of a child rights impact assessment, which applies not just to education, but across Government. We trumpet our record on children's rights in Wales, but I am far from convinced we are doing anything like enough to live up to that commitment and to deliver children's rights as a reality in Wales.

To conclude, we know that universal credit will push thousands more children into poverty. There could not be a worse time to remove support for school uniform grants or to put obstacles in the way of claiming it. Thank you.

I'll keep my remarks brief, Deputy Presiding Officer, because many people have made the points that I wanted to make. But I would just say to the Cabinet Secretary: this is another fine mess you have gotten yourself into. We had hoped, I think, many of us in this Chamber, that you would have learned your lesson in terms of the lack of consultation over the way in which you scrapped the MEAG grant, and this, I'm afraid, is another example, because there has been absolutely no engagement with stakeholders prior to you making this decision to scrap this grant. You've scrambled around looking for an alternative in terms of some provision to hide the embarrassment of the fact that you failed to have this consultation. It may well be that the successor scheme is a better scheme, but you could have announced that at the same time. We all know the reality is you didn't have it up your sleeve to announce because you had to scramble around trying to sort this out after you'd already made the previous decision.

As has already been said, we're in a situation now where many parents are struggling to pay for uniforms. We know that the current guidance that is going out to local authorities and to schools is not being upheld. Nobody's holding schools accountable for the way in which they expect parents to buy their uniforms, and frankly as well we might well encourage people to buy generic products, shirts, trousers, skirts, whatever it might be, from local supermarkets, but the quality of some of those goods is really very, very poor, and it means that they have to be replaced on a more frequent basis. So, those people who were in receipt of this sort of support in the past are even more reliant on it now with those rising costs, and that's why we're supporting the Plaid Cymru motion today.

So I think what I'm looking for is some certainty about this successor scheme from you today. We need to draw a line in the sand in terms of the mess that you've made and try to make sure that the successor scheme is one that works, is one that people aren't embarrassed to access, and is one that is generous enough to make a real difference to the families that might need to access that support. Lynne Neagle is quite right—it's not just about the cost of uniforms these days. Many schools are introducing charges for textbooks, which they've not previously been charging for. Many schools have got curriculum enrichment activities outside of school hours that previously were free, which now people are having to pay for as well. So, we know the pressures that there are in terms of funding, but this is a matter of priority, I think, and the way in which the decision was clearly made on a unilateral basis has not been acceptable at all. I do hope that, with this successor scheme, there will be a wide-ranging consultation with everybody, so that we can get it right, so that we can help to shape it in a way that will make a big difference, which will support those families and those parents who need the support. 

Firstly, I must say that I support Plaid's motion and I agree with them that the grant should be reinstated. However, I do think the grant in some ways treats a symptom rather than the cause. I agree with the chairman of the National Union of Teachers Wales, Neil Foden, when he described a school uniform as eliminating differences between pupils and said undermining it creates divisions. I also agree with him that a school uniform is a way of avoiding social stigma because pupils all look the same.

So, we undoubtedly have a social responsibility to advocate a system of school uniforms and also to make sure that all families can afford them without adversely affecting their living standards. It's therefore a concern that schools are demanding logoed items of school uniform, which are obtainable only from a limited number of suppliers, at a higher cost than parents would see on the high street or online. The high cost of logoed items and blazers doesn't help anyone and all families would benefit from being able to buy cheaper uniforms. 

A monopoly therefore exists that places local authorities and the Labour Government firmly on the side of the producers of the uniform. Why should taxpayers' money be spent on maintaining an artificially high price for children's uniforms when we could effectively open it up to the same price competition there is for most adults' work clothing? 

There have been very sensible suggestions from the Bevan Foundation that sew-on school badges should be an option rather than ready-made items with embroidered logos. Although the Government is said to be encouraging schools to go down this route and to get schools to scrap the requirement for an expensive blazer, some schools are not listening. But how is this Government responding? It is withdrawing the one thing that mitigates the expense of school uniforms for the poorest in society and it's saying nothing about what is being put in its place.

The low-income families of the 5,500 children affected will be right to be confused that a Labour Government that continually says they are on their side is cutting this grant—confused that not only are Labour cutting the grant, but they have given no suggestion of whether, come September, those parents will be poorer because of changes to any new school uniform grant. 

Much as I'm uncomfortable with the trading ethics involved with clothes available in some supermarkets, we must recognise that many people don't have the luxury of choice that others do, and opening up school uniforms to the competitive market is cost saving for the families involved and goes some way to treating the underlying need for the grant in the first place.

It's all very well for the Welsh Government to be saying, 'Don't worry, we'll come up with a new grant', but announcing the removal of the grant before detailing exactly what will replace it means that there will be many parents across Wales right now seriously worried about September, not knowing if or how they will cope with the expense of school uniforms and they will not be at all reassured by a vague, half-hearted response that does nothing to answer their real and significant concerns.

We all know that sometimes people don't claim all that they're entitled to and don't get all the help that they need, either because they're unaware of the help available or they wrongly feel embarrassed to ask. So, making uniforms as low cost as possible is a route that should be pursued in tandem with an effective grant system. So, in conclusion, I support Plaid's motion, but I do believe Welsh Government needs to be far more assertive in its efforts to compel schools to go for lower cost uniform options. Thank you. 

Thank you. I will have to call the Minister at 19:01, so if you can all be quick, we might see how we go. Leanne Wood. 

Five thousand five hundred students benefit from the £700,000 school uniform grant. That's £700,000, which is less than 1/150 of the Welsh Government's budget—half of what your Government spends on pizzas and luxury yacht wear on credit cards, but it's still too much for this Government.

The price of school uniforms was the justification given for scrapping this grant. On average, parents spend £108 on school clothing for primary school children and £126 for secondary school children. When a third of Welsh children live in poverty, benefit cuts continue to fall on the poorest and foodbank use is on the rise, I wonder whether the Cabinet Secretary would like to repeat today her original justification that uniforms are cheap enough for parents to buy—I'd be interested to see.

The Bevan Foundation has called this justification 'mealy-mouthed'. The children's commissioner was surprised and disheartened by the decision and highlighted the strangeness of the decision to withdraw financial support for school uniforms whilst launching a fund for sanitary products, which would benefit the very children that this grant helps—a very strange decision, which came to everyone's attention in the same week as the Government's flagship anti-poverty programme Communities First came to an end with no alternative programme to take its place. The Children's Society has said that this decision will negatively affect the well-being and ability of children to participate fully in school life. Following insurmountable pressure, it seems like the Government will be forced into providing some kind of financial assistance, but how much, by when and how it will work is yet to be revealed. U-turns and policy made up on the hoof will never be a successful strategy for helping the third of Welsh children who are in poverty to succeed.

Today, I want to give the Minister a chance to enlighten us and the hundreds of families who face cuts to this crucial grant. Can we have cast-iron guarantees that a replacement grant will be in place well in advance of the next school term? For that matter, will anyone miss out as a result of this decision? Exactly how much money will be allocated to a new grant, and will there be any changes to eligibility for those who can access it? What mechanism will there be for scrutinising any new grant, and what role will this Assembly play in that process?

Finally, I want to ask the Minister once again: what motivated her to cut this grant in the first place? What impact assessment did she undertake? Who was consulted? And will she reconsider her decision?

Thank you. Can I now call the Cabinet Secretary for Education, Kirsty Williams?

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I would like to thank Plaid Cymru for bringing forward this debate today to give us a chance to discuss how we support families and learners from disadvantaged backgrounds. The leader of Plaid Cymru asked a very relevant question: who was consulted? And I have to say to the leader of Plaid Cymru: if you go back to the budget consultation papers that were published by the Government in October and subsequently at the final budget, you will see in your committee papers and in those budget papers, on the grant tables, this decision, and I'm surprised, as someone who I know takes scrutiny very seriously indeed, that this was not raised, especially given the fact that the party abstained on the budget vote and made no representations that I'm aware of with regard to this. Those documents are in the public domain, Leanne—

Will you take an intervention?

I must make progress, if you don't mind. Despite an austerity agenda—[Interruption.] Despite an austerity agenda that has led to a 5 per cent real-terms cut to Wales's budget, the equivalent to around £900 million less to spend on public services, we continue to prioritise funding to support the most disadvantaged people in society, and it's a bit rich to hear from Llyr, who only a week ago was questioning whether the pupil development grant that sees £93 million invested in the education of our poorest children, whether that should continue, but I have to say that it's even richer to hear from Darren Millar this afternoon about some fake care, when it's his Government's policies at Westminster that are driving families into poverty.

As I have said previously—as I have said previously, I am committed to continuing—

Will you take an intervention?

—to consider what more we can do as a Government in line with increased funding that we're already providing for the pupil development grant and through innovative food and fun schemes, to name just two, because I'm interested in finding every way I can to support the education, the aspiration and the life chances of our most disadvantaged young people.

Now, with regard to the issue of uniform and the costs of uniform, let me outline my intention. In fact, Llyr and Lynne Neagle have made the case for me. At a time of really, really squeezed budgets, we are in fact supporting a really, really expensive way of providing uniform, which was outlined. So, firstly, I am determined to review the guidance that is available for governing bodies on school uniform and appearance policies. This has not been done since 2011, and, whilst there is much good practice, as identified by Lynne Neagle, within that document, it is not on a statutory footing. And, from the evidence that was just given by Lynne and Llyr and many others, it is clear to me that the real way to attack the issue of affordability of uniform—. We need to do something about the costs of uniform, which will benefit not only those families who are eligible for support—[Interruption.]—which will not only help families that are eligible for support under the old grant; actually, that will be a benefit to all families in all parts of Wales, regardless of the stage of education that their children are in. It will also give us an opportunity, by the way, if we revise that guidance and put it onto a statutory footing, to address the issue of gender-neutral uniforms, which I'm also interested in tackling.

With regard to ongoing support for families who might find it difficult to afford a uniform, I am already exploring and developing options for an improved and wider offer to replace the school uniform grant. As the First Minister said last week, for many, the school uniform grant was inflexible. The money could only be used for uniforms and, predominantly, only for Year 7 pupils. I want to see something much more flexible that better suits the needs of disadvantaged learners and families and gives them some more flexibility.

Now, I believe we have a fantastic template and foundation with the PDG, but I am keen to see what more we can do. Lynne, let me reassure you, I am anticipating that we will spend more resource on this new successor grant than we did previously. I do believe, and it is my intention, that families should be able to use that grant to support the costs of school uniform. But, I have to say, we also know that many children and young people from more deprived backgrounds can sometimes find it difficult to access and participate in a range of extracurricular and school-based activities. Many schools go above and beyond and do their very best to take measures to support those children to negate those issues, but it becomes increasingly difficult to do so, especially in senior school. And that impact can be really long-lasting. It's not just missing out on the opportunity to participate in an individual scheme. Off the top of my head, it may be the ability to join the Urdd and go to Llangrannog; it may be the ability to ability to join the Duke of Edinburgh scheme and participate in that. It not only deprives the children of that individual experience, it goes on impacting and putting them at a disadvantage to their better-off counterparts: the inability to put that on a cv, the inability to put it on a college application form, to be able to talk about those experiences and those skills that you've learnt when you're applying for your first part-time job and you're up against somebody who's got all of those experiences to talk about. The injustice goes on and on and on beyond the initial inability to participate in those activities.

Now, this was recognised back in the Government in 2010 when the issue around school uniform and the costs of education were looked at. Children from more deprived backgrounds were disproportionately affected by these issues and I want to do something about it. I want to do something about it. So, Deputy Presiding Officer, my officials will continue to work to replace the scheme, which will be in place for the new academic year in September—[Interruption.]—in September, and I'm very interested to hear suggestions from across the Chamber and to look at the most effective mechanisms by which that can be distributed. I am absolutely determined that we take every opportunity to support children from more disadvantaged backgrounds, not just in the cost of their logoed jumper, but in their ability to participate fully in all aspects of school life.

Can I call on Llyr Gruffydd to briefly reply to the debate?

Well, thank you very much, and I think that's been a really useful debate and that's what these debates should be about. And it's been a lively one and I'm glad that everybody's contributed in the way that they have, and can I thank those who have contributed, particularly Lynne Neagle? You're right, we needed, and we still do need, actually, more clarity and assurances. But it's taken a Plaid Cymru debate to try and tease out some of this information from the Welsh Government—it should have been forthcoming months ago and not this rearguard action now after it's been across the news headlines. And Darren Millar is perfectly right: where has the engagement been on this? Although, you know, maybe you would want to suggest that to Alun Cairns as well, with reference to the previous debate this afternoon.

Now, the Cabinet Secretary tells us that you're going to review the guidance on school uniforms—great, excellent, long overdue, but where have you been? Where have you been until now? Surely, if you're so passionate, and I'm not doubting your commitment, then—.  Well, yes, you can blow and shrug your shoulders, but, if you're so passionate about this, then, come on, we should have been on it before now, I have to say. You say it was in the budget, okay. You say it was in the budget. Well, I'm not sure what that says about Welsh Government transparency, and accountability in terms of the Welsh Government, because—. You assert that it's there, and, okay, we won't quarrel about it, but the Children, Young People and Education Committee didn't see it, the children's commissioner didn't see it, nobody that I've spoken to had seen it, except for yourself as you play your annual game of budget scrutiny charades with Assembly committees. So, maybe next time—[Interruption.] Maybe next time we need more information upfront, more honesty. If you see an issue like this that may come back and bite you, then maybe you should flag it up to us, and maybe you could tell us as well where the replacement funding for this scheme was in the budget as well. 

Can we all calm down so I can listen to the Member? 

Now, I know that Labour Members in this Assembly particularly have been stung by this decision. I'm sure previous Ministers would have come under similar pressures to scrap the school uniforms grant, but they resisted that, of course. They resisted that probably because they knew how sensitive and how key this was to some of the poorest communities that they represent. But, there we are, I suppose that's the kind of compromise that Labour backbenchers have to make for having a Lib-Dem in Government. 

Thank you. The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Thank you. We now move to voting time, and unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung—. Three. Thank you, ring the bell. 

If I can ask Members to take their seats, please. We move on now to voting, and voting first on the Welsh Conservative debate on local government debate on local government reform. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Paul Davies. If the proposal is not agreed, we'll vote on the amendments tabled to the motion. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 18, no abstentions, 37 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed.