National Assembly for Wales

I call Members to order.

The first item on our agenda this afternoon is questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs, and the first question, Joyce Watson.

We recognise the agricultural, wildlife and landscape value of hedgerows. Birds mostly nest between March and August, and hedges should be checked before cutting, to avoid harm to nests. Recipients of common agricultural policy payments must adhere to cross-compliance rules, under which hedgerows cannot be cut between March and August.

Thank you for that, but every summer I'm alarmed by the number of hedges that are being trimmed during peak nesting season. They do provide an important food source for all types of animals, and vital nesting habitat for birds, particularly in the spring and summer months. And this year, travelling the roads, I've already witnessed unnecessary hedge cutting on several occasions across my constituency, and it's unnecessary because the hedge was under a tree canopy, and several metres away from the road. As you said, farmers and landowners are obliged by legislation not to trim between 1 March and 31 August, and that's fantastic. But with local authorities, and private householders, and golf courses, it's down to best practice—it's not compulsory. Nesting birds are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, but it doesn't protect them if we rely on hedgerows being adequately maintained during peak season. So, can I ask that the Welsh Government considers looking at introducing legislation that would make it compulsory for local authorities, private households and golf courses, and the like, not to trim their hedges between March and August and to bring those in line with the farmers and the landowners?

Can I thank the Member for the question? You raise a really important point in terms of the value of hedgerows in providing food sources and vital habitats for birds and animals, and to enhance and protect biodiversity. Under the Environment (Wales) Act 2016, there was a public duty on all public authorities to seek and maintain biodiversity, and doing so to increase ecosystem resilience, which also provides additional protection for hedgerows and the associated biodiversity, including pollinators. It is my plan to go and meet with local authorities in terms of actually how they are enacting the biodiversity duty in the environment Act and actually emphasise that that can form part of the value of hedgerows as part of that. You referenced the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. It does serve as a statutory mechanism to prevent the disturbance of nesting birds, from March to October, through hedge cutting. Although hedge cutting during these periods is not unlawful, all hedge owners must ensure no nesting birds are present before doing so.

Minister, I've received representations from constituents who have concerns over the over-zealous cutting of roadside verges, especially on the A40 from Fishguard to Haverfordwest road, which is destroying local flora and has knock-on effects on local wildlife. I understand that the Welsh Government is introducing a new green corridor initiative for roadside verges. But can you tell us what specific action the Welsh Government can take to protect the verges and ensure that their maintenance is appropriate and actually protects local wildlife?

I thank the Member for his question. You raise very similar points in terms of the importance of hedgerows in terms of protecting and enhancing habitats and biodiversity. And whilst the primary functions of hedgerows are often seen as just for the purpose of stock management and to mark land boundaries, there is a wider, broader value to them too, and a purpose for us. You mentioned the green corridors; they're often called wildlife corridors as well—biodiversity corridors. We brought before this place just recently the updated woodland strategy, and that incorporates looking at how hedgerows are part of that, in terms of creating green coverage, which is one of the avenues that will be taking this forward.

We recognise the potential of marine energy in creating low-carbon energy and providing economic and social benefits to our coastal communities. Welsh Government policies have supported the deployment of a range of marine energy technologies, and we will continue to work to realise the opportunities associated with this sector.

Thank you very much. Perhaps the question should have been reworded to ask about marine energy off the north Wales coast, to be precise. However, there is a large amount of energy available offshore and Anglesey is one of those areas where there is very innovative work being done to try and harvest that energy. Of course, the Morlais and Minesto Deep Green projects are two of the most prominent, and it was good to visit both with Simon Thomas just a week or two ago.

Now, in terms of the Morlais project, that project is reaching a key point now. We need to move on to Morlais B to make that electrical connection, and over £20 million of European funding will be required and, hopefully, will be made available for that. Now, given the funding that had been allocated by your Government for the Swansea bay tidal lagoon—a project that I do hope can proceed with Welsh support—if London isn’t interested, then would the Government, likewise, be prepared to consider an investment in the Morlais project as match funding that could help, alongside private equity, to release that crucial European funding?

Diolch. Anglesey is really becoming a hub, I think, now for tidal stream development, certainly, and I think, again, looking at tidal development, we need to make sure that we've got support from the UK Government, and I've written again to Greg Clark on the back of the very disappointing announcement in relation to the Swansea bay tidal lagoon. 

In answer to your very specific question about the funding that we had put aside—the £200 million—I have had some early discussions around the potential of being able to use that funding for other renewable energy projects. You'll be aware that we are going to bring forward a marine energy summit later on in the year, so I think the two will go hand in hand, but it's something I'm very happy to look at. I too have visited Morlais, so I'm very aware of the project and the significant benefits it could bring. 

I'm very pleased to hear that alternative ways of spending that £200 million are being considered by the Welsh Government, Cabinet Secretary. You'll be aware that there are companies who are interested in developing a tidal lagoon off the north Wales coast, using different technology than has been proposed in the south, and some seed funding in order to do some scoping work with Bangor University and others is being sought by that company and some other partners. I wonder whether you can consider making some of that £200 million available in order to do some of that scoping work, so that that can be open research that anybody can access if they want to further explore those wonderful opportunities that there might be for energy generation off the north Wales coast, which would bring other benefits, such as flood protection benefits and, indeed, agriculture and tourism benefits too. 

Thank you. Certainly, I'm aware of the proposal for a tidal lagoon in north Wales, and, as you say, it is a different technology. I think one of the areas that I am concerned about around tidal lagoons is that if the UK Government don't have a strategy, the impact that that will have. And I'll certainly be happy to look at the value-for-money report that they have now commissioned and is now on its way to us.

In relation to the question around seed funding being sought, I think perhaps the best thing would be if you or they wrote to me and I could have discussions with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance. 

We now move to questions from the party spokespeople. The Conservative spokesperson, Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Presiding Officer; I've had my reincarnation as rural affairs spokesperson. [Laughter.]

I'd like to ask you, Cabinet Secretary, in light of the consultation that you launched yesterday—the very important consultation that you launched yesterday—what is your definition of a 'land manager'? One of the five principles that you've underlined is that, under any new schemes that might be coming forward from the Welsh Government, they need to be accessible to all. So, it's important to understand what the criteria would be to make that accessible. So, what is a land manager in your eyes?

I'd like to welcome Andrew R.T. Davies to his new position. I very much look forward to you shadowing me. You always describe yourself as 19 stone of prime Welsh beef, so I'm sure we'll have some fun alongside that too. So, welcome to your portfolio. 

How do I define a land manager? I would say farmers and foresters, but, of course, the majority of our land managers in Wales are farmers. 

I'm grateful for that interpretation, although, certainly, reading the consultation and reading some press speculation, it did seem as if the definition was slightly wider than that, and the interpretation could be given that large companies, for example, that might have land holdings—Tata Steel for example, or local authorities that might be looking to look after parklands or verges or whatever—that meet the environmental goals might well be able to access some of this funding that historically, under the common agricultural policy, has always been available to someone with a holding number or customer reference number. So, I'd be grateful if you could enlarge on that interpretation of who you think is a land manager. Would such public bodies, as I've just outlined, or private companies be eligible for a slice of this money that the Welsh Government would be making available, because, if so, that would be a complete change in direction from what the common agricultural policy historically has delivered back to Welsh agriculture? 

Well, perhaps, I can give you a little piece of advice as you start your new role, and that's not to believe everything you read in the press. I think that's the first thing to say.

In relation to the definition of a land manager, as I say, the majority of our land managers in Wales are farmers and have always been. I don't think it's a huge change of direction. You'll be aware of the two schemes that we're bringing forward: the economic resilience scheme and the public goods scheme. Now, what we're consulting on is the make-up of those schemes and how those schemes can ensure that we deliver our objectives in relation to the five principles that I set back in February for our sector. So, the consultation is there. I've heard in the press that we'll be funding allotments. We won't be funding allotments. So, I think it is important that we have clarification around the consultation, and I would again urge as many people as possible to bring forward their views. 

I'm grateful for that explanation, and maybe I can give a bit of advice back to the Cabinet Secretary: actually, I took it from a one-on-one interview that was in Wales Farmer yesterday, in which you gave a series of answers, so they were your answers that I was deducing my questions from. Clearly, they did leave the door open to interpretation of what a land manager was and actually who would be eligible for this funding. I appreciate the consultation is out there and there's much work to be done on that consultation, but there are some grey areas. You've clarified it to a point, about allotments, for example, and I presume that that would feed through into public bodies or private companies as well, as I cited, that wouldn't be eligible.

But one thing that, obviously, the consultation doesn't touch on is volatility in the marketplace. It talks of public goods and it talks about the environment, it does. As we're going through a heatwave at the moment, if you've got a farmer producing crops and producing livestock from the land in Wales, that volatility in the weather and the conditions is something that you can't mitigate. Any business plan you draw up cannot take that into account. What weight will you be giving to the volatility, to the very delicate environment that farmers and land managers work in, that no business plan can take account of? Is this an omission from the consultation and you'll be looking at it during further opportunities, or, under the two headings you've got, you've got volatility in there and it's just difficult at the moment to find it? 

In relation to volatility, obviously we work very closely with the UK Government and the other devolved administrations around that. I think you make a very pertinent point—we haven't seen this sort of weather for over 30, 40 years. So, I think it is important to make sure that we help businesses in relation to their business plans around volatility.

Just going back to the previous question on the public goods scheme, I recognise that so many of our farmers bring forward public goods at the moment that they don't get paid for and I think that's wrong. We put a huge amount of value on our public goods in Wales and I want to make sure that that is recognised, going forward with the schemes. 

The Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Simon Thomas.

Diolch, Llywydd. Cabinet Secretary, Jeremy Corbyn believes that a basic income is a very good idea. Can you explain why you don't think it's a good idea for Welsh farmers? 

I presume you're referring to the basic payments scheme and direct payments. I don't believe the common agricultural policy has delivered the outcomes that we think we can get more out of and that are of such huge importance here in Wales. 

Well, I thank you for that reply, and you're right that I am referring to the break of the link between what you could describe as a basic income and a move—significant shift—to outcomes based on public goods, as you've just described it, which is Treasury language to justify some of this. I understand that, and I think there's a lot in your consultation paper that is to be worked with and the grain of which I accept. But in breaking the link between the land that a farmer is responsible for, and the family farm in particular in Wales, you are also breaking the link between wholesome, sustainable food production and the ongoing support of payments. And I wonder whether you still believe such food production is in itself a public good or merely the associated environmental benefits, which you've just described. 

Food production is vitally important and I refer to the five principles and about delivering on the objectives of the five principles, and food production is one of them, and I was absolutely determined that it would be one of them, but it's not a public good. Food is not a public good. It has a market and so it cannot be a public good. So, what I suppose we're doing is creating a market, if you like, for public goods, but food is not a public good.

I think that the way you produce food is a public good and I think that sustainable and wholesome food is something that we should be trying to achieve for the wider benefit of the environment, our public health and everything else, so I would certainly want and urge people to respond to your consultation in making that strong link.

What we don't want to see, and I'm sure you'd agree, is the end of the family farm in Wales, the end of farmers who are responsible and stewards of the land that they either own or have tenanted—because it's increasingly also a tenanted landscape that we see. And we wouldn't want the end of that and then the replacement of family farms by employed land managers or people who are wardens or anything else. The key to maintaining your safe environment is that long-term investment, that long-term resilience, and a family farm and a farmer, himself or herself, at the heart of it.

But, as you have suggested that a greater number of people will be able to fish in this declining pond, can you also reply as to how we will ensure that this will be a long-term and sustainable construct under your consultation? At the moment, the common agricultural policy is seven years; though there are changes, they are often gradual, and farmers, particularly if we're moving towards public goods, will need to demonstrate things like carbon capture or flood prevention not over one year or two years, but over a long period of time. So, are you taking fully into account the need for multi-annual frameworks and investment in your land management policies?

I want to start by saying that I don't want to see the loss of any small family farms—I don't want to see the loss of one farm. However, we have to recognise that Brexit brings immense challenges for the sector and that's why we need to do all we can to support them. They are custodians of our land and that's the message that—. Funnily enough, I've just done an interview now, ahead of the Royal Welsh Show, and I was asked if my perceptions had changed and I said that the one thing I hadn't realised was how much farmers take pride in their land and making sure that they just look after it for the period of time that they do and to make sure it's there for future generations. When I was out in New Zealand in April, the one lesson I came back with, after what happened to them back in 1984 with that cliff edge, was that they lost so many small farms, and I'm determined that that won't happen post Brexit here in Wales.

This is part of the consultation—you're quite right that they are a long-term sector and they need that multi-year security. And that will form part of the consultation around the two schemes that we've got, and also I've made it very clear—and I hope that's come out in the consultation launch—that we will have this transition period, because basic payments will continue in 2018 and 2019 and then, from 2020, we will start the new scheme. But there has to be a multi-year transition period: you can't expect to go from basic payment straight to the new scheme. So, I'll use Rural Payments Wales, which you'll know is very successful—we're the best in the UK—and I will use that group to make sure that we get the scheme correct from the beginning.

UKIP spokesperson, Neil Hamilton.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I've had a great deal of contact recently with animal welfare campaigners who are concerned about pre-stunning of animals and ritual slaughter, in particular. And they've pointed out to me that non-stun slaughter has now been banned in Denmark, Iceland, Sweden and New Zealand, that the British Veterinary Association have said that pre-stunning is superior from a welfare point of view, and that recent methodological developments in electroencephalograms allow the experience of pain to be assessed more directly than ever before, and, in relation to calves that are slaughtered by ventral neck incision, it's apparently now quite clear that this could be perceived as painful in the period between the incision and the loss of consciousness. So, in these circumstances, will the Cabinet Secretary look again—in line with the BVA's viewpoint and the RSPCA's, and many other organisations involved in animal welfare, that the only way to adhere to the highest standards of animal welfare in Welsh slaughterhouses is to ensure that all animals are stunned before slaughter for whatever reason?

This is certainly a discussion I had with the British Veterinary Association just a couple of weeks ago, and I've asked officials to look at the information they've brought forward for me in detail.

Good. Well, I'm grateful for that reply, which I regard as very positive. In the event that the Cabinet Secretary decides not to change the law in this respect, will she consider an alternative proposition, which also comes from the BVA? They say that they recognise that, whilst pre-stunning is superior from a welfare point of view, should non-stun slaughter continue to be permitted, post-cut stunning offers a valid means of reducing the suffering of animals at slaughter. And post-cut stunning, I think, would meet most of the objections from religious groups.

Well, as I say, I'm waiting for officials to come back with advice for me following the initial discussion I've had with the BVA, so, you know, I'm not going to make policy up on the hoof now, but it's obviously an ongoing process for me.

Making policy on the hoof would not be appropriate, even for an agriculture spokesman, I'm sure. As the Cabinet Secretary will know, there has been a huge increase in the growth of the halal meat market in particular. Much of this food is not being consumed by Muslims, and it's gone into mainstream takeaways and fast food outlets as well. A lot of people have objections for whatever reason on animal welfare grounds to eating such food. Would she agree with me that it is important that people should know what they're eating and that those who are concerned about the animal welfare considerations that I've mentioned ought therefore to be able to make an informed choice in such circumstances? Will she commit to prioritising greater consumer awareness on religious slaughter and non-stun slaughter, not just through labelling products in supermarkets but also in restaurants and takeaways?

I absolutely agree—it's very important that people know what they're eating, and I think that, certainly amongst restaurants, that consumer awareness is not out there. I was in a restaurant where I noticed, when I came out, that there was a very small sign at the bottom of the door that said that all meat was halal. Now, I think that should be far more visible, in the way that we've done with food hygiene standards, for instance. So, I absolutely agree that it's very important that people know what they're eating.

Thank you. Our Warm Homes programme is making good progress, reducing fuel poverty households by six percentage points across Wales between 2012 and 2016. Since 2012, we've invested over £25 million installing energy efficiency improvements in low-income households in Bridgend, Neath Port Talbot, Rhondda Cynon Taf, Swansea and the Vale of Glamorgan.

Thank you for that answer, Cabinet Secretary. It's important that we do recognise the good work that's been going on in reducing fuel poverty and the action being taken to insulate properties in particular. But, of course, there is a problem with that. Many of my constituents have faced the challenges of cavity wall insulation. They've gone through those programmes, supported by Welsh Government, with businesses coming in, selling their product, basically getting the work done, and then they find they have problems down the line. And, of course, these problems should all be protected against by CIGA, the Cavity Insulation Guarantee Agency. Whether you're living in Briton Ferry, Port Talbot, Cymmer, Croeserw, Gwynfi—no matter where it is, there are problems with CIGA. I've brought this to your attention before. What's the Welsh Government doing to ensure that CIGA lives up to its actual obligations and delivers guarantees for those people?

Well, the Member will be aware—as you say, you've raised it with me several times in correspondence and we had a very good debate in the Chamber, I think it was at the tail end of last year, around this issue—that the Cavity Insulation Guarantee Agency is an independent body. It provides 25-year guarantees for cavity wall insulation fitted by registered installers in the UK and the Channel Islands. You'll be aware that all the installers are assessed for competence and they have to follow technical guidance for the material used and the best practice guidance. I've had discussions with the UK Government, because I'm aware that there have been concerns, and it is really important that people are able to access the very best advice and hold them to account, and I will continue to do that.

Cabinet Secretary, back in May, I asked you if schemes like Arbed and Nest had contributed to the number of ground- and air-source heat pumps installed in Wales, and can I thank you for writing to me with a bit more information on that? I was a bit surprised to see from your letter, though, that just nine air-source heat pumps were installed through Nest in the six years leading up to 2017 in my region. So, that's over six years—just nine. And the letter goes on to say that ground-source heat pumps have never been an agreed measure for homes under Nest or Arbed. If you're really going to make a difference to Welsh families and, obviously, to cutting carbon emissions, shouldn't these figures be a bit higher by now?

I think we certainly need to look at new technologies and new innovations going forward, and we've just procured for the next stage of our Warm Homes programmes. I was in front of the environment committee last week, alongside my colleague Rebecca Evans, around work in this area, and I do think it would be good if we could see an increase in these numbers. I will certainly keep Members updated on the way forward.

I wanted to ask a question about what discussions you’ve had with the housing Minister about trying to make social housing and council homes more energy efficient and better in this regard. Do you believe that councils need to be told that they need to do a certain level of work to make their homes more sustainable before they receive further grant funding from you as a Government? I know that there are examples throughout Wales of councils that are carrying out good work in this area, which can then have a positive impact on the bills of the tenants, ultimately—they would have to spend less money on their bills as a result. So, what progressive work are you doing in this area?

Thank you. I have had discussions with the Minister for Housing and Regeneration on this issue, particularly in relation to our decarbonisation targets, because, obviously, this is one area that will help us to reach our targets. You're quite right; there are some councils that have real best practice in this area. As to whether we should be making them do things that make houses more sustainable before we give them grants, I don't think we've had specific discussions about that, but it's something I'm very happy to look at with her.

Thank you. The Wales animal health and welfare framework implementation plan sets out the framework group and Welsh Government priorities for animal health and welfare. I set out my plans to maintain and improve companion animal welfare in Wales in my oral statement last month.

Thank you, and it's because of your oral statement that I'm asking this question. You will know that, in that statement, you've indicated that you're not minded to introduce an animal abuse register for Wales, based on the fact that there isn't enough UK evidence. Well, the whole point of you initiating this was to create an evidence base in this country. We know that there's international evidence to support an animal abuse register, looking at examples from the United States of America. Is this a block on ambition from the Government, or is there something else that I'm not aware of? It's very, very hard for us to make an assessment on your statement without having that report in front of us. The time is ticking for the report that you've said you would give to us by the end of term. I'd really like to be able to see that, to understand your logic, because I do feel that, if you don't put this forward, it is a missed opportunity, and we could have been leaders in this field.

I mentioned that I'd just had the report when I made the statement in the Chamber last month. I've now had the opportunity to consider it in great detail. As I say, they make it very clear that the development of a register is not really recommended at this time. There are many other actions that I think are worthy of further work, but I have asked officials—you know, I've raised several questions on the report, and I've asked officials to look at it, and I will, as promised, make sure that I share it before the end of term, which gives me a week.

One week. [Laughter.]

In that statement, you said that people should think through very carefully the responsibilities they're undertaking when they're thinking of having a pet. But I'm glad to hear you say also that you recognise that people's circumstances can change quite suddenly and through no fault of their own. Cats Protection is reporting a rise in the number of cats coming to them because landlords, some of them, are reluctant to accept cats, and, similarly, residential homes as well, and in both these cases it's quite often older cats that are either, sadly, abandoned or taken to a shelter and, of course, are more difficult to re-home. We know that pets contribute to both mental and physical well-being, so what kind of conversations are you having with landlords and the care home sector to see whether pets and their people can be kept together? Thank you.

I haven't had any specific discussions with either of those sectors, but I think you raise an important point. When you say about older animals, obviously, if somebody is going into residential care, it's probably likely that they will have had their pet for a considerable number of years. So, it can be incredibly upsetting for both parties. So, I think it is something that we do need to look at. I will make sure that I do start to have those conversations and will write to the Member in due course.

Wales has the potential to create significant new low-carbon generation, which could provide economic and social benefits. Welsh Government policies and support mechanisms have created a positive environment for developing new energy generation. Our focus now is on ensuring Wales benefits over the long term from any further development.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. We now know that the UK Government based their decision upon inaccurate figures, understating the true benefit and cost of the Swansea bay tidal lagoon. An audit undertaken by the Centre for Economics and Business Research shows that the six proposed lagoons would only be slightly more expensive than Hinkley C. Cabinet Secretary, in light of this revelation, will you be demanding that the UK Government re-evaluate the proposal for Swansea bay?

I know the UK Government has now published a summary of its value-for-money assessment, and as I mentioned in an earlier answer, we're now reviewing that, and I think it depends what conclusions we come to from that as to what action we take. It did suggest the proposed tidal lagoon at Swansea bay would have a capital cost of more than three times as much per unit of electricity as the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station. So, I think these are figures that we need to look in depth at, and I'm sure we will have a view, and then we can decide on what action we want to take.

The Westminster Government seems to have an energy policy based upon offshore wind and nuclear power. As prototypes are by their very nature more expensive, and the future storage costs of nuclear are capped—we would never have had a nuclear power station built if they weren't capped—it is not a level playing field. Did the Westminster Government explain why the price for nuclear—which, as we all know, is an over-60-year-old technology—was acceptable, but the same price, which was the final offer of the same strike price for the tidal lagoon as for Hinkley, was not acceptable? Have the Westminster Government explained why one is acceptable and one isn't, when one's a prototype and one's a 60-year-old technology with a capped final cost?

No, and I think that's a very important point that you raise. I've just mentioned in my answer to Caroline Jones that we are looking at that summary value-for-money assessment now. I think you're right; their policy does seem to focus on just offshore and nuclear power. Of course, nuclear power, whilst being low carbon, is certainly not renewable energy. I've had discussions with Claire Perry, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, around this, and about the need to encourage further onshore wind, and certainly solar power, too. I've also written to Greg Clark following the decision around the importance of making sure that we engage and support other renewable energy technologies.

Both Caroline Jones and Mike Hedges have made some very valid and important points when it comes to the Swansea tidal lagoon, and Welsh Conservatives have been clear that we hope that there can be a way forward found for that project. I appreciate that this is a setback, but the Welsh Government certainly have our support in finding alternative ways in the future to progress the project.

Of course, there are smaller scale schemes as well across Wales that are going ahead. You may be aware of Prosiect Gwyrdd in my constituency—I hope I pronounced that right—which is actually a collaboration between the five councils in south-east Wales, including Monmouthshire, that seeks the most cost-effective and environmentally friendly way to deal with residual waste that cannot be recycled or composted, but that can be burnt to produce steam and provide energy. Would you agree with me that this is a great example of collaboration between local authorities, Cabinet Secretary, and also a great way to deal with waste that cannot be dealt with in an otherwise environmentally friendly way? What are you doing to extend these types of projects, and to roll them out across the rest of Wales?

Yes, I would agree with you. It's good to see collaboration at that scale between the five local authorities. It's really important that we get a mix of energy, and certainly community energy projects. I've seen some fantastic ones right across Wales. You'll also be aware—I think it's in your constituency; it's certainly Monmouthshire council—of the big solar farm that they've got there. We loaned, I think, about £4 million from Welsh Government. So, I think it is really good to see local authorities collaborating, coming up with innovative technologies to help us, again, make sure we reach our carbon targets. 

Diolch. The consultation, informed by research, proposes updating the use classes Order, particularly for retail uses. It includes complementary changes to permitted development rights and proposes new rights to support the roll-out of electric car charging, next generation telecommunications networks and renewable energy development, without the need for a planning application.

You will be aware that Gwynedd is the area with the largest number of second homes in Wales, some 5,000 in total. As a result, local people are priced out of the housing market, causing a crisis in many communities. As the Welsh Government is currently consulting on reforming subordinate legislation in planning, which includes the rules in terms of use classes and the requirement for change of use, would you be willing to look at the issue of using the planning system to try and control the second home market? In drawing up the draft proposals, did you consider the possibility of introducing a requirement that you would need planning permission before residences could be used or transferred into second homes? And will you commit to look at this and to take action in drawing up your final proposals as a means of managing prices within the housing market?

Thank you. I think the Welsh Government has provided an alternative means of addressing the issues associated with second homes. You'll be aware of the Housing (Wales) Act 2014. We've provided local authorities in Wales with discretionary powers around council tax premiums, for instance. We also need to be very mindful—bearing in mind your question—we need to be very mindful, I think, of unintended financial consequences of introducing a new use class. I would not want to increase the value of existing second homes and then reduce the value of homes that aren't second homes, because I think that would be an unintended consequence.

Cabinet Secretary, can I welcome that part of the consultation that proposes the restructuring of the use class system to provide further protection for pubs in a manner similar to that in England? We've lost something like 17 per cent of our pubs since the year 2000. In England, there's a further protection in the planning system whereby a pause is placed on the disposal of assets that are of value to the community, a scheme known more commonly as the community right to buy. Do you think a similar sort of system ought to be introduced to Wales as part of this scheme?

David Melding points out that the consultation proposes legislative changes to help prevent the change of use or demolition of a pub without first obtaining planning permission. Certainly, once the consultation is finished—I've extended the consultation by about five weeks, I think—we can see if those sorts of proposals have come forward.

Thank you. The 'Brexit and our land' consultation is live until 30 October. It contains proposals to enable farmers and other land managers to adapt from current to future arrangements, for the next 12 months and beyond. I urge everyone who depends on rural Wales for their business or well-being to get involved.

Cabinet Secretary, I've recently met with farmers in my constituency who continue to feel frustrated and indeed angry that, despite being under more measures and restrictions than ever before, the Welsh Government have yet to seriously tackle bovine TB in a holistic way. In light of their concerns, can you confirm that the Welsh Government will be focusing its efforts in the next 12 months on tackling this disease in the wildlife reservoir as well as in cattle? Can you also confirm that the Welsh Government has provided sufficient resources to this area for this work to be carried out?

Yes, I can certainly say that there are sufficient resources for this work to be carried out. We're now nine months into our refreshed TB eradication programme. I launched it back in October last year. I think we are making progress, but we want to make sure we've got the most meaningful disease statistics so that I can provide a complete picture in relation to the disease. I'm going to make a statement on the progress of that programme. I want to have a complete year. I said I would do an annual statement, and I want to have a complete year, so I'm going to use January to December this year as the complete year. So, I will be doing a statement early next year in relation to that. But I do think it is important to recognise that we are making significant progress.

It’s obvious, going around rural Wales, how dry the ground is; things are very much affected by the weather. Now, you’ve already said that you will relax some of the Glastir requirements to assist farmers to deal with this weather. Should this weather continue—and this is the final opportunity to ask you before summer recess—if this weather does continue, and there is a lack of rain, are there any other steps or actions that you can take to ensure that no bureaucratic rules stop farmers from doing the right thing for the ground, and also for their stock? And can you be as flexible as possible, given that we may have a particularly dry summer?

You're quite right; we have relaxed regulations. I thought it was very important. I've also asked officials this week to have a look at what protocol we have in place in relation to water. I certainly will be as flexible as I possibly can be, because we just don't know for how much longer—although it looked very black before, and I know a lot of people are praying for rain—but, certainly, my intention is to be as flexible as I possibly can be.

Thank you. I and my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport frequently meet with UK and other Ministers, developers and regulators to discuss energy opportunities. Most recently, I attended the British-Irish Council ministerial meeting on energy in Edinburgh, where I had positive discussions with Ministers from all eight administrations.

Cabinet Secretary, Wales needs a true mix of energy production if we are to combat climate change and ensure energy security. One of the biggest challenges for renewables is the unpredictability of production. Over the last few weeks, we have produced far more solar energy than needed, and as a result it has been wasted. We need to find better ways to store energy. So, Cabinet Secretary, what is your Government doing to encourage more research into energy capture and storage, and have you considered working with companies such as Tesla, who are leading the field in this type of research?

I'm not sure how it's being wasted; I'd be very interested in having information as to why Caroline Jones thinks it's being wasted. Certainly, capture and storage is very important, and we're doing significant work around research in this area, because you're quite right; we do need to have a true mix of all types of renewable energy, and storage in particular is becoming very important going forward. 

A few weeks ago, Cabinet Secretary, you did announce interim targets in the first two carbon budgets for Wales, and you said you'd consult on an action plan to achieve them in July. Can you say any more about this action plan, and the role of renewable energy in achieving it? 

Yes, certainly. The consultation will be launched tomorrow. I will be issuing a written statement to Assembly Members, and it includes action up to 2030 to allow stakeholders to be involved in the development of our actions. And certainly, if we are going to achieve our 2050 target, we do need to take some very long-term actions. Renewable energy has a very important role in meeting our decarbonisation target, and that's why I did set those very ambitious targets for energy generation. However, we need to take action in all sectors, and given the importance of decarbonisation and the scale of the challenge that we face, yesterday Cabinet agreed that we would add decarbonisation as a sixth priority area in 'Prosperity for All' cross-Government working.

Cabinet Secretary, perhaps I can take you back to lagoons as part of that mix. I asked the First Minister yesterday whether that £200 million we've all been talking about is definitely earmarked for lagoon and marine energy. He didn't answer. I'm picking up from your answers today that there is £200 million there. Bearing in mind that you've already indicated that some of that could be going elsewhere, can you tell me how much you would be prepared to commit to for Swansea, bearing in mind that we've already got the planning permission, the public support and, of course, a whole set of ancillary benefits, many of which are devolved competence, and therefore should be paid for by Welsh Government, or are you asking about whether—? Can I ask you whether there is additional money to expand the whole idea of a mix of renewable energy production?

I suppose the short answer is: there's always money for really good projects. The £200 million I mentioned in an earlier answer to a colleague—I am having discussions, very early discussions, about with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance. I of course made a case for that—you would expect me to, sitting around the Cabinet table. But we are having this energy summit later on in the year and, I think, probably, when we look at what technologies are coming forward there and what projects are coming forward there, that's when the decisions will be taken and, again, I stress: I think, unless the UK Government have a strategy around tidal lagoons, it's incredibly difficult to see how we can take that forward. I know there have been calls for Welsh Government to take it—we just can't. The UK Government have really, I think, badly let us down in this area.

Finally, question 9—David Rees.

The Welsh Government's action plan on clean air for Port Talbot reaffirms our commitment to practically tackling poor air quality in the region. I have commissioned a peer review of progress against this plan, our approach, and the evidence that underpins it, to ensure it remains fit for purpose. I'll meet Tata Steel, Natural Resources Wales and Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council soon to support this process. 

I thank you for that answer, Minister, and I'm not going to talk about the 50 mph extension, which is causing chaos, but I will talk about Tata Steel and the issues relating to that. We all understand that heavy industry has a consequence of some form of pollution, but many, many, many constituents have expressed huge concern over the levels of fallout that we've had in Port Talbot over the last few months. I appreciate that the warm weather is a contributing factor, we understand that, but this has gone beyond that, before that happened. And what is it doing? Because Natural Resources Wales have responsibility for monitoring and taking action to ensure that the air quality from the works is improved. Can you assure me that they are actually doing that job because residents are going out, not daily, but basically hourly to clean their tables and cars and their windowsills because of the fallout from the works?

I thank the Member for his question and his regular commitment to this issue for his constituency. You said about how there's instances lately in terms of with the dry, warm weather of large amounts of dust impacting on local residents. I completely understand the anxiety and the frustration that that would cause for local residents. I understand that—. You're right that Natural Resources Wales remain responsible for regulating this. I understand they're meeting Tata today to discuss the recent issues, and I've asked my officials to liaise with them to ensure that it's fed back promptly to me in terms of the outcome of these discussions.

I'm going to work with NRW and all the other stakeholders to review current operations, dust—[Inaudible.]—and the impact on the local community. I share the Member's concerns, and I've been clear that my goal is to bring down levels of air pollution, but as you and others recognise, it is a very complex, complicated and unique situation, which brings with it many challenges, but doesn't mean we can't rise to those challenges. It's important to make sure we strike that balance between recognising the role the steelworks plays in terms of being an economic anchor within the local community but also making sure we are getting the right results for the health and well-being of local residents as well.

I thank the Minister and the Cabinet Secretary. 

The next questions are for the Cabinet Secretary for Local Government and Public Services, and the first question is from David Melding. 

Local authorities deliver a range of grants schemes to provide support and services locally. 

Cabinet Secretary, thank you for that very concise answer. The Welsh Government's proposals to amalgamate several grant-funded streams into a single grant—the early intervention, prevention and support grant—will remove the ring-fenced protection for several streams such as Supporting People, the Flying Start revenue grant and Families First. Now, in my region, this could have a detrimental impact on an initiative called the Teulu partnership, which is extremely popular, and has provided vital support for children at very difficult times. Some constituents have informed me that if it wasn't for the help and support that the Teulu partnership has given them they would have had no way of getting through some extremely difficult experiences. Now, I understand that Welsh Government officials have made some enquiries into the future of this grant, and that Cardiff council has confirmed that any new arrangements will ensure that the services provided by the Teulu partnership will continue.

Do you think it's really important that successful schemes are taken forward in any new funding arrangement, and that we maintain best practice? We don't need to reinvent the wheel constantly, and, certainly, when our constituents tell you something works, it should be maintained.

Can I say in answering the question, Presiding Officer, that if any Members have particular issues about particular funding streams and particular groups in their constituencies or regions, then we're always happy to take up those particular issues and those specific issues, both ourselves and the local authorities concerned?

In terms of the new integrated grant, I will say to the Member that it will still be ring-fenced to focus on the most vulnerable groups in society. We are considering how we further develop our approach to monitoring outcomes to ensure that we do not see the outcomes that the Member has described, and which the Member quite rightly fears; I accept that there is concern about that. But it is also important—and I hope Members also consider this—that we are integrating grants that all have in common a need to intervene early and support individuals and households to live independently and achieve their potential.

I think Members across the whole Chamber will agree that people's lives and the challenges that they face do not fit neatly into the structures that we can sometimes build around grant schemes, and therefore I believe that integration is the correct way forward. But, clearly, we have to do that whilst maintaining services to vulnerable groups in society. The purpose of this is to improve things, not to cause the difficulties that he describes.

The heat of summer can be just as dangerous as the cold of winter for homeless people. Heat exhaustion, dehydration, sunburn and sanitation all become serious issues for the growing number of people in Wales stuck on the street.

Cabinet Secretary, Luke's story came to my attention over the weekend. So desperate was he for water, Luke was reduced to drinking from toilets. On our streets, in our country, under your Government, desperate people are forced into inhuman indignity. Today, the charity, the Wallich, has called for urgent action. Central Government must now work with local authorities and the third sector to take immediate action to help these desperate people.

Water and sunblock are a particular priority for homeless people in these conditions, so can the Cabinet Secretary please tell me what urgent measures he plans to implement to ensure that homeless people can cope in the current weather conditions?

Can I say, Presiding Officer, I saw some of those reports myself, and my conclusion isn't dissimilar to yours? I think it is an appalling thing that people in this day and age have to resort to those measures in order to sustain themselves. I think everybody will agree with your conclusions on that and will wish to agree with you in terms of your approach to that. I read the same report today as you have, and it fills me full of horror that people in this country are living in that way.

The Minister for housing is in her place for this question session. She has heard what you've had to say and she will respond to you. But let me say this: this Government is wholly and completely committed to resolving the issues of homelessness—as you say, in the summer and in the winter—across the whole of this country, and our resources will always be prioritised to meet the needs of those people who are most vulnerable in our society, and the Minister is as committed to that as I am.

The five local authorities in Mid and West Wales have successfully ended homelessness for 2,907 households and successfully prevented homelessness for 2,421 households since commencement of the Housing (Wales) Act 2014. We have provided over £900,000 directly to these local authorities last year for homelessness services in addition to the revenue support grant.

I thank the Minister for that informative reply. Unfortunately, homelessness in Wales has been rising in recent times. In 2016-17 the average for Wales as a whole was 82 people per 10,000 households. That's up from 52 in the previous year, although part of that increase may be explained by improved data collection. But nevertheless, it's still a worrying trend, and we all heard what the Cabinet Secretary said a moment ago, and I thought it was quite a moving response to the leader of Plaid Cymru. Carmarthenshire's figures are much higher than the national average—well over 100 in 10,000 designated homeless people.

I'm concerned to ask today about one aspect of this, which is that proportion of homeless people who are ex-armed forces veterans. A Northern Ireland veteran and chief executive of Veterans Association UK says there are 13,000 homeless veterans at a UK level, but the figure could be higher. We don't know what the figures might be for Wales, but it's fair to assume that there will be quite a number of veterans, ex-armed forces people who are sleeping rough and are homeless.

Carl Sargeant was a great friend to veterans and was responsible for significant improvements in provision for homeless veterans in particular, and I was wondering, therefore, whether the new Cabinet Secretary, who I know shares Carl's concerns, and you in particular, Minister, would consider going further than the code of guidance that was issued in 2016 and give social housing priority to ex-servicemen and women and those returning from active service as a step to ensuring that armed services personnel get the aftercare service they deserve.

I thank you very much for that question, and I completely agree with you about the worrying trend in terms of homelessness, particularly rough-sleeping. But I think we can be proud of the record that we do have in terms of prevention. I gave you some of the figures of the thousands of people who've had homelessness prevented and relieved in your region, and the figure now across Wales is 14,000 families, which I think is something to be celebrated. I know that other countries are looking at our legislation really carefully to see what they can learn from us. But, nonetheless, as long as there is homelessness, and as long as there is rough-sleeping, then clearly we need to be doing more work in partnership with those local authorities and our other partners.

In terms of support for people who are leaving the armed forces and for veterans, I know that the housing pathway has been in place and has had some success, but I've also been having some discussions recently with representatives of the Royal British Legion in terms of what more we can do to be supporting people who are veterans and also people leaving the armed forces, and also their families as well, because often they find themselves in difficult positions regarding housing, and potentially facing homelessness when divorces happen and so on. So, it is a complex picture, but one that we are very much engaged with and we are keen to see what more we can do to support veterans.

Minister, I would be keen to get a greater understanding of how local authorities measure and collate the reasons for homelessness. As you know, in my constituency, we have a case of a significant number of park home residents who, through the changes in law made by Welsh Government, are under threat of becoming homeless. Now, in response to a letter of mine, you said that you'd already had your officials to be in touch with Pembrokeshire County Council to talk about their potential needs if they become homeless. But I would like to make the point that these are very elderly people, they are very vulnerable, they've sunk all their life savings into buying their park home, and for them to face this at their time of life is really just a complete abrogation of duty all round. 

I wonder what further action you can take on this. I know you make the point, in your letter to me, that they have until 2019, the park home owners, to start making small adjustments, but some of these park homes are very, very finely balanced. Pembrokeshire may be the first place where this issue has raised its head, but I am concerned that, throughout Wales, there may be other park homes where they are on a knife edge in terms of their ability to carry on going. And if we're not careful, we will suddenly find a very vulnerable section of our society made homeless at a time of their lives when they are going to find it very, very difficult to manage that. I do think that we need to have a more proactive response to how we're going to handle the unintended consequences to the legislation that Welsh Government put in place.

I thank you very much for raising this issue. Of course, the legislation is not yet in place; it will be subject to a vote of the whole Assembly in the early part of next year. Of course, the approach I tried to take was a pragmatic approach, trying to be fair to both the park home owners and also the park home residents. I know that the Conservative Party was very much pressing the approach of completely abolishing the park home fees, which would've had a very different impact, I think, on park homes.

I'm quite limited in terms of what I'm able to say on this particular issue now, because I understand that there's potentially the intention to issue some court proceedings. So, I'll probably leave it there for today, and if I am able to say more, I'll write to you.

Questions now from the party spokespeople. The UKIP spokesperson, Gareth Bennett.

Diolch, Llywydd. There have been a number of successful planning applications recently for student accommodation in Cardiff. Some people have observed that virtually every major housing block granted planning permission for central Cardiff in the past 18 months has been for student accommodation. At the same time, we have a second so-called student block considering applying for change of use so that it can let its rooms to non-students, due to lack of demand from the student population. We also have a large block in Newport that is no longer being used exclusively for students. If there is a lack of demand for the blocks that have already been built, why are more student blocks being built, I wonder. Is the Welsh Government aware of this issue, and what are you doing to regulate this area?

Thank you for the question. I'm certainly aware of the issue, in terms of there being a large number of student accommodations within Cardiff that aren't being occupied by students. There's a particular difficulty in terms of changing those accommodations into non-student accommodations, of course, because my understanding is that the regulations surrounding the different types of accommodation are different, so there is an issue there in terms of space, and so on. I know this is an issue that the Minister with responsibility for planning is also very much alive to. But my advice to local authorities, certainly, would be to look very closely at their local housing needs analysis, and to be organising their planning and decision making around planning in accordance with those local housing needs.

Thanks for that response. I'm glad you are aware of the issue. I think there may be a need for perhaps closer involvement at Welsh Government level in this area, because the local authorities—certainly in Cardiff and Newport—may not be doing enough about it. I think that we may be heading for over-supply of student accommodation. Certainly we know that the expansion of higher education cannot go on forever; there will not be an endless supply of more student numbers in Cardiff, Newport, or probably anywhere else in Wales. I think what we may have here is something of a scam. It may be that the universities are deliberately creating an over-supply of flats for the student market, so that they can change their use by the back door, and use them subsequently to let out commercially. We know that there are less stringent rules applied to student flats than to commercial developments, for instance, which you alluded to in your answer. Are you aware that the universities could be duping the local councils into allowing these developments of student blocks, which the university chiefs know full well may be used subsequently for commercial letting?

I think there's an onus on universities and on the local authorities to be having some serious discussions together in terms of their projections of local needs for both students and the non-student population, and to be planning their new builds and what's available in terms of accommodation locally in that way. I'm not sure that there's a role for Welsh Government in terms of stipulating the number of student accommodations that should be available, but those decisions should be taken on an evidence base and a needs-based approach.

Yes. You cite the need for an evidence-based approach, and I'm sure you're right in that. But there may be implications for your ambitions for affordable housing in Wales, which you were telling us about in the Assembly this week. Certainly, we agreed that we have a shortage of affordable housing here.

Commercial developers, when they build new housing estates, have a certain legal obligation to provide an element of affordable housing. Developers building so-called student blocks are under no such obligation. Unless the Welsh Government becomes more aware of what the universities may be doing, and investigates the practice, then there is a danger that you are allowing the universities, and their partners in the construction business, to undermine your ambitions for affordable housing. So, are you aware of this threat? And I would ask you again: do you intend to do anything about it?

Well, the Minister with responsibility for planning has already said that she intends to issue a wide-ranging review of housing and planning rules over the course of the summer. So, I'm sure that this will be one of the issues that are drawn to the fore and drawn to attention within the course of that consultation, and it will be an opportunity to consider whether there need to be changes in that regard.

The Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Bethan Sayed.

Okay. I'm going to talk about drug issues, so I don't know if that's—. I wasn't asked if it was Rebecca—.

You've indicated that your question is to the Minister.

Oh, right, okay. Well, in the first instance—

Have you? Is that your understanding?

It's Vaughan Gething, but I'm happy to take the question. 

Yes, well, okay, we'll see if there's cross-Government work then. [Laughter.]

My first question is with regard to drug use and misuse in some places, which have reached scarily high levels, and a report earlier this year highlighted that, since 1993, deaths as a result of heroin use have increased significantly. As well as this, there has been a worrying rise in county line drug crime, with drug dealers and gangs increasingly targeting smaller communities and moving out of large cities in England to come here. I know in South Wales West we've heard of stories in Swansea and in Neath. It's within the top-10 places in England and Wales where deaths have risen, and other drug uses, such as spice, are also on the rise. I understand you are working with the police in relation to this, but I just wanted to understand how you're working with them so that we can tackle this issue head on. 

Oh, it's you. Okay.

You haven't heard the answer yet. [Laughter.]

I am grateful to the Member for the question. We are working closely with the four police forces in Wales on this matter. I've met with the officers dealing with serious and organised crime in Wales to discuss the matters that she does raise. They are very serious matters, of course, and affect all of our forces across this country. So, we are working with them. I hope over the summer to put in place structures whereby we can formalise the work that we do with the police forces at the moment. Members are aware, of course, that these are not devolved matters—neither drug policy nor policing is devolved. So, we are working in areas where we do not have control of the policy agenda, but we do clearly have a great influence, I hope, in the way in which policing can be delivered. So, we are aware of the issue. I'm particularly aware of the issues that you describe in Neath, and I hope that we will be able to work with police forces to deliver the sort of response that you've described. 

This next one is both to do with this issue and housing, so I'll see if you can both stand up, potentially. 

No, no. This isn't a kind of throw the question out there and—

I wasn't asked this time, to be honest, which Minister I was directing it to, as usual, so I think that's why the confusion has happened. 

This question is to who? Make it clear now, and I'll ask the Minister or the Cabinet Secretary to respond. Which one do you—? No, the Cabinet Secretary will be responding and don't put me in this position again. 

This is why this is an issue that may be confusing for the Government in terms of who responds to what, because of the fact that there is that issue with regard to the link between deprivation and drugs, and the issue with regard to housing, and I think that's something that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has confirmed in relation to this issue.

Wales Online last year said that one heroin addict told Wales Online that he wanted to go back to prison where there was more support available, and this person was homeless, a man who had no realistic access to housing for his particular condition. But that means that we need the right type of housing. And we know of instances in Valleys communities, where, for example, there may be a row of flats, or there may be a row of houses, where people in that particular flat may all have drug abuse issues, and if they are put into that same experience, then they will not be able to get over that addiction.

So, my question was with regard to the housing first pilot and how we could ensure that if you're going to make those pilots work, how those who are struggling with drug abuse problems are able to overcome those if they are put in a position where they feel they may not be able to, if they are put in a housing situation that may not suit them.

I'll say very gently to the Member: it's not the Government that are confused on this matter. The issues that have been described though are clearly important issues and affect a great number of people. I've met with prison governors in Wales to discuss some of the issues that she raises in terms of the impact of substance misuse on those who are detained on the secure estate in Wales, and the treatment that they receive, both within that estate and when they leave. I believe that there are good examples across Wales where there are being put in place some excellent opportunities for health boards particularly to intervene, to provide support for people who do suffer from substance misuse on the secure estate and then to ensure that they have the treatment available to them when they are released. I accept completely that there is a long way to go on this, and I don't believe that the policy environment that's been created by the Home Office is always very helpful in helping us to achieve our ambitions. But it is something that we are actively debating and discussing with our police forces and our prison facilities and the prison service in Wales, but also with the third sector and other support services providing services to people who are in this situation. 

Well, I'm glad you've said there's a long way to go, because I've had particular communication with Swansea council homelessness working group, chaired by former AM, Peter Black, who recently wrote to Councillor Andrea Lewis, the cabinet member responsible, with a pretty damning outline as to how the city deals with the problem, particularly those with complex needs. The working group noted that within Swansea any client who wishes to be scripted must first self-refer to the Abertawe Alcohol and Drug Assessment Service, on either a Monday or Tuesday morning, and these referral hours need to be made more flexible and dramatically extended as clients who don't make it on a Monday or Tuesday must then wait a week for another opportunity. Once referred, it will take as much as six months on a waiting list to be scripted and then there is another 12-month waiting list to go into rehab. Surely this response isn't good enough to what is a rising problem.

I've seen the work that the working group has done in Swansea, and nobody seems to want to take responsibility—Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board, the council or health. So, if we're going to be ensuring that those people get the support that they need, how can we do so when the system seems to be moving so slowly? 

Can I say that I do recognise the difficulties the Member describes? And I think there are issues where we have a settlement that is jagged and broken, and I've made that case on a number of occasions. The way in which policing particularly and penal services are administered at the moment does not provide the best solution to enable us to provide the services, as she's describing, to people across Wales. I accept that, and I hope that the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice and other parts of the United Kingdom Government will listen to that case. 

In terms of the services provided in the Swansea area, clearly, I'm not familiar with the issues she's raised this afternoon. But if she's willing to write to me, I will take up those issues and ensure that there is a response in the comprehensive and holistic way that she quite rightly expects to see, because I agree with that. I believe we do need a far more comprehensive approach to substance misuse in terms of treating people, maintaining people in accommodation, where necessary ensuring that they have the means in order to be treated and treated properly to remove that misuse, to enable them to go on and live their lives. That is our ambition and that is what we're working towards. 

Conservative spokesperson, David Melding. 

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Following on from yesterday's debate on affordable housing in Wales, I would like to touch upon some important broader concerns that weren't raised in the debate. My concerns particularly regard the futureproofing of the increased supply of housing that we need and how we can build homes at volume that meet the needs and demands of future generations, particularly regarding energy efficiency. We are currently experiencing the struggle of modernising homes that weren't futureproofed when they were built originally, or indeed with any sense of adaptability in mind, and, ideally, we need to learn from history and not repeat this mistake. So, what support is being given to the sector so that they can build at volume the houses that we need to the standards that are going to be sustainable in the twenty-first century? 

Thank you for the question. Of course, our innovative housing programme is certainly at the heart of our response to this serious challenge that's facing us in terms of creating homes that are low carbon—carbon zero ideally—and we've got some excellent projects coming forward now and being built and we're learning from them already from our last year's stream of projects. But, this time, we're very keen to build on some of those projects from last year, but also to look for projects where we are scaling up. So, we've invited projects for this second year, and the applications close this week for projects on a grander scale really, so that we can start scaling up some of the exciting work that's already being undertaken through the innovative housing programme. 

Also, we know that although we're doing a huge amount of work to try and support SMEs back into the sector, we do need to ensure that the volume builders are working in this way as well. So, we've done some work with our home builder engagement programme in terms of what we can be doing in future, looking potentially at the future of Help to Buy. That's been extremely popular, as you can imagine, amongst the volume builders, but it is an important lever that we do have, so we need to be considering how we use it to achieve our broader aims across Government.

Thank you for that, which is in part encouraging. As you know, the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee has been looking at this whole issue of energy efficiency in housing. Our evidence has suggested that there is a significant number of barriers to delivering transformative change in house building in Wales at the moment. The Home Builders Federation expressed concern that transformative change will result in fewer houses being built, and other organisations, including Caerphilly County Borough Council and the Federation of Master Builders Cymru, echoed concerns that there are already a number of challenges to building the number of affordable homes needed, particularly if housing targets are to be met.

This doesn't sound like the sector are prepared for the challenges ahead, and I think that we've really got to push them because we need much more response from them, and ambition. For instance, we've seen this week that the UK Government has released its ambitious Road to Zero strategy, which includes a proposal for all new homes in suburban England to be fitted with electronic car charging points. This is the type of integrated policy that we need, and I do hope that—. The innovation fund is a great idea, but it needs to lead quickly to mainstreaming those great developments that we know are going to work, such as charging points built into new homes as standard. I do hope that you will challenge the sector, particularly the private house builders, to improve their practice.

Thank you, and I certainly think that this is the time now to be having that challenging discussion with the volume house builders, particularly because I was quite disappointed to read some of the evidence that the committee has received, which almost suggested that everything's fine, 'Let's not change anything'. But everything's not fine, and we do need to change things. We are currently building houses, but I suspect that, in years to come, we will be coming back to retrofit as well, and that's an expense that the homeowners don't want and it's an expense that the Government doesn't want. So, we do need to be changing the way we build houses. I do feel that the innovative housing programme that we have here in Wales, alongside all of the great practice that we're watching evolve in other parts of the world as well, is pulling us to a point where we are at the point of a revolution in the way in which we build houses. I would love to see the volume house builders be part of that revolution.

Traditionally, it has been the small builders who have been able to or have been willing to take the risks in terms of building homes in a different way, and we're absolutely supporting that. So, the innovative housing programme this time is now open to private businesses to take those exciting steps, but it is for the large builders to be stepping up to the plate in terms of changing the way that they build things. We're absolutely committed to working with the sector, but we're not afraid to be pushing the sector where we need to as well.

Minister, we in the Welsh Conservatives recently released an urban strategy that will create, we hope, cities that are fit for the twenty-first century and I'm glad my colleagues, at least, have read the paper.

Are you sure? [Laughter.]

I've set an exam, don't worry.

This includes some elements of housing policy and we will be producing a further document specifically on housing in the autumn. But one area that we did look at in that strategy was green roofing. There are housing developments now throughout England—one example being in Barking in London—where developers are exploring the use of green roofs on housing because of the positive impact they have on thermal insulation, stormwater attenuation, improved air quality, improved water quality, creating habitats for pollinators and improving one's sense of well-being and the number of green spaces around us. I think that the Welsh Government's innovative housing programme could be an obvious way of exploring this type of innovation in Wales, and I do hope that we will see some pilots coming forward now in terms of green roofing, because some UK cities now clearly see this as a very good way of developing effective housing in the twenty-first century.

Yes, I agree, and I've certainly read your document, and I look forward to the housing document coming forward in the autumn as well.

I share your excitement about green roofs and we've seen some really good examples already. The Down to Earth project in my own constituency, in Gower, has built buildings with green roofs and they've found it to be not only good in terms of the structure of a building, but actually good for the soul in terms of the people who are working there. It seems to be something that creates the kind of environment that certainly contributes to good well-being, alongside the important role that it plays in terms of decarbonisation and so on. So, there are plenty of opportunities there, but it's not only within the housing portfolio or the housing part of my work that I'm keen to explore this. I was at a recent meeting of the hub that has started to work in Ammanford and Cross Hands. They're looking at regeneration projects in the Carmarthenshire area. One of the pieces of work that they are doing in terms of preparing the buildings that they're going to be introducing, to increase jobs and so on, they're including green roofs there. So, I think that green roofs should be thought of as part of our regeneration ambitions, as well as how we see the building of houses particularly.

Following the consultation held last year, I made an oral statement on these matters in January. I will include electoral reform provisions within a local government Bill we expect next year. I will work closely with local government and others in order to raise public knowledge of the reforms that are planned for the 2022 local government elections.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for that response. Has the Cabinet Secretary had any indications from local authorities that they would consider moving to a proportional representation system for local elections? And would he agree that such a system would be a fairer system and may help increase interest and participation in local elections?

I have to say to the Member that I have not received any indication of those matters from any part of local government, but I have to say that I do agree with her. Like herself, I agree with the single transferable vote system, and that is my preferred system as well. I guess we will both be arguing for that formulation during the consultation in the Welsh Labour Party over the coming months. The Welsh Government has a clear policy on this matter. We have an agreement to introduce an optional move to the STV system, which local government can choose if they so wish to do. Personally, I would encourage all local authorities to do so. I believe that the single transferable vote system does deliver a fairer system. It delivers greater diversity and greater democratic accountability. So, I hope, alongside the Member for Cardiff North, that local government will embrace a move to proportionality over the coming years.

Cabinet Secretary, you may have heard my question to the First Minister yesterday in regard to an ex-Montgomeryshire person who feels disenfranchised by the electoral system, as an overseas voter—[Interruption.] I'm not sure which way this particular constituent does cast their vote. I'm not sure whether the First Minister quite understood the intention of my question, so I wanted to raise it with you. From my understanding, this person is allowed to vote in the general elections but is barred from voting in Welsh Assembly or local government elections because they are considered so-called second-order elections. The issue here is that if a Welsh resident moves overseas, they can vote in Welsh elections. If a Welsh resident moves to an English or Scottish address, and then moves overseas, they can't decide which nation to place them in if they live overseas. Is there anything that can be done to ensure that Welsh nationals who wish to do so can take part in Welsh Assembly elections or local government elections in Wales?

Presiding Officer, I'm not sure where to start. The result in Montgomeryshire last year has clearly worried my good friend from that part of the world. I will say to him very gently that I'm afraid that the First Minister understood exactly and precisely the question that he was asking yesterday, and the First Minister's response is one that I'm afraid I will repeat this afternoon.

A former employee of Cardiff council has recently been to see me regarding a serious employment issue. He fell foul of an outdated provision in the Local Government Act 1972, which meant that, after his term as an elected councillor came to an end, he was barred from working for that council for 12 months. It was only after he had worked for the council for six months did they realise that they had fallen foul of this provision. Despite no performance issues, and with complete indignity, they sacked him on the spot. He received no support from the council. They failed to accommodate any alternative employment options and, after 13 months, they appointed someone else to the role, despite that individual reapplying for their own job back. The council has refused a dialogue and failed to respond to a subject access request, and now faces a tribunal as a result. Will the Cabinet Secretary agree to look into this case and the issue in general to ensure a fair outcome for this individual and others who could fall foul of this outdated rule in the future? I would be more than happy to write to you with more detail if necessary.

I'm grateful for the Member's offer of correspondence on this matter. It does seem to me a better way of dealing with employment matters than raising them on the floor of the house. 

Question 4, Nick Ramsay.

[Inaudible.]—change in the law.

You should have said that then.

Carry on, Nick Ramsay.

Thank you. Is that a film? [Laughter.]

My officials are already working with the Association of Electoral Administrators, the Wales electoral co-ordination board, the electoral reform programme board, as well as holding workshops across Wales with local authorities to discuss these and other electoral changes.

Diolch, Gweinidog—or Cabinet Secretary, I should say. My question is nowhere near as exciting or interesting as Russ George's was regarding voting rights abroad. You've said—and forgive me, because I do have this on my phone—. If I can just quote the figures, first of all, for the last set of local council elections in Wales in May 2017, I think the voting turnout was 42 per cent, compared with 68.6 per cent for the general election, and 45.5 per cent for the 2016 Assembly election. You've said that local democracy is all about participation, and you want to increase the franchise to 16-year-olds and to those in prison, to name but a few.

While this side of the Chamber accepts that increasing the franchise, in certain areas at least, is certainly not a bad thing, would you accept that there is a concern that, by doing that, you could be masking a problem by avoiding from this point on a like-for-like comparison with general elections and with the Assembly elections as well? I probably haven't explained that too well myself either, Russ. So, while increasing the franchise in some areas is to be welcomed as a good thing—and certainly in terms of 16-year-olds, I would agree with that increase—at the same time we won't be able to look at these figures in future and say, 'The council election votes are worse than others.' Shouldn't you be addressing the basic problem, which is that people already registered to vote are not voting enough in council elections? 

[Inaudible.] numbers.

Presiding Officer, the Plaid Cymru Member for Mid and West Wales has answered the question as comprehensively from his seat as I could from here. You are, of course, comparing a percentage of the electorate whatever the electorate happens to be in that election. So, it continues to be absolutely and completely comparable. I don't know if my good friend from another part of Monmouthshire is seeking to argue against changes in this way. I hope he isn't, because that is singularly the worst argument that I've heard put in many years. I'll say to the Member for Montgomeryshire, or Monmouthshire—[Laughter.] We're all worried about the election result for Montgomeryshire now.

I'll say to my friend from Monmouthshire that we are seeking to put in place a number of changes, and the purpose of those changes is to persuade more people to take part in local elections, to increase the number of people able to take part in elections and to enable greater democratic accountability locally. All of these are very positive things, and I hope that we will have support on all sides of the Chamber. 

The first thing any voting system needs to be is secure. We should have a system that does not allow either multivoting or the harvesting of votes. We do, however, need to make it easier to vote. Has the Welsh Government considered supporting two simple innovations: allowing early voting at a central voting centre, and, secondly, allowing voting at any polling station in a constituency?

Presiding Officer, we are very happy to consider both of those suggestions. I would look towards electronic voting, voting on different days, such as the weekend, mobile polling stations, electronic voting, and electronic counting as well. The point that the Member for Swansea East makes about the security of the ballot is well made and accepted. We are working closely with an expert strategic group—the electoral reform programme board—upon which there are a number of representatives who are looking at ensuring that we have the security of a ballot as a prerequisite but then looking creatively at how we move forward, enabling more people to take part in local democracy. That is our objective and that is what we seek to achieve.

Post Office matters are non-devolved, as you know. I am, though, very conscious of the valuable services post offices often provide to local communities. Their role is particularly important in the context of the recent programme of bank closures in Wales.

Thank you for that response. Of course, it is non-devolved, but the Welsh Government in the past has had a number of programmes to support post offices. A recent change in the way that the Post Office pays branches from what they call the 'core tier' payment to a per-transaction payment is having an impact on some post offices, particularly in rural areas. Yes, there are new possibilities from time to time in terms of banking, but, broadly speaking, these are fundamental payments for customers to pay for electricity and gas, for example. There is a small charge for doing that, but it's not even enough to cover the cost of paying staff and maintaining desk services and so on.

Over the next week, I will be visiting Y Ffôr near Pwllheli, where there is a post office facing this particular difficulty. Are you having any discussions with the Post Office in terms of changes to these payments? And are you in a position to look at what further could be done to ensure that we don't lose this important resource? As you say, we are already losing our banks, and this is something that we need to retain, particularly in our villages and small towns.

I am aware that the Member has written to me on this issue, and I have responded to him. It is possible, of course, for post offices to benefit from business rate relief, and I hope that post offices will apply for that and ensure that they get that. On top of that, £1.3 million has been given to local authorities for their own use if they see that a resource, in the way that he has described, is in danger of being lost. They can offer some additional support on that. However, I am aware that the Member is raising internal issues within the Post Office's system, and, if he would be willing to meet with me, I will be very happy to discuss that with the Post Office centrally.

Cabinet Secretary, the decision by the Royal Bank of Scotland to close 162 branches in England and Wales has highlighted the importance of post offices in providing banking services, particularly in our rural areas. Given that 12 per cent of post offices are now run by part-time outreach services, such as mobile vans, and in premises like village halls, what is the Cabinet Secretary doing to ensure that communities that have lost their bank at least have access to banking services through post office outreach facilities in Wales? Thank you.

I have replied to the earlier question that these matters are not devolved matters, but clearly these are matters that the Welsh Government take great interest in. We do ensure that, as I have already said, we have business relief and business support to enable small businesses to receive the support of the Welsh Government and local authorities in ensuring their sustainability. But I also think that the United Kingdom Government has a very significant responsibility here, and I would very gently suggest to the Conservative Member for South Wales East that he writes to his Conservative colleagues in London and explains to them very, very carefully that the taxpayer spent a great deal of money keeping the banking system afloat and it is high time that the taxpayer received some of that resource back in terms of the regulation of banks to ensure that communities are not put in this situation. So, I would very gently say to the Member: write to your colleagues in London and tell them to pull their fingers out.

In addition to income raised locally, local authorities received £4.2 billion of general funding to spend on services in 2018-19. This continues our commitment to protect local government in Wales from the worst of the UK Government’s spending restrictions.

I've received many representations from schools in the Rhondda regarding the funding crisis that they face in this financial year and, of course, for the foreseeable future. Treorchy Comprehensive School alone has lost nearly £0.25 million in this financial year, with no corresponding drop in pupil numbers.

Then we have the state of some school buildings. One I visited recently posed a clear danger to the safety of pupils as a lump of concrete fell from a dilapidated roof in a classroom. Teachers are demotivated, schools dilapidated, and pupils in danger. How will you ensure that local authorities receive sufficient money to ensure that school lessons are delivered in a suitable and safe environment and that classrooms are adequately staffed?

The Member is aware of the situation facing the Welsh Government in terms of the UK Government's austerity programme. Had we received a similar funding basis this year as we received in 2010, then we would have received an additional, I think—I'm looking at the finance Minister, who I'm delighted has walked back into the Chamber at this point—an additional £4 billion—

Four point one.

—£4.1 billion in order to sustain and support the public services that she's described. I'm not going to stand here and defend for one moment the failed UK austerity programme, but what I will say to her is that I have not met a single councillor of any political stripe who has said to me, 'What we want to see is more Conservative policy and less Labour policy.' What I've heard from every councillor across the whole of Wales is gratitude for protecting local government from the worst of the UK austerity programme.

I am meeting with Edward Argar MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, and Rory Stewart MP, Minister of State for Prisons, next Monday, 16 July.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for that response. Will he be pressing for a women's residential centre in Wales after the UK Government announced a new female offender strategy on 27 June? As I understand it, the five prisons that were planned to be built for women will be abandoned. Instead, there will be five residential centres for women, which I think is entirely in line with the change in justice policy for women that many of us have pressed for for a long time. So, would he be pressing for one of those centres to be built in Wales?

Yes, I will be. I've made the case on a number of occasions, but I believe we do need a significant investment in the secure estate in Wales. I think anybody looking at the estate as it is today would understand that it is not designed for Wales's needs and is not fit for purpose to meet our needs today and in the future.

In terms of female offending, I am very, very anxious to ensure that we have a facility in Wales—a women's centre along the lines that the Member describes—to provide support for women and, of course, to reduce the number of women in the criminal justice system. We want Welsh women to have safe and secure facilities to enable their effective care and rehabilitation. We also want to ensure that we are able to reduce the number of women in the system. To that end, we will be supporting a women's pathfinder project, which is designed to deliver a women-specific, whole-system, integrated approach to service provision for women who come into contact with the criminal justice system in Wales. So, we want to see a holistic, comprehensive approach to policy in Wales that puts the woman at the centre of that policy and doesn't simply seek to build a women's prison that doesn't meet our needs today or in the future.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. 

The next item is the topical questions, and the first question is to be asked to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services, and it's a question from Jack Sargeant.

Thank you for the question. I'm happy to have the opportunity to respond. I have written to Baroness Cumberlege to confirm that, in Wales, the use of mesh will be restricted on a similar basis as in England until additional safeguards are in place. The Chief Medical Officer for Wales has written to all medical directors in Wales to advise them of this advice. Officials will continue to work on details with relevant bodies across the UK.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for that response on this very important topical question. On that issue, this issue impacts women from across the UK, and I want to pay particular tribute to Maxine Cooper, a constituent of mine, who has been working with the Sling the Mesh campaign for many years after a procedure she underwent in 2010. I know that Maxine was working closely with my dad on this issue, and I will, too, do all I can to support her. Like so many others, especially those women who have campaigned with courage and commitment, like Maxine, I was very pleased when NHS England made this announcement yesterday that it is putting an immediate curb on mesh operations after safety concerns. I know many colleagues from across the Chamber have been working on this issue, too, and that my colleague Jane Hutt held a meeting just last week with the Welsh mesh survivors group. The report of the Welsh task and finish group on this issue made some very important recommendations and included a list of what women have asked for, and, to no surprise, a ban on the use of surgical mesh was amongst that list.

Now, I have a few points to ask the Cabinet Secretary. Firstly, is he confident that the health boards have in place sufficient levels of clinical governance, consents, audit and research to ensure that all women can be confident that the appropriate safeguards are in place? Just yesterday, the leader of the house made reference to the evidence of a significant reduction in the number of vaginal mesh procedures in Wales. Does the Cabinet Secretary think that this will continue to be the case until the requirements for increased safeguards can be met? Finally, could you update us on the implementation group that will oversee specific areas of women's health requiring urgent attention and improvement? As you rightly say, Cabinet Secretary, we need to ensure that there is early access to specialist support for those treatment complications to prevent the worst outcomes for women and men alike. Diolch.

Thank you for the question. I recognise the conversations that your father had with me about his constituent Maxine Cooper, and the continuing interest he had shown, and that you do too, on this issue. Obviously the statement that I made earlier this year indicated what we would do in response to the expert panel that we'd instituted here in Wales, and the group that you mentioned at the end, the women's health implementation group, will be meeting in August to take forward further measures on the recommendations that have been made. Now, I think it's really important to recognise that it sometimes does take time to make sure everything is in place as we wish it to be. But that is going to meet this summer. There is money to help them in terms of taking forward their recommendations, but my expectation is that we should already be in the position that England have announced. So, that's really important to be able to give that clarification and that assurance to people, because the points you make about consent, audit and safeguards really do matter. Because for some people this is still potentially a treatment of last resort, but it has to be a properly informed choice.

Given the widespread publicity and the stories of where mesh has gone wrong, you could understand that lots of people will not want to give consent to an operative procedure, but some women may choose to do so, and, as long as that consent is real and informed, then there is not a total ban in Wales, just as in England there is not a total ban. I think it's more accurate to say there is a curb on the use of mesh, rather than a total ban. That's very clear from the letter from the chief medical officer in England. What is also worth pointing out to Members is that what I think has changed now is the fact that not only has Baroness Cumberlege made this recommendation, but also the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, the regulator, have become rather more involved in the conversation on what to do next. Unfortunately, up until this point, that has not been the case. Because politicians do have limits on their powers, and sensibly so, but the regulators' agreement that the curb in place now in England, Wales, and, I believe, in Scotland too, is the right thing to do—. You should be confident that there won't be any less vigilance in Wales than in other countries of the United Kingdom, and I fully expect to be questioned on this issue in this Chamber and beyond as well.

Fourteen months ago I called for a statement here on the issue of mesh implants after a constituent in north Wales had told me of the suffering she had from left hip pain, left thigh pain, pelvic pain and intimate pain, and she told me of thousands of other women in the UK suffering in a similar way. I was then told that health boards should ensure they report any complications, and women who had the procedure were encouraged to self-report problems. Last December, I raised this in the Chamber after you wrote to me stating that you still believed that the benefits outweighed the risks. We know that in May you made your statement, following the report of the Welsh task and finish group to review the use of vaginal synthetic mesh, announcing the implementation group, which Jack Sargeant just referred to, to oversee specific areas of women's health requiring urgent attention and improvement. 

On Monday, I had an e-mail, via my colleague Angela Burns, from a constituent in north Wales that said, 'Mesh is to be suspended in England. I know you understand how important it is that Wales must follow suit.' Attached to it was the press release issued yesterday saying that Baroness Cumberlege's review had called for the immediate suspension of the use of surgical mesh, and it quoted Owen Smith MP, chair of the all-party parliamentary group in Westminster, saying this is wonderful news and long overdue. 

Today, you've told us that you're now going to follow the decision by NHS England to immediately stop mesh operations, but with a view to potentially continuing them in certain circumstances or after certain conditions are met. Human biology is the same both sides of the border. How, therefore, will you be going forward when Baroness Cumberlege recommended a suspension that can only be lifted if certain conditions, including keeping a register of every procedure and of all complications, are met? Are you going to require the same as Baroness Cumberlege is calling for? If not, what, if any, conditions would you be applying before lifting any suspension here?

I think it's important to reiterate the recognition of the significant harm that has been caused where mesh procedures have gone wrong. I've met people in that position directly themselves and all of us have been affected by the very real testimony they provided. The situation here in Wales is that we have had a more vigilant approach since the report that was published and the statement that I made in May to this place, and we need to make sure that similar vigilance is continued. It is important—I don't want to get lost in redescribing what's happening in England or trying to say there is more or less vigilance, but I think there is similar vigilance across the nations of the United Kingdom on this issue. If you refer back to what Baroness Cumberlege herself has said, she said,

'At this stage in our review we are not recommending a ban'.

In the response from the Chief Medical Officer for England, in her correspondence to Baroness Cumberlege, she also referred to a conversation with Baroness Cumberlege where she said, 'It would be wrong to impose a blanket ban. I would emphasise we should remain mindful that, for some patients, this can be a last treatment option for a debilitating condition.'

So, that's the challenge. It's not for the politicians to decide, 'Here is a list of operations where you may use mesh and others where you may not'; this is about the advice and the guidance that is being given to medical professionals about the care they have with and for their patients, and for genuinely informed consent about the risks that exist as well. So, this really should be an area where politicians hesitate to say, 'I have decided for you what is appropriate treatment', including if it's a genuinely last-resort treatment, which is the position that we'd already reached in Wales with the expert review that we had.

We will continue to work on a non-partisan basis between the Governments of the United Kingdom, but crucially with the regulator and with NICE, and also with the clinical community and, crucially, with the individual citizens themselves who have either been harmed through mesh use in the past, but equally for those people where this could be a last-resort treatment. That is the point—that it's genuinely a last-resort treatment and there's action we will be taking in Wales about other treatment options, more conservative treatment options, in advance of any potential decision for a surgical procedure to be undertaken. 

So, I hope that gives genuine reassurance to Members, who I know, in different parties, are concerned about this issue. The approach we're taking in Wales is no less vigilant than any of the other United Kingdom countries. It's in all of our interests to see further action taken on improving care in this area, which is why we have an expert group that is due to carry on and take forward this issue, meeting for the first time, as I said in answer to Jack Sargeant, at the start of August.

Having met a large group of mesh survivors here with Jane Hutt on Monday, both women and men, it's clear to me that the issue of informed consent is quite a major one, because people were not informed about potential complications and it's disappointing that it's taken the medical profession so many years to really listen to their patients and understand the level of suffering that people have undergone. I heard directly from people who said that they'd undergone a major investigative procedure under general anaesthetic, and then awoke to be told that mesh had been inserted without, obviously, any prior discussion about the pros and cons of such a procedure. So, would you agree with me that the lesson from this very sorry saga is that the medical profession has got to be much better at clearly seeking and obtaining informed consent when new procedures are being trialed, so that patients can make decisions themselves about what is best for them?  

I think that's a really important point to make. It was part of the terms of reference for the expert group and review we had here in Wales, and it's really important not to undersell the importance of informed consent, because different people faced with the same information will make different choices about the risks they're prepared to take in treatment and, indeed, on the condition they currently have and the impact that that has upon their lives. It, of course, has been incredibly not just disappointing but really upsetting to hear people describe mesh procedures that have been undertaken and they say they have not consented to them, or they've consented but they do not believe it was informed consent. And all of that matters; we shouldn't try and brush that away. But the point about all forms of medical intervention is that it is about it being a genuine conversation and decision that the patient makes, as opposed to the clinician making it for them, and understanding, 'What matters to me as the person who is potentially undergoing that treatment.'

When you look at the expert report that we have had undertaken in Wales, it is genuinely reflective on past practice, and part of their recommendations are about making sure there is genuine and informed consent for any procedures that take place, as well as making sure that in the pathway to a potential operation, all other treatment options are provided first so that it is a genuine last resort, if it is used at all. And, in fact, what should give people comfort about that is that in Wales, there's been a significant reduction in mesh procedures, as our clinical community have recognised some of the challenges that have existed. That will continue to be the case, as we work through with colleagues across the United Kingdom on what could and should happen in the future. It is, of course, possible still that the regulator will decide to take a different step and to withdraw this as a treatment option, but that is a matter for the regulator, not for an elected politician.     

I thank the Cabinet Secretary. 

The next question is also to you, and it's to be asked by Joyce Watson. 

Thank you for the question. Earlier this week, I was happy to announce an immediate increase in medical school places in Wales. These 40 additional places will bring benefits to the whole of Wales, including west and north Wales, with 20 places in Swansea medical school and 20 places in Cardiff medical school, to be delivered in collaboration with Bangor University in north Wales. Cardiff and Bangor universities are collaborating on plans that will allow students to undertake all of their medical education in north Wales in the near future.  

I find this a really useful announcement, because in Wales we're facing the same challenges as the rest of the UK to train and recruit medical practitioners, and I'm pleased that this scheme will help to deliver and to promote that. I understand that there's lots of work and detail that will follow, and I look forward to the updates. I support a pragmatic approach to delivering maximum benefit from a restricted budget, and the fact that not all of the money will be spent on a capital investment.  

Increasing the numbers in Swansea and also Aberystwyth University will, I believe and I hope, give wider and more diverse opportunities to the people who live in those areas. We all know, and it's well documented, that west Wales in particular faces major recruitment challenges, and I look forward to this increase, or any other increase for that matter, delivering for the people of west Wales, who need, quite clearly, to gain from medical practitioners in an ever-changing environment.  

Thank you. It's important to note that this is keeping the pledge that we made to come back with a decision, and the indication that I gave that we thought we'd be able to do something on expanding them—expanding opportunities in different parts of Wales—in previous questions. I've always been keen to talk about the fact that this is good news both for north Wales but also west Wales, because, as you correctly point out, there are recruitment challenges in west Wales as well as the north. There is a small amount of capital that we'll need to deploy to make this happen, but doing this this way, in collaboration between four universities, will mean that we're able to make faster progress on increasing numbers and increasing opportunities in different parts of Wales, because there's lots of evidence we're more likely to have people stay in west Wales and north Wales if they undertake large amounts of their training there.

It does come on the back of an agreement we reached on how we use some money with Plaid Cymru in the budget, but that two-year amount won't be enough to train someone over the course of a whole medical degree. So, we've made the choice within Government to support this whole programme of study and to have a permanent increase in the additional numbers of medical training places. So, it goes beyond the agreement we reached about exploring this issue with Plaid Cymru. It is a permanent addition, and I look forward to understanding more about not just when people can undertake all of their study in north and west Wales, but also our ability to then see what more we can do to have the right sort of medical and fellow health and care professionals here in the service in Wales.

I do welcome the expansion of medical school places, although I do regret that you didn't choose to announce that expansion here when this has been a topic that has exercised so many of us on so many occasions. We do have a shortage of doctors, as you're well aware, in certain disciplines such as general practice, paediatrics and rheumatology. Are you able, through these places, to seek to massage the workforce planning going forward and to ensure that we have people who might then be able to follow those kinds of specialisms? And given the shortage of doctors, I would be very interested to know how you evaluated that 40 additional places is what we need. Do we need more? Was that all the money you had available, or do you think that 40 is it, and that will suffice going forward?

I noted in your written statement that you published earlier this week the intent that trainees will be able to undertake the totality of their medical training in north Wales, and their postgraduate training. Whilst further collaboration between Cardiff and Bangor is absolutely key in making that happen, what discussions, if any, have taken place with providers in the north-west of England, especially the hospitals that may be able to produce or to allow rotational work to be undertaken as part of that postgrad training? I'd be really interested to know whether or not you believe that we can do all of our postgrad training within north Wales itself, because we heard in our previous inquiry to the health and social care committee about some of the difficulties of producing or of being able to do some of that training, because we don't have all of those specialisms within our current structure up there in north Wales. Thank you.

Thank you for the questions. I think it's a useful point about distinguishing between the medical degree and then speciality training post medical degree. Of course, there are ongoing conversations with colleagues in the north-west deanery in England about how we might arrange different courses of study, as well as what we can do within Wales as well. I want there to be a practical conversation that is led by actually making a difference for the quality of training and the scope of training that can be provided, as opposed to an England-versus-Wales conversation. There will, of course, be times when politicians disagree, but this is actually about training doctors to give them a career within our national health service, serving our communities.

On the point on the medical degree and the practical choice about places and mone, they are practical choices about our ability to expand, if we want to fund that expansion, because, as I say, you can't do that on a limited agreement over two or three years, because the degree takes longer and it would be a pretty unusual thing if we decided to expand a degree course of study for one cohort and then at the end of that we would withdraw the funding. There would be no way to plan and properly expand the numbers we would want to see within our medical workforce. It won't take away our need to continue to recruit from within the nations of the UK as well as outside the UK, in Europe and further afield, but this is us making a practical choice with the resource we have to make a difference in the area that we can make with our current two medical schools, to deliver against some of the challenges in different parts of the country.

That will also be the case for speciality training as well, because, every year, we look at our speciality training numbers and we need to understand how and where we fill those places. So, actually, that is even more important in terms of the links with the rest of Wales and, indeed, the deanery across our border where different training places are available for those speciality places. So, we have some of the same challenges as the rest of the United Kingdom and some rather more unique ones. This is part of the answer, as opposed to a silver bullet for all the challenges that you and I will continue to discuss now and in the future.

In May of last year, this report was published by the Member of Parliament for Arfon, Hywel Williams, and me, setting out the case for a medical school for north Wales. Your announcement on expanding medical education in north Wales is a significant and important step in the right direction, and is the result of a strong local campaign in Arfon.

In your statement you say this:

'these new arrangements will provide more opportunities for Welsh speakers to undertake their studies in Welsh.'

Can you expand upon that and how exactly that will happen?

Thank you for the question. It is important that we see opportunities for people to utilise the skills they have to be doctors, including the ability to use the Welsh language. Part of our challenge, and I've made this point several times over in the past, is that Welsh language needs are not preferences, they are genuine care needs in a range of our communities and with individuals and their families. Part of our challenge has been how we have enough health and care professionals to be able to deliver against that, and I'd still like to see us be able to make more successful efforts to attract people back to Wales who have undertaken part of their medical or other healthcare professional training within England. That requires us to have an attractive offer for them to work here in Wales, as opposed to simply saying that they have a sense of national responsibility to return to make their careers anew.

But I do fully expect that in the programmes of study that exist already, that will be real and possible. We're making deliberate efforts to try and encourage people who speak Welsh to come into medical education as a potential career for them. I spoke, for example, on a programme of study we have to look to get a number of 16 to 18-year-olds in Valleys communities and other parts of Wales to come and consider a career in medicine. So, we are deliberately going out to look to try and make sure that it's an attractive career for different people to come into, as well as the place of study itself, as—[Inaudible.]—course of study, and the medium of the language that that is delivered in.

I'm pleased to reiterate that this decision that I have made is a result of us keeping our word about the decision that we would consider, the timescale we'd make it in, and our ambition to expand opportunities to undertake more medical education and training, and our ambition to make sure people come and undertake their whole period of study within Wales as well. 

I've supported the concept of a Bangor medical school since the previous vice-chancellor, Merfyn Jones, first raised it with me a decade or more ago, and this, of course, has been raised in previous Assemblies also. But given that the north Wales local medical committee—many of whom themselves studied at Liverpool medical school, or Manchester medical school, some of whom came from north Wales, some who chose to build their lives and careers in north Wales—have called for this model to incorporate and restore direct connections with Liverpool, and possibly Manchester medical school, not just beyond, across the border, but specifically there, given the historic links, how do you respond to that call by the north Wales local medical committee, made up of local general practitioners, and what dialogue have you had with them regarding that?

I've made an announcement that is building on our two medical schools and provision and partnership with universities in different parts of Wales. I don't think it would be at all helpful for me to try and interrupt that, having just announced it within a week, and to then say that I expect them to remake different links with different medical schools. We of course want opportunities for people to study medicine and to be able to acquire skills to deliver the full programme of study to become doctors and actually to keep them here in Wales. I will always look for opportunities for our health and care system here in Wales to attract people to come here, and to keep people here, and to work with other partners across our border to do so as well. That will be the focus. It will be about making the partnerships that we've agreed, to make them work, and the partnership and collaboration that has real investment and time for people in both Swansea and Cardiff medical schools, and I'm really pleased to say, within Aberystwyth and Bangor universities too. 

And finally, Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. May I welcome this statement today, which has taken far too long to come, of course? I am thinking back to a very early meeting I had, after I was elected, with Professor Dean Williams, from Bangor University and Ysbyty Gwynedd, who seeded this idea, and the realisation I very quickly had that it was obvious that we needed to move ahead with medical education in Bangor, as people like Dr Dai Lloyd realised the need for the introduction of medical education in Swansea University, and there is a now a full medical school in Swansea. I am thinking of all those doctors and those who would wish to be doctors, young people and parents, former doctors and nurses—people who see the benefit of developing medical education in Bangor, and I thank them today for supporting those of us who have campaigned so hard for this, in order to turn this into a reality.

Let us remember why this is taking place. This has to take place because of a lack of doctors in parts of west Wales and north Wales. This will be a help, I believe, in recruiting and filling the gaps. It is happening because there are too few doctors being trained in Wales, and too few of those coming from Wales. So, this opens the door, I hope, to a greater number of our young people being able to undertake a career in medicine.

To the Conservatives, if I may say: on a day when we are celebrating having a medical college, to all intents and purposes, in Wales, you decide to concentrate on asking about the linkages with north-west England. Well, listen: of course those linkages are important, but let us also today concentrate on what we can do here in Wales in order to increase the capacity of medical education for ourselves.

To you, Cabinet Secretary, I have simple questions to ask: can you confirm that this is only the beginning of a growth in medical education in Wales, and can you also confirm that you will share my desire to see this new medical college in Bangor developing to be a centre of excellence, not only in teaching medicine through the medium of Welsh, but also in the provision of rural healthcare? Today is an important step forward.

In making this announcement, we've been clear with our university partners and the two medical schools that we want to continue to see more people from Wales have opportunities to train to become doctors as part of this. We want to see excellence, of course, but I don't think that you need to dumb down on standards, frankly, to give more people from Wales opportunities to—

Who's talking about dumbing down on standards?

That's exactly my point. You don't need to dumb down on standards to give more opportunities to people in Wales.

That's not been suggested. Why do you bring that up? That's terrible.

The reason I bring that up is that it is something that is mentioned outside this place from time to time about saying, 'Actually you need to change standards.' [Interruption.] I think you're misunderstanding—[Interruption.] With respect, I think you're misunderstanding the point I'm making. The point I'm making is that there are plenty of young people from Wales who have the ability to become doctors. This is about making sure that our universities don't operate a system of understanding who will then be offered those places that excludes young people from those places. I want to see more people from Wales be given opportunities to study medicine in Wales, and the expansion in numbers has to be accompanied with an expansion in opportunities for people from Wales to take up those places. Because I believe there is plenty of talent available within Wales who will want to do so. And that's actually why, in answer to earlier questions, there are the efforts that we're making to make sure that more people are encouraged to consider a career in medicine. So, that work will have to continue, rather than simply say, 'Expand the places and the people will come.' The people need to come from within Wales as well.

I'm more than happy to indicate that I want to have a continuing conversation about the numbers of people that we have within the medical profession, about how and where they're trained. We will always need to have a practical conversation about that, to understand the resources that we have available, and the ability of our medical schools, in partnership with their universities, to do so. But at this point in time, I think the collaboration that has gone into this, and the work that has gone into this, from four universities, gives us good reason to think they could actually train more people. The challenge is our ability to finance that training, and to make sure that we make a success of the current expansion that I have already announced.

And of course I want to see the new partnerships that we have announced deliver genuine excellence, in health and care, including rural healthcare. There is a real opportunity for us to deliver real excellence in healthcare, because a number of doctors want to work in a city context, a number of doctors want to work in a Valleys context, and there are lots of people who want to be doctors in rural medicine as well, and this is a real opportunity to give those people more opportunities to do so.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary.

The next item, therefore, is the 90-second statements. There is one statement today from Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'd like to draw Members' attention to the sculpture that's on the eastern side of the bay, called 'Pit to Port'. This was a lifelong ambition of Donald Ronald Harris, who was a lifelong resident of south Wales, and was a chartered ship broker and coal exporter. In a career spanning 45 years, he rose to become the south Wales area manager of Powell Duffryn International Fuels. During his period at the docks, Ron was responsible for the shipment of millions of tonnes of coal from south Wales to the continent and the rest of the world. Ron played a key role in a project for producing a dedication to the south Wales coal miners, and the industry in the area, but sadly passed away before the scheme got under way. Ron was especially keen to emphasise the link between the south Wales coal industry and Cardiff docks. Their success was intertwined and neither would have survived or thrived without the other.

Following his death, Ron's wife, Margaret, took up the challenge of seeing the project through. Along with a team of dedicated supporters, she raised £55,000 for the sculpture 'Pit to Port'. Next Monday sees the thirteenth anniversary of its unveiling on 16 July 2005 and fittingly features a coal miner, a coal truck and a steam ship. It stands just a few minutes' walk from here in Cardiff Bay, across from the Norwegian church in Brittania Park. I'm sure all Members will join me in paying tribute to Margaret and Ron for their role in securing this fitting monument of Cardiff and south Wales's industrial heritage.  

The next item is the motion to amend Standing Order 18 in relation to the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2013. I call on a member of the Business Committee to move the motion—Paul Davies. 

Formally.  

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

The next item is the debate on the Public Accounts Committee report on the Welsh Government's initial funding of the Circuit of Wales project. I call on the Chair of the committee to move the motion—Nick Ramsay. 

Llywydd, thank you for the opportunity to speak today about the Public Accounts Committee inquiry into the Welsh Government's initial funding of the Circuit of Wales project. The proposed Circuit of Wales was a unique and significant project, which appeared to offer the possibility of regenerating an economically deprived area. As a committee, we agreed that the Welsh Government was right to explore possibilities of making this project work, and quite properly it was not the committee's function to comment on the merits of the Cabinet's eventual decision not to provide the requested public finance support. We are deeply concerned, however, at the way this project was approached by the Welsh Government. We want Wales to be a first choice for investment, and to achieve this the decision-making processes followed by those charged with the expenditure of taxpayers' money in this way need to be both coherent and properly documented.

The Auditor General for Wales published his report on the initial funding of the Circuit of Wales in April 2017, which highlighted significant shortcomings in the Welsh Government's handling of the project. This report provided a firm foundation for the basis of our inquiry, which expanded beyond the scope of the initial funding into the Welsh Government's decision-making processes for the final proposal.

We found the approach from the Welsh Government to this project to be one of two halves: the Welsh Government made some inexplicable decisions during its initial funding of this project, such as authorising payment for the purchase of FTR, a motorcycle company in Buckinghamshire, as part of the property development grant intended to buy land in Ebbw Vale. Then, having made the initial decision not to provide the requested guarantee, the Welsh Government chose to focus its justification for this on a technical accounting matter rather than citing the comprehensive due diligence that it had commissioned. This led to public confusion and did little to promote confidence in the Government's ability to handle public money wisely and well.  

The general feeling we had, as a committee, was that initially the policy decision had been taken to support the project and this had to be achieved through any means. Our role, as a Public Accounts Committee, is to make sure that the enthusiasm of politicians to achieve whatever policy goal they have doesn't lead to the cutting of corners, because that leads to bad decision making. 

As we moved into the second half of our inquiry, we examined the processes leading up to the final decision of not agreeing the Welsh Government guarantee, which was essential to making the project happen. Now, we fully appreciate that governments can and sometimes should change their minds on decisions, but it's important that processes are not fixed around the policy. Processes for good governance are there for a reason: to protect public money and the reputation of good government and probity. We have serious concerns that the Welsh Government was not as transparent and comprehensive as they could have been in explaining their decision to perform what appeared to be a u-turn on the Circuit of Wales project. It's important to remember that the Welsh Government maintained its position of positivity about the project and it set its own certain criteria by which it would determine its ultimate decision. It therefore came as a shock when the Cabinet rejected the project at the eleventh hour.

It was never made clear to us, as a committee, why this decision was taken. Was it because of the technical issue of whether or not the project would be on the balance sheet? Or was it something else? Our probing found there to be several more issues at play and there still remains an air of mystery as to how the Welsh Government, which had spent considerable time and money on the project, ended up pulling the plug on the basis of what appears to be a 20-minute Cabinet discussion. These questions still remain unanswered.

So, what can be learnt from all of this? Well, it's essential that the Welsh Government demonstrates effective management of Welsh public money and maximises the opportunities for investment in Wales. In response to successive reports in recent years from the auditor general, and from this committee and its predecessors, the Welsh Government has provided various assurances to us that lessons have been learned. But we remain unconvinced. Our scrutiny is intended to be constructive and our goal is to secure better service delivery that benefits everyone, especially the taxpayer, but the Government must learn and develop from our reports for our scrutiny to be effective.

We certainly do not expect to see any recurrence of the basic errors, omissions and poor judgment on the part of officials that have come to light as a result of this report. Unfortunately, the sorry story of the Circuit of Wales highlights the shortcomings of the Welsh Government in terms of large-scale investment projects. This particular project took seven to eight years to develop before being brought to a halt. The Welsh Government needs to be much smarter at making decisions. It needs to be quicker and it needs to be more agile. Otherwise, there is a risk to Wales more widely as an investment location. Our criticism is not directed at individuals, but instead at a wider system failure and the Welsh Government needs to address that. Wales needs investment and we need the internal capacity to be able to make quick decisions on large-scale investment projects.

The Public Accounts Committee made 13 recommendations in its report, including that the Welsh Government strengthen their controls to ensure value for public money in relation to understanding relationships between funding recipients and their contractors and suppliers; that the funding of the purchase of FTR Moto Ltd is utilised as a case study for internal training purposes by the Welsh Government, given the highly unorthodox decisions made at official level, the accompanying lack of documentation and the apparent failure of officials to seek and obtain the requisite approvals from their respective Minister; and that all Cabinet Secretaries, Ministers and all Welsh Government senior civil servants are reminded of the requirements within the ministerial and civil service codes to ensure the accuracy of all information that is released.

We welcome the Welsh Government's acceptance of the committee's recommendations. However, in places, this acceptance appears to mask the Government's intent and, hidden in accompanying detail, it appears that the recommendations have not been accepted in the spirit in which they were made. This has been a consistent theme with regard to Welsh Government responses to our recommendations, and we've raised these concerns previously and consistently. 

In relation to the recommendations made in our report on the Circuit of Wales, we believe that the Welsh Government's response falls short in a number of key places. In accepting recommendation 1, the Welsh Government has only accepted that, in specific circumstances, it needs to strengthen its controls to ensure value for money. We feel that more needs to be done to ensure that officials exercise professional judgment, and our recommendation centred on the need for an improved understanding of the relationships between funding recipients and their contractors and suppliers. We wanted to see an end to the Welsh Government's repeated commercial naivety, and this is not addressed in the response to our recommendation, or, indeed, responses to previous Public Accounts Committee reports that have called for lessons to be learned.

The committee is also concerned about the Welsh Government's response to recommendation 3 of our report, where we recommend that the Welsh Government confirms to the Public Accounts Committee that it has since recovered the £100,000 from the escrow account. The response does not make it clear as to when action to recover these funds commenced, or, indeed, whether there was any intent by the Welsh Government to recover the funds until prompted by our recommendation. This is a good illustration of the Welsh Government's seeming commercial naivety. Once the decision not to invest had been taken, then retrieving this money should have been a matter of course, and the response to our recommendation should have been simply, 'We have retrieved this money.'

Finally, with regard to recommendation 6, the Welsh Government's response expresses that it already has in place robust processes for dealing with concerns about instructions from authorising officers to make payments: they're able and confident to raise those concerns with the senior independent manager. We are not convinced, and would welcome further information from the Welsh Government on how many instances there have been in recent years where concerns such as these have been raised, and some explanation of how these processes have proven to be robust. I look forward to listening to the debate today. Diolch.

It's a pleasure to follow the Chair in presenting, I think, very comprehensively and cogently, what is, I think—we all have to accept—a pretty damning report. And, indeed, it's hard to think of a more damning committee report or, indeed, a more damning auditor general report, which accompanied it. On the face of it, as he said, the Government accepts all our recommendations, but when you delve into the detail, of course, doubt remains as to whether the truth that lies behind the criticism has hit home and will change the practices that we have laid bare.

I'm confused. The £100,000 in the escrow account, I mean, what, the Government didn't know? They forgot? One possibility, of course, is that it was a non-refundable deposit, effectively an option, seeing as the option then was null and void because the Government decided to pull the plug on the project. That's possible, but they would have known, surely, because that would've been drawn up in the papers at the time. So, maybe the Cabinet Secretary can illuminate us on that point.

What, I think, the report lays bare, really, are some fundamental failings in the way that the Government conducts its decision making, and the transparency, bordering on opacity, bordering on—to use that phrase—a reckless disregard for the truth at times. It has to be honest about that. This poor decision making is there, right at the heart of the way the Government has approached a whole host of investments, small and large, which, of course, have been very much at the heart of the work of the Public Accounts Committee.

I'd like to just concentrate on one of the responses to the recommendations because, as the Chair has said, what's crucial, really, is what happens now, in response. If we continue to make these same mistakes, then we will never get out of the kinds of travails that we have found ourselves in in relation to this project.

The Government, in response to recommendation 13, about the outstanding debt to the Government from the Heads of the Valleys Development Company, says that it is aware of a number of proposals to resurrect the project, and it's aware, particularly, of a new promoter that, it says, has asked that the Welsh Government releases them from the liability connected with that £7.3 million loan. Now, I think we need to know more about that, don't we? 

I think the Cabinet Secretary should use this opportunity to tell us more about that proposal, because, as I understand, it's a proposal from the US-based real estate investors or developers, Rocksteady Partners—a curious name, I think, for an investment company. Methinks they protest too much, possibly. Rocksteady, which lists supercasinos as one of its key areas of experience and, indeed, has one of its many offices, it's fair to say, in Las Vegas, Nevada, is promoting a proposal that combines the race track with the development of a leisure resort and includes a casino as part of its proposal.

The Government, in its response, is saying that, in return for releasing them from the liability, the quid pro quo is that the Welsh Government gets an equity stake. Is the Welsh Government seriously saying that it's open to any proposal that would have it, and therefore the Welsh public, holding an equity stake in a casino in one of the poorest parts of Wales? I mean, that is entirely unacceptable that even that could be entertained as a proposition. So, can the Cabinet Secretary, when he gets up to contribute to this debate, confirm that the new promoter that he is talking about is Rocksteady Partners?

The bigger truth, I think, laid bare here, is how appallingly bad we are at dealing with major projects. We lurch, really, from one game-changing project to another and very few of them come to anything. LG Semicon, Legend Court, Valleywood, Pinewood, now, of course, St Athan and the tidal lagoon—different reasons for the failure of these projects, but the map of Wales is becoming littered by a junkyard of broken dreams, and we have to break that cycle. There are a few exceptions: Swansea bay innovation campus, Celtic Manor, the new compound semiconductor centre. The difference is when we decide to create something ourselves instead of relying on external actors, whether they're based in Nevada or not. It will always be the same unless we put ourselves in the driving seat. Unless we do that, then we will get nowhere, and I would appeal to the Welsh Government: we need to look at building up our ability to deliver major projects, because what was laid bare in this one is that the Welsh Government, currently, neither has the skills nor the experience to do so.

Our distinguished Chairman, in, I thought, a measured and matter-of-fact speech, exposed with deadly accuracy the failure of this Government to support what would have been a visionary project that could have transformed the whole of south-east Wales. When the Circuit of Wales promoters started out on their melancholy journey to obtain Government support for this project, I don't suppose they thought, at the end of the day, that they would be the only ones who would be given the run-around on the circuit, but that is exactly what happened. It's a shocking catalogue of political myopia, administrative incompetence, evasiveness and even duplicity. And, I agree with Adam Price in what he said, that the auditor general's report, and, indeed, the Public Accounts Committee's report could not be more damning of a Government in the way that it's handled this, or indeed, any project.

This was going to be a major game changer for the northern Valleys and for the whole of south Wales, bringing in a huge amount of private sector money—£410 million—on the basis of a limited guarantee by the Welsh Government, which had a maximum commitment of £8 million a year, admittedly for a potential 30 years, sometime in the future, but, a guarantee that would be secured on assets, which, by then, would already be built. So, it would not just be money down the drain; there would be something in return. And, assuming the project were successful, the Government would actually get paid £3 million a year for its guarantee. So, given that the objections that have been produced by the Government at different stages have all been different themselves and have ended up with something that was never even thought of at the start, but ought to have been known in relation to the classification of the private sector debt as effectively on the Government balance sheet for reasons that still remain obscure, then I do think that this is a disgraceful story that requires to be the subject of a major apology by the Government, not that I'm sure we will get anything like that.

There isn't time to go into detail about every criticism that is made in this report, but let's just look at the £9.3 million of project finance that was put in, right at the very start, to establish the development potential of this project. I supported that decision on the grounds that this was well worth a punt, but I would never have supported that decision if I had known, at the end of the day and two years' extra work and £50 million-worth of development costs that had been assumed by the private sector promoters, that the Government were going to pull the plug on the scheme because of an accounting device in the Treasury rule book. The Treasury rule book was there at the start. If there was a possibility that the project was going to be classified as Government debt, and obviously the Government could not assume a potential debt of £400 million, given the limitations on its borrowing powers, that ought have been on the table right from the very start. We've still had no explanation, even after all this, as to why it was that that private sector debt might be classified as on the Government's books.

The one thing that we never ever got out of this project was any clear statement from the Government as to why they thought that this was a project that was not viable. The Cabinet Secretary, in various statements, has said that it didn't stack up in commercial terms, but there has never been any information emerging from the due-diligence process that the Government engaged in that was able to demonstrate that. Of course it's a speculative project, it's a project that starts from scratch with a bare site, but an exciting project that could have transformed the whole of Wales, actually, both as a tourist attraction and with the automotive park that the developers hoped to attract on the basis of the circuit. Instead of which, the risks that I've just alluded to were too much for the Government, but they found in the back pocket, when the scheme was murdered by the Cabinet decision—they found in the back pocket £100 million from nowhere to build a series of empty sheds for which there are no known customers. Now, that seems to me to be the most extraordinary paradox—that they weren't able to accept £400 million of private money to build a project for which there was a commercial rationale, but they were able to find £100 million of public money to build something for which there is, at the moment, at any rate, no demand. So, that is a pure speculation.

So, this, I think, is an appalling example of Government mismanagement for all the reasons that are laid out in glorious Technicolor, or inglorious Technicolor, in the course of the report. But what a shocking indictment of the Government—what an appalling advertisement for Wales as a potential home for private sector investment. We desperately need to reduce the dependence of Wales on the public sector and to get private money in, because we need to increase the wealth-creating potential of the economy to raise the level of income in this country. Without that, we will carry on the story of poverty and decline over which the Welsh Government has presided for the last 20 years, extending what we've gone through in the last 100.

This report from the Public Accounts Committee highlights significant shortcomings and, in some cases, inexplicable decisions regarding the Welsh Government approach to funding the Circuit of Wales project. This project was widely welcomed, presenting, as it did, an opportunity to regenerate one of the most economically deprived areas in Wales. The Welsh Government was right to explore the viability of the proposed Circuit of Wales, but, in their eagerness to bring this project to fruition, officials made basic errors, omissions and exercised poor judgment.

The fact is that the Circuit of Wales project was handled appallingly. Millions of pounds of taxpayers' money were wasted, and the people of Blaenau Gwent first had their hopes raised and then dashed by the Welsh Government's botched handling of this project. The cornerstone of any effective democracy is ministerial oversight, yet, in this case, it was lacking. This report paints a picture of a department in chaos. Officials were, effectively, running the show and taking key decisions without ministerial approval, and among the glaring errors made by the officials was the decision to approve the purchase of a motorcycle firm in England. This company, FTR, was bought with funds supplied from the Welsh Government property development grant—a grant that can be used to fund the purchase of land and property by the private sector to stimulate economic development. The Heads of the Valleys Development Company used the £300,000 grant to buy FTR, which has now gone into liquidation. The Welsh Government has failed to explain how this purchase was approved when none of the stated reasons aligned with the approved objectives of the property development grant scheme. Indeed, there is no evidence to confirm that, then, the Minister was even aware of the decision. When this matter was raised by the Member of Parliament, an incorrect and misleading press statement was issued, saying that no Welsh Government funds were used to buy FTR—a press statement that originated from the same team of officials responsible for agreeing the eligible expenditure and authorising the grant claim payment for the acquisition.

This is just one shocking example of many concerns raised by the committee about the robustness of the decision-making process—concerns about the rationales for various decisions made by officials, poor record keeping, and evidence, both orally and verbally, judged by the committee to be evasive. All this points to a department out of control. Effective action must be taken to ensure that this cannot happen again.

The committee calls for robust and effective governance and internal communication channels to guarantee that such issues do not recur again. However, there appears to be a culture of rewarding failures. Instead of clear and robust action from the First Minister, he failed to give any assurance that sanctions would be taken against officials found to have been responsible for failures identified in this report. Presiding Officer, this report clearly demonstrates that the Welsh Government failed to give proper oversight to its investment of public money in the Circuit of Wales project. They failed to demonstrate value for money of this investment. In doing so, they let the people of Blaenau Gwent down, and down badly; they have let the taxpayer down; they have let Wales down. Thank you very much.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport to speak—Ken Skates.

Diolch, Llywydd. I am very grateful to Members for the report by the Public Accounts Committee and, in particular, can I thank the committee's Chair, Nick Ramsay, for providing an opportunity for me to respond to the recommendations? I think it's fair to say that, despite a huge amount of effort and work on all sides, the Welsh Government was not in a position to support the Circuit of Wales with public finance. We worked incredibly hard with the project promoters to support the project through a significant period of time as we fully recognised the potential positive economic impact that a sustainable project of this type could have in a deprived area. It was a large undertaking. The committee and Members in this Chamber can see the lengths that the Government went to to explore its viability. However, we were always clear that any support provided by the taxpayer needed to be both proportionate and fair. Despite the time and support provided, the project promoters were unable to provide a proposition that met the Welsh Government's stated criteria, and the final project proposal was assessed to be very high risk, with most of the risk, in effect, being borne by Government, and therefore by the taxpayer.

It was also assessed that the benefits claimed for the project, in particular the jobs created, were at best very uncertain. Because of all of these factors and the fact that, despite years of effort, the project promoters had been unable to come up with a compelling proposal with an appropriate balance of risk and reward for the taxpayer, the Cabinet concluded that it could not provide further support. Overall, the final version of the project did not represent good value for money for Welsh taxpayers.

Now, we have accepted all of the committee's recommendations on the initial funding of the Circuit of Wales, and hopefully I can demonstrate to the Chair today that I take those recommendations very seriously indeed. I'll identify a number of the recommendations that the Members have already touched on, and hopefully I can offer some further assurance.

First of all, the Chair pointed to recommendation 6. I would happily provide figures from within Government that were requested by the Chair of the committee. In terms of recommendation 13, let me put on record that we are not open whatsoever to the presence of a casino in one of the most deprived parts of the United Kingdom. There are a number of project promoters, as I think the Member is aware, many discussions have taken place—they are commercial in confidence—and the Rocksteady proposal is not the only proposal that is being considered.

Recommendation 3: now, the provision of the contract accords with common commercial practice, though officials will report back to the Public Accounts Committee once legal advice has been provided and we are able to ascertain the position of the escrow account. We have already recognised that there are lessons to be learnt from elements of the Welsh Government's handling of the project, that is for sure, and we have put in place new processes to address those issues.

We accept the need to strengthen our controls to ensure value for public money. Actions must be proportionate to the risk involved, as well as be clearly documented. For example, we have already implemented changes to the business finance grant application process. Applicants must— must—now clarify whether Welsh Government funds are to be paid to related companies for goods or services. An exercise is also being undertaken to consider our controls to ensure value for money in more detail, and consideration will be made of the processes that can be put in place to ensure that complex projects demonstrate value for money where activities are procured. It must be noted that appropriate proportionate due diligence will be undertaken on any related companies identified at the application stage. And, with the launch of the new economy futures fund, all guidelines for officials have been refreshed, and the risk guidelines have been updated. We've also updated our internal guidance to ensure that all relevant information that might be considered novel, contentious or repercussive is included in ministerial advice provided as part of the approval process. We also accept that more work could have been undertaken at the appraisal stage of the project before including the purchase of FTR within the property development grant's eligible costs. In order that lessons are learned, the purchase of FTR will be developed into a case study for use at internal training sessions.

Now, guidance on risk weighting of projects of this nature is set out in Eurostat's manual on government deficit and debt, produced by Her Majesty's Treasury and the Office for National Statistics. Now, I recognise that there is merit in this guidance being made clearer. So, to that end, we will engage with others in the UK and with the statisticians to urge them to continue the process of clarifying and simplifying the classification rules. Formal decision making on classification clearly rests with the statisticians at the ONS and Eurostat. The ONS process is a process we have used successfully on a number of occasions, when Ministers have been minded to proceed with a particular course of action. While I believe that our internal processes are robust, I recognise that these processes could be improved. I also recognise that relationships between officials in Wales and their devolved and UK Government counterparts could potentially be better leveraged. I'm happy to commit to actions that will clarify those working relationships and processes.

Dirprwy Lywydd, Nick Ramsay warned during his contribution that corners risk being cut when the enthusiasm of politicians for certain projects becomes too intense. Some politicians remain strangely wedded to the proposal that was sadly rejected. But I would just have one final thing to say about major projects delivered in Wales: saving Cardiff Airport; the arrival of CAF; Aston Martin Lagonda; the Advanced Manufacturing Research Institute, with a contribution of £4 billion to the local economy; the £5 billion new rail franchise, which has been lauded across the UK; the compound semiconductor cluster; the International Convention Centre Wales—all of these are huge projects being delivered by this Welsh Government.   

Thank you. Can I call on Nick Ramsay to reply to the debate? 

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd, and can I thank everyone who has contributed in today's debate?

If I can just refer to some of the contributions—firstly, Adam Price. Adam, you identified that there is a poor decision-making process at the heart of the Welsh Government, and that has been evidenced by what we've seen in the Public Accounts Committee looking at the evidence from the Circuit of Wales process and problems. And, yes, you're right: we have to get out of this mess. I think that's been the overriding message coming out of the committee. We are where we are, as is often said, and it's necessary now to look to the future and make sure that the problems that have happened in the past—the mistakes, if you want to call them that, that have happened in the past at many different levels—are put right so that, in the future, if this sort of project does come along again then the same mistakes are not repeated. You used the phrase, 'a landscape of broken dreams', and we mustn't forget at the end of all of this that there is an area of Wales that is very deprived, which is in need of regeneration, where the people look to the Welsh Government for hope for the future, for regeneration, for redevelopment, and they did look to this project as a possible way to lift themselves out of the problems that they are in and that they have been in for a very long time. And you cannot help but understand that those people do feel that an opportunity has been snatched away from them after there was a long build-up with them thinking that that project would go ahead.

Neil Hamilton, you described the Circuit of Wales as a visionary project and you spoke of a shocking catalogue of incompetence along the route that has been taken. As you said, potentially the Circuit of Wales was a major game changer and, yes, you're right, the committee couldn't get its head around why the project was eventually kicked into the long grass, why the plug was eventually pulled, as a result of an accounting device that is in the Treasury rule book. And as you said, of course, that accounting device wasn't a new addition to the Treasury rule book. It has been there from day one of this project, from very early on in this project. So, we couldn't understand—and I think at the end of our deliberations the committee couldn't understand—why it was that that accounting device hadn't been cited much earlier on as a reason not to proceed with the project, as a reason to go to the developers and to say, 'Look, this is something that the Welsh Government simply cannot afford.' We could not understand that. Due diligence, which was carried out, didn't then seem to feature at the end in the final decision-making process. So, it raises the question: 'Why did you do the due diligence?' Well, of course, you have to do the due diligence; that is all part of giving permission to a project. So, clearly something had gone wrong in that instance.

Mohammad Asghar, you referred to the 'inexplicable' decision-making process—and that is a term that appears throughout the Public Accounts Committee's report—which led to the waste of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money. And, yes, there did seem to be, from our point of view, a lack of ministerial oversight or, at the very least, a lack of a paper trail to determine whether or not there was a ministerial oversight, and that, I think, was one of the most concerning things of all. We couldn't actually work out whether—and it wasn't you, it wasn't the current Minister; it was the previous Minister who'd been involved in this. We couldn't determine whether or not she'd signed off the decision to fund the FTR part of the scheme. There was no paper trail. For a sum of £300,000, that cannot be allowed to persist in the future. Maybe there was a word-of-mouth agreement, but that cannot be enough. We have to be able, as a Public Accounts Committee, to show that, when projects and money are signed off, there is a legitimate reason for doing that. So, that was clearly a poor part of this process.

Can I welcome, finally, the Cabinet Secretary's comments? You made a number of very good points, and I'm pleased that you have listened to the issues that I've raised and the issues that other Members have raised and that the report has raised, and that you are looking to put some of these—all of these things—right. And let's be clear, some Members here have been very vocal in support of the Circuit of Wales for a long time and continue to be so. Some Members have not been keen on this project from very early on in its creation. That was not the purpose of the committee. We were not looking at this to say whether this is the right policy decision for the Welsh Government or not. We are there to say that, along the line, when decisions were taken and when funding was made available, that was done for the right reasons. I'm very sorry to say that the Public Accounts Committee could not say that value for money had been gained during the spending of money on this project at different avenues, and we seriously hope that, in future, the Welsh Government will learn the lessons of what's happened here. I know that the Cabinet Secretary said that those lessons had been learnt. We are not entirely convinced that they've been entirely learned yet. We do hope that, in the future, those lessons will be learnt and there won't be a future public accounts chairman standing here in the future, saying about a future project, 'Isn't it a shame that those lessons weren't learned?' We need to do this for the Circuit of Wales. Let's put this right and make sure that, in the future, these mistakes aren't made.

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

Item 7 on our agenda this afternoon is the debate on the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee's report on the use of antipsychotic medication in care homes. I call on the Chair of the committee to move the motion—Dai Lloyd.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I’m very pleased to open this debate today on the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee’s report on the use of antipsychotic medication in care homes. We decided to carry out this inquiry in response to the increasing concerns about the inappropriate use of antipsychotics in care home settings to manage challenging behaviour of people with dementia. As we all know, antipsychotics are usually used in the treatment of mental health conditions such as schizophrenia, and only one, risperidone, in some circumstances, is licensed in the United Kingdom to treat the behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia.

However, during our scrutiny of the Welsh Government’s draft dementia strategy, we were told that the use of antipsychotics is of great concern to people with dementia and their families. Antipsychotics are associated with an increased risk of cerebrovascular adverse events and greater mortality when used in people with dementia. Studies estimate that there are at least 1,800 extra deaths each year among people with dementia in the UK as a result of their taking antipsychotics, and that the likelihood of premature death increases if people take these drugs for months or years rather than weeks. It is therefore vital that antipsychotics are only used where absolutely necessary, that usage is reviewed regularly, and that only the lowest doses are given to the patient.

During March and April 2017 we held a public consultation and we received 18 written responses, representing a range of healthcare organisations and professional groups. In addition, we heard oral evidence from a number of witnesses. I would like to thank everyone who contributed to our inquiry, and I’m particularly grateful to the people who had been affected by the use of antipsychotic medication for sharing their experiences with us. Our report contains 11 recommendations to the Welsh Government, based on the evidence we received, and I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his response and his subsequent letter in these past few days, in which he provided further details about his response to some recommendations.

Our first recommendation relates to data collection. We were told that the lack of data and records means there is great difficulty in determining a national picture of prevalence and patterns of prescribing antipsychotic medications within care homes. We know that work is ongoing with the NHS Wales Informatics Service and the NHS Wales Shared Services Partnership to make improvements and collect new data, but there will still be limitations with the new data being collected and gaps in our understanding of the number of older people in care homes being inappropriately prescribed antipsychotic medication. We therefore recommended that the Welsh Government should ensure that, within 12 months, all health boards are collecting and publishing standardised data on the use of antipsychotic medication in care homes and report back to this committee on progress at the end of that 12-month period. This recommendation was only accepted in principle.

In passing, obviously, out of the 11 recommendations the committee made, six are accepted in principle, four are accepted, and one is rejected, this recommendation about data collection being accepted in principle. The Cabinet Secretary, in his response, states that there are significant limitations with routinely collected prescribing data, which, he says,

‘means it is not possible to readily attribute prescriptions to residents in care homes’.

However, we heard in evidence that it is already happening in some health boards, which raises the question: if some can do it, why not all? The Cabinet Secretary has committed to convene a group of relevant experts to examine the usefulness of various data sources and advise on how such data can be used to reduce prescribing. This seems to suggest that they will examine existing data sources and advise on how such data can be used to reduce prescribing, which does not imply that the committee’s recommendation will be accepted at all. I would appreciate the Cabinet Secretary’s clarification of this point, along with further information on the remit and timescale for this expert group.

Recommendation 2 relates to compliance with NICE guidelines. The NICE guidelines on dementia advise against the use of any antipsychotics for non-cognitive symptoms or challenging behaviour of dementia unless the person is severely distressed or there is an immediate risk of harm to them or others. However, we were told that antipsychotics are being used as a default position in care homes and some hospital wards when people with dementia are difficult to deal with. We were also told that current practice is not fully compliant with the NICE guidelines. We agree with witnesses that it is vital that there is full compliance with NICE clinical guidelines. We have therefore called on the Welsh Government to ensure that all health boards are fully compliant with NICE guidelines on dementia and report back to this committee on rates of compliance within 12 months. It is therefore disappointing that, while sharing the committee’s concerns about the use of antipsychotic medicines for the management of behavioural and psychological symptoms in dementia when such use is not in accordance with guidance issued by NICE, the Cabinet Secretary has only accepted in principle this recommendation, which again suggests that it will not be fully implemented.

Our third recommendation relates to person-centred care. We were told that increasingly, antipsychotic medication is being routinely administered in response to challenging behaviour, in place of staff working to identify the root cause of that behaviour. A person living with dementia presenting challenging behaviour often has an unmet need that they may be unable to communicate, and if that need can be identified, the situation can be greatly improved without antipsychotic medication. It is therefore important to look at the person as a whole to understand what is causing a particular behaviour. The committee felt very strongly about the need to look at the person as a whole in order to understand what may be causing a particular behaviour, and we heard lots of examples of good practice checklists that could be used by staff in care homes to identify the possible causes behind an individual’s behaviour. One such tool is the adverse drug reaction profile—ADRe—a succinct, convenient tool that asks nurses to systematically check their patients for signs and symptoms relating to the undesirable effects of medicines and share this information with prescribers and pharmacists reviewing medication regimes. 

We therefore recommended that the Welsh Government should ensure that every person with dementia presenting challenging behaviour receives a comprehensive person-centred care assessment of their needs. It should work with relevant health professionals to develop a standardised checklist tool like the one outlined, to be used by health and social care staff to identify and address or rule out possible causes of challenging behaviour, including unmet physical or emotional needs, and include a requirement for consultation with the individual and their carer or family. The checklist should be available within six months and must record the action taken to demonstrate that all other options have been considered before considering the use of antipsychotics as prescribed for people with dementia. Again, this recommendation has been accepted in principle. The Cabinet Secretary’s response states that as part of the roll-out of the 'Good Work' training and education framework, attention has already started to be given to the development of comprehensive assessment and care planning to support the person-centred approach. However, evidence to the committee suggested that awareness of the 'Good Work' framework was low and it has yet to be applied by many care homes.

In his follow-up letter this week, the Cabinet Secretary reinforces his support for the broad approach of tailoring the care a person with dementia receives to a person-centred assessment of their needs. He also states that he believes that the use of a single standardised tool cannot accurately reflect every person’s individual needs and circumstances, and commits to working with stakeholders to develop a common understanding of principles. I do understand the Cabinet Secretary’s point about not wanting to endorse one particular approach or tool, so would welcome more detail about how he plans to work with stakeholders, and what this work will look like.

Despite six accepted in principle out of 11 recommendations, I do welcome the Cabinet Secretary's acceptance of recommendation 7 and his assurance that an integral part of the role of the allied health professional dementia consultant will be to improve access to allied health professionals for care home residents. Similarly, the acceptance of recommendation 8 and the recognition of the key role of speech and language therapists in improving outcomes for people with dementia is also to be greatly welcomed.

However, overall, I am very disappointed with the Cabinet Secretary’s response. While it appears that the majority of our recommendations have been accepted or accepted in principle, the accompanying narrative suggests otherwise, with a lack of real commitment and clear timescales for tackling this issue as a priority.

We believe, as a committee, significant cultural and systemic changes are needed to ensure antipsychotic medications are prescribed appropriately and not as a first option. Unnecessarily medicating vulnerable people in care is a profound human rights issue, which must be addressed. We therefore urge the Welsh Government to take action on the evidence we have gathered and the recommendations we have made to drive progress and deliver the solutions needed to protect some of our most vulnerable citizens. Diolch yn fawr.

I'm grateful to all the witnesses who came to give evidence to the committee. Some of the personal stories that we heard were absolutely harrowing and have been an eye-opener for a great many of us. 

Cabinet Secretary, I'm sure that you will agree with me that it's completely unacceptable that powerful medication is being used inappropriately or not being routinely reviewed—medications that subdue mind, body and spirit. Yet, on the other hand, we all say that we want to cleave to the principles of dignity and respect, which is why I found the Welsh Government's response to the committee's report utterly disheartening, because I think that our committee report really identified the fact that there is a vulnerable group of people who are not being treated with dignity and respect. People matter, all people matter, and the most vulnerable and the most defenceless in our society matter the most, as their voices are often the most marginalised and least heard, and some of the quietest voices are in residential care homes.

I found the rejection of recommendation 9 simply dismissive of a vulnerable group of people. Here we're asking for a method of assessing the appropriate skills mix required for care home staff and asking for you, Welsh Government, to produce guidance on this to ensure that there are safe and appropriate staffing levels in every care home. This morning, in our health and social care committee, you and your colleague the Minister for social care were there talking to us about how every person deserves a holistic treatment around them, that we want to look at the person in the entire narrative of their life, that we want to ensure that they're in the right place, having the right treatment, at the right time. Yet, dismissing this recommendation that people in care homes also have that right I find deeply concerning.

I find it deeply concerning because one of the reasons that you put forward is that there's already a gazillion regulations in place, talking about the types of staff deployed and the numbers of staff deployed, therefore you don't consider that an additional mechanism is required. Yet, we have Care Inspectorate Wales themselves saying that they are worried about care homes that carry the historical elderly mentally infirm, or dementia registration classification without actually having staff who have specialist training. Suzy.

Thank you for taking the intervention. Do you wonder whether the Cabinet Secretary's reluctance to sign up to this particular recommendation may be because they will be removing permanent nursing in residential care homes and that nurses won't be there for 24 hours, as some of them are at the moment?

That could be a factor. But I know, for example, as a person who has relatives who have struggled with dementia, I would be appalled if I thought that I was going to put a loved one into a home that had a classification that said, 'This is a care home that is able to deal holistically and in the round with a person who has dementia', and I would believe that, and I'd go, 'Oh great, my loved one is in a safe place'—not according to the Care Inspectorate Wales. 

Social Care Wales went on to say that it's vital that care homes are staffed by people who are sufficiently skilled to provide a person-sensitive and preventative approach to care. I absolutely think you cannot just turn around and say, 'Reccomendation 9 is unnecessary', because some of the watchdogs that you put in place to ensure that we're doing the right thing are saying we're not doing the right thing. Surely, Welsh Government, it is your absolute duty to get to grips with that and to make sure that the care homes are appropriately assessed to the right standards so that people know where they should be able to feel safe to put people that they love. 

Other recommendations that were only accepted in principle—also puzzling. I've got a few, but I'm actually going to talk about recommendation 2.

Recommendation 2 of the committee report says that we raise our concern that not all health boards are fully compliant with the NICE guidelines that advise against the use of any antipsychotics for non-cognitive symptoms of challenging behaviour of dementia. Now, you say in your response that you share our concerns about the use of antipsychotic medicines. You also say, and I'm quoting: 

'However it is not straightforward to determine whether a medicine is being prescribed in accordance with NICE’s guidance.'

Well, okay, I'm a layman—why not? This is a profession. It is full of professionals. They have to obey the rules. Why can't we ensure that a vulnerable person who may not have a voice, who is not being listened to, who is shut up in a care home, who may not have an advocate, who may not have a family member who is championing their cause, who will not be able to say, 'Am I on the right stuff?', who has lost that voice, or whose voice is so tiny we don't hear it—? Why, oh why, is it not possible for Welsh Government and for the health boards to know whether or not all of those people are being treated appropriately according to NICE guidelines that all the specialists have put together? 

There are other recommendations—I realise I'm out of time, Deputy Presiding Officer—but I'm really worried, because I think that 'accept in principle' means, 'It wasn't thought of here, we're not really prepared to do it, but we'll just palm you off a little bit and say, "Yes, we'll have a look at it".' We can't not have a look at it. This is a really good report, and these people deserve not to have inappropriate medication given to them when they don't need it. 

For me, this is absolutely a human rights issue. It is sometimes said that the measure of a decent society is how we treat our most vulnerable citizens, and, for me, that goes to the heart of the matter on this issue. 

As the Chair has said, only one antipsychotic, risperidone, is licensed to treat the behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia, yet we know that there is widespread prescribing of other antipsychotics to those living with dementia, and that these antipsychotics bring with them dangerous side effects, risks of falls and risk of early death. Serious concerns have been raised about that practice by the Older People's Commissioner for Wales on numerous occasions, and in other reports to Welsh Government. This very issue is highlighted in the legacy report of the health committee in the fourth Assembly. 

So, the question for me today is whether the response of the Welsh Government provides the assurance the committee is looking for: that we are going to see concerted action to stop the inappropriate prescribing of antipsychotics. And I have to say, regrettably, that, for me, it does not. Why has the Welsh Government only accepted in principle the call that all health boards should collect and publish standardised data on the use of this medication in care homes? The committee heard evidence that some health boards are already doing this. Why is it not possible for them all to do it? Why has the Welsh Government only accepted in principle the call that all health boards are fully compliant with NICE guidance on dementia? The question we should be asking today is: why are they already not? 

Now, I really dislike the term 'challenging behaviour' to describe the behaviour that, more often than not, people living with dementia exhibit when their needs are not being met—when they are in pain, when they need the toilet, when they are lonely or bored. More often than not, it is those unmet needs that lead to the inappropriate prescribing of antipsychotics. That's why a number of the committee's recommendations focus on the need to ensure that high-quality, person-centred care is delivered by well-trained staff. 

Now, as has been highlighted, recommendation 9, which was designed to ensure that we have the right number of staff with the appropriate skill mix in care homes, was rejected. I know that the Cabinet Secretary has issued some further clarification on the reasoning behind that, but I would like to have further assurances from him today that the measures that he's referred to, the regulations that are going through, but also the nurse staffing levels Act, which doesn't actually apply to care homes—how that is going to improve the situation for care home residents.

Recommendation 10 calls for national standards to be developed to ensure that all staff working with people with dementia are trained in managing challenging behaviour. That was accepted in principle. Again, we have known for years that this is an issue. It was in the Older People’s Commissioner for Wales report, 'A Place to Call Home?' It should not be beyond the wherewithal of us to ensure that everybody working with our vulnerable citizens with dementia have that basic level of dementia training, and we've got a brilliant model for it in our Dementia Friends training. It's also vital to remember that there is really good practice out there in terms of things like inter-generational work. I had Griffithstown Primary School visit the cross-party group on dementia the other day, who spoke in such fantastic terms about the work they are doing with people living with dementia, which brings not just those people great benefits but also has been transformative for those children and young people.

I wanted to just conclude by just mentioning the final recommendation, which relates to the need to undertake some further work to look at the extent of the prescribing of antipsychotics to people on older persons' mental health wards in Wales. This is a subject close to my heart, as the Cabinet Secretary has heard me say before. These are some of our most voiceless citizens in Wales, and I believe we have a particular duty to ensure that their rights are upheld. That particular recommendation was accepted in principle, but it does sound, from reading the narrative, that that is something that the Cabinet Secretary is going to look seriously at, but I would implore him to do that with pace now.

It is also vital that he takes forward with pace the work on extending the nurse staffing levels legislation to hospital ward settings for people with dementia because they need that person-centred care. We have a duty, all of us, to listen to the voices of those people living with dementia to ensure that those voices are heard and to uphold their rights.

I think I can speak on behalf of all Assembly Members by saying that we often learn a great deal in dealing with various consultations and reports, and I will start my contribution with an admission: I hadn’t realised the scale of the issue that we were covering. I hadn’t understood the scale of the problem. But once we’d started gathering evidence as a committee, it became very clear to me and my fellow Members that the evidence that we were hearing and reading was extremely powerful and heart-rending, and it was like watching a scandal unfolding before us—or that’s how I felt—with witness upon witness reporting to us a story that was very consistent and extremely heart-rending.

I don’t think that what’s happening in our care homes and hospitals is happening because of negligence or malice, generally speaking, but I am convinced, following our research and report, that what is happening is abuse. That is the result and what is happening is that we have allowed the use of unnecessary medicines, which, to me, is akin to serious abuse, to become the norm, and we must put an end to it. The truth is that giving unnecessary drugs to vulnerable people is a very serious issue, and as we as a committee state very clearly in this report, it was a huge concern to hear just how often this was chosen as the first option, rather than the last resort. And that's why—because of the gravity of the situation—we are considering this. And that’s why we have made these recommendations to ensure that there is compliance with NICE guidance, that we need a checklist for care staff, that staff in care homes need to be able to deal with challenging behaviour, and so on and so forth.

I am so disappointed in the Government’s response. Although they have only rejected one recommendation, in looking at the ones they have accepted in principle, well, they may as well have rejected them. In practical terms, the Government’s response means that they are going to transfer responsibility for implementation to others. For example, in recommendation 2, the Government states that health professionals are responsible for compliance with NICE guidelines. In other recommendations, the Government simply say that they will ask stakeholders or advisory groups to consider this report when holding their reviews and updating their guidance. They don’t seem to believe that the Government has any role in publishing guidance and giving leadership in this area.

Would you take an intervention?

Of course.

On your point of the abrogation of responsibility, in saying that perhaps health boards should be the ones responsible for the implementation of NICE guidelines, do you think we need to give an organisation such as Care Inspectorate Wales more teeth on behalf of the Government, or on behalf of us, so that they can make sure that those who break those guidelines are suitably punished?

I think that's a perfectly valid suggestion. The conclusions we came to were that there needs to be a whole range of bodies with teeth, and bodies that are empowered to help this systematic abuse, which is what it's turned into, to come to a head.

If we look at recommendation 9, which was rejected, the Government’s rationale is very confused, I think. It recommends that the Welsh Government should develop a method for assessing the appropriate mix of skills required for care home staff, and draw up guidance to ensure that there are safe and appropriate staffing levels in every care home. The Government rejects this by arguing that they don’t need an additional mechanism because regulations are already in place that make it a requirement for care home providers to demonstrate how they have come to decisions on the staff mix that they need. But it is quite clear that those regulations don’t deliver what this recommendation in our report is calling for. We are asking the Government to tell care homes what they should be doing and to put the guidance in place to assist those care homes to deliver that. What became clear to me is the role that pharmacists have to play, and they want to play a part—a far more prominent part—in resolving this problem. We need to empower them, and that’s the kind of proactive action that we need to see from the Government. So, yes, I’m disappointed in the Government.

I will close by echoing the words of the committee Chair, Dr Dai Lloyd, and words that have been spoken by others. We are talking, here, about contravening human rights. I am entirely convinced of that. Wanting to deal with that kind of human rights violation isn’t something that you can accept in principle. Each and every one of us should be determined to do everything necessary to safeguard some of the most vulnerable people in our communities.

I would like to place on record my thanks to the committee clerks, Members' Research Service staff, and the various witnesses who helped us conduct this inquiry. The witness accounts were often harrowing and were difficult to digest.

Dementia is a major public health issue in Wales; it is believed to affect around 42,000 people in Wales and is most common among older people. Dementia affects one in 20 over the age of 65, and around one in five of those over the age of 80. Globally, it is predicted that the numbers living with dementia will rise by a staggering 204 per cent over the next three decades. Unfortunately, dementia is the only condition in the top-10 causes of death without treatment to prevent, cure or slow its progression. We therefore have to manage the symptoms as best we can, and by Wales becoming a dementia-friendly nation, ensure that people with dementia live independently for as long as is possible in a supportive environment. People with dementia are vulnerable and it is important that correctly trained staff furnish a person with dementia with the very best standard of care to meet these very specific needs, and that dignity and respect are visible and adhered to at all times when helping these people, who are often without a voice.

As the disease progresses, those living with dementia will need more and more specialist care, and as the prevalence of the disease increases, we are relying more and more on care homes to look after those living with this disease, which is why it is concerning that there has been an increase in the use of antipsychotic medication in care homes in order to treat the behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia. These drugs are not licensed for such use and their use is believed to contribute to the early deaths of nearly 2,000 dementia patients each year. This is a shocking statistic. It became clear, over the course of our inquiry, that these drugs are being routinely administered in response to the challenging behaviour of some dementia patients, even though that challenging behaviour is the result of an unmet need that the person with dementia is unable to articulate. It was also evident that a lack of access to allied health professionals was exacerbating the situation.

During our sessions with witnesses, it became evident that gathering the evidence on the use of antipsychotics was difficult, as the data was not collected and therefore readily available. The Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Faculty of Old Age Psychiatry called for audits to gather data on prescribing practices, which, they state, are critical to understand the prevalence and patterns of use of these drugs. I am therefore pleased that the Cabinet Secretary has accepted our first recommendation and that the Welsh Government will be taking action to reduce the inappropriate prescribing of these drugs. However, I would, as would the majority of my colleagues on the committee, like assurances that convening the relevant group of experts to look at this recommendation and the related recommendations won't take too long, and that we won't be looking at another few years before these recommendations are implemented.

I welcome the fact that the Cabinet Secretary shares our view that the use of antipsychotics for managing behavioural and psychological symptoms in dementia is unacceptable. I am grateful that he has accepted some of our recommendations, but I urge him to ensure that they are implemented as swiftly as is possible. Those with dementia are some of the most vulnerable people in our society and should be protected from harm, not put in harm's way simply to make someone's job easier. We have a duty to ensure that misuse of antipsychotic medicine for dementia patients is eliminated, and I look forward to seeing the Welsh Government make swift progress on our recommendations.

Thank you for calling me to speak on this very important report. I'm a member of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee and I think this is one of the most important reports that we have produced.

I'm sure like many others in this Chamber, on Saturday I celebrated the NHS's seventieth birthday in my constituency with a stall and a birthday card for the NHS in Whitchurch in Cardiff North. It was a fantastic experience, because people were queuing up to sign, they were so enthusiastic about the NHS, people were telling me that their lives had been saved on three occasions, and other people talked about working in the NHS for 40 years, and it was a really stimulating morning. There were so many stories of care that it was wonderful, but the whole of that time in the morning, we didn't hear any of the stories about elderly people in care homes, or elderly people cared for by the NHS, and I think that is one of the key points—that those people can't tell us their stories, which is why this report is so important. We need to speak out for them, because they can't speak out for themselves. We do need to hear patients' voices and we do need to work out what are the care needs of people who are in our care.

I think that Lynne, when she was speaking, mentioned 'challenging behaviour' as a means of describing how people behave, and, again, I feel a reluctance to use that sort of way of speaking. But the important thing is to find out what are the real needs of people, the person-centred approach, and not to prescribe medicine that just effectively sedates them. We did hear some disturbing inquiries and the one that sticks in my head is the man in the care home who was constantly banging his head against a glass door. Instead of seeking a prescription for antipsychotic drugs, a carer worked out that why he was banging his head on the door was because he could see the door of a greenhouse that he wanted to go out to, because he'd been a gardener, and gardening had been his hobby all his life. He felt that this place would be a safe haven. That's an example that sticks with me in terms of how we've got to look at the person and not just take what may be an easy solution.

I wanted to talk now a bit about the recommendations from the committee and the Government's response. I was going to start with recommendation 3, which is really to reinforce what the Chair said when he made his introduction, because we did recommend that there should be developed a standardised checklist tool to be used by health and social care staff to identify the cause of challenging behaviour.

Quite a bit has already been said about the 'accept in principle' expression and how that is something that I hope we might move away from, but I know that, in the response, the Government says,

'developing one standardised checklist tool is not considered to be appropriate.'

I cannot really understand that reason for not developing a standardised tool, because recommendation 6 is accepted, where it says that

'medicines monitoring should be a key part of care homes inspection, and that Care Inspectorate Wales mandates documented evidence'.

So, I can't see why you can't have a standard tool that would be used for every care home, every setting where a person has been. It would give the staff the tools to check out every eventuality and make sure they weren't prescribing something when there was another reason for it, such as toothache, or problems with vision—you know, lots of things that are causing distress.

The Chair referred to the evidence we had from Professor Sue Jordan of Swansea University college of human and health sciences, who has developed the adverse drug reaction profile tool that has actually been tested and has been shown to reduce considerably the amount of antipsychotic medicines that have actually been used. It's been peer reviewed and has been very successful. I think that there's no point in reinventing the wheel; we know that there are toolkits that have been developed, such as the one by Professor Sue Jordan, and I think that it would make absolute sense to develop this toolkit to be used as a matter of routine in every care home, in every setting where an elderly person is being looked after. So, it's a matter of routine, the work has been done, we know about Professor Sue Jordan's work and other work that was presented to us, and I think that would be a clear way ahead for the Welsh Government.

I'm not a member of this committee, but can I really, really thank them for this report? One of the things I like about it is it absolutely conveys a sense of urgency, at least in terms of political decision making, for a quick and relatively straightforward response to a problem that we shouldn't have. I have to say I think it uncovers a whole range of other omissions that, frankly, I find pretty shocking.

Fist of all, can I say from my family experience that the correct use of antipsychotic drugs can be very useful? When, as a result of rapidly advancing dementia, my grandmother's delusion prompted her to threaten my equally aged grandfather with a kitchen knife, you could all see why a rapid response might be necessary as an emergency measure. Even so, and I admit I'm not sure how some of these meds work, why the report is not even stronger on the periods for reviewing use—. Because three months, to me, seems an awfully long time for someone to be on this type of drug at all if they'd been prescribed to deal with an episode of acute psychosis rather than a chronic and worsening pattern. When it comes to an individual who is exhibiting a sustained pattern of behaviour, that individual already has the right to a full assessment of his or her need under the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014, as indeed does their carer, if we're talking about at-home care.

I want to know, when it comes to recommendation 3, why we're giving anybody six months to compile a checklist. This legislation is four years old—four years during which a list could have been compiled pretty universally, allowing for differences for individuals with particular presentations, and do you know, Minister—sorry, Cabinet Secretary—I'm really bored when I come to reading responses that say, 'We will work with stakeholders.' You've had four years since the social services Act came in. Why isn't this thing in place already?

In a similar vein, regarding recommendation 5, am I really reading that Care Inspectorate Wales—or Care and Social Services Inspectorate Wales, as it was, to be fair—hasn't been challenging the monitoring of individuals' medication harder as part of looking at care homes' compliance with care plans? I don't expect them to make medical decisions, but I would expect them to inquire as to long periods of no change in medication, or sudden increases or decreases in medication, particularly if the increases involve antipsychotic or other worrying drugs, and especially when you know that these drugs are being prescribed pretty much off label. I mean, was it clear in the evidence you received—I genuinely don't know—why NICE has not signed off these drugs for the use to which they're being put frequently now? I saw what you told about the benefits being outweighed by long-term consequences in some case, but the report talks repeatedly of inappropriate use without any clarity on what constitutes 'inappropriate'. It doesn't seem to me, from the report, that off-label prescribing is inappropriate per se, so what is?

I appreciate that what you need to answer this is reliable data, and so I'm pleased to see recommendation 1. But can I suggest, however, that, alongside a collection of quantitative data from health boards, there is a complementary qualitative data collection from care homes, who see the daily effect of the continued use of these drugs on residents over a period of time? That qualitative evidence might include not just whether the challenging behaviour seems to have improved or not, but what other elements of the individual's character, interests and capacity have changed as a result of that use.

Now, another shocker for me is recommendation 10. Is it really the case, considering dementia is hardly a new phenomenon, that NICE guidelines for training care home staff in dealing with challenging residents aren't already mainstreamed into induction training for new care home workers? Now, I realise, of course, there are problems with recruitment and retention in entry-level care work. Perhaps their sense of vulnerability due to inadequate training is part of the reason why they leave. And, yes, it's fine that Social Care Wales is looking at professional development and career paths, but how have CSSIW in the past been able to give the thumbs up to homes if their staff are not trained in this essential element of dementia care?

I raised the overall inadequacy of CSSIW criteria and reporting processes with Gwenda Thomas way back in the last Assembly. Lynne Neagle today has mentioned a legacy report of the last Assembly. How many dementia strategies will we need? Why is this still an issue? Because, even with my minimum wobbly bookcases dementia training, I can understand that possible confusion, and certainly communication difficulties, can be infuriatingly frustrating for anyone. If you can't explain the excruciating discomfort—even the hallucinations—of a feverish urinary tract infection or your distress at the loss of dignity that is inevitable when another person has to help you with intimate care, yes, you're going to get challenging. So, accepting these recommendations and implementing them is an easy one for the Welsh Government, Cabinet Secretary. You were eviscerated last week, as was the rest of the Welsh Government, on the 'Mind over matter' report, and I think you're making the same mistake with this, with your responses. I say to care home managers: don't wait for the Welsh Government, get training your staff now. And, GPs, don't wait for data: ask more questions when you're being pressurised by care home owners to prescribe. Safety first, of course, but don't let kindness and understanding get poor second in this atrocious situation.

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

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I do actually want to thank the committee for the work that they have undertaken in producing this report on antipsychotic medication in care homes. I recognise the tone of the debate and the disappointment that some Members expressed, but I do actually think that there is a large amount of agreement on the priority of action that is required to be undertaken on this. Actually, the 'accept in principle' is not a malign attempt to try and avoid recommendations or to explain why nothing will happen. It's actually because of some of the detail and how we want to work that through. We don't exactly agree on all the wording, but we do actually accept and understand the direction of travel the committee want to take in the recommendations. I have something more to say at the conclusion on how I want to actually be able to take that work forward and provide more information to the committee about what we are doing, but I don't think that's going to be possible in the time available in today's debate.

But the committee's findings did provide additional confirmation that our focus does need to be on the provision of person-centred care, and how we use non-pharmacological responses before considering a pharmacological one. And that has to be appropriate—appropriate prescribing in all instances. There is a clear focus on that in the dementia action plan that I launched back in February—again, a plan that was designed and delivered, working with people who are living with dementia themselves, their carers, as well as providers. So, it really has had buy-in from people across the dementia community about what matters to them.

The Government has agreed, or agreed in principle, 10 of the 11 recommendations, and it is about how we take those forward. Of course, I do recognise that the committee understand that there are steps that we are already taking to improve the availability of data, which is a key point that has come up in a number of contributions, in relation to prescribing antipsychotic medication amongst older people. We do acknowledge honestly in our response that there are limitations at present in our data collection, particularly in how you can attribute prescriptions to residents in care homes. The potential over-prescribing of antipsychotic medication is a concern, regardless of whether it is an individual who is resident in a care home, because, indeed, reducing rates of prescribing among older people in general would have a positive impact on the use of these medicines among care home residents too. I just want to reiterate the point about the fact that we will take seriously what we are proposing to do. So, just in relation to recommendation 1, the expert group that I said that I will be setting up, I expect that to report to me with advice before the end of the calendar year—so, not kicked off into two or three years' time to try and avoid dealing with the issue, but within this calendar year, to have advice and to update Members on action that we expect to be taken as a result of it.

A number of the recommendations made by the committee are about the availability and reporting of prescribing data. There is, of course, more to be done, and so we've accepted a range of those recommendations. I have, of course, considered again recommendation 11, and I have moved the response to 'accept' rather than 'accept in principle'. So, I have asked officials to convene a group of those relevant experts to examine the usefulness of various data sources. There is something there about—. The point of that is to help us reduce inappropriate prescribing of antipsychotic medication.

The committee also refers to the importance of ensuring that comprehensive, person-centred assessments are undertaken to enable the provision of generally person-centred care and support. That, of course, is a key focus of the dementia action plan—not just a plan, but a plan that is backed by £10 million of additional investment from this year to support delivery. Many of the dementia action plan points are consistent with the committee's recommendations, which should be no surprise—for instance, the reference to the need to enable people who work with those living with dementia to have the skills to feel confidence and competent in caring for, and supporting, those living with dementia.

So, within our response, we reaffirm our commitment to the roll-out of the 'Good work: A Dementia Learning and Development Framework for Wales' within care home settings. That framework does provide guidance on the training and principles for challenging behaviour, and I do recognise the description that Lynne Neagle has provided. It is about understanding what is behind that behaviour rather than simply saying that you just need to deal with it in the way that we recognise it is, on a far too common basis, dealt with, with inappropriate prescribing of medication. So, there's no disagreement about that. It's about understanding that behavioural distress and having alternative strategies for staff, whether they are health and care professionals with a professional qualification or, indeed, other staff working within the care home. The point about training is well understood as well.

I am pleased, though, to see a focus in the report on the use of allied health professionals, including speech and language therapists. So, allied health professionals, we recognise, make a critical contribution to enabling people to live well with their dementia. Those professions identify and address possible causes of behaviour that is described as 'challenging', including the unmet physical, cognitive, emotional and communication needs and how we provide interventions to reduce the level of stress and anxiety and indeed the frustration that we recognise often accompanies this. That's why, in terms of having the right number of allied healthcare professionals, the next stage of our 'Train. Work. Live.' campaign is going to be extended to include allied health professionals.

With the dementia action plan, we're working with partners to develop multidisciplinary teams around the individual to help provide person-centred and co-ordinated care, support and treatment. We recognise the need to ensure that there are good links between care homes and community services with the teams around the individual. The all-Wales dementia allied health practitioner consultant post, when recruited, will have a remit to work with care homes, health boards and local authorities to evidence and promote best practice from allied health professionals across our whole health and social care system.

I do want to try and address the recommendation that was rejected, on developing

'a method for assessing the appropriate skills mix...for care home staff'

and to provide guidance to ensure safe and appropriate staffing levels. The aim of the recommendation isn't something that I oppose, but it is about that I think we've got the right frameworks in place through the Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Act 2016 and the Nurse Staffing Levels (Wales) Act 2016. Now, I've written to the committee with more detail on the work that we have done and are doing, and that includes the work led by Bangor University, and their work concluded that there is no single evidence-based tool that will identify the numbers and types of staff to be employed in the care home sector, but the Chief Nursing Officer for Wales is commissioning further work to set guidance and support commissioners for placements within the sector. That will learn from the work to date already on implementation of the nurse staffing Act and the NHS national collaborative commissioning unit.

Now, there's something here about understanding the work we're already doing and understanding what we will do to actually make fit for purpose the legislative framework we already have and deliver a real and practical difference. But I accept that, of course, the committee and Members will want to come back and see if that is happening in practice. So, we'll monitor our progress on the recommendations alongside the dementia action plan. We've set up a dementia oversight of the implementation and impact group, and that will involve people who have been affected by dementia in their membership; they're actively involved in monitoring our success or otherwise, and they've already met for the first time in June. So, it won't simply be about the Government assessing its own action.

I do recognise and agree with the committee that inappropriate prescribing—and that includes not regularly reviewing prescribing—is a real cause of harm. There's no lack of concern or an approach from this Government that dismisses those concerns or is complacent about the need for improvement. And I will consider again the points made by Members in this debate in a number of areas that we have accepted in principle, and I will write again to outline the action we are taking to try and deliver on the purpose of the recommendation the committee has made, because we are looking in good faith at how we meet shared objectives, even though we don't agree on all of the detail. And I will of course update Members on the progress made in dealing with the recommendations and the timescales for action and future action in implementing the dementia action plan.

Thank you. Can I now call on Dai Lloyd as Chair of the committee to reply to the debate?

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd, and I'm very happy to reply to the debate. It's been an excellent debate, and I think that's testament to the quality of the contributions; obviously, it's a testament to the quality of the evidence we took over the months from many witnesses—both written and oral—and obviously to the quality of the support that we have as a committee from our clerks and our researchers. It truly is a team effort, and a justifiable team effort, because we are trying to address an injustice to a very vulnerable group of people, as we've heard.

I'd like to thank the Cabinet Secretary and other Members for their contributions this afternoon. We started with Angela Burns and a powerful presentation about the disquiet about recommendations 9 and 2. Lynne Neagle then—truly another excellent performance from Lynne this week again about a step change in performance required here. This is not the first critical report about antipsychotic medication. I could take some of the 'accepts in principle' if this was the very first time that we'd had a report about this very topic. It's the latest in a series of reports that have said much the same thing—that we are failing our most vulnerable people in care homes. Something needs to be done about it, and that's why we can no longer accept things in principle. We have to do something about it. I hear what the Cabinet Secretary has said about that, but I was also hearing what the older people's commissioner said. We need a change—a step change—in culture and performance, and we do need to be addressing those nurse staffing levels in our care homes, and in our hospital wards, as Lynne Neagle was saying.

Another excellent contribution as well from Rhun about the whole issue about 'accept in principle', and I do think, as many have said, not just in this debate but in other debates, that that issue needs to be tackled in terms of accepting or rejecting.

Thank you also to Caroline Jones for her contribution, and also to Julie Morgan, emphasising again the point that I made at the start: there are tools, there are checklists out there to assess what is causing what we label as challenging behaviour. We need to look at why people react with dementia sometimes in the way that they do. We need to look at the person themselves, and there are various checklist tools that enable us to do that. One excellent example is the Swansea University adverse drug reaction profile that has already been alluded to by myself and by Julie Morgan, developed by Professor Sue Jordan's team in Swansea University.

Also, I thank Suzy Davies for an excellent contribution, actually, and also for stipulating the need for urgency. Because, as I've already said, and you said it as well, we have been here before, and the time is now for action, not about another report that is critical of current performance. So, there have been previous reports, the older people's commissioner has raised concerns on several occasions, and we have a legacy report from a previous health committee, as we've alluded to, all highlighting concerns about the inappropriate use of antipsychotic medication in care homes. It should never be the first resort.

I hope that, following today's debate, the Cabinet Secretary, as he has assured us, will give further consideration to the evidence gathered, both for this report and also further enunciated in oral contributions today, and also further consider the recommendations we have made in order to deliver the long-term solutions that are needed. Because this is about transforming care. It's not just about subduing people. This is about transforming the care of people with dementia in Wales. Our most vulnerable people in Wales deserve no less. Diolch yn fawr. 

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

Item 8 on the agenda is a debate on the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committees report, 'Enterprise Zones: Boldly going?' and I call on the committee Chair, Russell George, to move the motion.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The committee Chair has just dropped all his papers on the floor in different order. Thankfully, the notes are numbered.

I move the motion this afternoon, Deputy Presiding Officer. In January and February of this year, the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee undertook a short inquiry into enterprise zones in Wales. Five years after the zones were established seemed a sensible time to take stock. Five years ago, we were told that enterprise zones would boost jobs and growth. Have they? Alas, the answer is not a simple 'yes' or 'no'. Our inquiry took evidence from six of the eight enterprise zone board chairs and from the Cabinet Secretary. Three members of the committee also travelled to Snowdonia and Anglesey to meet with the chairs of those boards. 

The committee’s report makes 10 recommendations, of which the Welsh Government has accepted six outright, and four were accepted in principle—which seems to be a theme this afternoon to a number of committee reports where recommendations have been accepted in principle. The current enterprise zones policy in Wales began as a reaction to the UK Government’s March 2011 announcement of the creation of enterprise zones in England. The Welsh Government had created seven enterprise zones in Wales by January 2012, all of which stated objectives to create jobs and growth. The zones chosen by the Welsh Government reflected various approaches. Some, like Cardiff and Deeside, were chosen to exploit various economic strengths. Others, like Anglesey and Snowdonia, were intended to address significant local challenges.

I think there is a legitimate question as to whether enterprise zones were actually needed in some of the areas selected by the Welsh Government, particularly in Cardiff, where the committee heard the zone was pushing at an open door in economic terms. In contrast, the committee heard from the chair of the Snowdonia enterprise zone board that the board has realised very early on that they were never likely to be able to deliver significant short-term impacts on growth or jobs. Instead, their focus shifted to exploring the opportunities for the long-term development of the zones, and the committee heard that a number of other zones were also in a similar position.

We felt that this change in focus for some of the zones was not widely communicated, and perhaps more importantly was not reflected in the performance indicators published by the Welsh Government initially at an all-Wales level. Building on the work of the fourth Assembly's Finance Committee and the Enterprise and Business Committee has pushed the Welsh Government to release detailed information on the performance of each zone as regards job creation—the stated objective, of course—along with detailed information on Welsh Government's expenditure on each zone. The committee welcomed the Cabinet Secretary's decision to release the most detailed information of this nature to date, albeit after the final evidence session.

Our report states:

'Over the last five or six years this has been a case study in how a drip-feed approach to the sharing of information with Assembly Members and Committees can prevent clear and objective scrutiny from taking place, while also creating the impression of under-performance and inefficiency. It should not be this difficult, or take this long, for the Welsh Government to publish information that allows the performance and value for money of one of its flagship economic policies to be understood properly and scrutinised effectively. The Committee hopes that the Welsh Government takes this constructive criticism on board in the design and delivery of future policies.'

As a committee we agree that there is merit in a regional approach to economic development, and that a focus on supporting deprived areas is a good thing, and should continue. However, we recommended that the Welsh Government should ensure that, for each individual region and local area, the aims of any future regional approaches to economic development are clear and realistic, sufficiently detailed to allow an understanding of the challenges faced, and accompanied by detailed, open, transparent and appropriate monitoring data. This recommendation 6, along with two others also aimed at increasing transparency and improving the availability of monitoring data, was accepted in principle by the Welsh Government, and it remains to be seen how the Welsh Government will implement these recommendations in practice.

The committee recognised the commitment, drive and professionalism of all involved in the enterprise zone boards. Each of the chairs were powerful and passionate advocates for their areas. The committee did feel, though, that on the whole the enterprise zone concept has not proved itself to date in Wales. The evidence we heard suggests that the zones that have achieved against the Welsh Government's stated aims were those that were already in the best position to do so—for example, Cardiff Central and Deeside—and that specific enterprise zone initiatives only played a minor part in their success.

Other zones that started from a very different place found the incentives to be of some benefit. The committee recognised the fact that these zones, such as Anglesey, Snowdonia and Ebbw Vale, are still very much on a journey, and have been focused on putting the building blocks in place for the longer term. We concluded that the original aims of the enterprise zone policy to create jobs and growth have not been achieved across the board. At the same time, we acknowledged that these were probably unrealistic to begin with, given the varying starting points of each enterprise zone.

The Cabinet Secretary used his appearance before the committee to announce a series of changes to the way that enterprise zones will operate. He mapped a future, which we support in part, but there are areas where we believe he should reconsider. The proposed merger of the Anglesey and Snowdonia enterprise zones has a certain appeal. Both depend on nuclear power developments outside of the Welsh Government's direct control and both are located in north Wales. However, the committee is concerned that this merger risks losing the specific focus on the very different challenges each area faces. Another way forward is possible.

In response, the Cabinet Secretary has suggested it is a matter of timing. I hope that this debate will clarify what exactly that means. I’m not convinced that there will ever be a right time for this merger. It seems to me that allowing both to continue, at least in the short term, might allow both boards to achieve their objectives in a clearer and more effective way. For the Port Talbot enterprise zone, our review has come too soon to be meaningful. For them, we hope being part of this process has focused minds on how they report their successes and ambitions as they develop their plans. I look forward to a good debate this afternoon amongst Members and look forward to the Cabinet Secretary’s response to our report today.

It’s a great pleasure to follow the Chair of the committee. It’s difficult to know what to say about this policy, because it’s a policy that had mixed objectives in mixed areas, and the results have also been very mixed, as the Chair mentioned. Altogether, we could differentiate between the enterprise zones that were created as a result of specific opportunities, and then those enterprise zones that were created as a reaction to an economic crisis. One can’t say, about the seven enterprise zones, of course, with any certainty, that this policy has succeeded in either of those two cases that I mentioned. In those cases such as Cardiff Central, it’s very difficult, even though the results, in terms of job creation and so on, are better. It’s very difficult to attribute that to the enterprise zones. And then, of course, in those other zones, well, the figures speak for themselves.

What’s true to say, of course—and the Chair is right in that regard—is that the enterprise zones, as with any local economic intervention that leads to the creation of partnerships, can then generate enthusiasm and momentum, and we did see that in our visit to the enterprise zone on Anglesey. But we do have to ask the question whether it’s the policy itself and the incentives, and so on, that are associated with enterprise zones that have created that, or would it be possible to create the same kind of effect and local economic momentum through other means.

We have to say that what is clear is that the enterprise zones as a policy had been created almost as a reaction to developments over the border in England and creating the local economic partnerships that existed everywhere. I do believe that we have seen, over several years now, a failure in Wales to come up with a spatial economic policy, either on the local level or on the regional level. And I think that we’re still getting to grips with that, even though there has been a major emphasis in the new economic strategy of the Government on spatial policy, on regional policy. I don’t think we’ve found the right medium for that, and, of course, the changes with regard to the enterprise zones that have been announced do reflect that. In looking forward, I think that one of the major lessons is to focus on specific incentives for zones—for the size of the enterprise zones. 

Thinking particularly about a post-Brexit scenario, it was very interesting the evidence that we heard from the chair of the Haven Waterway zone talking about the potential with regard to free ports and free economic zones, because that, actually, is a policy idea where there is strong evidence globally that it works. It's much more specific than the broad-brush enterprise zone idea. Particularly, whatever happens over the next few days and weeks, if we do end up in a crash-out 'no deal' situation, then, actually, free ports could be a very, very important tool for many parts of Wales, some of which are covered by the enterprise zones. It would mitigate some of the worst economic damage that we could face.

So, I would urge the Welsh Government to look proactively at this. Several mayors of the north of England have developed detailed proposals for free ports. They're lobbying the UK Government very actively, and the Cabinet Secretary has said in evidence to the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee, if there was a designation by the UK Government, then Wales should get its fair share. We need to do better than that. We need to actually be developing the business cases now. And, of course, free ports could include airports—it could include Cardiff Airport, it could include Airbus, of course, where we could designate the Airbus site in Broughton as having its own free port. It has the airport, of course, which it uses to transport its wings to Toulouse. Designating the Airbus site as a free port could actually be a means of dealing with any economic damage as a result of policies from the UK Government.      

I'm pleased to contribute to the debate today. I'd also like to thank my committee colleagues and the support team for putting together what I think is an interesting and useful report. Contrary to what the title might suggest, the inquiry was a chance to revisit Wales's eight enterprise zones, rather than going where no-one had been before. By doing so, we were able to assess their progress to date and, I hope, help clarify the road ahead.

I'm going to limit my points this afternoon to the Haven Waterway project, and the headline figures are hugely encouraging, with more than 1,000 jobs created, safeguarded or supported through the support that's been given, and that is excellent news. As the Cabinet Secretary confirmed to us, the Haven Waterway board will continue for a further three years, through to July 2021, and it's that sort of stability that enables that sort of strategic planning underpinning the success of the enterprise zone model of economic development. 

When the chair of the Haven Waterway enterprise zone gave evidence to us in January, he asked for specific work to look at—and I'm going to repeat it—the potential of free ports post Brexit. That was also the recommendation of the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee, when it concluded its work on ports in the Brexit inquiry of last summer. And I know it's been mentioned already, but I'm going to reiterate that. 

The Cabinet Secretary has been proactive, establishing a dedicated ports team with Government, and in his evidence to the committee he did confirm that he had commissioned specific work to be conducted with regard to the potential of free ports, and a distinctive offer for a post-Brexit Wales. I wonder if he's able to give us any update on that here today. 

If I move on to another development, the new energy demonstration zone—the Waterstone site has been sold and the company is seeking planning permission to turn that into a centre of renewable energy excellence, and I'm sure it's worthy of some serious consideration. It has potential for jobs, training and inward investment to west Wales, but also the wider economy. And in light of the Swansea tidal lagoon fiasco, I think it's vital that Wales and the Welsh Government supports home-grown, green energy projects like that, as, clearly, we cannot entrust those to the Tory Westminster Government.

One of the most interesting factors to come out of the committee's scrutiny of enterprise zones was the disparity between them. Deeside and Cardiff enterprise zones were already well developed in their respective sectors, whilst Anglesey, Snowdonia and Ebbw Vale were effectively starting from scratch, with Port Talbot coming late to the fray. We, therefore have to be very guarded in our analysis of the success of one zone against another. What other factor we have to take into account is the relative crudity of the figures given, actually, in the first instance, for the cost per job created. For instance, Ebbw Vale, it was suggested, received £94 million to achieve just 390 jobs, or £241,000 for each job. These figures are very misleading as, in the Government's analysis of where money was allocated in the enterprise zone, the figure for transport for Ebbw Vale enterprise zone was £88 million. As this was clearly referring to the extension of the railway line from the festival park site to the town centre, it should therefore be viewed as an overall infrastructure improvement for the whole region, not for the enterprise zone itself. So, contrasting this figure for cost per job created or safeguarded as against, say, Deeside, where the cost was just £4,822, is very misleading. So, could the Cabinet Secretary outline how he proposes to analyse the effectiveness of EZs in the future?

It became apparent to the committee, and, indeed, to those who made up the enterprise boards, that the original aims of the zones would have to be considerably amended. The boards of most of the zones realised their roles would become enablers to economic growth rather than that of direct job creation. In many instances, they put in place the infrastructure, both physical and spatial, to allow this growth to take place. Many of them referred to the time factor involved in bringing some of these projects to fruition. Mark Langshaw, of the Ebbw Vale enterprise zone board, which the Government Secretary says will close this year, said that it had many projects in the pipeline and expressed his concern as to who would take these to completion. So, perhaps the Cabinet Secretary could inform us as to how these projects, and, indeed, the general work undertaken by the enterprise zones that are to close, will be safeguarded going forward.

If we ask ourselves, 'Have the enterprise zones been a success?', it is difficult to extrapolate a firm answer because of the disparate elements involved in the zones and their overall objectives. Perhaps one of the real positives has been the input from the boards themselves, who seem to have worked well with many stakeholders and created very positive networks and initiatives on a local basis.

To conclude, I think we all have to consider their achievement against the question, 'What would have happened if they had not been created?' There are instances of those, especially with those close to the English border, that would have been disadvantaged if they had not been made enterprise zones. Deeside and, to a certain extent, Ebbw Vale are such examples. However, we must recognise that the enterprise zones up to the 2000s were very different projects to those of the 1980s, and therefore their achievements or failures must be viewed from a very different perspective. So, is the Cabinet Secretary still convinced that enterprise zones that will be remaining will still have a part to play in the economic development of Wales, and is he willing to supply them with the resource that they need in order to deliver on what should now be their clearly defined goals?

As our report of this states, there is little evidence to show that Wales's eight enterprise zones have been transformational in terms of job creation, but different outcomes are inevitable because each has faced different challenges and different local circumstances. The Cabinet Secretary's conduct when he attended committee for his final scrutiny session with us on this inquiry, and announced his intention to reconfigure enterprise zones, including to merge the Anglesey and Snowdonia boards, before we had questioned him and before he knew our evidence-based recommendations, may unfortunately be considered disrespectful to the committee. Referring to the Star Trek analogy in the title of our report, this was not to boldly go where no man has gone before, but at least he appears to have partially backtracked on this now.

In accepting our recommendation 2, he describes excellent progress in the availability of modern commercial floor space. I therefore encourage him to reread our report and note that the witness statements that are a current theme among enterprise zone chairs was the lack of available property for businesses and that there is a lack of modern floor space across Wales.

I hope his statement, that he will be seeking advice from the Development Bank of Wales to ascertain the potential for a commercial property fund, will address the evidence in our report that there is a shortage of units across the board, and that across the whole of Wales, there are perhaps, quote,

'only two or three vacant industrial buildings, and apart from 1 square mile of our capital city, there is no speculative development to note anywhere.' 

It is regrettable that the Cabinet Secretary has only accepted in principle our recommendations that the Welsh Government should return to annual reporting of the enterprise zones with clear data provided for each zone, and that it should make its priorities for each of the enterprise zones explicit, publishing clear annual targets.

The Cabinet Secretary's acceptance in principle of our recommendation that the Welsh Government should reconsider its proposed merger of the Anglesey and Snowdonia boards is at least an improvement on his previous position. He justifies this by stating that he's taken advice from the chairs of the Anglesey and Snowdonia enterprise zone advisory boards, and, together with his officials, will consider the appropriateness and timing of the merger of the two boards further. Well, the week prior to his statement to committee that he intended to merge these two boards, I'd chaired the committee in north-west Wales when we took evidence from each of these boards. It's a shame that he had not also taken this evidence before announcing his premature intention to merge them.

In Trawsfynydd, we heard that, alongside the Snowdonia board's progress with the Snowdonia Aerospace Centre at Llanbedr, it was responsible for mitigating the progressive reduction in local employment at the former Trawsfynydd nuclear power station. On a positive note, we also heard that the site was a candidate to host future UK small modular reactor development. The board emphasised strongly to us its need to remain in existence, and independent from neighbouring Anglesey, although it would retain and develop its strong links with developments on Anglesey. The UK Government's launch of its new £200 million nuclear sector deal at Trawsfynydd a fortnight ago reinforced the importance of this, with Trawsfynydd tipped as a front-runner for the development of advanced modular reactors, sharing up to £44 million for research and development, and Menai Science Park on Anglesey the preferred location for a £40 million thermal hydraulics facility. When we met the Anglesey board, they also emphasised their need to remain independent so that they may take forward their work on the Morlais west Anglesey tidal demonstration zone, on the Holyhead port expansion, and on the new nuclear power station at Wylfa Newydd.

A report commissioned by the UK Government published in May 2018 confirms the potential significant economic benefits of tidal stream energy. Anglesey can be at the centre of global leadership in tidal power, and the north Wales growth bid includes funding for Morlais. We also heard last month that the UK Government will enter into formal negotiations with Hitachi on the development and construction of a new nuclear power station at Wylfa on Anglesey. And as the Anglesey enterprise zone chairman, Neil Rowlands, said to both the Cabinet Secretary and me, 

'The board is made up of predominantly Anglesey people, is of an extremely high calibre and directly linked. It is imperative that the Anglesey enterprise zone board should continue.'

Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you. Can I now call the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport, Ken Skates?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and can I thank Members for the opportunity to respond to this important debate today? I'd like to thank the committee for its report into enterprise zones. I was pleased to be able to assist the committee in its inquiry, as were the enterprise zone advisory board chairs. I was particularly pleased to see that the work of the enterprise zone advisory boards was acknowledged so strongly in the committee's report. The chairs and boards have been key, I believe, in bringing about the success and achievements of the programme to date, and I, too, thank them for all of their efforts.

My written response to the committee's report sets out my detailed reply to the report recommendations. I have accepted, in full or in principle, the 10 recommendations and I'm pleased to report that good progress is being made against each of them. Specifically, I've already written to the Treasury to request the extension of enhanced capital allowances in Wales for a further five years until March 2025, so that we may retain this important incentive to attract or bring forward investment within our enterprise zones, and I currently await their response.

While I'm pleased to advise that the programme continues to deliver across each of the enterprise zones, with 1,550 jobs supported in the latest financial year, I've taken on board the committee's recommendations that the published performance indicators perhaps don't reflect the situation as well as they might. So, in response, I will shortly be publishing key performance data for the enterprise zones in the financial year 2017-18 that include a more detailed breakdown as part of a broader annual report. Looking forward, while indicators can never capture the totality of the progress that is being made across the eight distinct and different zones in Wales, I have asked my officials to further consider indicators as part of the broader review of the enterprise zone programme.

I'm also mindful of the recommendation with regard to the proposed merger of the Snowdonia and Anglesey boards. Taking account of the views of the respective chairs, I have agreed to extend the term of the two current boards for a further 12-month period to help facilitate a timely and effective merger in due course.

I remain proud of the achievements and success across the enterprise zone programme since the inception of it in 2012. There is no doubt that the programme has a strong track record of delivery. More than 12,250 jobs have been supported since the inception of the zones, and I accept that the pace of delivery has been variable across the zones. I've spoken previously about how this reflects a place-based approach and the different starting points of each zone and their distinct opportunities and challenges, as was clearly stated by David Rowlands. A sense of place and ensuring regional distinctiveness is an essential element of the new economic action plan.

Like the opportunity posed by the EAP, when we chose the locations of the zones, we did not choose the easiest options. It was clear from the outset that those zones that were more investment-ready would be able to deliver in the short term, whilst others would need to focus on laying foundations for much longer term economic growth and results. A good example of this was demonstrated only last month when the UK Government nuclear growth deal was launched at Trawsfynydd. This was due, in no small part, to the continued effort of the board and John Idris Jones in particular pushing the case for small modular reactors.

There's been continued comment made about the value for money of this programme. I believe that not only has the programme consistently delivered value for money, it's also laying the foundation for future prosperity in areas around Wales. The significant investment in infrastructure, for example, and the important new road links in Anglesey, Deeside, Cardiff Airport, St Athan and Ebbw Vale, and also, of course, a new railway station in the latter zone will facilitate the development of sustainable jobs, both in the zone and, of course, using the zone as a focal point in the wider local area, not just in the short term, but also in the much longer term.

I think it's also important to recognise the really significant and important projects that have emerged as a result of this programme—huge game-changing projects that will contribute incredibly to our regional economies, for example, the development of the advanced manufacturing research institute at Deeside and the Tech Valleys programme at Blaenau Gwent. Both of these programmes will be game changing for their respective areas and certainly would not have happened without the input of the respective boards. The projects are anticipated to generate billions of pounds in GVA for the regional economies of Wales and would not have come about were it not for the existence of the enterprise zone programme. 

I'm pleased that Adam Price welcomed the work of the Haven Waterway enterprise zone in examining the potential of creating a free port, because I was the person who asked them to do it. I think the idea of a free port at Airbus, whilst it might sound very novel and very bold, the fact is it's a non-starter, because the airport in Broughton is reserved for Airbus activities. I think it's important to recognise that Airbus is right at the heart of the Deeside enterprise zone and that the board there, within the zone, determined that the best vehicle for growth within the Deeside area is the creation of the advanced manufacturing research institute, which will, indeed, contribute around about £4 billion in GVA over the next two decades.

As you know, as part of implementing the economic action plan, I've reviewed all advisory bodies within my portfolio, and I've identified opportunities to simplify the landscape. Under a newly formed, overarching ministerial advisory board, the future governance structure of the zones has been designed to best meet the stage, opportunities and the distinctive needs of each zone. As part of that work, I've asked the enterprise zone chairs to review their strategic plans, to reflect their priorities and aspirations for those zones over the next three years. These new plans will be published later this year, and, alongside that, I've also asked my officials to undertake a comprehensive review of the enterprise zone programme as a whole, one that considers the current economic conditions, EAP priorities, and the latest plan and future direction for each of the zones. We should not be afraid to abandon the past when more effective solutions exist for the future.

I want us to develop a clear strategic focus for the programme, moving forward, and it's important that we continue to offer the right incentives to business, and also that we remain competitive with other UK enterprise zones, especially, as David Rowlands identified, those nearby on the English side of the border. The review that I've asked officials to conduct will address these issues and take into account the committee report's findings on areas such as commercial property availability, and I can assure Mark Isherwood that we are already in discussions with the Development Bank of Wales in that regard.

The enterprise zones embrace the importance of recognising a sense of place, and my senior officials, and, specifically, the newly appointed chief regional officers, have a very clear role as the voice of each region in Welsh Government, and they are already building strong relationships with the business community, enterprise zones and other key stakeholders in creating regional plans for economic development. The presence of enterprise zones within each of our regions is undoubtedly part of the asset base that we will build upon in the years to come, as we implement new ways of working that will deliver inclusive growth across Wales.

Thank you. Can I now call on Russell George to reply to the debate?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. It does seem to me that enterprise zones have been, perhaps, a series of place-based experiments and will continue to merit further study over the coming years. The clear lesson, I think, to date, is that there is a real benefit to knowing your strengths and bringing partners together around a shared vision, and I think that the lesson learnt is that this lesson must be a building block for the new regional approach to economic development that the Welsh Government is developing.

The question that I first presented in the opening comments was: have enterprise zones boosted jobs and growth as planned? There was some uncertainty whether that was a 'yes' or a 'no', and I think Adam Price, in his contribution, went into a bit more detail in that regard, and also in terms of obtaining the information from Government in order to scrutinise this area effectively. I would say that it was Adam Price, Mark Isherwood and David Rowlands who went to visit the Snowdonia and Anglesey zones, so I'm very pleased that each of the Members covered their visit extensively in their contributions. Joyce Watson highlighted the Haven Waterway project and board, to no surprise, in that part of the region that she represents.

David Rowlands, I noticed, focused a little bit on the issue of job creation versus costs, which is something I didn't go into in detail in my opening comments, but this is something that the committee did look at quite extensively. The Cabinet Secretary, perhaps, had some different figures that he presented in terms of that area, but I think perhaps this does highlight how the drip-feed approach of information sharing has not been helpful. But I was very pleased with the Cabinet Secretary in regard to his response on improved indicators and performance measures. I think that is very welcome indeed, and I'm very pleased with those comments.

Mark Isherwood focused on quite a few areas. I was particularly pleased that he focused on the issue of commercial units being available, and property availability and land availability. This is an issue that was raised by a number of enterprise zones, to my surprise, because in my own constituency this is particularly a problem, and I thought it was perhaps located to mid Wales, but it's not, it's an issue right across Wales—in the north, in the south, in the west. I know that the committee are very keen to come back to the issue of land availability, property availability, commercial units and the support from Welsh Government to build commercial units as well. I appreciate that the Cabinet Secretary is actually coming up to my constituency the week after next to meet with businesses who have the difficulty—businesses that want to expand but simply can't expand because there are no commercial units to be made available for them.

I would like to thank, in particular, all the chairs of the enterprise zones for their co-operation, and in particular John Idris Jones and Neil Rowlands for their assistance in arranging visits to their areas. I'd like to thank all the committee members who took part in this debate this afternoon, and all the members of the committee for their work; and also, of course, say thanks for the great support we had from committee services, as always, that contributed towards our report. I'd also like to thank all those who gave evidence either in oral or written form as well. I'm very grateful. I'm very grateful to all those who took part in this debate this afternoon. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer.

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

We have no items under voting time today. I now propose a five-minute adjournment. We have some information technology problems, so there will be a five-minute adjournment, but I will not be ringing the bell, so I expect Members to be back in the Chamber just after 6.00 p.m, please.

We will reconvene, then, and we will move to item 10, which is the short debate.

I call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to speak to the topic he has chosen—Rhun.

Thank you very much, and thank you for your patience and your assistance in the face of IT difficulties.

The people of Anglesey and the banks of the Menai will be very familiar with the title of my debate today. The Prince Madog and its predecessor the original Prince Madog have been a familiar sight tied to the pier in Menai Bridge for decades, and I’m proud to be able to show it on the screens around us in the Chamber today. It’s the largest ship to be seen regularly on the Menai strait and all those who are proud of it know it’s a symbol of excellence in the School of Ocean Sciences at Bangor. Well, I hope I can make you even more proud of this vessel over the next 10 minutes and to persuade you of the importance of the Prince Madog now and its national potential for years to come. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response, and may I also say that I’ve agreed to give some time to Mark Isherwood to respond to my comments also?

We’ll start with some context. At 34m long, the RV Prince Madog is the largest research vessel in the higher education sector in the whole of the UK. It was built in 2001, but the investment in the vessel since then means that it’s a very modern vessel that can deal with a broad range of research tasks in Welsh waters and beyond within the continental shelf. It has multibeam sonar equipment for high-resolution mapping. It includes a side-scan sonar for sea bed morphology and profiling equipment for sub-bottom profiling to study the structure of the sea bed. It carries acoustic doppler current profiler equipment in order to measure current, CTD to take water measurements, and it carries equipment to assess everything that lives on the sea bed and in the water column, from plankton to fish species. It can work 24 hours a day for 10 days uninterrupted. In addition to that, of course, Bangor University has the scientific expertise to analyse and to use all of the data generated. In summary, therefore, the Prince Madog—the vessel, its equipment and the people who work with it—is exactly what is required to study the seas around Wales, and there’s a great deal to study.

We have 2,200 km of coastline, but our responsibilities and the responsibilities of Government extend way beyond that coastline—200 miles out. The surface of Wales—the land, that is—is some 21,000 sq km, but we have 32,000 sq km of sea bed, but we know little of it well. It’s a small proportion that has been studied and mapped.

The marine plan for Wales was published in November 2015. It was about time that we had one, I have to say, and the plan states that the Wales marine area includes valuable and varied natural resources that can provide significant economic and social opportunities and which contribute to the well-being of the nation and of future generations. It’s a statement that I agree entirely with, but, in reality, we know virtually nothing about those resources. It’s staggering how little of our sea bed has been mapped, given the detailed onshore mapping. Mapping of this kind is a priority on an EU level and has been for some time. This is what a commissioner for maritime affairs and fisheries said: 

‘our initiative'—

the EU initiative—

'to create a digital map of the entire seabed of European waters will increase the predictability for businesses to invest, lowering costs and stimulate further innovation for sustainable blue growth.’

At the European level, there has been strategic thinking on how to carry out that mapping, but there has been no co-ordinated plan for the UK—no plan for Wales. The process of gathering data has been ad hoc. It hasn’t been properly co-ordinated, and that must change. Of course, we have the resource that we need to do that work. We see it on the screen: the Prince Madog.

So what’s the problem? Well, the funding model for the vessel has been very effective in the past. It has enabled Bangor University to have such a vessel. It is run jointly by the university and P&O Maritime as joint owners. The university uses the vessel for teaching and research for 125 days a year, and P&O Maritime looks for charters for the rest of the time, to make the project viable and sustainable. It’s been an excellent example of partnership between the public and private sector, but—and this is the reason for this debate—there is no pledge that we will have this resource in place post 2021. That’s when the current agreement comes to an end. There’s been a significant decline in the market for P&O’s commercial services making use of that particular vessel, and this puts the partnership at risk. As things look at present, it appears unlikely that P&O will be able to renew that contract. So, we need an alternative solution. What I want to see happening is the elevation of the Prince Madog from being the Bangor University research vessel to the status of a national maritime research ship. And, quite simply, we need such a vessel.

Off the Anglesey coast at the moment, there is some very exciting work happening in developing a demonstration zone for electricity generation techniques using the tides, and what makes that zone attractive to energy companies is that the preparatory work has been done for them by Morlais. It is they who run the initiative, including all of the mapping work and providing the information required on the state of the sea bed and where they can place their equipment. If we are truly serious about taking full advantage of the currents flowing around Wales, to bring economic and environmental benefits for future generations, then we need to do that mapping work to show what exactly the opportunities are. And if we don’t do it, then other nations will do it.

I mentioned earlier the strategic work of the European Commission, let’s look at what’s happening with our closest European neighbour in the Republic of Ireland. They have two national research vessels already. The main vessel, the Celtic Explorer, is 65m long, commissioned in 2003. Earlier this year, the Government of the Republic of Ireland said that they intended to by a new research ship to replace another of their vessels, namely the Celtic Voyager. Ireland knows that they must have these resources in order for them to take full advantage of their marine resources. The ‘Harnessing Our Ocean Wealth’ report published back in 2012 proposes an ambitious strategy that shows just how seriously Ireland is taking these opportunities. I haven’t seen a price for the new vessel—the Celtic Explorer, just out of interest, cost some €23 million back in 2003.

With the Prince Madog, we have a vessel in place already and it’s there for Wales, but Bangor University can’t afford to run it alone. They need support. Not tens of millions of pounds in capital, but support all the same. And without that support, it’s not just Bangor, but Wales, that would lose this excellent resource. There’s no other university in Britain that owns such a ship. For a university, it’s a very expensive resource, but for a nation that needs to invest in its future, we are talking about relatively small sums of money. I will give you an example of how it could work, and retaining a private, commercial partner as part of the deal too. Bearing in mind that there are years of mapping work that needs to be done—and it needs to be done for the economic benefit of Wales—if the Welsh Government became a partner in the Prince Madog as a national maritime research vessel, investing in 50 days a year, shall we say, then that could be enough to save the vessel. And maybe that could just be the start—50 days, some £5,000 a day, £250,000 per annum. That’s all we’re talking about, possibly, for mapping work that has the potential, let’s be honest, to release and to open the way to billions of pounds worth of marine energy projects, as well as being a source of crucial information in the areas of conservation, tourism, leisure, fisheries and food production.

I would argue that it is a very cost-effective means of delivering the data that we need for the future and of providing the necessary scientific analysis, and, in looking at it as support for a world-class school of ocean sciences, then it’s also a means of maintaining and strengthening the foundations for marine research in its broader sense, which also, of course, would provide an economic boost for Wales. This vessel attracts the best students from across the world to Wales.

To summarise, therefore, the prosperity of, and investment in, the blue economy in Wales depends on our understanding of the seas around us. We are in a privileged position of having the ability to carry out this research and we are lucky that we have the Prince Madog already, but let’s not take it for granted. Having left the European Union, there will be more responsibilities placed upon us as regards the management of our natural resources, but, to do that management, we will need the kind of scientific evidence that we simply don’t have at the moment. Wales has the ability to lead the way in tidal technology, and the Government has targets for increasing offshore energy production over the next years. But we must make that investment in energy generation easy, and, to do that, we need data and we need mapping.

The EU’s ambition, as I said earlier, is to map all of its seas. Ireland, as I said, is investing in this area already. But, at the moment, Wales still has no such programme in place and the Prince Madog is the key to that.

The Prince Madog is the key to future Welsh maritime research. It's the key to providing the science, providing the data, the evidence, to make the most of our maritime resources. We have to map our shores and sea bed or we get left behind. The majority of high-resolution imagery of the Welsh sea beds done to date has actually been produced by the RV Prince Madog. It's the best for the job. That has been done through the Welsh European Funding Office funded SEACAMS operation, but that operation will end soon.

Other nations are commissioning new research vessels, with Ireland deciding to update its fleet recently. We already have the ship that we need. Future investment and development in commercial marine activities would be significantly encouraged by establishing a national strategy for marine data gathering, developed in co-ordination with small and medium-sized enterprises and agencies, and this could be underpinned by the Prince Madog being recognised and invested in as our national marine research vessel. It's likely that this valuable resource, as it stands, will be lost to Wales if we don't have such a national strategy.

Tra môr yn fur i'r bur hoff bau—as long as the sea is there, says our national anthem, it will take care of our ancient nation. I paraphrase a bit. But let us look after and look into our sea like we've never done before. We have the platform to do it. It's called the Prince Madog. It could be our national maritime research vessel.

I visited the School of Ocean Sciences at Bangor University in Menai. I did question the Cabinet Secretary about this in February, when I said:

'Sea bed surveying and mapping are of key importance to our economy. The Irish have already acted on this. The EU is now starting too. There's a danger that both Wales and the UK will be left behind. Bangor University has the biggest university-run sea bed research vessel in the UK, the Prince Madog, which is key both to our economy and to fisheries management as we look to the future. But, it's only funded to 2020. What action will the Welsh Government therefore take to ensure critical and sustainable future funding, and to incorporate sea bed research into a strategic national plan?'

The Cabinet Secretary replied that she was

'aware that Bangor University are looking to identify future strategic scientific work for the Prince Madog'

but, she said:

'It is a commercial matter for the universities and others in the consortium'

so she wasn't able to comment any further. Well, the School of Ocean Sciences told me that, although the vessel is jointly owned and run, future Welsh Government funding and development of a strategic national plan will be critical. So, we're talking about a key national strategic asset, not simply private or commercially sensitive discussions. I hope therefore the Cabinet Secretary's response now will be more reflective both of the threat but also the opportunity that we're discussing now.

Thank you. Can I now call the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs to reply to the debate? Lesley Griffiths.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm very pleased to respond to this short debate regarding Prince Madog, brought forward by Rhun ap Iorwerth, and also to have the opportunity to discuss the marine part of my portfolio, which I don't think perhaps we do enough in this Chamber.

We all share a commitment to clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse seas. This means Government working with all of our stakeholders to have robust evidence to enable informed and integrated assessment of the state of our seas. As Rhun pointed out, this research, I think, will be even more important as we exit the EU and plan how we manage the condition and use of our seas in the future. 

I'm currently considering the responses to our first marine plan and that sets out our marine policies and management, which will be underpinned by good evidence. The Government is already part of a range of marine monitoring and assessment work programmes, including the achievement of good environmental status through the UK marine strategy. These programmes exist to provide the evidence to understand and respond to the health, condition, productivity and resilience of Welsh seas. They also provide an understanding of the key pressures on the marine ecosystem and interactions with human activity. 

Specific priority areas for collection include biodiversity data, both within marine protected areas and the wider marine environment, biological and landing data on stocks caught by commercial and recreational fisheries, data to assess the impact of human activities on the marine ecosystem, detailed data on the capacity and activity of fishing, and social, economic and environmental data on fisheries and aquaculture. 

In developing policy, we also take account of evidence presented through the 'Wales' Marine Evidence Report', 'The State of Natural Resources Report' for Wales, and the online marine planning evidence portal. We also commission and support targeted research on a wide range of marine subjects. In recent years, this has included reports on marine protected areas management and condition, reviews of aggregate dredging, assessing the impacts of fisheries' activities, studies of scallop dredging and assessments of the potential of aquaculture. We also have significant further evidence-related activity under way or planned, and some examples are development of a new marine biodiversity monitoring programme, various aquaculture studies, and research on marine energy development. 

With an eye to EU exit shortly after the referendum, I assembled a round-table group of representative stakeholders to seek their help to identify and understand the potential challenges and opportunities Brexit presents for Wales. The seas and coast sub-group, formed from members of the round-table and the existing Wales marine advisory and action group, has helped provide a focus on our consideration of Brexit and our seas. [Interruption.]

I'm sorry about this. Thank you very much.

So, the members have worked with me and the rest of the Government to shape five key themes to work towards as we leave the European Union to further guide our policy development, and one of these themes is standing on our two feet by enhancing our marine science and data collection capability. So, working with academia at a strategic and operational level is very much an important component of our research work, and the School of Ocean Sciences at Bangor University have been a very valuable partner to us in recent years. 

Compared to the terrestrial environment, there is sometimes limited evidence on the status of the marine environment and the impact of human activities on it, and such evidence can be expensive and technically challenging to collect, which is why I do appreciate that research vessels like the Prince Madog can play an important role. I think the point that Rhun ap Iorwerth made about not losing such a valuable asset is very important. 

So, in the first instance, what I've asked my officials to do is meet with Bangor University to see what problems they're facing, and to see how we can help. I too would also like to visit so I can have a photograph, like Rhun, on the vessel. I heard your call for a status of a national maritime ship. It's something we need to, obviously, look into. Again, around funding, obviously I can't commit, but I would be very happy to have those discussions with them. During my oral Assembly questions session this afternoon, I said to Rhun that Anglesey is becoming a real hub for tidal energy, and I think that part of north-west Wales is becoming even more important to the marine part of my portfolio. 

So, I'd be very happy to do that, and update Rhun and other Members in due course. Diolch.  

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