National Assembly for Wales

I call Members to order.

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

The Welsh Government will undertake a 12-week public consultation this autumn on school uniform and appearance policies. New updated and strengthened statutory guidance will come into force from September 2019.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. I note the comments in your recent statement about encouraging the parents and carers of eligible children to apply for pupil deprivation grant access funding for school uniform in particular. But I'm concerned that lots of those eligible for this are missing out. From my own personal experience locally, the way in which this information is communicated to parents is patchy and its effectiveness is variable. So, how is the Welsh Government encouraging councils and schools to promote this fund to students, particularly prior to the start of a new academic year?

Thank you, Vikki. As you'll be aware, for the first time ever this autumn term, assistance with the cost of school uniform is available not just for children entering into high school at year 7, but also for our youngest pupils beginning their school journey. The grant is also available to cover other costs associated with school, not just school uniform, such as PE kit and other school-day essentials. I will continue to work with local authorities to ensure that parents have the right information so that they can make a positive application to receive this funding, because we want all children who are eligible to have this assistance.

Following on from that, Cabinet Secretary, of course you will be aware of various stories at the beginning of school term of children being punished for not having the correct school uniform. I absolutely buy into the notion that we want all the children to look the same, and it's very important for school discipline and school morale, and so on. But one of the concerns I have is this view that we should punish the child for something that the parent has done. And I'm deeply concerned that—. It runs across not just school uniforms—I know Caroline Jones raised the issue not long ago with you about the child who couldn't go to the prom because she had Asperger's and couldn't get the grades. I've raised with you in the past the child who was punished because they had a chronic ill-health issue so they couldn't attend all the time, but the punishment was meted on the child, rather than the schools looking at the individuals concerned. Will you have another look at this, because of this school uniform issue, and about how we might proportionally represent, or proportionally treat children, and divide between those who don't do things they should do because they just don't feel like it and those who are put in an awkward position because of decisions made by parents and carers, because I think we're giving out the wrong message to these young people about responsibility?

Angela, school uniform policy is ultimately a matter for individual schools and their governing bodies, and it is for headteachers to decide what action to take when pupils infringe a school uniform policy. However, Welsh Government expects that, if the reason for that infringement is because families are in financial difficulties, schools should allow an appropriate amount of time for the required item to be purchased, for there to be some flexibility in the system, and not to be able to penalise that child. The guidance also highlights what financial assistance is available to families to assist in the purchase of school uniforms. A crucial part of any successful school is ongoing dialogue between headteachers, teaching staff, and their parents. But, ultimately, it is a matter for the governance of that school to decide what punishment, if any, is appropriate if there are infringements of that school's rules.

I welcome the u-turn performed by the Welsh Government earlier this year on its plans to scrap the school uniform grant, because when household budgets remain squeezed, particularly in my constituency of the Rhondda, going ahead with that would have been unthinkable. Now, around the time that these ill-advised plans were announced, I surveyed local schools in my constituency to see what their school uniform policy was, and I found that policy varied from school to school, with some insisting on the purchase of expensive items, with logos, and others being much more flexible. Like the Bevan Foundation, I'd like to see statutory guidance include a requirement for all schools to adopt a uniform that can be more generic and therefore lower cost. With this in mind, will you pay careful attention to the high annual cost of school uniform for families, and seek to provide an alternative solution for all when you issue your statutory guidance?   

Well, as I said in answer to Vikki Howells's initial question, the Government will go out to public consultation for 12 weeks this autumn on a new school uniform and appearance policy. The strengthened statutory guidance, I hope, will come into force for the start of the new academic year, and crucially, as part of that consultation, we will look to address issues of affordability and of giving flexibility to parents. So, for instance, when deciding on a school uniform for a high school, could there be some consideration as to the nature of the colour of some of the primary schools in that area? It doesn't seem necessary that you should have to discard a perfectly good pair of trousers or a school skirt when you transfer to the high school just because you're moving to a different school. So, there are lots of ways in which we can address issues of affordability and that is the purpose of the consultation and my determination to introduce statutory guidance in this area. 

Cabinet Secretary, I was really pleased to see the announcement that you're going to be consulting on statutory guidance, because, as you know, the existing policy document is actually very good and places a lot of emphasis on generic uniform. But most schools, I would contend, are not actually following that guidance as they should be, and I'm sure you'll have seen the coverage earlier this month of children being kept in a hall for not being in branded trousers, which is totally unacceptable. So, what assurances can you offer that you are going to take a very robust approach to this? But very importantly, how will you ensure that the voices of children and young people are heard through this consultation? 

Well, Lynne, as you've rightly identified, there is existing guidance. That was published in September 2013, but it is not of a statutory nature. The reason why I'm determined to address that issue is so that we can put on a legislative footing our expectations of governing bodies who will have to have due regard to the guidance when developing their own policies. This also gives us the opportunity not just to look at the issue of affordability in school uniform but at some of the issues that were perhaps not discussed in 2013, such as gender-neutral uniforms. This now gives us an opportunity to discuss those issues, and, clearly, the views of the children and young people will be crucial during the public consultation, and we will be ensuring that there are opportunities for young people to feed in so that they can tell us how they feel about the issue of school uniform and the role it plays in their school lives. 

Question 2 [OAQ52569] has been withdrawn. Question 3, therefore, Andrew R.T. Davies. 

Thank you, Andrew. Presiding Officer, I understand that you have given your permission for question 3 and question 5 to be grouped. 

The school organisation code, made under the School Standards and Organisation (Wales) Act 2013, imposes requirements on Welsh Ministers, local authorities and governing bodies in respect of school organisation and provides guidance to which they must have regard when considering the closure of any school, including those in a rural setting. 

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for that answer. Just before the summer recess, you issued new guidance in relation to rural schools—something that was welcomed. Obviously, that guidance will come into effect later on in the year. I'd be grateful to understand what weight local authorities should place on that specific guidance that you've put out there, at the moment. As I understand, it hasn't been incorporated into the code, but many authorities—and I think of one in the Vale of Glamorgan—are deciding on school closures as we speak, and it is important that there isn't a rush to shut many vulnerable schools before this new guidance comes into the code. So, could you indicate what weight you, as the Cabinet Secretary, place on the note that you put out just before the summer recess, please? 

Well, Andrew, as you've recognised, we are revising the code. The draft code that has been revised to reflect the consultation responses—the consultation that took place last year—was laid before the Assembly on Monday of this week. As is required by the 2013 Act, the code has to be laid for 40 days, following which it may come into force unless the Assembly resolves not to approve it. Therefore, I would expect the new code to come into force on 1 November, colleagues around this Chamber willing. We have been very clear to local authorities about the direction of policy travel in this area and I would expect them to be cognisant of that when they're making any decisions about the future of a rural school that would be listed under the new code. 

Cabinet Secretary, I've heard, in relation to the proposed transfer/closure of Llancarfan Primary School, which my colleague has just referred to, that the issue of access to the school building programme requires schools, often, to be built on new sites and schools to be consolidated or expanded. This is a real problem for schools in rural communities, where there may be a constrained site, no alternative available and where money is not available for adaptation—you've just got to go with a comprehensive new build—and this restricts the choices that local authorities have, especially when they want to increase the viability of our smaller, rural schools. Will you look at the building programme?

First of all, can I say that it is not a requirement of the twenty-first century schools programme, to access that money, to have a completely new build? In fact, I have been to refurbishment projects the length and breadth of this country where twenty-first century schools programme money has been used to refurbish part of a school—in fact, in your new leader's constituency not so long ago. So, this idea that you could only access that money if you build a brand new school from scratch is a fallacy. That is not correct.

Each case that is put forward by our partners in local government is judged on its merits. What I do understand, with regard to the issue that I know was exercising the mind of both Andrew and you, and the Assembly Member for the Vale of Glamorgan, is the case of Llancarfan. The decision that was taken at a meeting, I believe, on Monday of this week, is that the consultation that the Vale has gone out to is now to be referred to their scrutiny committee, and they are to allow the members of that scrutiny committee to look at the proposals that the Vale of Glamorgan Council has come forward with—which I welcome—and it will ultimately be a matter for those who run the Vale of Glamorgan Council to make a decision on the future of that school.

I think my views on supporting rural schools are well known. I sympathise with councils in all parts of Wales that face impossible budgetary scenarios and I do think that the Government has to secure adequate funding to support innovative methods of keeping schools in our communities and providing support to create multi-site area schools, which is something that I support. One element that puts pressure on education budgets, as we’ve heard, is the backlog of maintenance work, and I hear what you say as Cabinet Secretary, but, without doubt, the trend is there in the twenty-first century schools programme towards building new, larger schools, which don’t necessarily work in rural areas. So, can you, as Cabinet Secretary, give a commitment to seek a new package of finance that is substantial and specifically for this purpose, so that the condition of a school building in rural Wales isn’t such a strong driver when it comes to making decisions on the future of schools?

Again, Presiding Officer, I would have to challenge the implication by the Member that twenty-first century schools is only available for new buildings. Again, I have been to schools in the Member's own constituency—to refurbishment projects—where investment has been used to improve facilities at a school.

With regard to additional resources for rural schools, the Member will be aware that we will be making additional resources of some £10 million over this Assembly available through our new small and rural schools grant to encourage innovation and support greater school-to-school working to address issues and some of the practical difficulties of delivering education in a rural area—money that his own council has been made aware of and has applied for and is being utilised.

Cabinet Secretary, I've read the code that was laid on Monday. In it, it has a designation of rural schools for the purpose of presumption against closure, and it uses the Office for National Statistics' rural and urban classification, which I accept, and that's why the list on the back is there. But when you then go and look at the extra, detailed requirements, I ask the question: why aren't they applicable to all schools, because actually, those extra requirements should be applicable to every single school that's being considered for closure? The local authority in my area has designated the closure of Cymer Afan Comprehensive School, but the detailed, conscientious study that is required, particularly around community impact, has to be applied to every single school. Will you look at this and say that it's not just for rural schools and that this should be for every school?

Well, David, you will be aware that the regulations and the code set out a very stringent set of criteria that local authorities must apply when looking to close any school. It was important to me, and I feel it is important to many rural communities given the nature of rural life, that an added protection is made available to schools that serve a rural community. If we're to have a presumption against the closure of those schools then we have to have a list and we have to have an honest and open, transparent criteria as to how a school gets on the list. We have used, as you stated, the Office for National Statistics urban/rural classification to do that. As a result of the consultation, we have expanded the categories of schools that will be covered by the rural list to include more schools than were initially envisaged by this Government. But when considering the future of any school, the rest of the code applies and my expectation is that any local authority would apply that code rigorously, which looks at the community impact any school closure may have, whether that school closure be in a rural or in a more urban area. 

Questions now from the party spokespeople. Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Siân Gwenllian.

Thank you, Llywydd. One of the main action points under the theme 2, 'Increasing the use of Welsh', in your 'Cymraeg 2050' strategy, relates to the central role of the workplace in reaching the target of seeing 20 per cent of the population using the Welsh language on a daily basis. You recognise the crucial role that the Welsh Government has, as an important employer in Wales, in that regard and commit that you as a Government, and I quote, will

ensure that Welsh Government leads by example by promoting and facilitating increased use of Welsh by our own workforce.'

Can you give us an update on that work?

Well, of course, we do encourage members of staff working for Welsh Government to learn Welsh, and there are many opportunities for them to do so, but there is an internal report that is being further developed looking at how we as a Government will respond to the requirements of 2050. I met with the Permanent Secretary yesterday to discuss that.

Thank you very much. I have a copy of a report that demonstrates that you do have an internal working group of senior civil servants that has been established, as you said, and that was back in the summer of 2016. The report recommends that the Welsh Government civil service should commit to becoming a bilingual organisation, with Welsh and English as official administrative languages by 2036. As part of that, your civil servants have come to the conclusion that a level of what is called courtesy Welsh or basic Welsh should be a requirement for all posts within the Welsh Government as a starting point. Now, we’re in agreement up until that point. There are a number of organisations, including the Assembly Commission, South Wales Police and Carmarthenshire council, that have introduced a courtesy model that is similar, which would require bilingual skills—at a very fundamental level, or a basic level, such as enunciating Welsh words correctly and giving simple greetings such as 'bore da', 'prynhawn da', 'hwyl fawr' and so on and so forth. But, last month, in a letter to me, the Permanent Secretary said that the Welsh Government has no plans to introduce a very basic courtesy level of this kind and to make it mandatory. So, a year and a half since your expert panel recommended that, why hasn’t the Welsh Government been able to commit to implementing these fundamental measures and isn’t it about time that the Government led by example?

Well, thank you very much. As I said, I met with the Permanent Secretary to discuss this exact same matter yesterday. Part of what was recommended in the report involves definitions of exactly what is meant by whichever level of Welsh language proficiency we’re talking about, and I think we need to talk about that further. There are ways of doing that. We must get a better understanding of that. But I do know that she has requested that more work is undertaken on this issue and that will then appertain to the way in which we are going to ensure that our aim of attaining our aim of attaining a million speakers will be an integral part of what we're doing within Welsh Government.

So, it'll be another year and a half, it seems, until we get a definition of something that is entirely clear and simple, namely exactly what courtesy Welsh is. I've just given examples: things such as saying, 'bore da', 'prynhawn da', and being able to say Welsh words correctly. That's all it is. It's a very basic level of skills, the lowest level of Welsh language skills. So, I can't understand why it's taken quite so long to introduce this. The only thing that I can think is that the will isn't there to make progress here and that that is what is underpinning this and that you as a Government are not willing to show that clear example, which is so necessary.

Well, we haven't actually received this paper officially as yet, because it hasn't been signed off by the Permanent Secretary as yet. So, we have to wait until that report is issued, and then we will take the political decision as to whether we wish to continue with that system or whether we want to take it further.

Conservative spokesperson, Suzy Davies. 

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. First of all, can I just thank Paul Davies for appointing me to this new position? I cannot tell you how much I'm looking forward to it. I hope the Cabinet Secretary won't mind if I start with something of personal interest and return to rural schools, bearing in mind the experience of my own family over the last 15 years or so.

I can see that the consultation on these changes, and of course other changes to the code—we mustn't forget that—was held over a year ago, pretty much during the summer holiday period of 2017. How did your department comply with its obligation to give due regard to article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in the course of the consultation?

Presiding Officer, could I take this opportunity to welcome Suzy Davies to her new role? I look forward to working with her. And I take this opportunity to thank Darren for the working relationship that we have had—[Laughter.]

That's the first time that's ever happened. [Laughter.]

The truth about Darren Millar is that his bark is worse than his bite. While we have exchanged jibes here over the dispatch box, behind the scenes it's quite easy to work together and do business. 

You're too kind—[Interruption.] [Laughter.] 

You're shattering our illusions. 

Come on, you've done enough damage to my reputation. Please move on. [Laughter.]

I say to Suzy Davies that I know that she and I both share a passion for improving the standards of rural education, recognising that rural schools have an important part to play, not just in the education of rural children but in the wider community. In many rural locations, the school is the last standing public building in that location, and therefore we need to do what we can to support them. With regard to the consultation, I'm satisfied that, in carrying out that consultation last year, Welsh Government was consistent with all requirements that were placed upon them.

Well, thank you for that answer and for your very kind words, of course. I have to say, though, that the majority of responses that came in on the consultation were from councils, diocesan bodies and unions, and the children's voice was represented solely, it would seem to me anyway, by the children's commissioner, and I'm not quite sure how she managed to get the information or views of young people during that period, bearing in mind that it was their school holidays.

I'd be especially keen to know, actually, how those young people grappled with the national statistics office's urban/rural classification, which David Rees was talking about earlier. Certainly, a third of the adults who responded to the consultation weren't happy with adopting just one of the eight classifications in this method of identifying a rural school. But then it took nine months to report back to them with a longer list of schools, adding in that second classification to aid identification. And the stated audience for that report, released only on 2 July of this year, comprised local authorities, governing bodies, diocesan authorities, Estyn and some others with interest. No clear route to children's views or, indeed, school staff, as it was issued once again shortly before the summer school holiday.

You laid the new code on Monday, so at least that wasn't during the summer break, but the 16 months it has taken this to come into force hasn't given local education authorities a chance to sneak under the wire of a stringent regime; you've given them over a year to accelerate consideration of the very types of closure you rightly hoped to avoid. And I can tell you with my experience of the closure of Cwrt Sart, which isn't a rural school, that local authorities may be cognisant of a direction of travel, but they can be very, very determined to ignore it if they wish. So, can you tell us why it took nine months to report back on just 70 surveys, and why in June 2017 you didn't ask education authorities to pause any closure plans they may have been considering pending these material changes?

Well, Suzy, the purpose of the consultation is to seek as wide a range of views as possible. In the choice that I had as the Minister, I could have ignored the results of the consultation and laid the code earlier or I could have taken on board the comments that were made in the consultation that the list of schools wasn't long enough, and therefore ignore that and just plough on. I took the decision that I would rather delay the implementation of the code so that we could have a longer list of schools, so that we could respond positively to the points that have been made in the consultation. Otherwise, why have the consultation at all if I was determined to plough on ahead with the initial proposals? The reason why the second consultation was a limited one was because I felt it was only fair to those local authorities who, perhaps, had not responded to the first consultation because they felt they weren't affected by it because they had no schools on the list, but they would suddenly find themselves with schools on the list. I thought it was only fair to our partners in local government that they had an opportunity to respond to a policy that would now affect them if they were labouring under the misapprehension that previously the policy didn't affect them. The code has been laid as soon as it can under the proper Standing Orders here at the National Assembly for Wales, and I've been quite clear since I took up this office of my determination to support and protect rural schools as much as possible. But we have to be realistic: even with this code, that does not mean that all rural schools will remain open, but the case for closing them has to be strong, and local authorities in those areas, if they have a school that's on the list, should start on the basis that closure is the last option and they should seek every opportunity through a variety of ways to keep those schools open. 

Well, thank you for that answer. It takes nine months to produce a child; I hoped it would have been a bit quicker to produce a code. The school standards Act and the rights of children and young persons Measure aren't the only pieces of legislation that are relevant to school reorganisation; the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 is now in force, and I'm pleased to say that in the course of these changes—and, in fact, you referred to this earlier as well—you have said more than once that the existence of a small school in a community can be material to the sustainability of that community. At what point should an education authority consider the principles of the future generations Act? Is it during the process of deciding whether or not to go ahead and consult on a school closure, or is it during any consultation itself? 

Well, all local authorities are subject to the legislation that was passed here by a previous Assembly. What is really important is that they use the provisions of the future generations Act to inform their actions at the earliest opportunity, and I would argue, under the code that has been laid and hopefully will come into force in November, if nobody prays against it, that that presumption against a closure and the option to seek alternatives to keeping a school open, again, should not be left to the official consultation period, but should be employed by the council before they make any decision to go out to consultation on the future of the school. Because you and I both know that once you start that official consultation process, that can blight an individual educational establishment. So, it's very clear that the local authority should use this code and consider the presumption even before they go to a formal consultation and they should take into their consideration their obligations under the future generations and well-being Act at that point. 

UKIP spokesperson, Michelle Brown. 

Thank you, Presiding Officer, and good afternoon, Cabinet Secretary. In August, the Children’s Commissioner for Wales, Sally Holland, said she believes change is not happening quickly enough to safeguard children who are educated at home. This comes after two cases in as many years of children having been neglected, one of whom sadly died as a result. Can you tell me what you've been doing to safeguard children who are home schooled?

First of all, I would just caution the Member to make a direct correlation between the decision for parents to home educate and that, potentially, leading to a child being unsafe. I think that is a point of principle we need to start from: there is not a read-across in that situation. Since I made my statement to the Chamber previously about my intention to go out to consultation on the establishment of a database and enhanced support for parents who choose home education—that consultation will happen in this autumn term.

Thank you for that answer, Cabinet Secretary. On the point of the principle of whether children are safe with their parents, I would completely agree with you—we shouldn't be approaching this from the point of view that children are inherently at risk with their parents. However, Sally Holland has identified a risk. There is obviously a risk because one child who was being home schooled, who was then anonymous to the authorities, ended up dying. Now, I acknowledge that you've announced the establishment of a database to identify children not on the school register, but this falls well short of what the children's commissioner asked for when she said, and I quote:

'I've been calling for the government to act in a stronger way, so have all the directors of education in Wales, all the directors of social services and the government's own independent safeguarding board.'

She went on to say, and, again, I quote:

'For me the pace of change has been too slow and hasn't been strong enough to ensure every child gets the right to an education to be safe and to have their say.'

Is she right?

The commissioner, of course, will have every opportunity to formally comment on the Government's proposals when we go out to consultation. Let me be absolutely clear with the Member: what I am preparing to do is part of our educational reform journey in ensuring that every child is in receipt of suitable education. Any safeguarding issues that arise out of that are incidental and I think it is really, really important for Members to be clear that, even with the establishment of a database, that does not remove the need for all professionals to remain vigilant when dealing with their children, and to remember that that database will only apply to children who are of a compulsory school age, which begins at the age of five. Therefore, if a parent is determined to keep their child away from services, this proposal will only kick in when a child turns five, and I think it is also important to remember that there are limitations—naturally there are limitations—with this proposal if you are looking to ensure that all children are seen at all ages of their lives.

Thank you for that answer, Cabinet Secretary. I am rather surprised that you would think that safeguarding a child would be peripheral to anything, but I'll move slightly on.

Can you tell me if you've had any conversations with the Cabinet Secretary for health over a way that home-schooled children can receive similar or the same medical checks that children schooled in a normal school would be offered?

Actually, only this morning I had a meeting with the chief nursing officer to understand how, as part of our enhanced package of support for those parents who choose to home educate, we can ensure that those children have access to some of the health services that they would normally receive in school. So, for many of us—you'll be aware that, if you have teenage children, they'll have vaccinations whilst at secondary school. So, only this morning, I was discussing with the chief nursing officer the issue of vaccination hubs so that children who are educated at home can have access to those services.

I was pleased that an additional £46 million capital funding was announced this morning to support an array of projects to facilitate the expansion of Welsh-medium education. We were really pleased with the quality of the bids we received, which means that local authorities really have grasped this now and have understood that this is the direction of travel that we'd like to move in.

Thank you for that answer. I wasn't aware of what happened this morning, obviously. But if it is intended to create 1 million Welsh speakers, the route most likely to be successful is to increase the number of children attending Welsh-medium schools. I know from personal experience, as do others in this Chamber, just how difficult it is to learn Welsh as an adult. This would mean approximately a third of children in Wales attending Welsh-medium education—somewhere between 30 and 33 per cent, I would calculate. If the Minister's got a different calculation, I'd like to know it, but that's what I come out with. How is this going to be achieved?

And will the Minister visit two schools in my constituency that I know well—Ysgol Gymraeg Tan-y-Lan, where my granddaughters attend, and Ysgol Gyfun Bryn Tawe, which my daughter used to attend in my constituency, both of which have grown dramatically since they were first opened?

Diolch yn fawr, Mike. I think it's really apposite that you've asked this question this afternoon when we are really moving ahead on this agenda. The fact is that, as a result of that announcement today, we're going to see almost 3,000 new places in Welsh schools, and that is the way I think we're going to start to reach this target that we've set out, which is an ambitious target. There are 16 local authorities who have gained money through this initiative, and I think the fact that we've also married this money up with money from my colleague's budget to do with childcare—. So, you need a pipeline—you need to see these children come through the system, and the earlier we can introduce them to Welsh language education the better, and that's why we've combined this money in order to move this agenda.

This morning, I've been to Ysgol Gyfun Gwynllyw in Torfaen, where they will now be opening a new Welsh language primary. I'm pleased to see that that will be happening. And there will be a new Welsh language primary also in Merthyr, which we're thrilled to see, but also in Monmouth. So, things are moving on in areas where we really want to see that initiative being taken, so we're very pleased with the direction of travel and the fact that local authorities really understand that we are serious about moving forward on this agenda. 

The 14-19 learning pathways—this is for you, Minister—that entitles young people in Wales, as you know, to study the subjects they want, even if it's not in their own school and they can go to a nearby school. However, the funding that previously went from Welsh Government to local authorities to enable that has been combined with other funding grants, which has made it difficult to follow the money. So, I'm hoping that today's very welcome announcement, which is also to be combined with other moneys, isn't going to be difficult to follow, and that we don't end up in a situation where this ends up in local authorities' general capital budgets. How can we be certain that the entitlement created in the 14-19 pathway is being observed in the Welsh-medium sector, where distance between schools can be pretty big? And, obviously, there are financial considerations as well. How will the announcement of this new capital help with the 14-19 pathways delivery? Thank you.

Well, just to be clear: this money is very, very clearly earmarked. It's ring-fenced. It is specifically for the growth of Welsh language education, so there's no question about it going into any general pots. This has been very, very clearly targeted. That learning pathway—we've made it clear that we want to see schools working together if they are not able to deliver that locally themselves, and that co-ordination we are helping to develop, in particular in rural areas now. We've got a new pilot we're going to start—[Inaudible.]—where we're starting to do a bit more distance learning. I think that is a very interesting development, particularly, that we're going to be piloting in the Ceredigion and Powys area.

Thank you, Janet. All children and young people should be able to access a wide choice of play provision in their local environment and community. The Welsh Government is working with local authorities to encourage schools to make their facilities available for wider community use and benefit.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. A number of constituents have approached me recently about a recently announced withdrawal of playground facilities at their own school, without any explanation from the local authority. Now, set this against a background of a 35 per cent real-terms cut in local government expenditure for play and recreational facilities, the £15,000—that's all—repair bill required to actually repair this play facility before autumn half term is unaffordable. Now, the Welsh Government's play policy 2002 states that

'Play is the elemental learning process'.

So, can you explain why school play facilities across Wales are being so lamentably underfunded? And how are you working with your partners in the Welsh Government, in their Cabinet positions, to ensure that money is provided to schools so that our children can literally go out and play?

If the Member was to write to me about the specifics of that particular school facility, then I will make some enquiries. It is a matter for the governing body to make decisions about access to those facilities outside of the school day, and to maintain the upkeep of those facilities, and rather than—. The Member paints a picture of these facilities being lost. I would remind her: in her own constituency, I opened the new Ysgol Awel y Mynydd school, which included landscaped school grounds, with a sports area and space for pupils to explore and learn in their natural habitat. I opened the refurbishment projects of Ysgol Sŵn y Don and Ysgol Nant y Groes, and that has meant that pupils of both schools have benefited from third generation multi-use games areas and improved areas. So, in her own constituency, she can see the effect of Welsh Government investment on the ground providing those important facilities, but I will make some enquiries about that specific case if the Member were to write to me.

I know the Cabinet Secretary for Education will agree that it's essential that we allow children of all abilities to enjoy the pleasure of play facilities, and we also know that disabled children have fewer opportunities certainly to take part in physical education and sports activities. So, what plans are there for play equipment in schools, or indeed any play equipment, to ensure that it is accessible for children with disabilities?

Thank you, Julie. Whilst I don't have responsibility for play equipment in general, obviously we would want our schools to be inclusive schools and to have facilities that allowed all of their pupils to have full access to the opportunity for play and recreation, and indeed to be able to deliver the statutory part of the curriculum that means that physical education should be delivered to all pupils aged seven to 16. We want all pupils, regardless of their ability, to be able to access those opportunities, as it's a statutory part. But if the Member has concerns about any specifics, I would make the same offer as I have made to Janet Finch-Saunders: I'm happy to look into any instances where the Member feels that that is not actually happening.

Thank you, Hefin. School governing bodies and local authorities are responsible for employing, deploying and managing the school workforce. Supply teachers employed directly by schools and local authorities are paid in accordance with nationally agreed pay rates. Teachers employed by private supply agencies are paid according to the terms of their employment contract.

The Cabinet Secretary visited the Children, Young People and Education Committee on 28 June, and I asked her questions about supply teachers. One of the things she said in the committee was:

'Much of the focus recently has been about low pay for supply teachers. I was recently exposed to the argument about schools that are using supply teachers to cover some of our science, technology, engineering and mathematics subjects, where those supply teachers are naming their price, and are talking about, on a basic level, £250 a day to go and teach physics.'

I asked her for the details, and she said:

'we don't necessarily have all that data.'

Well, I would say that I don't think there is significant data on this. The 2018 national education supply teachers survey found that the worst-paid areas were once again Wales and the south-west, with 87 per cent and 93 per cent of respondents respectively being paid less than £125 per day. Indeed, the survey said that three quarters of respondents from Wales receive a daily rate of less than £100. Can I ask her to commit to not using that £250 example again, because I think it doesn't give the full picture, and will she commit to getting a better deal for supply teachers?

I am very anxious that all teachers working in our system are treated fairly and paid appropriately. I am more than aware of the concerns that have been expressed around pay rates associated with those people who are employed by agencies. You will be aware, I hope, that we are working very closely with the MPS Education in preparation for any new tendering process that they will undertake in the spring of this year, so that the framework that they offer is fit for purpose and incorporates the principles endorsed by the code of practice on ethical employment in supply chains and fair work principles.

We are also looking to introduce mandatory quality assurance standards for supply agencies so that any commercial agency wishing to supply temporary teachers to maintained schools in Wales would need to meet certain requirements, and standards would support schools and supply teachers, I believe, and drive up quality of teaching and learning opportunities for students. So, we are examining a whole raft of ways in which we can ensure that all teachers who work in our schools on a part-time or on a supply basis are treated fairly and paid appropriately.

Thank you, madam Presiding Officer. Cabinet Secretary, campaigners claim that supply teachers in Wales are having to take an extra job to make ends meet, and many are considering leaving the profession altogether. They claim the employment of supply teachers through agencies has led to lower pay and poorer terms and conditions. The Welsh Government has set up an independent taskforce to make recommendations in this regard. Will the Cabinet Secretary advise this Assembly now when she will be in a position to make a proposal based on the taskforce recommendations, please?

Not only is that taskforce engaging with the Fair Deal for Supply Teachers group, officials are also meeting with that group of teachers who are campaigning on this issue. As I said to Hefin David, we are looking at a range of options that will address the concerns that the Member has expressed.

Thank you, Jayne. We are committed to a step change when it comes to mental and emotional well-being in schools, and to achieve this we are convening a ministerial task and finish group, chaired by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services and myself, to consider a whole-school approach.

Emotional well-being, resilience and early intervention must be a national priority and I welcome the recent announcement of a whole-school approach, the need for which was highlighted in the Children, Young People and Education Committee's excellent 'Mind over Matter' report. The committee received evidence from the Samaritans, who've created DEAL—a developing emotional awareness and listening tool for teachers. It will be essential that emotional and mental health awareness is included in initial teacher training qualifications. Can the Cabinet Secretary confirm that the new task and finish group will speak to teachers who use the DEAL tool to see what can be learnt from their experiences?

I thank Jayne for her welcome for the establishment of the task and finish group. Work has already begun. A multi-agency and multiprofession workshop took place on 7 September to explore what a whole-school approach could involve, and to highlight where in current support there are gaps at present. The findings from the workshop will further inform the work of the task and finish group, and I would expect the task and finish group to want to take advice and evidence from a wide range of stakeholders who will have something to say on this important agenda.

'Our national mission' places the well-being of the child at the heart of our education system, and central to this will be new and inclusive school accountability arrangements that are being put in place that acknowledge not only the academic achievements of the school, but also the importance of the learner's health and well-being.

May I ask the Cabinet Secretary about the work of the task and finish group? What progress is being made to ensure that when people in school, often counsellors, make referrals of particular children to child and adolescent mental health services that those referrals are properly taken back, and are not, as some of the evidence we found as the Children, Young People and Education Committee, being referred back as if the counsellor was not an appropriate person to make that referral?

Mark, the announcement of the group has only recently been made. As I said, the work of that group was kicked off by the multi-agency and multiprofession workshop, because before we can design a service that represents a whole-school approach we need to have an agreement on what the whole-school approach actually looks like, so that we're all working towards the same agenda. We work across portfolio, and officials that worked on the 'Together for Children and Young People' plan are constantly looking at barriers to accessing more intensive and higher level CAMHS services for children, because if a counsellor has seen that child, has a relationship with that child, and feels that more intensive therapy and support is available, then that's almost like a triage system that should ensure a swift referral and a response from CAMHS. We will continue to remove those barriers, if schools counsellors are facing them, so that process can be as quick as it needs to be for that individual child.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.

The next item is questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services, and the first question is from Mohammad Asghar. 

Thank you for the question. Our stroke delivery plan provides a framework for action by health boards and trusts, working with their partners. It sets out the expectations of all stakeholders to prevent, diagnose and treat stroke in people of all ages and to ensure they can return to independence as quickly as possible.

Thank you for the answer, Cabinet Secretary. The Stroke Association currently provides a stroke recovery service to stroke survivors across the Aneurin Bevan health board area with the exception of Newport, after the local authority cut funding for the service at the end of 2015. Caerphilly council cut funding for the service earlier this year, with the health board paying the authority's contribution for this financial year only. However, there is a lack of clarity over funding for the next year and beyond. If funding for the service is cut further, then there is a risk that the other areas within the health board will also miss out on this vital service or the service could cease altogether.

Will you commit to work with Aneurin Bevan health board and the local authorities in the region to ensure that adequate funding is available for the stroke recovery service in the area, so that all parts of health boards have equal access to this vital support in south-east Wales, please?  

Thank you for the question. It does highlight some of the challenges we face in trying to generate both integration and joint services between health and local government partners together with the third sector, but also some of the undeniable challenges we face with continued reductions in public funding.

The good news is, of course, that overall, we're seeing stroke survival rates increase. In Aneurin Bevan, for example, over the last 10 years, we've seen for those people who are 75 years and over a 15 per cent rise in survivorship. That's good news, but the challenge of how we work together across those areas is actually being developed together, between those partners.

I'm optimistic about Aneurin Bevan's ability to do more. They've actually reconfigured their stroke services across the health board area. That's a move supported by the Stroke Association, and that should be helping them provide earlier rehabilitation support as well. It's a matter that I continue to take an interest in and, indeed, discussions around the regional partnership board as well about how they will work together as partners.

I'll look again at the funding issues that he raises, but, as I say, these are about local authorities making their choices as well.FootnoteLink I'm not in a position to direct them about the use of their budgets, but I do think we can have broader agreement between partners on how to provide the right services for citizens regardless of whether that's health or local government.

Cabinet Secretary, throughout the summer recess I've been taking a close look at local healthcare services in my own constituency, and can I say that I appreciated you taking some time out to come up to Merthyr and join me in one of those discussion sessions? In this and other work that I do, I continue to be so impressed by the work of the professions allied to medicine and their key role in rehabilitation and preventative healthcare. So, would you agree that, as we talk about shaping the future off our health services, it's not just about innovation or even necessarily about more money, but it is about strengthening the best practice, such as the early discharge and rehabilitation after a stroke, which is supported by allied health professionals as an effective and cost-efficient way of improving those services?

Yes, you're right to point out the role of allied health professionals and frequently in our debates about health in this place, we talk about doctors, and maybe nurses, and we ignore lots of the other healthcare professionals who are important in making the whole system work. And in this area, early rehabilitation, it is that earlier access to a range of different therapists that makes the biggest difference to getting people back into their own homes and the earliest possible recovery. And actually, Aneurin Bevan have a good record in this area of the improvement they've made.

The latest audit report suggests that they have twice the average of the audit of those people when they have completed their six-month follow-up. So, not just getting people out and mobilised early and back into their own homes, but the follow-up plan for after they've returned to their own homes too. And we have about 70 per cent compliance with the timescale to have their rehab goals agreed within five days, and that's much better than a range of other units across the UK. So, this is a health board that is looking forward, is looking at further improvements being made and is absolutely, as you made the point, thinking about those other allied health professionals and their crucial role in having effective recovery and rehabilitation.

Thank you for the question in your new role on the back benches, figuratively at least. I expect all health boards to plan and provide services that meet the needs of their people. This includes the provision of sufficient numbers of beds in different settings across our healthcare system to meet local and national expected demand. That, of course, must take into account the fluctuations in demand that occur throughout the year.

Thank you for your good wishes—I'll take it as a backhanded compliment, Cabinet Secretary. [Laughter.] Cabinet Secretary, we know full well that one of the big issues that arrive in the winter pressure months in particular is access to beds within the Welsh NHS. I'm sure, through the summer recess, you and your officials have been working with health boards the length and breadth of Wales over winter preparedness plans. What confidence can you give people working within the Welsh NHS, and the people of Wales, that you have addressed the crisis in bed availability that exists in some health boards across Wales, so that we will have some respite from some of the backlog that happens in accident and emergency departments because people cannot progress through the hospital through lack of beds within district general hospitals across Wales? 

I thank you for that question. I really do wish you well in your new role in the Chamber. I expect to see you on many occasions in these questions, no doubt.

When you actually look at our bed numbers, last year we had over 400 additional beds throughout the whole system created to deal with winter pressure. So, that's essentially the size of a reasonably sized district general hospital of extra capacity within our system.

We do find even more acute pressure in the winter, as we regularly rehearse, and I'm sure we'll have opportunities to do so in the coming months. That is not just about beds within the hospital part of this; it's actually about getting people into supported social care to get them out of the hospitals. The flow is our biggest problem.

So, in that sense that isn't just about capacity; that's about how we manage demand and manage flows throughout our whole system. That is work that is being done in planning for this winter, with the Government working together with health boards, trusts and partners to try to make sure that we have the best possible response to the extraordinary demands we know our system faces in the winter.

We do still, though, have a higher proportion of beds for the population within Wales compared to England. We still look again at both bed numbers and bed occupancy, and, crucially, at how those numbers are used to make the whole system work and, in particular, the join between health and the social care system.

Following a campaign and a subsequent post on social media, I received numerous distressing e-mails from women who have suffered as a result of inadequate provision of support and suitable hospital beds for women experiencing miscarriage. One woman told me a harrowing story of being admitted to a hospital with a suspected miscarriage, only to be placed on a ward next to the labour unit. During the evening, in extreme pain, she was forced to see one of a pair of miscarried twins on the floor of a toilet. She described this as 'the most horrific, heart-breaking episode of my life', as I'm sure we can all imagine.

Yesterday, the campaign group, Fair Treatment for the Women of Wales, published their report with recommendations for improving miscarriage care. These include ensuring that early pregnancy units provide support services in line with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines, improved emotional support and establishing recurrent pregnancy-loss clinics. Will you commit, Cabinet Secretary, to working with the campaigners on this important issue and to implement the recommendations in that report?

I recognise the distressing picture that you paint, which spells out people's real experience within our system. We regularly talk about when healthcare goes right—as we should do to celebrate that, as we have done this year—but we recognise that when healthcare goes wrong it can have a significant and continuing impact on people's general health and well-being.

I'll be more than happy to make sure that my officials, including, if it would be appropriate, the chief nurse's department, I think, have a look at the report to see what constructive progress we can make in having a conversation with the campaigners about the current state of affairs within the NHS, and, in particular, about how we make further improvements.

Cabinet Secretary, we all understand that the availability of beds is critical, particularly with winter pressures, and Andrew R.T. Davies has highlighted that very much. In May, my local health board undertook a consultation on what it called service changes, but what, in fact, were bed closures. They recommended that 79 temporarily closed beds would be permanently closed and another 46 would be closed. As a result of my objections, and others objecting to some of that, we had a watered-down version, but I still worry very much that that watered-down version will result in that total of 125 beds being closed.

I ask the question: why aren't you looking at relocating those beds to other services, because there is demand elsewhere? The reason they're closing them is that they say they've improved services—they're getting people through the hospital faster, therefore the beds become less used as people move on. But, there are many other areas in hospitals where beds are being waited for. Will you now go to health boards and say to them, before they close any further beds, they must look at the service provision across their services to see if they can relocate those beds to other clinical needs to ensure that people don't have to wait for a hip operation or other purposes because there isn't a bed for them?

I recognise the point you're making, and we've had several discussions outside the Chamber about issues in ABMU and I know you've been engaged directly with the health board. In terms of the health boards discharging their responsibilities on this issue, they of course need to have a plan about the appropriate number of beds in the appropriate part of the system and the staff to go with them. And, here, the health board said that they had improved services so they didn't need beds in one part of the system so they could appropriately treat and look after people throughout the wider health and care system. I actually think that the biggest limiting step in actually having bed numbers in different parts of our service is about actually having the appropriate staff to deliver the services in them. But I'm clear about the processes the health boards must go through about needing to have evidence of the impact and the benefit to be delivered by changing bed numbers and what that means in terms of the staff and the service provision and, crucially, of course, the quality of care that people are provided. We have lots of good examples in 'A Healthier Wales' of where we do need to see a shift in our system to move people out of hospital care more quickly. That means different capacity within social care as well. So, I will look again at the experience of ABMU, and I'm sure you'll take the opportunity to talk to me about it as well to make sure they do get this right in the future as well.

Questions now from party spokespeople. The Conservative spokesperson, Angela Burns.

Diolch, Llywydd. Cabinet Secretary, following the July publication of the Welsh Government response to the parliamentary review, I note you indicated that the regional partnership boards are to be responsible for directing change and that you intend to issue guidance. Could you please tell us when will this guidance be forthcoming on the transformational change, and, considering that the progress of the regional boards has been highly inconsistent to date, how can you be confident that progress and transformation will be equitable across all the health boards?

I welcome Angela Burns back following the reshuffle. I look forward to many continuing jousts of varying natures and temperatures.

The guidance you refer to has already been issued. We've already issued guidance about the use of the criteria for the transformation fund. And, more than that, in terms of the second part of your question—the confidence that we'll see real progress—I've made the time, together with the Minister, to make sure that we have met every single one of the regional partnership boards, we've met the health and local government leadership together, to be clear about what we expected in the development of 'A Healthier Wales', and then afterwards to be clear that we expect it now to be delivered. And, in meeting those people, what's been very interesting is that they all have ideas about the joint use of resources, where health and local government are genuine partners rather than one party being the decision maker and somebody else being a mere consultee—but, more than that, the range of projects and bids that we have already. I am hopeful that, within the coming weeks, not months, I'll be able to announce the first areas that will receive additional support from the transformation fund. And I think it will make real some of the discussions we're having now. I'm also confident that those parts of Wales that are not in the first group to have their transformation projects approved will see that as a helpful kick start to make sure they are not left in the slow lane. There is real ambition, I am pleased to say, to make sure that every part of Wales takes part in genuinely transforming services.

So, given what you've just said about the role that you see the regional boards performing, can you explain then how that ties in to the national transformation board? Will they be the ones who are responsible, ultimately, for the transformation of the national health service? And, as I'm sure you are aware, business process re-engineering is a highly defined skill and it takes a lot of experience to do it successfully, especially in an organisation as large as the NHS—and please accept that, when I refer to the NHS, I refer to NHS and social care, because the two are integral to each other. So, I'd like to understand what additional resources you might be putting in place to support both the national board and the regional partnership boards in terms of people with absolute transformational business process re-engineering skills. And when will you be measuring—or how will you put in place a series of key performance indicators so that we know how well they are doing and what timescales they are doing it to?

Thank you for that. I can confirm that the national board has already met, and its role is to have oversight for the progress in delivering 'A Healthier Wales', rather than, effectively, providing a second decision-making course for individual regional partnership boards agreeing on bids they want to make for transformation. That will still be my officials looking at those bids and then giving me advice about whether I should or should not agree to fund the bids that are made. The reason for that is that we've issued guidance already, with the clarity about the criteria for regional partnership boards to meet in actually providing those transformative projects. And the ones that we've highlighted are that they have to be genuinely transformative—so not simply rebadging a current, existing service—and also have the potential to deliver at scale, because I'm looking for a genuine transformation across the system and not for a series of micro projects that are about more local circumstances and ultra-local leadership. I'm looking for genuine scale and scalability in what we have.

I'm looking to measure our success by the process of accountability. We have a fund that is looking at whether we have genuinely transformed where we are, whether we're meeting the headlines and meeting the targets, the 40 different targets, we have in 'A Healthier Wales' over the initial three-year period. And I know that we will be judged on that. There will be scrutiny here, there will be regular opportunities to ask me questions. But part of the challenge is that, for each of those bids to transform the service, I have to be prepared that, even on the best advice and the best service design, with people available within the health and social care field working together, it's possible that they won't all succeed or they won't all succeed in meeting all of the goals and objectives that are set against each bid to come in. It's important that I accept that at the outset, because otherwise we won't see real innovation and we won't see a real transformative approach to re-engineering our services to meet the challenges of the future.

So, for each bid, you'll see what it encompasses, you'll see the basis on which I've made my decision and you'll see something about a timescale to understand whether it's been successful or not. 

Actually, I'm really glad to hear you say that you're not going to expect every single bid to be successful, because the key to being able to achieve this recalibration of the NHS is that we've got to be prepared to accept failure, and there will be some failures along the way in all of these projects. But you are talking about the projects—you're talking about the transformation fund and the moneys coming out of it, but, of course, the parliamentary review was about so much more than that, because it actually talked about a cultural transformation within the NHS, about this shift towards a much more staff-focused empowering, enabling person-centred care to really work in its ultimate sense. So, whilst all those projects are going on and you're using the transformation money to fund the 40 or so specific projects, how else is this message being transported throughout the NHS? How else are you getting the buy-in from the rank-and-file staff who've got to be able to cleave to that national vision of: this is where we want our NHS to be in 10 years' time; this is how we want it to focus? The old specialist centres, the silo mentality—it's all got to go. We've got to look at it in a different way, and that affects everyone from the porter all the way through to the most specialised consultant that we currently employ and, of course, through all the management strata.

So, whilst the transformation fund is welcome—and the projects—it can't work in isolation, because you're only going to be fixing little bits of the problem as we go along. You've got to be able to take that entire structure all the way through and that's what I don't see and I don't quite get a feel of: where the people are coming from to enable that, because that's not always a cost element. It's all about cultural change and about re-working how people are doing specific jobs today, and it's not something that necessarily has to go into a project to go and get some money from the Welsh Government to make happen. 

I shall remind you of your recognition that we have to accept some projects won't succeed, if that happens. But, look, the cultural change point you make is one that I accept completely. But the transformation fund particularly will help to kick-start new models of care. That will be part of generating cultural change, but it won't do it in itself. If I said the transformation fund was the thing that would generate the cultural change we want to see then I'd be setting that fund up to fail from the outset, because actually it's about much more. If you go back to not just the review but to 'A Healthier Wales' itself, and then accepting the four main pillars of it, a large part of that is about the engagement of the staff in helping to re-engineer and redesign the service. That isn't just a discrete group of managers, leaders and planners. It is about a wider group of staff buying into how they are the most effective agents for change for the service. It's a message that I've regularly given in going out and meeting with staff and listening to them, saying that, actually, they're in a really privileged position, because they're trusted by the public in a way that no politician in this place will be, and they have the opportunity to change the system from their own experience and their own view on where there is waste and inefficiency and opportunity for improvement. Getting right the cultural change is something that they'll understand when we have it, but it's rather more difficult to measure. If we can't, though, generate that cultural change, we won't deliver the sort of shift that I think everyone, regardless of their party in this place, wants to see across our health and social care system.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Thank you. Your Government has run the Betsi Cadwaladr health board for over three years now and we haven’t seen sufficient improvements as of yet, I’m afraid. So, what are the main reasons why you have failed in that regard?

Since the introduction of special measures, we have announced a range of improvement frameworks, a range of actions and support that we have taken. Of course, I'll be dealing with more of this in question 3, but you will have noticed over the summer, for example, the additional £6.8 million of investment we've made within the health board.

The reasons why the health board performance has not improved to a level that we would say is acceptable on all counts are varied. There are challenges about central leadership within the health board and there are challenges about shifting some local culture within the health board as well. We have seen some improvements, for example, in maternity services, which have been removed from special measures. We've seen improvement in some out-of-hours services. But I think I've covered the reasons for and my frustration with the inability to make as rapid a progress on a number of occasions—I'm sure I'll have an opportunity to do so again—including in the last statement I made in this place before summer recess.

Of course, you do report back to the Assembly often that you feel that improvements are being made in several areas, but it’s clear to me that there is a block in the system. I don’t know if it’s a funding block, or a block in terms of management, or if there is a more major problem that needs to be addressed. We are talking about the need to deliver services more and more in the community through GP surgeries and pharmacies and so on, but I fear that we are moving in the other direction in terms of the use of resources, with hospitals, which are under huge pressures, of course, taking more and more of a share of the cake.

I know that changing structures is not child’s play, but I do think that the time has now come to scrap the Betsi Cadwaladr health board. I would propose that what is needed is to split it, not geographically, but in terms of strata—as hospitals and primary care. The budgets for primary care would be safeguarded and the primary care board could create a new model of real integration with social care, whilst the hospitals could focus on their own challenges. Does the Government, like me, have the desire to seek new solutions?

I of course want Betsi Cadwaladr to succeed. I want it to deliver the sort of quality of healthcare that each of us, in every single community, would expect. Your proposal to break up the health board is not one that is supported by the overwhelming majority of staff within the health board—we've been through this in responses from them. And I don't believe that the structural re-engineering that you suggest would deliver a better service. Splitting hospitals and primary care is something that we've tried before in Wales, and it didn't deliver the sort of improvement that we wanted. Splitting hospital trusts away from primary care has not delivered the sort of improvement that everyone would want in England across the whole system either. So, I would caution the Member before he suggests that that sort of re-engineering in north Wales will provide the eventual outcomes that, I think, all of us do wish to see.

The result of your caution, you see, is that Betsi Cadwaladr has been in special measures now for over three years. I'm clear in my mind that patients in the north of Wales deserve better. And here we have a model that I believe could work for the whole of Wales after being rolled out in the health board with the biggest population and serving the biggest area. People living in the north of Wales can see the problem. And staff, who tell me that they like this idea of doing something different to try to get to grips with the problem in the way that this Government have failed to do so far, are frustrated and they're under pressure. By putting a model in place that protects primary care budgets and keeps people out of secondary care, which allows secondary care to concentrate on its many challenges and provides a new focus on integration—. Well, I think by doing that we might just start heading in the right direction. Isn't it time to say that, with special measures not working, it's time for radical measures instead?

I tried to be polite to the Member in my second answer, to give him an opportunity to reconsider the track he was going down. I have to say that the orders are not just to re-engineer health in north Wales, but your plan—I assume on behalf of your party—to take a wrecking ball to the way we organise and run the national health service in Wales in every single part of the country is not something that I would support at all. The last thing that our health service needs is a major structural reorganisation such as the one that you have just proposed. It would be an additional distraction to delivering healthcare in the most challenging of circumstances, with additional financial pressure, the challenges of Brexit on the horizon, the additional public health challenges that we all know that we face, and an ageing population, and it would an additional barrier to integration within the health service, let alone to delivering the plan 'A Healthier Wales', which has been designed and agreed by health and local government, for the first time together working to deliver a joint health and social care plan with buy-in from the third sector and housing. I think the proposal that you make is foolish. It runs in exactly the opposite direction of every respected commentator and expert across health and social care. Even in England, Simon Stevens recognises they have got it wrong on dividing trusts from primary care. He is now looking at integrated models of care in England. He won't say, 'Look at Scotland or Wales' when he looks at them; he looks further afield. He can hardly say to the Tories in England that he likes the look of integrated healthcare models. Nobody who is serious about the organisation and running of a modern health service is agreeing with the plan that you propose, and I strongly suggest you go back and reconsider your position.      

The UKIP spokesperson, Gareth Bennett. 

Diolch, Llywydd, and good afternoon, Cabinet Secretary. I wanted to ask you some questions today about social prescribing. As you know, social prescribing—sometimes referred to as community referral—is a means of enabling GPs, nurses and other primary care professionals to refer people to a range of local and non-clinical services. So, it does promote a more holistic approach to health matters and, as such, I think it is a welcome development. 

Now, it's widely acknowledged that Wales does have a major problem with obesity, with 59 per cent of adults in Wales classified as being obese and, more worryingly still, the figures for children also show that almost a quarter of children are obese. What steps is the Welsh Government taking to encourage the use of social prescribing to tackle the obesity problem? 

This Government has already taken an approach to promoting social prescribing and to developing the evidence base for its impact on physical and mental health. I've made a series of announcements about a range of projects that we are supporting with additional resource. You may have missed them; I'll happily direct you to them again. In addition to that, you may also want to take a look at some excellent examples of large-scale social prescribing, some of which are taking place in north Wales with a broader health board approach, and, of course, the excellent Valleys Steps initiative that has its headquarters in Cynon Valley. So, we recognise the case for more social prescribing. We'll look at more evidence about what we could do with it. It's not just in the field of having a healthier weight but of a range of potential benefits we wish to understand and then properly exploit. 

Yes, I think you're right that there is a range of approaches that are needed to tackle the problem, and I'm glad to hear that you are taking social prescribing seriously. Now, I do think that it's a good idea, as I said, to use this method. However, part of the problem with social prescribing providers is that many activities are led by volunteers and the charitable sector, so they may be vulnerable over the longer term to funding changes. Has the Government given any consideration to ring-fencing funding for some of these vital projects in the future?   

As I said in my first answer, I have announced additional funding to support particular social prescribing projects organised by a range of people in the voluntary sector in particular. Part of the challenge about social prescribing is often—these are low-cost or no-cost activities in any event—about encouraging people to make use of them. You may also wish to look at the national exercise referral scheme, which is a scheme that has run for a number of years. A number of Members will be familiar with it in this Chamber, and it has excellent results in terms of helping to improve people's physical and mental health. But, of course, we'll always review the amount of funding available to try and deliver on the objectives that we wish to deliver for the people of Wales. We will continue to do so, of course, in the face of continuing austerity.  

Yes, thanks for that answer. I will endeavour to familiarise myself in more detail with the reports that you mentioned. Now, there is one report that I will refer to. There was a recent primary care hub report on social prescribing that indicated that there is a lack of awareness amongst the public about social prescribing. Obviously, for social prescribing to work, we need the public to be well aware of it and also, of course, GPs. What is the Welsh Government currently doing to increase the knowledge of social prescribing among the general public and also among GPs? 

I'm familiar with the primary care hub that sits within Public Health Wales and their report on social prescribing. There's a challenge, I think, for all of us in the way we talk about healthcare issues in this Chamber and with the wider public. I don't expect the public to become more familiar with the term 'social prescribing' in general terms or understand what it is, because there are a variety of things that we would call social prescribing. It's actually about how we renormalise a conversation about different ways to help people to achieve their health and well-being goals across physical and mental health. You don't need to know, I think, if it's suggested, for example, that you join your local ramblers group that that's a course of social prescribing. It's more about how you're helped to achieve different goals to improve your health and well-being, and I think we've regularly used language that excludes the public from a well-informed conversation. Because, actually, if you say, 'If you did this particular activity or if you joined a particular group, that might have a benefit', that's the sort of conversation we need to re-engineer and that is, in many ways, about access to information about what is already available as well as developing an evidence base for the impact on physical and mental well-being. 

In my regular statements on Betsi Cadwaladr university health board, I have set out the detail of where improvements have been made, such as in maternity services, but I have also been very clear where the health board must take urgent action over the next 18 months. In May this year I published a new improvement framework for Betsi and I announced a range of intensive support, including the additional £6.8 million of investment I mentioned earlier in conversation with Rhun ap Iorwerth, which I've targeted at key areas of performance where I expect to see urgent improvements. Detailed progress reports will be provided against the improvement framework. These will be published in October this year.

Thank you for that answer, Cabinet Secretary. I hope you're familiar with the shocking and distressing case of Reece Yates, the baby who died at Wrexham Maelor Hospital and whose inquest took place yesterday. As you know, this is a hospital run by Betsi Cadwaladr board. The inquest heard that Reece would have had every chance of surviving his complications having been treated elsewhere, and that only a breakdown of communication prevented his transfer to a unit on the Wirral. For the board to admit, albeit through their solicitor, that, and I'm quoting here:

'Reece's chances of survival would have been better if he had been born at an alternative unit.' 

It's a shocking admission that failings at the hospital were a factor in this baby's death, although I do believe that the board should be given credit for being honest. So, my question to you, Cabinet Secretary, is: will you hold an inquiry into this case and, if need be, will people finally be sacked for the now fatal failings of the health board that you're in charge of? 

I have tremendous sympathy for the family for their loss. I don't want to try and use the position that they find themselves in to either take credit or to score points. I think the important point is that in every incident of this kind there is of course an internal review about what happened and what went wrong. We discussed earlier on another question about the real and lasting impact of where healthcare goes wrong, including the possibility that people will lose their lives. Of course, I expect any and every part of the health service, not just in north Wales, to properly learn from when healthcare does go wrong and to provide the reassurance that I think people will look for. I'm not looking to use a headline opportunity to arbitrarily dismiss people within the health service, but I do expect there to be proper accountability and learning, which is what I think the wider public expect.

Thank you, Llywydd. I’m very pleased, of course, that the intensive care department, the SuRNICC, has now opened at Glan Clwyd, and it would be good to be able to congratulate the Government on their vision in that regard. But, of course, the truth is that the Government and the health board, back in 2013, had approved the downgrading of intensive care services for newborn babies in north Wales. At that time, the plan was to move the service to Arrowe Park in the north-west of England. Now, it was only a powerful campaign from residents in north Wales that forced the Government to change direction. Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate those campaigners on their determination and perseverance. Their campaign changed the minds of the health board and it changed the Government’s mind too, ensuring that a SuRNICC was developed as a centre for intensive care services in north Wales for the babies of the future. So, will you join with me in congratulating those campaigners on their success and to thank them for their untiring efforts?

There was a range of people, of course, who were involved in conversations and campaigns at the time, and the Government did look again and have a review, and the First Minister made a choice on the back of an expert review, which has now led to the SuRNICC being opened. There are people in this Chamber who took part in that campaign, and I see the local Member looking at me, and of course she was one of those who was remarkably forthright not just in public, but in private as well, as I recall, at the time.

The success story is that we chose on the back of that to invest significant additional resource and, actually, when I visited the unit before its formal opening I saw people who had received care and they were remarkably positive about the quality of care they'd received. It was instructive to me that some staff had said that they didn't quite believe it would actually happen, even when the building was taken place, and there's something there about the lack of trust and that we need to continue to rebuild with our staff and the public that decisions that we make will be followed through. But those staff who are working on the ward now recognise they have top-class facilities, they are proud of the care they deliver, and, more importantly, I think people in north Wales can have real confidence and pride in the quality of the service following the investment this Government has made.

Yes. Five health boards have the medicines transcribing and e-discharge system live within their hospitals. I'll refer to it from now on as the MTeD system; it'll make things easier and quicker. The two remaining health boards have their own local systems with similar functionality to MTeD in providing discharge information to general practitioners.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, and I support what you've been saying about electronic discharge and I welcome the progress that's been made in trying to achieve that. I hear what you say about MTeD, but I've also heard recently that a new, more integrated service is also being developed that will or could ultimately replace MTeD. Is this the case? It does seem a little odd, if a new system is being evolved before MTeD has been even rolled out across Wales, that we are going down this line at this point.

I think it would be foolish to try and pause MTeD and try to do something different. If you look at what we've done, it's part of the Welsh clinical portal. Practitioners generally are very supportive of it and positive about it—not just practitioners within hospitals and GPs but also within the pharmacy world too—and there's recognition that we are in a better position than England, where they're trying to roll out something with similar functionality, and, in Scotland, whilst they have some tools for electronic discharge, they still have a largely paper-based system. So, I think we need to get on to roll out something that is consistent and then understand how we could develop and improve that in the future, and I have greater ambition still for improving the discharge process from hospital, making greater use of electronic prescribing and sharing of information across our health system and, in particular, to see what more community pharmacy can do to help improve transferring information and people out of hospital to make sure that their medicines are ready for them upon discharge in their own setting.

We continue to work with health boards and, from October of course, Health Education and Improvement Wales on recruitment challenges with short, medium and long-term action. This includes our successful 'Train. Work. Live.' campaign, increasing medical school places and working to ensure that more Welsh students go on to study to become healthcare professionals. 

Thank you for that answer, health Secretary, but one thing you didn't mention was the quality of accommodation for NHS staff, which is very often provided by health boards. The feedback I've received from north Wales staff in recent months has been that the quality of accommodation is absolutely appalling and does discourage people from coming to try working in that part of the country. So, I was wondering what action you are going to take, Cabinet Secretary, to ensure that there are decent standards of accommodation provided for NHS staff where health boards are responsible for accommodation. We have the Welsh housing quality standard, which applies to registered social landlords in Wales, but it doesn't seem to apply as far as health boards are concerned in terms of the quality of their accommodation. What work will you do to make sure that we raise our game in this regard?

Well, in north Wales, I'm aware of ongoing conversations about having to improve the quality of their accommodation and whether or not the health service itself needs to provide it. Or there could be a partnership, for example, with registered social landlords, housing associations to help provide investment into a facility and better and more proactive management of it. So, it is an issue that I am very well aware of and I'm looking for further action. And, of course, we recognise that, unlike some parts of the UK, we continue to provide free accommodation for doctors in the foundation 1 phase as well. So, I recognise the challenges. Improving the offer should mean that we're an even more attractive place for people to come and commit their career. 

Cabinet Secretary, I welcome the fact that the numbers of nurses, midwives and health visitors are at a record high here in Wales, and I understand that the extension of the ‘Train. Work. Live.’ campaign to registered nurses has generated a significant amount of interest from qualified nurses considering a career in Wales, and that this has led to some nurses taking up a post alongside those who have been recruited directly by NHS organisations. What's the Welsh Government doing to track the success stories of ‘Train. Work. Live.’ to learn more about what led them to choose a career in Wales, to build on this success?

I'm happy that you've highlighted the nurse recruitment part of ‘Train. Work. Live.’ and that it isn't just a campaign for GP or specialist doctor recruitment. Actually, the feedback we've already had from people who have come in to Wales as a result of ‘Train. Work. Live.’—a number of whom I met at the Royal College of Nursing congress in Belfast—is that the campaign is visible and high-profile in the nursing world, and we'll be definitely using real stories of nurses who have made choices to come to Wales on the back of that campaign. You can see some of the ongoing success in our approach, because there are UK-wide challenges on a range recruitment issues, but the nurse vacancy rate in NHS Wales is approximately 5 per cent. In England, it's 11.8 per cent. So, we're in a better position, but the challenge is to make sure that we don't lose sight of where we are, and that we continue to improve. I actually think that when you talk to nurses themselves, they'll tell you what other nurses themselves think of their journey, to make sure that's a story they can believe in. So, we will definitely take up the point that you raise in the continuation of our campaign. 

Cabinet Secretary, I also welcome the ‘Train. Work. Live.’ scheme, but also the bursary, and I welcome very much the fact that the bursary is still being kept here in Wales while the Tories in England have abolished it. That is critical to seeing more Welsh citizens coming into the profession. And it's not just nursing, of course; it's other allied health professions as well. Can you reassure me that that bursary will continue, and can you expand upon it? Because as you have highlighted, we need more nurses and more other health professionals in our hospitals, in our services, to ensure that we can deliver those services, so we don't close beds. 

I recognise the point you make about the bursary, so I've made annual choices to roll forward the bursary. The consultation has now ended. We've had, I think, over 40 different organisations and a number individuals who have responded. So, I'll get a summary of the consultation and I'll then have some decisions to make over the autumn about a longer term arrangement so we don't need to make an annual choice, but I'm determined that we continue to invest in supporting nurses to come and study and to give them the opportunity and expectation to work in NHS Wales afterwards.

We've seen the impact of removing the bursary in England, not just the numbers that are coming off the register, but in particular in specialist areas as well. Learning disability nurses are a good example. It's an area that is often not talked about, but the reality is that learning disability nurses tend to be mature students, more so than other parts of the nursing family, and in England, with the removal of the bursary, there's been a catastrophic fall in the number of people undertaking learning disability nursing qualifications. I know that some providers have closed their courses. Now, that's a problem for England in the here and now, but it's actually a risk for us as well because as we maintain our numbers, there's every chance that learning disability nurses in Wales will be pursued by other parts of our healthcare system. So, you can see the risks, you can see the damage that's being done, and I would urge the Government for England to think again about the course it's taking to support nurses and other healthcare professionals to reintroduce a bursary, and I hope that you and other Members in the Chamber will support the decision I eventually reach on how to continue to support nurses and other therapists and healthcare professionals to study here in Wales. 

We deliver a number of approaches to support physical health. We have targeted programmes such as the daily mile, legislation through delivery of an obesity strategy and minimum unit pricing, service provision such as smoking cessation and weight management, guidelines through nutritional standards in schools and planning through health impact assessments. 

Thank you for that response, this was a case of having to word a question very carefully, because if I had asked the question that I wanted to ask on physical activity rather than physical health, the question would have gone to another Minister, but it was directed at you because of course promoting physical activity and exercise is crucial in promoting physical health. As we await the hopefully innovative report from the health committee here at the Assembly, does the Cabinet Secretary agree with me on a matter of principle, namely that we need to look at how we use health budgets to invest in physical activity? Because if we are talking about preventing ill health and making the NHS a health service rather than an illness service, we must ensure that all funding sources are available to create plans and programmes in the long term to promote health and to provide the infrastructure for health that we require in order to make us a healthier nation. Because making the nation healthier will ultimately save money as well.

I recognise the broad points you make and I don't think we'll find ourselves with any disagreement on the principles. I look forward to the committee's report, and you'll hear more from the Government over the course of this autumn. You know that we're committed, not just by legislation, but we've made public commitments about our new healthy weight strategy, available for consultation this autumn as well. The health budget of course has a role to play in the way we deploy resources in promoting physical activity and we are, after all, the largest employer in the country with over 90,000 directly employed staff within the service. So, we should be an exemplar ourselves about the opportunities that we provide and the messages we provide for our staff in their roles as employees, as well as their interaction with the population.

This is partly going back, if you like, to the important point about the broader cultural changes we need to see take place, and to renormalise areas of physical activity. And that does mean that we have to work across the Government with different portfolios, but actually to work with people in communities as well, and actually understand how we make physical activity easier for them to undertake, rather than saying, 'You should do this; it's a good thing for you to do'. We actually need to make it easier for them to do that as well. So, you'll hear more from the Government over the course of the autumn about what we propose to do, and I look forward to scrutiny and suggestions, indeed, about how we might choose to do that and, hopefully, achieve that in the most positive manner. 

Outdoor education can play an important role in encouraging our young people to get active and also give them the skills and confidence to do so. I know that you spoke just now about some of the cross-Government work that you are doing, but particularly with your colleague Kirsty, what are you doing there in order to try and promote the benefits of outdoor education?

I know that your previous profession was in the secondary education tier, but actually, when you look at what we, in particular, are trying to do, patterns for life are often set in early years and in primary school, and there's lots of outdoor education in almost all the primary schools that I have seen and visited. It's a consistent part of what they look to achieve. And not only that, but with the daily mile, we have 303 schools at the start of this school year signed up to do the daily mile, and there's something about shifting habits so that it's normal to do those things as opposed to making a special effort to do it. We're seeing more of that coming through, not just with curriculum reform, but the measures that I think we'll see coming through from the Government in what I think we'll be able to agree and then get on with from the autumn onwards. So, I'm optimistic about what we'll do, but the challenge is whether we can persuade the public to make different and continuing choices.

Question 7 [OAQ52570] is withdrawn. Question 8—David Melding.

We are refreshing the service development and commissioning directive for arthritis and chronic musculoskeletal conditions. This sets out Welsh Government's vision for planning and delivering high-quality services and support for people living with these conditions and this includes children and young people with musculoskeletal conditions including arthritis.

Minister, you'll know that Arthritis Care merged with Arthritis Research UK last year and I understand that in Wales, the charity will now be known as Cymru Versus Arthritis. I'm sure we all commend that objective. Regarding provision in south Wales, I am aware that the paediatric rheumatology provision was included in the annual financial plan for the Welsh Health Specialised Services Committee and that committee will be developing a potential service specification model for an enhanced paediatric rheumatology service. Can you give us an update on where that work is? It's really essential, because succession action will be needed as soon as possible due to the impending retirement of the rheumatologist who currently undertakes paediatric service, part time—though he's not a specialist specifically in paediatrics, but has extended his work to cover that area with great distinction.

Indeed. I agree entirely. Can I commend the work of the new merged organisation—I'm sure it will do very good work in campaigning and policy development as well—but also, Dr Jeremy Camilleri, who will be moving on at some time in the near future? He's made his intentions clear, but it would be worth saying that, because of the advance notice that we have had, the health board is going to work closely now with the Welsh Health Specialised Services Committee and other partners to ensure that we do have the delivery of a sustainable service.

David, you asked me about where we are with progress on the updating of the service development and commissioning directive, first published way back in 2007. Now, this review will consider a range of arthritis and musculoskeletal pain, including juvenile arthritic conditions, and we'll make sure that this refresh takes into account the recommendations that have been made by the British Society for Rheumatology and the National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society report, which was published only at the end of 2016.

So, our aim is—. And I say this as somebody who actually has lived for many years with a condition of ankylosing spondylitis, since I was a young man, so I'm a living, walking, breathing example of somebody who's had the right diagnosis, the right treatment, the right physiotherapy and allied professionals. I challenge anybody to walk up the highest mountain peaks with me now, whereas at one time I could hardly walk down the corridor. But that is the aim: to focus on helping people of all ages, including children and young people, to develop the skills to enable them to manage their conditions, and, where appropriate, increase their ability to stay and work and live the lives they want to live.

So, we've set the steering group up, chaired by Alun Morgan, the deputy director of therapies for Cardiff and Vale university health board. He's overseeing the work. He's brought together clinical experts in various fields, including arthritis and musculoskeletal conditions, as well as third sector bodies and, importantly, like me, patient representatives. So, the outline document has been drafted. Group members are in the process now of populating it with information from their specific areas of expertise. So, we're currently scoping demand for the service. We're carrying out a workshop in October to establish preferred models going forward, and we hope to bring it forward, then, in the autumn, to consider that and present our items for prioritisation. So, the work is well in hand, and I thank him for raising this important matter.

And finally, question 9—John Griffiths.

Thank you for the question. The Welsh bone marrow donor registry is operated by the Welsh Blood Service. The Welsh Blood Service actively encourages donors from all ethnic backgrounds to join the panel and asks blood donors aged 17 to 30 if they would like to register, as this age group offers transplant patients the best chance of survival.

Thanks for that, Cabinet Secretary. Marley Nicholls is a six-year-old boy in Newport East. He has a rare blood condition, aplastic anaemia, where his bone marrow and stem cells do not produce enough blood cells. He needs a bone marrow transplant, but nobody in his family is a match, and, indeed, nobody on the worldwide register is a suitable match either. So, they've launched a campaign to encourage as many people as possible to register as bone marrow donors and to have their bone marrow tested. Obviously, that hopefully will eventually benefit Marley, and, indeed, others waiting for a bone marrow transplant, but there are no guarantees at this stage. Cabinet Secretary, will you add your voice to their campaign to encourage as many people as possible to find out whether they might be a suitable match, and indeed to register as bone marrow donors? Are there any further steps Welsh Government might take in addition to what's already in place to encourage people to register?

I'm aware of that particular instance, and I know that you've played a part in supporting the family in their awareness-raising campaign, and I wish them every success in finding a donor for their child. I've visited the Welsh Blood Service and I've seen how the registry works, and it is an amazing feat, actually, to have a worldwide register to potentially find donors in different parts of the world. Now, the challenge is that because of the age range where we want donors to come forward, from 17 to 30, traditional channels aren't always successful. So, they are looking again at social media in particular, and interaction there to encourage people to come forward. The fortunate point is that many people in the younger part of their life are quite altruistic and want to do things. So, there are opportunities to look at that and take it forward. It's not just an issue for us in Wales; it's across the UK and more broadly as well, because we do operate as part of the global registry. I'm happy to look at ways in which the Government can support the Welsh Blood Service to undertake that and to make sure that more and more of us are able to help others.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.

The next item, therefore, is the topical question—Neil McEvoy.

I'm unable to comment on matters relating to the marine licence for the dredging and deposit of material from Hinkley Point C due to an ongoing legal challenge seeking an injunction to suspend the marine licence.

In the 1960s, Hinkley Point A was a nuclear bomb factory. In the financial year of 1968-9, half the nuclear core was removed to provide weapons-grade plutonium. The system was designed to remove only one fifth of the core in any given year. The rush was the result of the international non-proliferation treaty coming into force in 1970. It has been admitted by Magnox Ltd that there were cooling pond accidents. We must find out the extent of these accidents. Given that there could be uranium and plutonium hot particles that would not have been detected by the gamma spectrometry testing carried out, will the Cabinet Secretary request that Natural Resources Wales suspends the dumping licence and carries out alpha spectrometry and mass spectrometry to be able to say for sure exactly what is in the mud—please?

I answered the Member and made it very clear that I'm unable to make a comment at the current time because of the ongoing legal process. What I can reiterate is what I've previously said in this Chamber during a debate last term, and that was that the recent National Assembly Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee report showed that Natural Resources Wales made their determination based on expert advice. It also confirmed that all tests and assessments concluded that the material is within safe limits, poses no radiological risks to human health or the environment, and is safe and suitable to be disposed of at sea.

Andrew R.T.—

Shame on you. Shame.

Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Cabinet Secretary, I appreciate the constraints that are placed on you with the impending court case, but if I could maybe put two points to you and seek an answer to both points: one thing that's come up time and time again with constituents is why this particular location was chosen to dump this mud, given that, as I understand it, there were various other locations where this mud could have been disposed of. So, it's not an unreasonable assertion to try and find out why this particular area was chosen, given its close proximity to Cardiff. Secondly, given that the original licence was issued in 2014, there have been various changes in the plans around the Hinkley development. Are you confident that the licence that was awarded in 2014 does capture all of those changes and is up to date, and doesn't need a review to make sure that it does capture any of the changes that have happened in the intervening period?

Natural Resources Wales made their determination based on expert advice, and that was in line with all radiological assessments—procedures that have been developed by the International Atomic Energy Agency. I am very happy to continue to have discussions with NRW when I regularly meet them, and keep Members informed.

Thank you very much. Isn't the protesting that is ongoing—[Interruption.] I will give you a moment.

I will continue in English. Isn't it the case that the protests that we are seeing taking place now, and the very real concerns that are being raised, are proving what I said in this Chamber back in May—that what I said then was quite correct? That was the debate, you will remember, on the report of the Petitions Committee, of which I am a Member, about what is happening to this mud. I had proposed in that committee a few months previous to that that more testing should take place, and what I said in the Plenary debate in May, as we discussed that report, and I'll quote—the quote here is in Welsh so I'll translate—was: if CEFAS themselves offered that there was a more transparent way to make the assessments, to do the testing, as they did in the Petitions Committee, then the opportunity should have been taken advantage of at that time, I think, to look for a way to move forward that happens in the most transparent way possible.

Now, there are also issues that were raised on that day about how waste of any kind, regardless of test results, can be dumped on Welsh land or in Welsh water without any recompense. But this fundamentally is an issue of transparency regarding this mud, and can Welsh Government not see now that your actions in not pushing for that retesting has caused that lack of trust in your actions?

Obviously, this is a live licence, and as such, it is a matter for NRW. You talk about transparency. They have issued a public statement. They've also put a significant range of decision-making documentation on their website so that people can access it. So, I think, from a transparency point of view, NRW have addressed that issue.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. You'll be aware that I raised two questions yesterday on the business statement, and I do appreciate the constraints you face in terms of responding to these as a result of the legal position that you're in at the moment. But I did ask a question on the business statement regarding the lack of an environmental impact assessment on the Hinkley Point mud concerns, and I think that's something that clearly would be helpful if at all possible, to have some kind of clarification on prospects for an environmental impact assessment, but also constituents have raised specific concerns, which I did also raise in the Petitions Committee debate, about inadequate sampling of deeper layers of mud. So, clearly, there is a great deal of public concern, and I am aware that Richard Bramhall of the Low Level Radiation Campaign, a former member of the UK Government's committee examining radiation risks for internal emitters, voiced worries about the test. So, again, this is an opportunity today to put those questions again on the record, and I also would be grateful for any further clarification, within the constraints that you face, that you can give us.

I think a key point to note is the non-EIA approach doesn't mean a full and thorough environmental assessment was not undertaken. A radiological assessment was carried out, it was supported by experts, as well as the wider environmental and human health assessments that are needed for the marine licence determination. An EIA was carried out on the Hinkley Point C project overall. The EIA was submitted as part of the supporting information supplied with the application for the marine licence and as such was considered in the determination—[Interruption.]

Carry on, Minister. Gareth Bennett.

Diolch, Llywydd. I don't want to add a lot to what the other Members have said—ones who have raised points. We did have a debate on this in May, as Rhun mentioned, and it has to be acknowledged that there is a wide public anxiety about this issue. We spoke about the environmental impact assessment, or the lack of it, in the debate we had in May. I don't really think those issues have been addressed, or at least, at the very least, there is a public perception, certainly, that these issues haven't been addressed. I think that we do need to curb public anxieties, address the issues, and I think we do have to have some greater level of testing before we go ahead with this. So, hopefully you can respond positively to that, Minister.

Well, I think I did. Certainly, when we had the debate last term, I made it very clear that the Welsh Government is very keen to reassure the public and Members, and I think I addressed that in the debate.

Thank you very much. I understand the constraints that the Cabinet Secretary is under, but I wanted to use the opportunity to express the concern there is in my constituency of Cardiff North. A lot of constituents have contacted me and it has been raised in a number of meetings that I've been at. There is concern about the safety in Cardiff, so I feel we should do all we can to explore, to whatever end we can, to, if necessary, reassure people. If it is safe, then we need to be able to do that.

I did speak, raising these issues, in the Petitions Committee on 23 May. And I know that, now, more information is being sought about Hinkley A, which we know has been decommissioned, but that in 2001, Magnox Electric, which then owned the original Hinkley site, was fined £100,000 for breaching nuclear waste disposal and plant maintenance legislation. So, obviously, that is a concern for members of the public to know that that has happened.

I also echo the question about why this particular place was chosen for the dumping to take place when it's only 2 km, I believe, from the shore. And what are the benefits to us in south Wales by having this mud dumped here? What sort of discussions or debates did take place about that decision? So, I'm anxious that any further scientific evidence that could be obtained is obtained, and I know that Professor Barnham has raised particular issues, so I would urge the Cabinet Secretary to do all that she can to address the concerns of the public about the possible dangers.

I mentioned before that, obviously, this is a live licence, so it is a matter for NRW, and concerns can continue to be addressed to them. I do think they have taken the step of making a public statement, making sure a significant range of decision-making documentation has been placed on the website in order to reassure the public. And as I say, I took my position to do that also in the debate that we had last term.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.

The next item, therefore, is the 90-second statements, and the first is from Nick Ramsay.

Diolch, Llywydd. Last weekend I was delighted to welcome Chief Chinamhora from Zimbabwe to Monmouthshire, who is responsible for over 280,000 people in his area. The chief, the mayor of Abergavenny and I led the 'march for Africa' at the Abergavenny Food Festival, invited by Martha and David Holman from the Gilwern-based charity Love Zimbabwe. 

I've known Martha and David for the past seven years and I've watched the charity grow into a thriving connection between Zimbabwe and Wales. Links have been made with schools, societies, businesses and Government officials. They've established a vibrant educational programme with Lampeter university, taking students to their community centre in Zimbabwe. They now hope to extend this programme to Cardiff University and the University of South Wales. 

I am honoured to invite the Chief to the Senedd today. He's in the gallery this afternoon, along with Martha and Dave, to meet my fellow AMs. I understand that he is the only Chief in recent history to come to the UK from Zimbabwe. Love Zimbabwe has recently won grant funding from the Wales for Africa programme to undertake a conservation project on four hectares of new land. On their next visit in April they plan to take books over for the new library building, accompanied by my colleague John Griffiths, among others.

We are delighted to invite Chief Chinamhora to Wales and hope that this is the beginning of an enduring and lasting friendship between our two countries.

Last week, a special service was held at Glan Clwyd school to celebrate the success of a year 8 pupil in an international competition held by Airbus for young people. The challenge was to design a rocket, and out of 900 competitors across the globe, Max Bentley from Prestatyn came first. It was a privilege to join with Max and the rest of year 8 to recognise this international award from Airbus to design a rocket and to help to improve their space programme. It is great praise to him, his family and also the school. Max said:

'It’s been an incredible experience. I’m exceptionally pleased that I won this competition. I hope that I can follow up on this and study STEM subjects, and I look forward to the future. Thank you very much to Airbus for the opportunity.'

So, once again, congratulations Max and Ysgol Glan Clwyd—great stars of the future.

The next item is the debate on the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee report on post-legislative scrutiny of the Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013. I call on the Chair of the committee to move the motion—Russell George.

Diolch, Llywydd. Nearly five years ago, in November 2013, the Active Travel (Wales) Act became law. The Act was intended to create a generational change, and transform the way we travel on essential journeys, to work and to school, making walking and cycling the norm.

The reasons for doing this I think are clear: active travel promotes better health, reduces pollution and congestion. In fact, the committee has had first-hand experience to add to the wealth of evidence on the subject. We put bike, car and train head to head to launch our report. Setting out from the Welsh Government offices in Cathays park, committee members raced back to the Senedd early one morning in May. And I would like to invite you just to watch the screens, to watch the results of that race.

Well. I even bought a new pair of trainers for the race, and I still lost—but there we are.

Light-hearted though it was, there was of course a serious message behind what we were doing back in May. The cyclists reached their destination first, and the journey of course for them was inexpensive, and provided a great opportunity to exercise. Yet since the Act has become law, rates of active travel have been static in Wales. And, perhaps more disappointingly, the number of children and young people cycling or walking to school has actually decreased.

So, the committee’s post-legislative scrutiny of the active travel Act sought to find out why. So, we spoke to a number of witnesses during the course of our inquiry, including local authorities, planners, engineers. We heard from Sustrans, Living Streets, Public Health Wales. We spoke to disability campaigners and service users. We received formal responses to our consultation, as well as over 2,500 responses to our committee survey. And we held five focus groups across Wales, to hear from groups of people who are not currently walking or cycling.

The evidence was very clear. There are two main barriers to active travel: feeling unsafe and the lack of appropriate infrastructure. Now, interestingly, the First Minister has said himself that he would not feel safe cycling through the city here in Cardiff. Some members of the committee have told me that they do ride in the city and it's very pleasant and they particularly enjoy riding along some of the off-road cycle pathways.

But in every town in Wales, there are still areas where it’s hard and unpleasant to walk and ride. There are cyclists who share roads with heavy traffic, where potholes are obstacles and create other dangers as well, where cycle pathways are simply too narrow or too short or badly placed, and where pavement parking has made it impossible to walk safely. In a couple of weeks, campaigners from across Wales will be 'Cycling on the Senedd' to draw attention to the fact that spending on active travel in Wales is about half the level it needs to be. 

Of course, active travel was never going to change the way we travel overnight, but it was supposed to change the way local authorities, planners and engineers approached their work. The Act required local authorities to produce maps of existing routes and maps of the integrated networks they would like to achieve. Our inquiry found that there was confusion over the purpose of the maps, which proved expensive and time consuming to produce. Members of the public expected to have a map that they could use to plan their route to work or school, but that was not the result. The Minister expected the integrated network maps to be ambitious and aspirational, but engineers told us that they were wary of raising expectations and that no professional would put a plan together without regard to the resources available. As it stands, there is simply not enough funding.

The committee has recommended resource equivalent to £20 per head per annum. That figure is based on best practice in other parts of the UK. It’s not everything we’d want if there was a magic money tree, but it’s a figure that we thought was pragmatic and campaigners gathering here in a couple of weeks agree. The Cabinet Secretary accepted that recommendation in principle, but in doing so he highlighted that even with the additional capital allocation of £60 million, which he announced during the course of the inquiry, total funding for active travel amounts to just under £92 million over three years. But by his own calculation, a budget of £62 million per year is needed to provide the called for funding: a shortfall of over 50 per cent. 

I understand, of course, the competing demands for funding. But if the Government is going to bring ambitious legislation to the table then it must also bring the means to deliver that ambition. I'd suggest that we will not persuade large numbers of new people to adopt active travel until the infrastructure is in place and to enable them to feel safe when walking and cycling. And infrastructure will not be delivered without funding, I'd suggest.

Of course, it's not all about funding, I accept that. There are, of course, needs for behavioural change also. The committee heard that since the Act came into force in 2013, the approach to behavioural change has been inconsistent and poorly planned. The committee heard of a cultural barrier that is preventing active travel being placed at the heart of infrastructure design, with a traditional approach to engineering trumping innovation. Witnesses questioned the commitment of local authority leaders at senior level to champion the change, rather than just leaving it to their cycling officer to deliver in isolation.

Living Streets told us that the day before the anniversary of the active travel Act, the Welsh Government stopped funding for Let’s Walk Cymru. They told us that left Wales without any Government-funded walking schemes, apart from the Active Journeys scheme. And Sustrans told us that only 8 per cent of schools are engaged in the active journeys to school programme. 

The Cabinet Secretary tells us that he has accepted in principle our recommendation to include co-production as a minimum standard. However, his response also states that he considers doing so as counter-productive and potentially more expensive. So, I would be grateful if the Cabinet Secretary could clarify that point and whether he indeed accepts our recommendation or not.

I do look forward to the debate this afternoon and hearing contributions from Members before summing up the debate later on.

We should not be surprised that the Cabinet Secretary has only accepted in principle our first recommendation, which considered a lack of strategic leadership at both Welsh Government and local authority levels to be responsible for the lack of progress made to date, where leadership from the Welsh Government should be strengthened and its expectation of leadership at local level made clear. 

It is all well and good for the Cabinet Secretary to say that,

'The Welsh Government has already shown leadership in the implementation of the Active Travel Act',

but as our Chair, Russell George, states in the report’s foreword,

'It’s time now for the Government to change its own behaviour, show some real leadership and get the Act’s ambitions on its feet and moving.'

In fact, the Cabinet Secretary’s wishy-washy, self-excusing response that he will continue to champion this agenda and that local authorities have a clear role to play, therefore, simply won’t wash. Neither will his acceptance in principle only of our recommendation that the Welsh Government should revise its statutory guidance to include co-production as a minimum standard for the delivery of the Active Travel (Wales) Act, involving stakeholders not only in the identification of an issue, but enabling them to be part of the solution.

Describing co-production techniques as merely a 'tool to develop good schemes' illustrates the Cabinet Secretary's continuing failure to understand that co-production is about doing things differently—designing and delivering services with people and communities in order to improve lives and strengthen those communities. Co-production is not about austerity; it's part of a global movement that is now decades old and has made significant improvements across our planet. This is about moving from needs–based approaches to strength-based development—helping people in communities to identify the strengths they already have, and utilising those strengths with them.

In July 2017, I opened and spoke at an Assembly event with the ESP Group on making transport services and technology work for inclusion and well-being. The ESP Group helps major transport operators and cities deliver customer services today and design mobility services for the future, with clients such as Transport for London, the Rail Delivery Group, ScotRail, Stagecoach, London councils and the Scottish Government. As I said there, I am pleased to be working with the Co-production Network for Wales and the growing number of organisations across Wales embracing co-production principles, recognising that this is not about austerity, but about unlocking people's strengths to build better lives and stronger communities.

I also quoted the Bevan Foundation statement that if people feel that policies are imposed on them, the policies don’t work, and that a new programme should be produced with communities and not directed top-down. They added that we can deliver more by understanding what matters and by designing backwards, using the front end as the process-design system, where community involvement in co-designing and co-delivering local services should therefore be central.

In contrast, Guide Dogs Cymru and RNIB Cymru were clear to committee that, although routes can become a no-go zone, there has been very little engagement with blind and partially sighted people or with organisations that represent their views. As the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 states, public bodies must take all reasonable steps to ensure that people are able to contribute to their community, and that they are informed, included and listened to. The Cabinet Secretary must understand that to achieve this means an end to telling people what they can have, and instead asking them what they can achieve. 

Sustrans Cymru, the charity making it easier for people to walk and cycle, sees the value in investing and linking up all forms of transport so that walking and cycling is an easy and accessible option. They describe the Wales and borders franchise procurement process as representing a,

'missed opportunity to better integrate walking and cycling with public transport',

and state that rail stations should be active travel hubs, making it easier for commuters, locals and visitors to get active.

In April 2017, I sponsored an Assembly event here for the infrastructure development company, Furrer+Frey, launching their White Paper on developing sustainable, agile, multimodal transport solutions for Wales. This included the full results of a YouGov Welsh public transport survey, which found that only 29 per cent of people think that public transport is well connected in Wales, with just 5 per cent very satisfied in north Wales. I will conclude with their statement that transport infrastructure connects communities and must be deployed in a sustainable, managed way using local resources, i.e. people, wherever possible.

I think the active travel Act provides us with, yet again, a salutary lesson about the dynamic, or possibly the absence of a dynamic, in Welsh politics. It's Welsh politics that is inactive, in the sense that we pass a series of good intentions written into law that have wide consensus, because, actually, the reality of Welsh politics is that we share many of the same values—it's the implementation gap that's the problem. The fact that, yes, the active travel Act embodies clear principles and a clear sense of direction of travel and yet we've gone backwards by some measures, I think is a cause for us to pause and think about the nature of what we are doing here.

The First Minister's comments were referred to earlier, and I suppose I echo his comments about Geraint Thomas—more being done in 21 days for Wales than has been done in politics, maybe. You could say this: 'For Wales, see cycling'—or walking. 

I think that, clearly, part of the problem, as has already been alluded to, is the level of funding. Ultimately, that is how we prioritise more than anything else. We've heard the figures and the funding gap that's been referred to—the £120 million that was promised over three years in the Wales infrastructure investment plan. 

We are aeons behind, of course, many other small countries that are leaders in this field. We could be a leader too with the Nordic countries, with the Netherlands and with some of the German Länder. Those 2,000 Welsh football fans who went on a pilgrimage to Copenhagen and Aarhus—however you say it—will come back in awe, really. A disappointing football result, but their sense of admiration and appreciation of how the Danes approach public transport and active travel—that was the main thing that I was reading on Twitter.

The transformation of cities like Copenhagen into cycling cities—. Of course, what people forget is that Copenhagen was not always thus. That is a very recent cultural change, and it came about through clear political leadership that then fed through down into civil society as well. The massive 68 per cent rise in cycle traffic, the £240 million or 2 billion DKK invested just in one city in bike-friendly infrastructure—. And the result of that, of course, was that—what was it, two years ago—sensors clocked the new record that bikes now clearly outnumber cars in the city centre for the first time.

Moving to the recommendations of the report, it's good to see that the Welsh Government has accepted recommendation 7, which means that the current 'Planning Policy Wales' review and the planning guidance review will be used as an opportunity to strengthen support for active travel, and that's all well and good. But, really, what we need is active travel to be brought from where it has been, which is at the fringes of transport policy, to the core. That's really the nature of the challenge to all of us, quite frankly.

Recommendation 18 calls on the Welsh Government to create a recurring budget line for active travel funding, as we've heard, at the level of £17 to £20 per head per annum. That's the level of funding that would be required for us in Wales to—

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, certainly.

Thanks, Adam Price, for giving way. I was the Chair of the Enterprise and Business Committee in the last Assembly when we considered the initial active travel legislation. A certain Lee Waters, now the Member for Llanelli, came and gave a lot of evidence at that time in his role at Sustrans. We said exactly what you've just said in your speech there—that this shouldn't be a bolt-on. Active travel should be at the heart of all legislation that is passed, and at the heart of all thinking that local councils do. Do you share my regret that that hasn't happened now, five years down the line? 

I do. You know, we all evolve and maybe, becoming a father, you start to think about things differently. We say some of the right things and some of the same things. Action speaks louder than words. We need to set a target first to be up there with those small countries—up with Cambridge, which is spending at this level. 

Finally, in terms of accepting recommendations in principle, I thought the Government had actually said in January that it would stop accepting recommendations in principle, because it makes accountability very, very difficult indeed. So, can we have clarity as well by the Government? If it rejects or disagrees with recommendations, then I think it's easier if it says so rather than having this sort of—'wishy-washy', I think, was the technical term that was used earlier. Because that does nobody any favours.

It was 11 years ago that I stood on the steps of the Senedd and handed a petition to Dafydd Elis-Thomas, the then Presiding Officer, for a law to promote walking and cycling. And, a decade on, we have a law and I must say, to the great credit of the Cabinet Secretary, we have the first real substantial chunk of money behind it. And I think the Welsh Government deserves real credit for that. But let's be blunt about this. What I've found most depressing about this inquiry—and we had some good evidence, and it's a decent report—is it's the same issues that have been coming up time and time again for the decade or more I've been involved in this debate. We recognise what needs to change, but we are not driving through the change at the granular level. Eleven years ago, I swapped my second car and bought a bike. I hadn't ridden a bike since I was a teenager, and the experience of cycling in Cardiff then versus now was very different. It was quite an eccentric thing to do 11 years ago; now it's a mainstream thing to do. Cycling in Llanelli now is like it was in Cardiff 11 years ago—it's quite an eccentric thing to be going through the main streets of the town on a bike; I don't see many others. I see others on the traffic-free paths around the town, but not as an everyday mode of transport. But Cardiff, I think, shows that you can through critical mass create momentum and change, and that is happening organically, not because of things that the Government and the council have done, by and large, but because there's a movement behind it. 

But the thing I've seen from personal experience is it's the detail that really matters, and we need to see this from the point of view of somebody who would not normally cycle. That's the problem with this debate, and that's the danger of holding Geraint Thomas up as an example. These are not typical people. These are elite sportspeople who are doing superhuman efforts to do Herculean tasks. And, actually, it's my mother and it's me and it's my kids who actually we should be seeing this through prism of, and it's the little things that make all the difference. Is the dropped kerb in the right place? Is there a sign showing you where to go? Do you feel safe and comfortable? And that's the bit where we're falling down.

And I must say I was quite depressed reading the Government's response to the report, because it's a challenging report, but the response that officials have put forward makes you think that they're doing it all, they've got it cracked. And we know from the evidence we've received they're not doing it all; we haven't got it cracked. The first step of change is recognising where you're failing, and there's no shame in that. This is a very challenging agenda of cultural change. We can produce the strategies that we like—we know from management books that culture eats strategy for breakfast, and so is the case here. We heard the detailed evidence about engineering practice, about local authority planning officers and their attitudes, their assumptions. This is the stuff we need to change and what I worry about, having seen Government, is just that the capacity isn't there, the expertise isn't there, the bodies are not there to make this happen. Because it's the detail that needs to be got right.

I think handing over some responsibility to Transport for Wales for this is encouraging, so long as they've got the remit and they've got the capacity to do it. And I worry about the money that we are now allocating—how well it's going to be spent, based on the evidence we've received— because it's all very well a local authority putting forward a plan, but, unless it's complying in detail with the very good design guidance that Phil Jones has done for the Welsh Government, it's not going to work—it's money wasted. I'm all for doubling the funding, but, unless we get the plumbing right, it's money down the drain, and that's where I think the Government needs to focus here. It's no good just having debates and issuing high-level statements. There needs to be rigour, there needs to be focus, there needs to be challenge—both of itself and all the different partners—to get the detail of this right, because it is difficult but it is doable. I really urge the Minister to consider how a step change at that implementation level can take place.

Because, of course, the paradox of this is this is not a transport policy, really, that we're talking about; this is a health policy. It's a health policy we're asking highway engineers to deliver. And highway engineers don't get it. They have been trained to cater to make cars move faster and they don't understand, often. It's no fault of theirs. We have to help them, we have to train them, we have to give them capacity. Where's the role of Public Health Wales in this? We had really poor evidence, I thought, from Public Health Wales. They're great in producing the strategies showing the public health benefits of it, but where are they in these meetings, challenging, just as they challenge on smoking? Where are they pushing the authorities to do better?

I could speak for some time on this, Dirprwy Lywydd, but, naturally, I cannot. But let me just finish in saying about ambition. We said in the Act that we were aiming to make

'walking and cycling the most natural and normal way of getting about.'

And yet the active travel action plan has a target of 10 per cent of people cycling once a week. Now, when you think about the targets we have for renewable energy, which are, in effect, becoming relevant in planning decisions—material considerations—those are testing targets. Think of the targets we have on recycling—those are testing targets. We've got high-level ambition here and our target is 10 per cent of people cycling once a week. That is not going to deliver the ambition we set out. So, we lack the ambition, we lack the rigour and the honesty about where we are, we lack the skills and capacity at a local level to take this through, and, frankly, I'm getting bored of debating this. We all agree it needs to happen. There's a gap to make it happen. We've got to raise our game. 

In the committee's scrutiny on the impact of the active travel Act, which, of course, included consultation with a whole range of stakeholders, a number of failures were identified. Primarily, it was noted that in most areas it had not resulted in people taking up either walking or cycling, and in some scenarios we have seen a decline in active travel participation, most notably amongst children either cycling or walking to school. Now, we know that danger, either perceived or real, does impact upon our ability and particularly parents' desire to send their children to school. So, that is one of the factors that we have to build into this whole scenario of attempting to get people onto bikes or walking. 

We were also concerned that certain actions implied in the Act were not being adhered to, for instance, the non-inclusion of active travel in infrastructure in major road projects, or the downgrading of the active travel infrastructure as projects developed and budgets became stretched—Ffos-y-fran in Caerphilly being one project where no active travel infrastructure was provided for, either in planning or implementation.

One message came out loud and clear from all consultation contributors: lack of funding, and especially lack of long-term funding, which meant that local authorities were noticeably lacking in ambition for the implementation of new infrastructure for active travel routes. It also became clear that there was no effective strategic leadership at both Welsh Government and local authority level and that, where there were successes, these were mainly down to the enthusiasm and work of motivated individuals.

The mapping process proved to be more difficult and long-winded than was anticipated by the Welsh Government. Therefore, the £700,000 allocated to local authorities for the procedure proved to be inadequate, resulting in the authorities being obliged to make up the shortfall, with some stakeholders claiming that this resulted in money being diverted from infrastructure projects.

We're all aware of the impact a real sea change in people's active travel habits and their uptake could have on the chronic congestion problems we are witnessing in many parts of Wales, so I wish to acknowledge the worthiness of the Government's ambitions in this area, but they must be properly funded and properly encouraged. Can I therefore call upon the Welsh Government to increase funding to all sectors of active travel implementation in the sure knowledge that the economic benefits accruing from active travel will far outweigh any moneys expended on it?

I'm not a member of the committee, but I'm very pleased to speak in this debate as I am a strong advocate for the active travel Act, and so are many of my constituents in Cardiff North, which is of course very famous for the Taff trail, one of the great cycling and walking routes in Wales. I know from my post box in Cardiff North how important cycling is, and also the cycling event that I organised recently was very well attended with lots of children and lots of residents of Cardiff North, and that was a great success. So, I welcome the report, which I think certainly highlights the issues that need to be addressed if we are going to be able to change people's travel habits. I particularly welcomed the film at the beginning. I thought that was very vivid and really illustrated the different modes of transport, so congratulations to the Members who took part in that film.

It's already been said that, of course, this is about health. I think Lee Waters said that in his contribution, and so I won't repeat that today. But I think that, when the active travel Act came into force in 2014, we all, rather naively, I suppose, expected to see walking and cycling become the norm for short, everyday journeys, and it is disappointing not to see the upward trends that we expected, and I know the issue about children has particularly been raised by a number of Members here today.

I think the committee's report has identified some of the issues behind why the progress to date has been slow, particularly the safety element, which has already been debated here, and the lack of appropriate infrastructure. But I do think it's really important that we link up all forms of transport so that active travel is an easy and accessible option. We have been talking about having an integrated transport system in Wales for many years, but we're still a long way from achieving it. Integrating active travel with public transport, I think, is an essential part of creating a step change when it comes to the way we travel.

I know that somebody said here today that the Wales and borders rail franchise was a lost opportunity, but to me it's a great opportunity, and I think that there will be a real opportunity with that franchise to ensure, along with the development of the south Wales metro, that we build cycling and walking as part of the whole system. I think it's a fantastic opportunity to better integrate walking and cycling with public transport. As I think the Chair had already said, as Sustrans says, rail stations must become active travel hubs, making it easier for commuters, locals and visitors to get active, and we need to ensure that all stations are accessible for pedestrians and cyclists, that there are safe and secure places to leave bikes and disabled access is improved so that we have equality for all.

I believe that, in Cardiff, there has been a big rise in cycling. Certainly, there are many more cycles on the road in Cardiff, and I think we've all seen how popular nextbike are becoming in Cardiff, with new locations being added on a regular basis. I've already got some of these docking stations in my constituency in Cardiff North, and I know more are coming soon to Rhiwbina, Whitchurch and Llandaff North. And this is going to provide an absolutely ideal opportunity to increase bike journeys in the city from train stations, university, workplaces and tourist destinations. 

Of course, we do have the development of the new Cardiff transport interchange in the city centre—the bus station, as we call it in Cardiff. I think that's another huge opportunity to build in cycling, walking and accessibility at that place. It's taken a long time to reach where we are now, but I'm very hopeful that that transport interchange will be a big encouragement for walkers and cyclists.

I think that if we can create a truly integrated public and active travel system, people will find the decision to leave their car at home a much easier one. So, I acknowledge that the report has said how difficult it is and how there's been a lack of progress, and I think it's also been said in this debate how we're very good in this body at making really good legislation—you know, world-breaking legislation—but how that is then applied and how you actually see the achievements is the great challenge. But I remain very optimistic because I think we've got the basis there. Certainly, in Cardiff, we've seen where the will is there—a big change that is really happening as we speak here. So, I feel optimistic for the future and thank the committee for this report. 

Minister, I think you've heard the real concerns that are around this Chamber, although there are positives as well, but as the great Mark Isherwood has just told you, your wishy-washy approach just won't wash, and, frankly, that is something I wish to echo very, very strongly.

I really think post-legislative scrutiny is an essential aspect of what we need to do in this Chamber, and we should do more of it. This piece of legislation was born of the civic sector, it got widely praised around the UK, including in The Times newspaper, which highlighted it as an area of legislative activity that really can promote the public good, yet of the 24 recommendations the Government accept 11, and then accept another 11 in principle and reject two. I have to say, if that isn't wishy-washy, what is? 'Accept in principle', of course, is the Government's way of saying, 'Yes, but—' with the emphasis very much on the 'but'. Well, that's not really going to get the sort of transformation that we need. However, I am pleased to see that the Welsh Government has accepted recommendation 15, meaning that the Welsh Government's infrastructure projects will showcase the innovative active travel approaches it expects to see from local authorities, at least trying to lead by example, and it needs to do it much more widely in other areas of public policy, as Julie Morgan just highlighted in terms of the rail franchise, for instance.

So, we need to go a lot further, and let me talk a little about new housing developments. Now, if we transform those and make them really friendly for active travel, it is just an example of what we could do elsewhere, because we don't build that much, and, obviously, we need to go much further than new communities. But at least we should get their design right, and I believe that better use, for instance, of section 106 agreements would be a useful way of ensuring that the planning system hardwires in active travel. The Government, in fairness, is doing this to some extent with electric vehicle infrastructure, which is not exactly active travel but at least it's greener, and I think you should extend that in terms of the active travel agenda. Our policies need to be thinking 50 years ahead as well as what we can achieve fairly quickly, as Adam Price indicated in the example of Copenhagen. So, that's really what we need to see—some real transformation—in order to maximise the potential for sustainable travel, and that really needs a clear and sensible way forward, the Government leading, and ensuring that sustainability in new developments is ingrained for walking, cycling and public transport routes. It really needs to be a comprehensive approach.

I think it's good to look for best practice elsewhere, and there's much of it in Europe. I'm now talking about cultural Europe and Europe as a source of inspiring ideas coming from governments and localities and the people. Can I just highlight—and I hope my German's up to it—an example of this type of thinking in the Vauban residential development located on the southern edge of the city of Freiburg—I think I've got that bit pronounced correctly—which contains 5,000 residents? The aims for this development, which was completed in 2006, included creating a district with greatly reduced car use. This focused on high-quality public transport and active travel infrastructure alongside economic incentives to discourage the ownership of cars and their use. Now, that's not suitable for everyone, but, you know, the old garden village concept—garden suburbs—led the way and led social change. You would get groups that would want to sign up to that type of vision for their life and then have these streets where their children could play and be safe. Much of Vauban's development of a car-free environment has been successful; you can't park in the community, there are satellite parking areas, and as a result, most residents use public transport, walking or cycling to get around. This has resulted in there being only 164 cars per 1,000 people in Vauban—far lower than the average for Freiburg, which is already doing much better than most cities in Germany itself to promote active travel.

Can I conclude? Perhaps we should complete the circle here and have a radical approach in terms of vehicle use in our city areas where we allow it and have a 20-mph presumption, and that, again, I think will make active travel itself more desirable, pleasant and safer. I don't want to emphasise the safety issue too much, because it's still the safest option, usually, to be active in your travel. But this needs to be part of what we should be doing and I do hope that we will see some reform in terms of the speed limits very soon. And I do commend Cardiff in leading the way in Wales at the moment in developing best practice there.

For my contribution today, I want to build my remarks around one very specific solution to improve active travel opportunities. The specific solution that I propose will come as no surprise to the Cabinet Secretary as it's one that I've championed consistently since I've arrived at this place, and that is the reopening of disused railway tunnels across Wales as routes for walking and cycling.

My comments will focus mostly on the Abernant tunnel, which links Cwmbach in my constituency with the town of Merthyr Tydfil. Travelling 650 ft below ground at its deepest point, the tunnel was opened in 1853 and proved an important rail link between the valleys for 110 years. At its widest, the 1.3 mile long structure has space for two tracks. Even at its narrowest, a large car will comfortably pass through. Its provenance is impressive. The tunnel was surveyed and its plans prepared by Isambard Kingdom Brunel, the great nineteenth century engineer and publicly voted second greatest Briton. But, most impressively of all, it is clear that reopening this as an active travel route could meet many of the challenges that our committee’s report notes.

In line with our first recommendation, I would strongly argue that, for the ambition of the active travel Act to be realised, we really do need flagship schemes that demonstrate Welsh Government commitment to the spirit of the Act. And in the £0.25 million that the Cabinet Secretary has already allocated to develop the reopening of the Abernant and Rhondda tunnels, we begin to see the start of this. Moreover, and in line with our third recommendation, the tunnel presents an innovative and unique way of attracting people who do not normally walk or cycle. When I have spoken about the tunnel, or posted about it on my social media feeds, it has generated a real buzz in the local community. I do believe that the Abernant tunnel would not only attract walkers and cyclists, but it would also encourage people to walk through this historic structure. 

The partnership working that has underpinned progress on the tunnel to date also admirably fulfils recommendation 5. To get us to where we are, there has been engagement and involvement with Sustrans, with local firms in my constituency and with councils. I also think that the reopening of the Abernant tunnel would help, in part, to meet recommendation 20 in terms of infrastructure. A common refrain that I and other Valleys AMs have made is that transport networks should not just run north to south, making proud Valley communities little more than commuter suburbs of the capital. Rather, we need to think of strong and dynamic east-to-west routes between Valleys communities. The Abernant tunnel could create a vibrant active travel link between my constituency and Merthyr Tydfil.

At this point, I think it is worth remembering that this is just one former tunnel that could be adapted. When Sustrans did work on 21 disused rail tunnels, they said Abernant was attractive as is it had a much higher potential than the others for changing the way people travel. Sustrans mapped census data and noted the high volumes of people travelling between both Valleys. But they also noted that nine other tunnels could possibly be reopened to become active travel routes. And this could bring the modal shift the committee calls for in our first conclusion.

Moreover, they highlight the benefits we mention in conclusion 3. For example, Sustrans have done work on the potential of reopening the Abernant tunnel as an active travel route to create jobs. Employment opportunities would be created as the route is reopened and converted for active travel, in making sure walking and cycling routes to the tunnel are fit for purpose and in ensuring the tunnel remains in a safe and welcoming condition. Converting the tunnel would also improve connectivity to BikePark Wales and to the Cynon and Taff trails. This could possibly create new jobs and safeguard current workers' roles as visitor numbers increase.

We can see examples where active travel routes have had this effect. When the Two Tunnels Greenway was created between Bath and north-east Somerset as a cycling route, based on part of the former Somerset and Dorset railway line, people flocked from all over to celebrate its opening. The tunnel, as well as becoming a well-used route for local people, has also become a tourist attraction in its own right. Many visitors come to experience what is currently the UK’s longest cycling tunnel, and that tunnel is actually shorter than Abernant.

Of course, active travel is also about making better environmental choices, and boosting health and well-being, especially amongst children and younger people. As I have said, to do this we must make a bold and innovative offer. Breathing new life into our former railway tunnels provides just this.

I agree with those who say that we really haven't done enough over the last five years. I was involved in the drafting of this Act, and, really, our progress on implementation and impact has been pretty disappointing. I think that we have to now pursue at pace the change that we must make—£62 million has been suggested, I think, by Adam Price. This is small beer—absolutely small beer—compared with the charges that will be imposed by the courts, who will drag us back for failing to tackle our air pollution. So, active travel is one of the key ways in which we can do something about the air pollution that is literally killing some of our citizens, and we cannot tolerate going on the way we are going at the moment.

When I was coming into the Senedd this morning, I passed a man on crutches who was taking his child to school. He was walking to school. Probably, he didn't have a car, but, frankly, if he can do it, anybody can do it. There is no excuse for people who are using the car to go for short journeys to take their child to school. Not only are they increasing the amount of poison that their child is consuming, because they're in a car, than if they were on the road, but they're also doing the wrong thing as far as the rest of the community is concerned. And so, we have to both use carrots and sticks to get the change that several people have suggested that we need to make. 

I agree with Julie Morgan that nextbike has been a great innovation and development in our capital city. The roll-out of nextbike in Cardiff has been its most successful of any city anywhere in the world. They've only been going since April/May, and they now have—or will have, by this weekend—500 bikes in operation, and 50 stations where you can pick them up and drop them off. And they've got the technology to ensure that it's not worth the while of people to try and steal them, because in the process they've wrecked them and then they're unusable. So, I think it's a fantastic innovation, but it's not sufficient. We have just got to change the attitude that people have towards doing everyday journeys on foot and on bike.

I'm very pleased to see the Cabinet Secretary for Education here, because I do feel that what we do with our young people in our schools is key to making that change, because we need to ensure that proficiency cycling in schools is meaningful, and that it leads to people actually using their bicycles for getting to school. It's very, very rare for children to bicycle to school, and it seems to me that that's one of the things that is something all young people ought to have the opportunity to do, and we ought to have loan schemes to enable parents to buy a bike for their children if they aren't able to pay for it in one go. I would like to see all school leaderships having to provide active travel plans for all their schools, and to make it clear that that is to be expected—that that is how pupils will travel to school.

We cannot go on as we are doing at the moment. We cannot deliver on 'A Healthier Wales', which is our latest strategy for improving the NHS, unless we change people's behaviour. So, I do hope that this report will prompt a much more vigorous leadership to making the changes that are required, because too often, these highway engineers are not people who cycle. When I went home on Monday, I saw this new sign that said—as I approached Splott bridge—'Cyclists rejoin the road'. Well, that's rejoining the road at the narrowest point when they could be staying on the pavement, where they're much more safe. So, it's clear that people absolutely still do not understand. Equally, the alleyways that Cardiff is blessed with are used as rat runs by vehicles in the morning, and they actually push people who are walking to school off the path. They shouldn't be there at all. We need to use our alleyways as safe cycling and walking routes.

I hope that the Cabinet Secretary will be able to assure us that there is going to be this step change in policy, not least because we need to meet our climate change obligations and reduce our transport emissions, and this is one of the key ways in which we can do it.

As the Minister, at the time, who took the active travel Act through the Assembly, I'm very pleased that the committee has undertaken this post-legislative scrutiny. It was a policy, as has been said, that came up through civic society, with Sustrans obviously playing a very key role. It had a great deal of provenance and support from wider Wales behind it, and it was very good to take it through and put it on the statute book, but it's obviously very disappointing to see that, in terms of the implementation, some five years on, we haven't really seen the increase in walking and cycling, or indeed better infrastructure, that we'd expected. 

I do believe that political leadership is absolutely key to this—political leadership to ensure that we do get the implementation that is required for the step change that will deliver these health, well-being, environmental, economic and quality-of-life improvements that we all want to see. Members regularly raise these points with Ken Skates, and indeed other Ministers, showing, I think, the consensus across the Chamber to get the focus and the prioritisation that is necessary. In that light, Dirprwy Lywydd, I must say that I am very pleased that Ken Skates has committed additional funding—although I agree with others that there's still some way to go—and is also very keen in terms of the announcements and the statements that Ken has made in this Chamber and elsewhere that I think do respond in the right way to the points that Members and outside organisations have made. I think Ken Skates is signalling that step change that Welsh Government intends to take, to make sure that we do get effective implementation, better funding and more focus and prioritisation as we move forward. Obviously, the challenge is to drive that across Welsh Government and, indeed, throughout the ranks of the civil service, including the transport engineers, and also make sure that that culture change takes place in our local authorities, where we need the local authority leadership, in terms of the leaders, the cabinet members, and their transport people, to understand what needs to be achieved and take the necessary action to ensure that it is achieved.

I also agree with others, Dirprwy Lywydd, in terms of the importance of school and work, because it was always about purposeful travel. There isn't, at the moment, a Welsh Government-funded workplaces programme to drive some of the necessary change in terms of the culture in our workplaces. The funding for schools through Sustrans is very important and, indeed, delivers a 9 per cent increase on average in active travel over the first 12 months of the programme, but is only reaching 8 per cent of the schools in Wales at the moment, so I do believe we need to build on that, and we need to make sure that more schools are up to speed with the best practice. You go into some primary schools now and in the earliest years they've got balance bikes, they're providing them for the children who perhaps haven't got bikes at home, the training is taking place—you know, it's giving them a very good start. There's proficiency training later on, as Jenny Rathbone mentioned, and we need to make sure that that good practice is present in all of our schools. And we need to make sure, yes, that there is the infrastructure around to make it safe to travel, to cycle and walk, in the way that we want to see. In Newport there's much more cycling along the riverside now, on a Sustrans route from Newport city centre to Caerleon, for example, because they're quality, off-road, safe routes. But we need to provide a lot more of that opportunity in Newport and across Wales.

Dirprwy Lywydd, one other matter I'd like to mention quickly, echoing what David Melding said, is about 20 mph zones. I do believe, and there's growing momentum behind this—events have taken place and will take place in Wales in the weeks and months to come to make 20 mph the default speed limit in Wales, with departures from that on the basis of particular circumstances of particular roads, with local authorities making those decisions. But it would be a default 20 mph limit that would apply right across Wales, and I believe Welsh Government should put that policy in place. Where it has happened, such as Bristol, for example, they have seen many more people walking and cycling because it is now safer to do so, and because it's been part of the necessary culture change.

So, there are many things that we can do, Dirprwy Lywydd, but I'm very pleased that Ken Skates has signalled this renewed prioritisation, focus and commitment from Welsh Government, and we need to see that carried through.

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

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'm also looking forward to greeting the cyclists to the Senedd when they visit shortly. I'm looking forward to meeting with a delegation of them. I do hope that they arrive safely and do as Geraint Thomas and many others urge, which is to wear a helmet. Talking about safety, though, the reality is that, as David Melding said, it's incredibly safe to cycle and to walk, and yet we are bombarded on a daily basis with images and messages that encourage us to feel unsafe in our daily lives, because many people want to exploit a feeling of insecurity. It's the reason why SUVs have become such a popular means of transport—because we're encouraged, by advertisers, to believe that unless you're elevated above others, your children are at risk or you're at risk. The reality is that we are more safe today cycling or walking than I think we ever have been, and the reality is, contrary to what we're constantly being told, which is that we all lead incredibly busy lives, that many of us can find that extra bit of time to cycle or to walk to work or to school, or to the services that we—[Interruption.] Yes, absolutely.

I'm very grateful to you for taking the intervention. With regard to safety, I think you are right to highlight the fact that a lot of the issues around safety are to do with perception, but there is a real issue for women and girls using public transport and cycling and walking, particularly at night. Can I urge you, Cabinet Secretary, as we're driving this active travel agenda forward, to make sure that those real concerns—because those are real dangers—are addressed, and issues particularly like lighting and ensuring that routes go through areas where there are people, where you're not isolated if you're cycling and walking at night as a woman, are part automatically of how those plans are developed?

Yes, absolutely. The Member I couldn't agree more with. There are specific issues that are particularly relevant to and particularly problematic for women and girls. I think I'd also include the elderly in that same bracket and it's something that I'm acutely aware of. But it is difficult sometimes to push back against the huge amounts of money that are spent encouraging us to feel less secure in our daily lives. However, if there is a critical mass, you can achieve behavioural change, provided that's associated with safer, more convenient infrastructure. Then you can see the sort of developments that we've seen in Copenhagen and indeed in Cardiff. I'm sure that Lee Waters will be able to give us his take on whether it's safer to cycle and walk in Cardiff today than it was perhaps 20 years ago. My hope would be that it is indeed safer, and I'd urge all Members to encourage, not just their own constituents, but the people that they engage with on a daily basis, to be as active as they can possibly be.

It's my firm belief that the active travel Act is a great success. It's something that I am particularly proud of and I don’t think we should underestimate the impact that the Act has already had. It's achieved something that was never done before in Wales. And since its commencement four years ago, the Act has led to the systematic development of plans for safe walking and cycling networks for all larger and medium-sized towns and villages in Wales—more than 140. 

Creation of the plans, I think, is a key achievement, but we haven't stopped investing in infrastructure in the meantime. In the four financial years since making the Act, we've invested more than £60 million in walking and cycling infrastructure from transport budgets alone. The figure includes funding for around 125 Safe Routes in Communities schemes, and about 70 local transport fund schemes that focus on active travel. But that money does not include the wider improvements that we've funded as part of road safety schemes, speed limit reductions and integrated transport schemes.

And now that the plans are in place, we are accelerating the creation of active travel routes. This year, we've already allocated more than £22 million of capital investment for local active travel improvements through our local transport grants and pledged a further £50 million for the following two years as part of the active travel fund, on top of the £10 million for Safe Routes in Communities. And as Julie Morgan rightly said, we are going to spend hundreds of millions of pounds improving railway stations and bus stations in Wales, designed to enhance opportunities for people to be active in their travel arrangements.

Now, I do recognise, as highlighted by the committee's recommendations, that processes can and must be improved. The Welsh Government’s response to the committee's report, I think, demonstrates our willingness to do this. My officials work closely with local authorities, with Sustrans and other partners to reflect and to learn from the early implementation experience and shape the subsequent stages of the process. We will identify further improvements that may be made to the process.

We've already strengthened the local authority representation on the active travel board, as recommended, and we’ve welcomed new regional representations at the last board meeting in June. Transport for Wales are also now a permanent member of the active travel board and I’m delighted that TfW is currently recruiting a dedicated active travel lead to build specialist capacity into the organisation, as discussed with the committee earlier this year.

And I agreed with the committee that the Act must be implemented in an integrated manner. It’s widely accepted that active travel has the potential to deliver direct benefits in a broad range of areas, and this means that increasing levels of active travel is not solely or even primarily a transport matter, as Lee Waters said. For my part, I don’t walk and cycle regularly in order to ease wear on my car or to save costs on fuel; I do it for my own mental and emotional and physical well-being. And I think Vikki Howells made a very compelling case for investing in active travel to improve health and well-being across the country.

I value partners working together to make the most of the opportunities that active travel offers, particularly in the area of public health, and I also intend to hold bilateral meetings with Cabinet colleagues to discuss what else can be done in our respective areas of responsibility. I think Lee Waters made a very important point with regard to public health, because it’s particularly important that we ensure that behavioural change is treated with the utmost seriousness, right across Government and across local government, and indeed across the whole of the public and private sector.

I would very much agree with John Griffiths that we have to encourage employers to do more to encourage, in turn, their employees to take up active travel. The economic contract has four conditions attached to it. So, any business looking to draw down funding from Welsh Government will have to comply with that. Well, two of the conditions concern decarbonisation and improvements to the mental and physical health of their workers. Of course, taking up active travel, encouraging active travel, investing in infrastructure within the workplace that enables workers to cycle or walk to work is one means of decarbonising the business and it's another means of improving the mental and physical health of employees, so the economic contract is designed to do just that.

Now, emerging strongly from the committee's work was the need to improve engagement and consultation within the active travel process, and I agree with the importance of consulting not only with existing active travellers, but also those who could be persuaded to try it if the conditions were right.

I'm conscious of time, Dirprwy Lywydd, but I should just point out that we're also in the early stages of developing a new Wales transport strategy. That strategy will set out our strategic policies for safe, integrated, sustainable, efficient and economic transport facilities and services. Of course, walking, cycling and other sustainable modes will be a focus of this strategy.

Finally, many Members like to lecture, sometimes, the Welsh Government about how we should and can do more, but my question back to Members is to ask yourselves how you can do more, as well, as political leaders, as civic leaders. As Russell George said, it's not just about money—this is about behavioural change. This includes your behaviour as civic leaders, so I'd urge all Members to be consistent with their commentary by being more active in the way that they themselves travel, to show political leadership themselves and to lead by example and cycle and walk more regularly, as I know that people like Jenny Rathbone do indeed do—to walk the walk and not just talk the talk.

I call on Russell George to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. It was interesting—I hadn't really considered the fact that it was 11 years ago that a petition was handed in, with Lee Waters handing that petition in, not as a Member of the institution then, but on behalf of the people signing it, and that being the start of the active travel journey.

I would like to thank all of those who gave evidence, actually, to our inquiry and those who attended the focus groups, and of course the 2,500 people who responded to our committee survey, being very clear about what the obstacles were to active travel, and those being safety—an issue that the Cabinet Secretary focused on, I was pleased to hear, in his contribution. I'd like to thank all members of the committee for their contributions today, and also the committee clerking team, as well as the outreach team, for their great support to us.

Mark Isherwood focused on co-production as a way to enable cyclists and walkers to help shape infrastructure, which I think is particularly important. We, of course, had a recommendation on this point, and that reminded me, when Julie Morgan spoke, of the Taff trail. We had an example, actually, from one witness who told us about the physical barriers on the Taff trail that prevented him from using his adapted bike on that route. Co-production would have prevented the need to remove those barriers after the event at additional cost.

I think Adam Price rightly talked about the example of Copenhagen, but it would be, I think, highly unrealistic for us to expect the step change that we need overnight, or over five years as well. No-one would expect Cardiff to turn into Copenhagen overnight, but we would expect more to have happened and more progress to have been made. But I think Adam was right to point out that, obviously, Copenhagen were where we are at one stage.

Lee Waters, I thank you for your contribution. Of course, you were an invaluable member of the committee on this particular report, and in shaping our report and recommendations. I won't comment on the term 'wishy-washy' that was bandied around a few times, but I would agree with David Melding in his view that the increasing use of 'accept in principle' in relation to committee recommendations is very frustrating. I don't think this is good for scrutiny, and I have to say that I hope Ministers will consider the use of 'accept in principle'—I'm pleased that the Cabinet Secretary is shaking his head in agreement to that, so I'm pleased to see that.

Vikki Howells, I hadn't realised the extent of the rail tunnels in your constituency, so thank you for your contribution. Jenny Rathbone, you're kind of an adopted member of our committee—you speak on most of our committee reports, I'm pleased to say. You did make the point that you're pleased that the Cabinet Secretary for Education was here, which reinforced the point, I think, that this is a cross-cutting piece of legislation that doesn't sit solely with the Cabinet Secretary for infrastructure and the economy.

I think it is right to say to be positive that Wales's active travel journey has begun, but for the next steps we do need elected politicians, both in the Government and in local government—and I take the Cabinet Secretary's challenge to us all as well—to take responsibility. I think we do need to show leadership to our communities, we do need to work with local people to develop the active travel routes that they want, and we need to provide the money that's needed, and I think that was the conclusion of David Rowlands's contribution. We need to have the resources available to build effective infrastructure and support the cultural change that this Assembly committed to when it passed the active travel Act. The Cabinet Secretary has said that he thinks that this Act has been successful, but I hope that in five years' time from now we can look back on the tenth anniversary and we can all agree then that this active travel Act has been a successful piece of legislation. We have an Act that has the potential to transform the way Wales moves. Now we need to act so that Wales moves in an active way that can transform our health and well-being. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer.

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

The next item is the Welsh Conservatives' debate on school standards, and I call on Suzy Davies to move the motion. Suzy Davies.  

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. I've had quite a lot to do in my first 24 hours in this new role. I want to begin, colleagues, on behalf of us all, I think, by offering my congratulations to students, teachers and staff across Wales on the work that you put into this year's exams, and offer our best wishes to everybody, whatever their results. 

There are many ways to shape a future, and exam certificates are just some of the tools that you have to do that. Our role here is to be certain that those tools are the best quality and what you personally need to begin shaping the type of future that you will find sustaining, satisfying and productive. But not everybody's sustaining, satisfying and productive future will be shaped by good exam results, so it is just as much our role to build an education system that helps our young people to acquire different tools to build those lives—something I'm sure we'll debate on another day.

So, if Members who were hoping to contribute to this debate by calling this motion an attack on all those I've just congratulated, then you're barking up the wrong tree. This debate is about holding Welsh Government to account on the delivery of promises we all want to see kept: higher standards, more confident learners, more relevant course content leading to worthwhile academic qualifications in this case, which command the respect of all. And as the motion suggests, Cabinet Secretary, you're not there yet.

The purpose of a debate like this, at various intervals, is going to test whether the path you're on is going anywhere near the destination you're seeking. And the response to point 1 of our motion, given in your first amendment, is so full of whataboutery that I suspect that you too are worried by the fact that GCSE attainment of A* to C grades this summer is the worst in 13 years. These new Wales-only GCSEs were supposed to get the best out of our students.

Now, let's be fair here: the number of As and A*s at GCSE have gone up a little bit compared to last year—about 0.5 per cent—although still lower than the two previous years. But personally, I'm pleased to see some growth. I'd like to think that the brightest students are getting a fairer share of attention, which has been difficult when schools have felt compelled to concentrate on students on the C/D GCSE borderline to avoid negative statistics. And I'm not necessarily blaming schools for that. I'm blaming decades of a system that, despite years of talking about this, has done nothing to achieve parity of esteem for non-academic qualifications. It's meant countless young people being shoehorned into GCSE courses that depress their achievement and confidence while they miss out on a different education that could identify and fertilise their strengths.

Back to the motion. The number of highest fliers has gone up a little, but the proportion of A* to C grades has fallen down by 1.2 per cent on last year. That may not sound a lot, but it is worth remembering that last year's results were themselves the lowest since 2006, with Qualifications Wales and Welsh Government blaming the bad news on the leap in early entries—pupils aged 15 or younger.

Now, we've had years of inappropriate early entries and we should have stopped this long ago. But now that they have been stopped—they were down by 77 per cent this year—the attainment of good GCSE grades is lower still: A* to C in maths, English language and literature, Welsh language, biology, chemistry and physics—the biggies—all down according to Qualifications Wales. You cannot disguise this, Cabinet Secretary, as you've attempted to do in your amendment, by combining these unfortunate figures with others. We've accepted a modest improvement in the percentage of A and A* grades at GCSE, but you're hoping to suggest an overall better picture by adding in growth in those particular grades and A* to C grades at A-level.

What you don't say is that the number of learners taking A-levels fell by 10 per cent—10 per cent. Qualifications Wales said that 'fewer weaker candidates'—their words, not mine—took A-levels this year, so of course the proportion of top grades rose. A 50 per cent increase in the numbers taking GCSE science, the new version—that is great news. But is that because a chunk of them didn't take the exam in year 10, as happened in previous cohorts? The small improvements in maths and maths numeracy at 16 don't disguise the overall drop for all-age entries either, but certainly confirm the good sense in getting rid of early entry. I'm glad to see, however, that both of us take Qualifications Wales at their word when they say that, despite all the changes, standards are stable. It is, therefore, I say, perfectly fair to compare this year with last year and those years before. 

Before returning to the motion again, can I just commend you on your bravery in referring to the IFS figures in point c of your first amendment, Cabinet Secretary? It's hardly a victory to claim that the spending per pupil here is now much nearer that of a different Government purely on the grounds that that other Government is now less generous than it was previously. Yes indeed, the UK Government is spending less per head than it was in 2008, but so are you, and, from the point where the data between England and Wales is fully consistent, which is 2013-14, roughly, Welsh spending per head has declined year on year, whereas the decline in England only started two years ago. And why has there been a decrease in per head spend in England? Because there's been a 10 per cent rise in pupil population, with which resources have not yet caught up. Why has there been a decrease in spend per head in Wales—and it is still about 2 per cent lower? Static pupil numbers and a deliberate cut in total spending—a very different story and one wholly at odds with the pledge to invest an extra £100 million on driving up school standards made in your programme for government. Point 3 of our motion and both the Plaid amendments, which we support, speak to that very different story. So, let's see how you spend that £23.5 million Barnett consequential that you'll be getting from the UK Government. Perhaps you can tell us as well whether you plan to use the opportunity of local government reform as an opportunity for education funding reform as well.

To finish, Dirprwy Lywydd, on point 2 of our motion and our worry over the number of Welsh schools of concern to Estyn and in receipt of local authority warning notices, regardless of the Government's amendment's reference to the OECD, there are 45 education institutions across half of Wales's local authorities that are in special measures or in need of significant improvement. One of them's been in that state for four years. I think the number of red category secondary schools has risen, and, as you know, we've argued in the past that the yellow and green category schools—the increase there is just as much a product of changing the categories as it is genuine improvement. Only a third of those statutory warning notices to schools has been complied with. I think this is pretty grim and I don't imagine for one second that you're any happier with this situation than we are. But I did hope that, because of your commitment to education, you would take a step that your Cabinet colleagues seem determined to avoid.

I've spent years listening to the Cabinet Secretary for health, in particular, telling us of his expectations of health boards when it comes to scrutiny of performance. And, when those expectations have gone unmet, he just repeats his expectations. His powers of intervention go unused and LHB management remains unsupported as a result, and, in some cases, unpunished. You have powers under the School Standards and Organisation (Wales) Act 2013 to intervene in underperforming schools when it becomes clear that they cannot sort themselves out despite all the school challenge and consortium support that they have. As of January this year, those powers have not been exercised in the five years of the Act's existence. Now, I believe that every school should have the chance to be the architect of its own recovery, but there comes a time when a Cabinet Secretary has to consider the tools he or she has to shape people's futures and treat those powers to intervene as duties to intervene. And I'd like to know if you think that time has now come. Thank you.

Thank you. I have selected the three amendments to the motion, and can I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Education to formally move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Julie James?

I formally move.

Thank you. Can I now call on Llyr Gruffydd to move amendments 2 and 3, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I move those amendments in the name of Plaid Cymru. Of course, we have seen a number of changes and reforms over the years, particularly maybe over the last two Assembly terms. We've seen the review of the qualifications system, we've seen an ongoing review now of the national curriculum, we've seen changes to additional learning needs as well, of course. And the Welsh Government and Qualifications Wales regularly remind us, as we've heard, that, due to the scale and the complexity of those recent changes, we should take care when drawing any conclusions from comparing results from one year to the other. Well, you know what? I've been here for probably seven years now, and I don't think I've had a single year where I haven't been told that it's difficult to make those comparisons, and that underlines to me, I think, the way that the Welsh Government has constantly been reforming, changing, moving the goalposts—largely, I'm sure, rightly so. But it just leaves me wondering whether we'll ever get to a level of consistency within the system where we can in future, maybe, make those kinds of comparisons.

And spare a thought for the teachers who are grappling with those changes at the coalface on a daily basis, and, of course, the biggest change is yet to come in that curriculum reform and the consequential changes in qualifications and assessment systems.

There is an irony, I think, in that no doubt the Cabinet Secretary will tell us in a minute that we mustn't make those year-on-year comparisons, but, in the Government's own amendment, of course, it welcomes the increase in A* to C GCSE maths and maths numeracy results. Well, I'm not sure that we can have it both ways. Maybe we can, but, you know, what does that do in terms of confusing people out there as to whether we can or cannot make meaningful comparisons?

I have to say that, given the huge reduction in early entry to GCSE this year compared to last—I think around 16 per cent of all qualifications last year were early entry and it's now barely 4 per cent this year—I was hoping that maybe that would have an impression on the overall A* to C pass rate, but it is disappointing that we've seen the headline statistic again down this year. And, of course, the gap between attainment in Wales, England and Northern Ireland—whilst there may be caveats and health warnings, it is a comparison that people will make. So, maybe the question we should be asking is: if comparing is difficult, what is the Welsh Government doing to educate pupils, parents and the wider public about how we do that?

So, whilst making annual comparisons is admittedly increasingly difficult, I think there is one thing that is plain to see, and that is, of course, that it is unrealistic and unfair of the Welsh Government and anyone else to expect year-on-year improvement in A-level and GCSE performance when, of course, we see year-on-year school budgets reducing and shrinking and the resources available diminishing. Unless, of course, schools and local authorities are provided with fairer funding, then I don't think we can realistically expect our pupils to be constantly improving and achieving their full potential.

Local authorities, teachers, teaching unions—they tell us that schools have now reached crisis point. Following real-terms cuts to per pupil funding of £300 since 2009, the education unions are saying that we're seeing increases in class sizes, it's leading to an overreliance on teaching assistants, who aren't, of course, properly paid, it's leading to a detrimental impact on the curriculum, and pupils' education will inevitably suffer as a result. So, it's a miracle, actually, that they are performing as well as they are performing under those circumstances. And that does have an effect or an impact on teachers' and pupils' morale as well, and there's a vicious circle, isn't there, really? With diminishing levels of staffing in many of our schools, the workload on the remaining teachers is much higher and the pressures and the stress are bound to show. It's certainly reflected in the way that fewer people are being attracted into the profession now, with numbers of new trainee teachers missing targets, secondary school teachers targets missed by over a third in 2016-17, the target missed as well for primary school trainees, and a third of teachers who responded to the Education Workforce Council's national education workforce survey said that they intended to leave the profession in the next three years. And, of course National Education Union Cymru figures as well have shown that over 15,000 working days a year are now lost by teachers due to stress-related illnesses.

Now, Plaid Cymru's fully costed manifesto from 2016 outlined how we would introduce a number of initiatives, including an annual premium payment to teachers and a payment as well to teaching assistants—we mustn't forget them. We talked about a greater focus on allowing time for training, a greater emphasis on continuing professional development, more time to prepare and to teach and to mark, but, of course, all of this costs money, and we recognise that. But creating a world-class education system will cost money, and we mustn't fool ourselves that we can do it any other way. So, the Welsh Government must step up to that mark, and it's only then that we can fairly and reasonable expect our teachers and our pupils to achieve the improved standards and results that we all want to see.

'We were once the nation that championed education—we were pioneers of state schools, high standards and achievement and had one of the first universities that was open to all. Now we underperform at every level.'

These are not my words, Deputy Presiding Officer; these are the words of the Cabinet Secretary for Education in her leadership speech to the Welsh Liberal Democrat Party conference four years ago, and, today, my speech, actually, is covering her promises and her words and her performance in the last few years.

In her speech, in Newport, she claimed

'a generation of our children have been let down by an education system that continues to struggle.'

Sadly, that struggle continues today. GCSE results this year are the worst in over a decade. Attainment of grades A to C for all ages have fallen in Welsh language, English literature, the sciences and mathematics. This is particularly worrying when you consider that the number of learners taking A-levels have fallen by nearly 10 per cent since 2015. Four years ago, the Cabinet Secretary deplored the poor PISA results for Wales. She bemoaned the fact that, for a third time in a row, Wales fell behind the rest of the United Kingdom in reading, maths and science. And yet figures published by the OECD show that Wales has the worst performing education system in the United Kingdom. For the fourth time in a decade, Wales finished significantly behind all other UK nations in the PISA ranking. Estyn's most recent figures show that 45 education institutions across Wales are currently in special measures or in need of significant improvement. I'm concerned to see that the highest number of education institutions in special measures are in Newport, with Torfaen having the highest number of schools in need of significant improvement—both, of course, in my south-east Wales region. As the Cabinet Secretary said in one of her conference speeches four years ago—the quote is:

'Too many of our schools are underperforming—all of them underfunded.'

Today, schools in Wales remain significantly underfunded, with serious consequences for educational standards across our country. According to NASUWT, the spend per pupil funding gap between England and Wales has widened to £678. This has had a devastating knock-on effect on teacher retention, teacher training, school building repairs and various measures to support the learning needs of disadvantaged groups and children from poorer families. The Cabinet Secretary initially cut funding to educate children of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller groups, traditionally amongst the most deprived in Wales, and has failed to reinstate the grant in full. Estyn claim the gap between the proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals achieving five A to C GCSEs and those who are not remains stubbornly high, and all this on the watch of the Cabinet Secretary who claimed four years ago—again, she said, in her words—

'in Labour's Wales, a child from the poorest background is much less likely to do well at school than children from similar backgrounds in England.'

Quote closed. Deputy Presiding Officer, to quote from the Cabinet Secretary's speech from 2014 one more time:

'This great nation of ours which has so many talented people and such great community spirit, is too often being let down by a lacklustre government that fails to deliver time and time again.'

I agree with that. It is a tragedy for Wales that the Cabinet Secretary chose to join this lacklustre failing Government to keep it in office. Thank you.

'No significant improvements in Welsh education until 2022'. Those aren't my words, but those of the chief inspector of schools in Wales. Now, that might not be too bad if the Welsh education system were the best in the world, or even the best in Europe. The best in the UK would make it less worrying that there will be four years of stagnation. But, that isn't the case, is it? Under this Labour Government, who talk about equality, Wales has the worst education system in the UK. 

On 1 December 2016, the Cabinet Secretary for Education told The Guardian that there was a 'new sense of purpose', and voiced her disappointment at not doing very well in PISA. That's a very spun way of saying, 'Not doing very well in the classroom', 'Not doing very well for our families and their children' and 'Not doing very well for our economy that needs educated workers and entrepreneurs'. How can we attract young, aspirational families to Wales when an expert tells them that the failing education system will not be fixed for at least another four years?

We have a shortage of doctors and other highly educated professionals, but we're never going to be able to attract those who have benefited from a decent education and want the same for their children to bring their skills and their families here. What advice would the Government give to parents thinking of moving to Wales—'Don't bother for the next four years'? The 2016 article made reference to the previous lost decade, yet the Cabinet Secretary only talked about a new sense of purpose. Well, that was nearly two years ago, and what have been the results of that new sense of purpose as guided by the Cabinet Secretary? Let's hear the words of the chief inspector for schools again: 'No significant improvements in Welsh education until 2022'.

Over the past couple of years, the Cabinet Secretary and Minister have produced a seemingly endless stream of statements announcing that money will be allocated to various projects and a fair few talking shops have been created. But, how can we trust that these changes will work? The Labour Government has been running education for more than 20 years and failing since day 1. What excuse is there for the decades of failure? Will the Cabinet Secretary be willing to explain it? I doubt it. We need to know that the Government knows what has been going wrong so that we can be confident that they will fix the problems, but the Labour amendment shows that we have no reason to believe that Labour understand the problem. And therefore, they're incapable of fixing it. I can tell from the Cabinet Secretary's reaction that she doesn't think there's a problem, but I'm sure I'll hear from her on that in a minute.

They say performance has been stable—yes, it has not wavered from being bad; it's solidly poor. So, UKIP will be supporting this motion unamended. Labour may feel that they don't need to do much with the portfolio that they've dumped on their Lib Dem scapegoat, but the rest of Wales does. We are fed up with a Government that systematically uses the launch of a new initiative as cover for previous bad performance and as a way of deflecting justified criticism. Stop letting our young people down and start being part of building their future and the future economy of Wales. Fund education properly now and don't accept that nothing will be improved until 2022—that's far too late for thousands of young people. Thank you.

Cabinet Secretary, I hope you'll forgive me for having the temerity to start with some good news, because actually there is some good news out there. I know we bumped into each other in the canteen during the summer recess, proving that AMs continue to work through what the outside world continues to call the holiday period, and I did explain that my niece Nia was about to get her A-level grades and she was sitting STEM subjects. We were talking about the need to encourage pupils to take on the challenge of STEM subjects and I'm delighted to say that she did get her grades and got the place in her first preference, which is the University of East Anglia, to read environmental engineering. So, she's off to Norwich on Saturday, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I'm sure that we all want to send our best wishes to all our young people who are embarking on this most exciting stage of life. They demonstrate the potential of our young people, and, of course, it's always a tragedy when we don't reach that level where the maximum number of our young people can have those sorts of life experiences and start to meet their real potential.

So, it's really important that we challenge ourselves in terms of the standards we are delivering in education, and I think it's appropriate for us to look at these exam results, to look at PISA, and to urge the Government to have a strategy that really does turn us around so that we can again be the place to be in the United Kingdom, or perhaps Europe and the world. Why not? That's the sort of ambition we should have, so that future generations will talk about our education system the way that many did talk about the number of teachers and professionals that were produced by the Welsh education system generations ago. And that's how we want the rest of the UK, I think, to talk about us.

Can I say that my own particular commitment to the education sector is in the area of special needs? I'm the chair of the governing body at Meadowbank School, which is a primary school for children with speech and language learning difficulties and, now, wider disabilities as well. And, in relation to this afternoon's debate, I'm the chair of governors at Headlands School, which is a school for young people with significant emotional and behavioural difficulties. It's technically an independent school run by the charity Action for Children, but in effect it provides places to the state sector. I think it's a real glowing example of what high expectations deliver, because there there is a culture of achievement and high expectations. Our motto is 'Expectations are everything', and we encourage young people to sit GCSEs and A-levels, and I'm delighted to say that some will now be leaving us and going on to further education or higher education. That's the sort of outcome that we want to see, because we should see these young people as full of potential, and not see their particular difficulty as defining them.

I think other groups are key here when it comes to expectation: those that are in receipt of free school meals—we need to do much better for that group of young people—and then, also, care-experienced children. I'm not going to concentrate on that, this afternoon, but clearly they are in a similar category. Again, I think our expectations must be higher when we set our policies and what we expect of schools: what support mechanisms they should have in place. How are they meeting the obvious deficiencies that some in those areas will experience, like where can they go and do homework, have access to modern equipment? And even our young people that can't rely on their parents or guardians to help with their maths homework or something. This is a common experience, and we should be able, in our system, to ensure that those students get the support that others do when they've got access through friends and relatives to that type of expertise.

So, I think it's really, really important, and I would like to see things like the Estyn inspection process tweaked so that we really do emphasise subsets when it comes to performance in exams, such as special needs—that are catered for in the main stream; that's an increasing direction for public policy and one I'm broadly in favour of—and, as I said, free school meals and care-experienced children. Above all, I never want to see in Wales a culture develop where certain students are discouraged from sitting GCSEs or A-levels because it is seen as a way of disguising the actual overall performance in that school community. 

The problem with speaking at this point in any debate—well, certainly this one—is that many things have been said. Half the Members have already put the boot into the poor Lib Dem scapegoat, or whatever. They were unfortunate words that they used, and they were not my words, Kirsty—they're words of other Members. And now David Melding has pulled the positive rug from under my feet by talking about some of the good things that have happened in Wales. So, there is little left for me to add to the good comments that have gone before, other than to say that I would also like to add my congratulations to students who've worked so hard to achieve their grades this summer, as well as the teachers and the parents who supported them. I hope that at least most students got what they needed to progress on to the next stage of their careers. I'm delighted to hear about your relative, David Melding, and wish her all the best at the University of East Anglia.

While a number of results across Wales may have been disappointing, I would like to highlight some of the results in schools in my own constituency, including my old school, Croesyceiliog, which bucked the national trend and saw an improvement in the percentage of students getting five A* to C grades including English and Maths. At A-level, Monmouth Comprehensive School and King Henry VIII School saw increases in the percentage of students getting three A* to C grades, rising to 75 per cent and 55 per cent respectively, as well as a promising improvement in the pass rate in Chepstow. I know that you've got all these figures at your fingertips, so you know these, Cabinet Secretary. [Interruption.] I'm going to stop there with the schools. Overall, Monmouthshire saw improvements in all the key indicators at A-level, but at GCSE, Monmouthshire's secondary schools did follow the national trend and saw a dip in the five A* to C measure, so I think I'd like to hear—and we'd all like to hear—from the Cabinet Secretary some of the reasons that you feel we are seeing this Wales-wide decline at that level of qualification.

Given that we are dealing with new qualifications, how can you assure us that standards are being maintained from year to year, and that a C achieved in 2016 is of an equal standard to that achieved in 2017 or 2018? There are very real concerns in schools that the hurdles have not been secured at the exact same height. If that is just a perception, then it is a perception, but it's one that needs to be addressed and dealt with so that we can have confidence in the system. I'm sure you would agree that we need rigorous and robust qualifications. Grading must also be fair to each year group so that our economy can have confidence in what those grades mean.

Now, as you know, Cabinet Secretary, I'm a reasonable man and, in the ilk of David Melding, I must say that there are areas that impact on school standards where the Welsh Government deserves some credit. Last week, the First Minister visited the brand-new Monmouth Comprehensive School—a £45 million joint project between the Welsh Government and the Conservative-run Monmouthshire County Council. I know that the First Minister has been impressed with what has been achieved there—an awe-inspiring building and an example of Welsh Government and local authority collaboration in delivering on the twenty-first century school model. I also recognise that the Welsh Government has committed to a further contribution to my local authority in the next round of twenty-first century schools funding in an effort to upgrade some of what is left of some of the worst buildings, particularly in the secondary sector. So, I look forward to hearing about your plans to continue the process of redesigning education through modifying our school buildings.

Finally, I'd like to say a little about the funding gap, which other Members have touched on, and I welcome that, finally, in a Government amendment, there is a tentative acceptance that there is a funding gap, although you claim that that has narrowed, not because of any action by the Welsh Government, but due to decisions in England. I don't think this is the case with education of simply passing the buck and blaming the UK Government, which we hear too often. Clearly, there is an issue with funding across the board, but we do have to make the most of the resources we have and make sure that that is best targeted. The fact remains that there has been, and continues to be, a funding gap of hundreds of pounds per pupil, which, in an average primary school of 210 pupils, could mean as much as £100,000 per year. That's extra teachers, teaching assistants, information technology equipment, all those people who contribute to the positive outcomes in young people achieving their full potential. That's the reality on the ground. My own local authority has increased school spending as a share of its budget, despite receiving some of the deepest cuts of any local authority in Wales in terms of the overall amount—the revenue support grant—and we know that the underfunding of rural councils continues to be a problem. You know full well, coming from a rural constituency, what that can mean.

Finally, Dirprwy Lywydd, as we heard in the previous debate, we often hear a lot of words in this Chamber that are very well meaning, but, I think, to paraphrase Lee Waters in the previous debate, the time for words is rapidly coming to an end and we really need to see some action and some improvement in these areas.

I would like to thank the Welsh Conservatives for bringing forward this important debate today. As a former teacher, I'm passionate about affording pupils the opportunities to capitalise on their talents and enable them to fulfil their ambitions. Whilst I recognise the progress that has been made, we still have a long path to tread, and we have to have a workable strategy in place to ensure success for Welsh pupils, not only for this generation, but for the generations to follow. Factually, this year's GCSE results are the worst in a decade, and it is noticed that curriculum changes have been further delayed. According to the head of Estyn, we won't see any significant progress until after 2022, and I feel that that's leaving it far too late for the current cohort of pupils. The current generation of pupils are our future, and we must ensure that all the stops are pulled out to give them every chance to succeed in their ambitions. These young people are our future doctors, our nurses, computer programmers, data scientists and business leaders. If we don't equip them with the necessary skills and knowledge, then how are they going to fulfil their dreams and ambitions? Without those skills, our economy will suffer and our health and social care sector will be understaffed, adding more pressure to an already pressurised environment.

Education is the foundation of our nation and the success of our economy is dependent on the success of our educational achievements and attainments of future generations. We have become too focused in meeting artificial targets rather than outcomes. Just this week, the Association of School and College Leaders highlighted that target pressures are seeing pupils being removed from school registers so that their grades do not count towards the school's performance measures. This is deplorable, and thankfully the Welsh Government has indicated that this will not be tolerated. 

However, this is the situation that has been created. Teachers are under immense pressure to meet performance targets despite falling budgets. We need to move away from artificial performance measures and focus on providing an education system that focuses upon the needs of the child. We have to have a curriculum that focuses upon the needs of our nation as well as the child, and above all, we have to ensure that schools have the resources to meet those needs.

This year's GCSE results are a wake-up call, but it is also an opportunity to look at things differently, and work on things that have maybe not been as successful as we want. So we've got this golden opportunity here, and as a person who believes strongly in devolution, and as a former teacher, I believe in giving our young people the opportunity. We have it in our hands. Come on, let's all work together and give everyone the opportunity they deserve so that we can all work together for a positive outcome. Thank you.

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

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Back in August I had the privilege of celebrating examination results with the learners at Ysgol Gyfun Gymraeg Glantaf for A-levels and the West Monmouth School on GCSE day. I'd like to congratulate David's niece. I predicted that as a student of STEM she would do well, and clearly she has, and I know that there are other Assembly Members in this Chamber who had a direct interest in GCSE results day, and I know that they had much to celebrate in their own families. I'm sure colleagues will want to congratulate learners across Wales on their own tremendous achievements and agree with me when I take this opportunity to praise our teachers for their hard work across all the areas of education and particularly those who have worked so tirelessly to adapt to changes in delivering the new GCSE qualifications, including the 15 that were awarded for the first time this summer.

I must admit, Deputy Presiding Officer, to being disappointed to read the Conservatives' motion, which completely ignores the positives in this summer's results. For starters, they completely skip over and ignore this year's A-level results as it doesn't fit their narrative. Hopefully they will welcome the fact that 76.3 per cent of learners in Wales gained an A* to C in their A-levels, and that is the highest since 2009. Hopefully they will also welcome the highest ever proportion of students achieving an A-level A*. In fact, when it comes to A* to A performances at A-level, it is only the region of London and the south-east that does better than Wales. 

With regard to GCSEs, it is of course correct, and I am the first to acknowledge, that there has been a dip in overall results when compared to last year. What I will not accept, and I do not accept, is that there has been a drop in standards. In fact, quite the opposite. I have been clear that this Government will support all of our learners. We must never lower our expectations for any of our young people, no matter what their background. And that is why I will make no apologies for keeping the pressure up rather than taking the easy option and coasting.

I welcome the strong action that has been taken by schools in switching from vocational science to GCSE science. Taking vocational qualifications at 16, such as BTEC science, is absolutely the right path for some of our learners in Wales. But it is not acceptable to me, and I would hope to others in the Chamber today, that schools have thought it appropriate for 40 per cent of learners to be taking a vocational course. This might have got them the desired results in terms of school performance measures, but that should never, never ever come before the interests of learners. And you and I, David, are at one on that point.

I am pleased that this year we have seen an increase of 50 per cent in the number of students being entered for GCSE science—I repeat: 50 per cent more entries in GCSE science—with more of those entries gaining A* to C. And it’s also very pleasing to see the individual sciences—biology, chemistry and physics—those entries are up by over 10 per cent. Now, having such a huge increase in a cohort will of course distort the results. We all knew that this difficult decision would make it easier for the opponents to criticise and misrepresent the overall results. It is a tough decision, but it’s also the right decision—raising standards and improving the opportunity for all of our learners and, most of all, for those from a poorer background. This move, alongside others, such as ending the inappropriate use of early entry, does make it difficult to draw meaningful comparisons. It simply makes no sense to compare this year’s results with previous years. Now, that isn’t my view—that’s the view of the independent regulator, Qualifications Wales, who has described making comparisons as 'simplistic', due to the significant shift in the size and the nature of the cohort, let alone the changes to the examinations themselves.

And I have to say, I have been somewhat confused by the approach taken by the new Conservative spokesperson. She fails, it seems, to understand the unitised nature of our new science GCSEs. She wants parity of esteem between vocational qualifications and academic qualifications, but then goes on to criticise a drop in A-level entries. Let’s be absolutely clear why there’s a drop in A-level entries—when there’s a drop in the cohort, there are simply fewer students of that age in our schools and colleges. And for those students who were struggling with A-levels, because they were forced into A-levels, moving to more vocational qualifications is absolutely the right thing. So, you can’t say on one hand you are sorry that less-able students are not doing A-level anymore, and then call for parity of esteem. You absolutely also fail to understand the ongoing impact of early entry on overall figures, but we have changed that policy. We’re also changing performance measures to the very system that you’ve just called for that looks at a more holistic approach to how we judge our schools. We are investing in leadership, we’re investing in our more able and talented children and we're spending more on the pupil deprivation grant than ever before to address the concerns of vulnerable groups that David Melding just mentioned. And let me be absolutely clear: money received by this Government for pay of teachers will be spent on the pay of teachers.

Now, this idea that we somehow sit back and do nothing about schools that are causing concern is simply nonsense. The reason why I know the results of King Henry in Abergavenny is because we look in-depth at each individual school. We double back and check the relationship they have had with their regional consortium. We have asked local authorities to report on each time they’ve used a statutory notice for a school causing concern, and I receive regular reports to understand, from each local authority and consortium, what they have done to support the school that is in special measures. And if I’m not satisfied with that response, then I go back to that regional consortium and I go back to that local authority.

There is so much I could say about Michelle’s characterisation of the Welsh education system. She talked about doctors. How are we going to get doctors to come to Wales? Well, maybe those doctors will be the record number of Welsh students who have achieved a place in medical school for this academic year. They will come back to this country to be doctors, so that their children can receive exactly the same education that they have had that enabled them to go to medical school. And scapegoat? Every day, I am proud to do this job, and I'm even prouder when I remember that by taking this job it kept you, and the pernicious views expressed by your leader yesterday, from getting anywhere near the Government.

With regard to Plaid Cymru's amendments, we will be supporting both of them. I am committed, Llyr, to continuing to invest in our workforce to ensure that we have a whole education workforce that receives sufficient training of a high standard. A £5.85 million professional learning funding allocation was awarded to regional consortia during 2017-18 to support the work of professional learning pioneers and to enhance consortia capacity to develop the national approach to professional learning. We have also made available a further £5.5 million during 2018-19 to develop a national approach to professional learning to ensure that all schools are able to plan appropriately for curriculum change and beyond.

As you will know—it's something that both my party and your party have campaigned on for a number of years—the Welsh Government will assume responsibility for setting teachers' pay and conditions from the end of this month. I am expecting this week to receive an important report from Professor Mick Waters with options on how we can use those new powers to better reward our teachers and attract high-quality recruits to the profession. One thing I will reiterate, though, is that this isn't just about money and salaries. Those who want to work with our children are motivated by something so much more than that—there are better ways to get rich. They are motivated by the desire to be part of the public sector workforce to do something amazing for our children and young people.

So, we also have to look at the issue of conditions. Taking over responsibility for teachers' pay and conditions is an incredibly important step in our education system. Right from the outset, we want to make sure that we have a system based on the values of equity and of excellence, and a commitment to an inclusive public service education. I believe that this is fundamental to supporting and strengthening our teaching profession.

To conclude, Llywydd, we do not support the Conservatives' motion, which simply misrepresents and talks down the changes and the progress that we are making here in Wales. I certainly won't be lectured by them on issues of funding.

Mohammad Asghar was at great pains to quote the OECD, so let me tell him what the OECD says about our system. We are seeing

'Progress in several policy areas and a shift in the Welsh approach to school improvement away from a piecemeal and short-term policy orientation towards one that is guided by a long-term vision.'

I know—I know—that there is no room for complacency, but working together with the sector, we will continue our national mission to raise standards, reduce the attainment gap and deliver an education system that is a source of national pride and enjoys public confidence. 

Thank you. Can I now call on Darren Millar to reply to the debate?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I thank the Cabinet Secretary for responding to our debate, although, obviously, I disagree, largely, with what she said? Our debate, of course, was opened by Suzy Davies, our new spokesperson in this role, and I thought she did an excellent job, despite the disparaging view of the Cabinet Secretary. I certainly welcome her to the role and know that she will be a formidable champion for the Welsh education system and will fight to improve it tooth and nail every step of the way.

She set out very clearly, I thought, the reality of the situation and the challenges that we face. We had, although you wouldn't imagine that this was the case, given the Cabinet Secretary's speech just now, the worst set of GCSE results for over 15 years. How is that something that we can be proud of here in Wales? The Cabinet Secretary seemed to suggest that it was because she'd discouraged people from doing the science BTEC course as a vocational course and encouraged people to take up GCSE sciences, but it wasn't just the sciences that those figures dipped in. We also saw worse results in maths, worse results in English language and worse results in English literature—just three subjects that I've picked out at random. So, you can't simply suggest that it's because you're encouraging more people to take those academic qualifications.

Frankly, I'm fed up of hearing people diss vocational qualifications in this Chamber. We've heard all of this 'parity of esteem' talk from the Government in the past, yet you've actually sought to disincentivise schools from encouraging people to take appropriate vocational qualifications where that is what is best for the children under their care. 

I would be the first person in this Chamber to acknowledge the hard work of teachers across Wales, who do their best to support learners to achieve their potential. I want to congratulate as well those young people across Wales, including my own daughter and my own son, who managed to get decent grades in their GCSEs and A-levels this year. I also think it's appropriate to thank the school governors who've contributed to the success and turnaround in many of our schools. We had David Melding talk about his experience as a school governor and I know that there are many, including myself, that are also school governors in this Chamber. But these people are volunteers, giving of their own time, dedicating themselves to their community by serving on those school governing bodies, and I want to pay tribute to each and every one of them. 

The Cabinet Secretary likes to choose and make comparisons with England when it suits her, but doesn't like to make comparisons with other parts of the UK when it doesn't suit her. The reality is that we know that per-pupil funding in Wales is less than it is over the border in England. That has consequences for the opportunities for young people to have the resources in those schools to be able to reach their potential. These are not things that just, you know, I am saying or anybody on these benches; other individuals, the teaching unions, are also adding to a growing chorus of voices, frankly, that are saying you have to do something about this.

And I have to say, Suzy—. [Laughter.] And I have to say, Kirsty, pardon me—Cabinet Secretary—that it's a little bit rich of the Liberal Democrats to do a deal—we would rather Suzy there—to do a deal to go into Government on the basis that an extra £100 million is going to be invested in education to improve school standards, and then whip it away with cuts on the other hand, because you haven't actually increased school spending by £100 million over this term. That is not happening at all and, you know, if you get your calculator out it's very clear that that's not happened because, of course, the spending has been reducing.

I have a lot of sympathy, actually, for what Michelle Brown was saying earlier on in her contribution. Ultimately, it is our economy that will pay a price for this failure in future years. If we don't have a highly educated workforce that is fit for the future, our economy is going to suffer. And in addition, we're not going to attract people in to create the wealth in our country if we've got a poor education system, and we're going to discourage people from staying here also if our education system is poor. So, we've got to raise our game. We've got to make sure that it's better than it currently is.

Mohammad Asghar was absolutely right to point out the failures in recent years. He was absolutely right to talk about the wonderful heritage that we have as well here in Wales, in terms of the pioneering school movements that Griffith Jones of Llanddowror and others established all those many years ago. But the reality is that when we look at those PISA rankings, I'm not sure what the Government's expectation is going to be when the next set of rankings are going to be published, but I think that aspirations are pretty low in this Chamber because no-one feels very confident that we've managed to turn that situation around since the last set of results.

And I've heard what the inspectorate have said—the chief inspector—that we shouldn't expect any significant improvement until 2022. Well, frankly, that's too long for the children, as Caroline Jones rightly pointed out, that are currently in the education system. We've got to be more ambitious than having to wait four years and press the reset button at that point. We need to be turning this situation around right now for those young people, because otherwise they will be another failed generation as a result of this very tired Labour-led Government.

I think also we need to reflect on what is going on elsewhere in the UK, because the situation is improving, actually, in England. The standards are rising. They're holding their own in terms of the world economy and league tables. We're the only ones that are going backwards here to any significant extent. We're the only ones in the bottom half of the world rankings in terms of any home nation in the UK, and that is not something of which we can be proud.

So, I implore you, Cabinet Secretary, I implore you to get more money from the finance Cabinet Secretary in this year's budget round, invest it in our schools so that they have the resources that they need to be able to improve the results in future years. I urge you to pick up the pace of reform so that we don't have to wait for another four years before we see the improvements that we need. I urge you to give a shot in the arm to those teachers—not just in our schools but also in our further education colleges, those lecturers who've helped to deliver decent GCSE and A-level results this year—so that we can really begin to see the sort of potential that we have in Wales being fully realised. Because unless we see that, we won't see the future of Wales being the way that it ought to be. 

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

We now move on to item 7, which is the United Kingdom Independence Party debate on uplands livestock, and I call on David Rowlands to move the motion. 

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Can I start by saying that I cannot support any of the amendments tabled to this motion, firstly because each one is prefaced by that asinine proposition, 'Delete all', meaning of course that they would delete all of my submissions—a patently absurd stance? But also because none of the substitutions address the main thrust of my argument, which is the environmental impact of destocking the uplands. All amendments tabled deal exclusively with the economics of the uplands.

My debate calls upon the Welsh Government to put the woolly maggots back on our mountains. Following the decision, largely under the auspices of Elliot Morley and the now Baroness Barbara Young, to instigate a policy of removing grazing animals—sheep were referred to as 'woolly maggots'—from our hills, commonly known as wilding, we're witnessing the devastation of our upland environment and a catastrophic effect on the wildlife on our uplands. We therefore call upon the Welsh Government to remove any incentives to farmers to take their animals from the hills and put in place measures to reverse this ill-thought-out policy and thus take immediate steps to repopulate these areas.

There is a significant body of evidence that proves that this de-populating of our hillsides is having a hugely detrimental effect on wildlife species and the general environment of our mountains. The removal of livestock has been followed by the spread of pernicious bracken growth and the increased height of ungrazed heather, to the point that heather no longer affords good habitat for nesting birds whilst bracken affords little or no suitable habitat for any of our wildlife species. If we add to this the further effect of uncontrolled grass growth, we're seeing a combination of factors that are having a substantial impact on the number and the variety of species that inhabit our hillsides. The highly toxic drain-off from bracken roots is also known to have a detrimental effect on the ecology of our streams and rivers.

One further consequence of the overgrown nature of our hillsides is the propensity it affords for the spread of wildfires. Tall, often dry grasses and overgrown heather and gorse are some of the most combustible forms of vegetation. The consequence of this is that we are now witnessing a considerable rise in these devastating events. For many hundreds of years, farmers used controlled burning to manage species growth as well as creating fire breaks. We have all seen the devastating effect uncontrolled fires have and are having on our mountain habitat. Unless we have a radical rethink about upland management, then we can expect the frequency and extent of these fires to escalate. 

Due again, primarily, to a lack of grazing stock, we're witnessing an unprecedented explosion of tick species on our hills. Long grass is ideal habitat for ticks. This has resulted in a growing number of cases of Lyme disease, especially amongst the hill-walking fraternity and their pets. Lyme disease can have disastrous, debilitating effects on its victims and as there is limited knowledge of the disease amongst general practitioners—and, David, I make no particular comment as far as that's concerned—it can go undiagnosed for long periods, making its effects even more devastating. The long-term effect of this is that tourism will suffer as ramblers, et cetera, become less and less willing to expose themselves to the health risks involved with tick infestation. It is reported that in France, last year, some 60,000 people were affected by tick bites.

Last but not least, we have to acknowledge the economic effect of taking highly valuable stock off our hills. Wales, of course, has a very large number of upland areas. Consequently, the loss of revenue from hill stock is considerable. Although farmers may be individually compensated, though only in the short term of course, the country as a whole is financially disadvantaged. Hill stock contributed substantially to the Welsh agrarian economy.

There are many examples of how the so-called re-wilding of upland habitat has had a disastrous effect. English Nature and now Natural England's policy of destocking Dartmoor is proving to have a hugely negative environmental impact, with many of these consequences outlined above manifesting themselves, with disastrous results. Dartmoor commoners are now witnessing the appalling consequences of the policy of destocking carried out over the last 20 to 25 years.

Closer to home, Geraint Davies, a well-known and well-respected figure in the Welsh farming industry, who runs a large upland farm near Bala, where he and his wife have been engaged in restoring areas of the farm to make it wildlife friendly, is firmly of the opinion that the removal of stock from our hills is having a very detrimental effect on wildlife. It was Geraint who pointed out to me the possible loss to the tourist industry as hillwalkers are finding it more and more difficult to negotiate upland areas due to grass and bracken coverage.

A well-acknowledged expert in the field of upland habitat is Geoff Eyre, whose restoration work on 6,000 acres at Howden moor in the Peak district between 1989 and 2006, which consisted of spraying, managed burning, reseeding of heather and palatable grasses, together with bracken removal and a tenfold commercially viable increase in cattle and sheep, resulted in wildlife returning in quite extraordinary numbers, proving conclusively that destocking uplands is totally counter-productive in sustaining or increasing wildlife in our upland areas. Geoff has managed and restored some 40,000 hectares of upland habitat.

So, given the evidence above, there can be no plausible argument for continuing with current policy. So, I again call upon the Welsh Government to reverse its policy with regard to upland subsidies and put those woolly maggots, together with their larger bovine friends, back on our Welsh hills.

I have selected the three amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will be deselected. If amendment 2 is agreed, amendment 3 will be deselected. I call on Andrew R.T. Davies to move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I formally move amendment 1 in the name of Paul Davies in the debate that UKIP have tabled this afternoon in relation to stocking our upland areas and the general agricultural argument about the livestock sector here in Wales.

I do regret that we are unable to support the motion because I do think it is a negative process when you are deleting motions in their entirety, but I do find that the motion that you have tabled is far too broad to find any real aspect that we could find to support a position on. In particular, there are some cases where there are worthwhile incentives put in place to remove livestock from certain areas because of sites of special scientific interest status for example, the carbon capture argument and other environmental gains that can be achieved in some of our uplands.

That's why we've put an amendment down today that looks at the overall picture of livestock farming, both in the uplands and the lowlands, because the historical livestock pattern here in Wales is one of a joined-up approach, where the uplands and the lowlands cannot be divided. I do find that, sometimes, when we debate in this Chamber, we try and divide the livestock industry into specific sectors at the expense of the other sector. There's that integration that is integral to the fabric of Welsh agriculture that we break at our peril. So, I do believe that we've got to look, when we're talking about agriculture, at the joined-up approach of upland and lowland working together to strengthen and make it more resilient, the livestock sector here in Wales, so that we can add greater value to what our livestock farms produce and, ultimately, keep more money in our rural communities and, above all, offer young people a greater chance in the agricultural community, with new openings in farms the length and breadth of Wales. It cannot be right at the moment that the average age of farmers in Wales is 61. There just is no or little opportunity for young farmers to come in to the industry, and, with Brexit, that does offer us the opportunity—as, in fairness, the Cabinet Secretary has highlighted—that we can craft policies that do drive agriculture here in Wales, that are Welsh-specific and UK-specific.

And, certainly in my new role as the agriculture and rural affairs spokesman for the Conservative benches, I very much look forward to looking at new ways of developing support for the agricultural industry by adding value to the great produce that we produce. And that's why, in point 4 of the amendment that we have before the Assembly today, we do ask and seek clarification from the Cabinet Secretary as to what progress she has been able to make on rebalancing the promotional levy. There has been an ongoing debate and discussion for quite some time, because however many numbers of livestock we have in the uplands, whether they be sheep or cattle, there is this promotional levy that is able to go back into the industry to promote and encourage greater use of Welsh produce and, at the moment, that system is generated at the point of processing, i.e. the abattoir, rather than at the point of rearing. And, so, because of the nature of the processing sector here in Wales and the limited opportunity, especially in the cattle sector, for the animals to be processed here in Wales, many of the cattle that the blood, sweat and tears of the farming community have gone into to finish for the market are processed in England and other parts of the UK and that promotional levy stays within that jurisdiction rather than here in Wales. And I do think that that is an injustice that does need to be rebalanced, and I do hope that the Minister will use the opportunity this afternoon to address it, as it's in our amendment.

The other point I would also like to make, as the amendment touches on, is on the nature of the upland communities in the way that they support the wider economy of rural Wales in particular. The tourist sector, for example—as the mover of the motion highlighted, £250 million is added to the tourist industry here in Wales by having a vibrant uplands sector that has activity at its heart and has a community that is generating wealth. And let's not forget that the livestock sector here in Wales contributes to the £6.9 billion agri-food industry that employs so many people the length and breadth of Wales. 

We have gone through 25 years of various European reforms, from the MacSherry reforms in the early 1990s, which, for the first time, moved production subsidies away from producing livestock and more into—as some Members will be familiar with—the set-aside regimes and, obviously, the environmental schemes that came forward in the 1990s and the 2000s. There is a balance to be struck, but what I would suggest to you is that farmers are the original friends of the earth campaigners, because, ultimately, they rely on their living, their livelihoods, coming from the land and they want to see a strong environment with a good agricultural outlook that brings the next generation forward.

And, as I've said, we can have the debate about the European Union and the outcome of the referendum in this Chamber time and time again, but the fact of the matter is that there is an opportunity to create a Welsh agricultural support package, a rural agricultural support package, that keeps the environment and agriculture walking in synch together and developing world-beating solutions. I hope we take those opportunities and, ultimately, deliver a future for youngsters to come into the agricultural industry and a rural economy that is vibrant, is dynamic, and does offer those opportunities, and that's why I move the amendment to the motion in the name of Paul Davies this afternoon. 

I call on Llyr Gruffydd to move amendment 2, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Llyr Gruffydd.

Thank you, Llywydd, and may I refer Members to my register of interests, which is pertinent to this topic? May I start by regretting the language used by UKIP in their motion, as we've heard? It is an inflammatory start to a debate that many of us have been trying to encourage in a constructive and positive manner over the last few years. I think it’s entirely irresponsible to present the argument using the language that you have used. There is far more consensus and common ground between farmers and environmentalists than, clearly, you believe to be the case.

So, it’ll be no surprise to you that Plaid Cymru recommends in our amendment that we delete all of the motion. But, of course, in our amendment we do highlight the importance of upland sheep farms as a crucial part of our Welsh economy. But, of course, we also highlight the dangers of leaving the single market and the customs union, and the undoubted damage that that will do to upland farms. It’s not just sheep that will have left the uplands in years to come. As a result of Brexit, it’s possible that people will also be leaving the uplands, because of the impact that it will have on the viability of family farms in Wales. We’ve heard the stats in many debates in this Chamber: 96 per cent of Welsh lamb is exported to the European Union; talk of export tariffs that will be introduced and will have a negative impact. That is why Plaid Cymru has been clear and consistent that we want to retain our membership and status within the single market, and, indeed, the best way to do that is to remain within the European Union. But, if we are to leave and lose our membership of the single market, then, clearly, we need robust measures to safeguard the interests of agriculture in Wales, particularly our upland farms.

I'd like to say a few words now about the Welsh Government's ongoing consultation, 'Brexit and our land'. Now, the last time the Government considered major changes to farm payments in Wales, they assessed how much each business, each sector, each county in Wales would lose or gain through very comprehensive modelling before making any key decisions. Now, these latest proposed changes are some of the biggest changes that we've seen, certainly in recent years, if not probably in this generation. So, maybe the Cabinet Secretary could tell us what assessments have been made this time of how much Anglesey, Ceredigion, Carmarthenshire might gain or lose, the impact it might have on jobs in those and other counties, before pursuing further this never before tried policy, because I'm not aware that that work has been done.

We know as well that Scotland is sticking with the basic payment for their farmers. Northern Ireland is likely to do the same as well and farmers throughout the European Union, as well, will receive it. In fact, because of the financial consequences to the EU of Brexit, it seems that their pillar 2 funds will be cut and that their direct payments will be ring-fenced, so, you know, EU farmers will probably be proportionately better off because of Brexit. But the Welsh Government, of course, is going the other way and proposing to do away with basic payments. The Scottish Government's position paper, if I recall, is called, 'Stability and Simplicity'. Well, somebody suggested to me that maybe the Welsh Government proposals should be called 'instability and complexity'. You're simply following, like the proverbial sheep, the policy of Michael Gove and the Tories in England, and I really have to question the integrity of your consultation process here. I know you've claimed that what the Farmers Union of Wales have been saying are myths—well, they're not; they're valid concerns. There may be a difference of opinion, but they are valid concerns from key stakeholders. Is it right that your letter to farmers, half way through a public consultation—? Is it right that you, as a Cabinet Secretary, intervene to influence people's opinions and to dismiss what I believe are valid concerns from that key stakeholder? You say you want to hear people's views, but then you write and it seems to me that you're not willing to hear people's views unless they agree with you. And it was very telling, I have to say, that, in the statement that accompanied your open letter to farmers in Wales, you say, and I quote:

'Our new Land Management Programme will consist of two new large flexible schemes'.

It 'will consist of'. So, has the decision already been made? I thought we were in mid consultation. In fact, your amendment reflects that very same language as well. So, with your unprecedented intervention and the kind of language that we're seeing—I mean, I'm not sure whether we're in judicial review territory. That's not for me to say; that's for others to consider. But I would, Cabinet Secretary, urge you to put the brakes on your proposals, follow the example of Scotland, of Northern Ireland and the rest of the EU in offering Welsh farmers stability. At this most challenging time in our recent history, let's give our farmers at least an element of certainty of funding and let's give them at least a level playing field.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs to move formally amendment 3, tabled in the name of Julie James, and to speak—Lesley Griffiths.

Thank you, and I formally move our amendment.

The motion tabled by UKIP regards proposals to reform agricultural support, and, more specifically, support to upland sheep farmers. As Members are aware, and it's been referred to, we're currently consulting on 'Brexit and our land'. In it, we propose measures that are very different to those in this motion. The consultation runs until 30 October and I would encourage anyone interested to respond. The document was developed following detailed discussions with members of my ministerial Brexit round-table, which included representatives from environmental NGOs and farming unions. Many of those members have told me that there were no surprises in that final document, because they'd been so involved in those discussions. The need for change is a direct result of the UK leaving the EU, and several Members in this Chamber were very keen to call for Brexit, but seem less keen to deal with the consequences and the many challenges it brings. The Welsh Government continues to push the UK Government for guarantees that funding for farming will be maintained at pre-Brexit levels, as was promised by the 'leave' campaign, and that funding will not be Barnettised. The First Minister has said this funding will be ring-fenced for agriculture.

Wales needs a future farming policy that will deal with the specific changes the sector is likely to experience following the UK's exit from the EU, particularly around trade and competitiveness. We can all agree on the need to keep Welsh farmers farming; this is the first principle of our reforms. However, the challenges Welsh agriculture will face in a post-Brexit future require a sophisticated solution that works for all farmers, not a return to failed policies of the past. Simply increasing the number of sheep on the hills will not enable farmers to thrive post Brexit. The outcomes of trade arrangements will need to be taken into account, but, of course, currently we have no idea what access to the EU market will look like.

I note Plaid Cymru's points around risks posed by leaving the single market and customs union. However, the current payment schemes will not enable farmers to mitigate those risks by adapting their businesses to the new economic environment. The basic payment scheme is the largest source of common agricultural policy funding. However, as a form of income support, it does not provide incentives for innovation, nor embed business efficiency. Over the last 10 years, with the current system of payments, productivity has declined. GVA from agriculture in Wales has declined during a period when overall Welsh GVA has increased by over 80 per cent. Over the same period, food security has reduced, and habitats and species associated with agriculture have seen a downward trend.

Will the Minister take an intervention?

Yes.

Could I just seek clarification on your GVA figure? Because there's an example the First Minister uses very often about how people work in Cardiff but live in the Valleys and so that's why the GVA looks low in the Valleys. I made the point to you about the processing sector predominantly now being in England for milk, for beef in particular, so surely that indicates that the value that we're producing here in Wales is being taken out of Wales and being attributed to England's GVA. Do you not recognise we need to do far more to develop processing here in Wales so we can retain more value here in Wales that would help those GVA figures out?

I'll address that when I continue with my comments.

We've created a sector where farm businesses rely on support payments for an average of 81 per cent of their farm business income, and this demonstrates why, as the First Minister said in his speech at the Royal Welsh Show, the status quo is not an option. BPS and agri-environment schemes have developed over the past 40 years to support farmers across the European Union. They are a blunt instrument, supporting farmers across countries with widely differing economic and environmental models. The EU's approach to audit and accounting regulations has also been one size fits all. Whatever the outcomes of the Brexit negotiations, here in Wales we plan to give farmers the freedom and flexibility to thrive, the freedom to manage their business in the way they see fit, and the flexibility to adapt their business and grasp future opportunities. Business as usual or a regression to the past will not help Welsh farmers in the long run. A more intelligent, targeted approach that helps farmers increase their productivity and competitiveness is required.

This is why we've launched proposals for a new land management programme through the 'Brexit and our land' consultation. It is made up of two schemes: one on economic resilience, and the other on public goods. Until this programme is in place, farmers will continue to receive funding through the current system. BPS will continue to be paid through 2018 and 2019. We've proposed a transition period, which will end in 2025.

Andrew R.T. Davies, in his comments, raised the issue around the red meat levy, which has been going on for many years and I know has been raised with me by many farmers over the past couple of years. I raised it again with Michael Gove at the quadrilateral meeting in London on Monday. I made it very clear to him, probably going back about a year, that I expected to see provisions in the UK Agriculture Bill. I had hoped to see it on the face of the Bill; he's now told me that's not possible. I do expect—and, again, I raised this with him on Monday—to see it as a Government amendment, because he was saying it may be raised as a backbench amendment. I don't want to see that; I want to see a Government amendment to the Bill to address this as a matter of urgency, and I will be writing to Michael Gove to ensure that that does happen.

Funding through both the economic resilience scheme and the public goods scheme will follow our five principles of land management reform. These principles set out our commitment to supporting food production, keeping land managers on the land, building a prosperous and resilient land management industry, supporting the provision of public goods, and ensuring that all land managers can access the schemes.

The economic resilience scheme will provide funding for specific measures. We will work with farmers to ensure that funding supports improvements in their business. I do, of course, recognise that this is daunting, but incentivising business improvement will produce some more positive results, and support will also be given to collaborative efforts. Measures will target the entire supply chain, including increasing processing capacity, as mentioned in the Conservative amendments. This will lower costs and increase efficiencies for farmers.

Alongside the economic resilience scheme, the public goods scheme aims to provide an additional income stream to farmers. They will be funded for outcomes for which there is no current market, such as reducing flood risk or improvements in water quality. As well as providing an income stream, this will improve the sustainability of farms, contribute to the development of a circular economy, and a reduction in external costs. These schemes offer a way for upland sheep farmers to thrive. With our support, they can diversify, invest in new technologies or equipment, and be paid for providing future and further public goods. More efficient supply chains will also contribute to increase competitiveness.

I just want to refer to the comments from Llyr. In relation to difference of opinion, I don't have a problem with difference of opinion. My concern with the Farmers Union of Wales is that they have asked all their members to just reject all our proposals—a blanket. They are then doing their members a great disservice, because it's really important that we hear their views. So, just to reject our proposals, to me, means that they won't have a say in what we're bringing forward. You're quite right that we are only consulting on those two schemes. We have said quite clearly that direct payments will stop, but it is a very meaningful consultation. This is the longest consultation I've ever had as Minister. It's 16 weeks long, and that was because I knew people would be extremely busy over the summer. So, I do want to hear as many views as possible, but I thought it was really important that we addressed the myths that were being put out there, not necessarily just by the farming unions, but—I was picking up, over the summer, at the agricultural shows—from farmers that I was referring to.

You mentioned Scotland, you mentioned Northern Ireland, and you mentioned England. We must design a uniquely Welsh policy. It's up to those three countries what they do, and that will target—[Interruption.]—I haven't got time, sorry. That will target support where it has the greatest impact by realising the full economic, social, environmental and cultural value of Welsh land.

I call on Neil Hamilton to reply to the debate.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Well, we've had quite an interesting debate, but unfortunately it's not been about what the motion addresses, as David Rowlands pointed out in his opening speech, about the nature of the amendments that the other parties have put down. Andrew R.T. Davies tried to justify the Conservative amendment on grounds that our motion couldn't be amended to include the points that the Conservative amendment has on the order paper, but I couldn't see why not. I don't see why the UKIP motion has to be deleted to put down the very constructive points that the Conservative motion addresses, all of which I think we, in our party, could have supported. In which case, we could have had the penny and the biscuit of our motion, as well as the amendments of the Conservative Party.

How Llyr Gruffydd could think that our motion today is inflammatory is entirely beyond me. We were addressing a very specific problem of the wilding of the hills and the environmental impact of the current regime, which causes many difficulties both in land management terms and also with disease control. It's a pity that this debate has turned into yet another debate on Brexit, which, in one sense, we should be very happy about in UKIP, but we really were trying today to put down a motion that was not going to concentrate upon the merits or otherwise of leaving the EU for the agricultural sector, important, obviously, as that is as a background to everything. But I thank Andrew R.T. Davies and Llyr Gruffydd, in addition of course to the Cabinet Secretary, for their interesting contributions and I'll refer to some of the points that they made.

But, just to go back to what this debate is actually all about, the wilding of the hills of Wales, following on from the EU habitats directive, has caused a catastrophic increase in most predators, and declines towards extinction of some species, and particularly vulnerable ones. Leaving the EU does give us an opportunity to improve the environment of the uplands and gives power to this Assembly to take a very different approach to the one that has been adopted hitherto. The Cabinet Secretary did refer to the opportunities that this gives to Wales to design an agricultural policy that suits the specific climatic and topographical problems of our upland areas in particular. In the course of her speech she described the current common agricultural policy and the basic payments scheme as a very blunt instrument, and indeed it is. I fully agree with her on that. The one-size-fits-all policy for agriculture for the whole of Europe does ignore many important elements in the agricultural regime here in Wales, and I applaud her words in saying that she wants to introduce more freedoms for farmers to increase productivity and run their businesses in a more productive way. That seems to me to be a very good point to make, rather than the usual party political dogfight points about exports of lamb, and so on and so forth, and I'll deal with what Llyr Gruffydd says about that next.

Yes, of course, we know that about a third of Welsh output of lamb is exported to the EU. Two thirds is consumed within the United Kingdom, so let's keep this in perspective. The farming sector itself as a proportion of the national income is quite small. Total exports of lamb from the United Kingdom amount to about £300 million a year. We're not dealing with large figures here. Insofar as there are going to be transitional problems for sheep farmers, then they can easily be dealt with within the budgets that will become available as a result of leaving the EU because there will be a Brexit dividend, as we know. Instead of subsidising farmers in other parts of Europe, we can now subsidise farmers within the United Kingdom, and in particular within Wales, and it will be the Welsh Government that has the responsibility and the opportunity to do that. I'm amazed that they're so pessimistic and so defeatist about the opportunities for British agriculture that Brexit gives. What a pathetic spectacle to see a Welsh Government saying, 'We'd much rather that Brussels should take these decisions than we should take them ourselves'. What sort of government is it that doesn't believe in itself and its own abilities to provide best for the people of Wales, and in particular for the farmers and consumers of Wales?

So, UKIP has an optimistic view of the future, and we certainly have faith and confidence in our own country and our own ability not only to survive in the world, but also to prosper on the basis of an agricultural policy that is designed by us for us, and for our own people. If an agricultural policy is introduced, the consequences of which are failure, then we know where to look to put the finger of blame. It'll be upon those on the front bench opposite here.

So, just to return to what this debate is all about for a moment, we have seen, as David Rowlands explained, a rise in rank and unpalatable grasses infested with ticks, and, as a result of unburnt mature heather, that also becomes infested with heather beetle. Out-of-control bracken produces sterile landscapes that are both unsafe for tourists and walkers and also vectors of Lyme disease. So, these are all important points that are very important to the prosperity of the countryside in upland areas as well, as he explained, and the policy of the rewilding of the hills really goes against the whole grain of the impact and importance of agriculture in the life of any country, and in particular in the life of Wales because 84 per cent of Wales is characterised as a less favoured area. We have a much higher proportion of upland areas than other parts of the UK, and therefore to improve the quality of upland areas is not only better for farmers but also, as he pointed out, for walkers, for tourists and for all those who enjoy the countryside, as well as those who just like looking at it.

The countryside, as we know it, isn't something that is produced by nature; it's actually produced by those who manage the land and in particular by farmers who run businesses on it. So, we need to have a completely different approach to upland areas than has occurred hitherto. The habitats directive of the EU has spawned a lot of detailed legislation that has not been to the benefit of the agricultural community, or, indeed, in general to the public at large. The problems that are created by the spread of bracken and so on on the hills by people who don't really understand the need for land management, I think, are a potentially disastrous effect.

So, the consequence of the freedoms that we'll get as a result of leaving the EU can be, if those freedoms are intelligently used, an improvement in the quality of life and the quality of land for all. I can't see that there can be any downside to that. So, I invite Members of the Assembly to put aside party political considerations in this debate, to turn over a new leaf and to follow UKIP's lead in this particular respect to vote for our motion and show us some dignity and respect that, on this occasion, we are not seeking to debate in a partisan political way. This was a genuine attempt to improve the lives of the people of Wales and to bring the parties in this house together on an issue that is well able to sustain that approach. So, on that basis, I invite Members to vote for our motion and against their own amendments. 

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

Voting time now proceeds. Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will proceed directly to the vote. The first vote is on the Welsh Conservatives’ debate on school standards. I call, therefore, for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 16, no abstentions, 35 against, therefore the motion is not agreed.

The next vote is on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Julie James. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 29, no abstentions, 23 against, therefore amendment 1 is agreed.

Amendment 2—I call for a vote on amendment 2, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 50, no abstentions and two against, therefore amendment 2 is agreed.

Amendment 3—I call for a vote on amendment 3, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 50, no abstentions and one against, therefore amendment 3 is agreed.

I now call for a vote on the motion as amended.

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 35, no abstentions, 16 against, therefore the motion as amended is agreed.

The next vote is on the UKIP debate on upland livestock, and I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Gareth Bennett. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour four, no abstentions, 48 against, therefore the motion is not agreed.

Amendment 1—if amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will be deselected. I call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 13, no abstentions, 39 against, therefore amendment 1 is not agreed.

Amendment 2. If amendment 2 is agreed, amendment 3 will be deselected. I call for a vote on amendment 2, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour six, one abstention, 45 against. Therefore, amendment 2 is not agreed.

Amendment 3, therefore. I call for a vote on amendment 3, tabled in the name of Julie James. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 30, no abstentions, 22 against. Therefore, amendment 3 is agreed.

The final vote, therefore, on the motion as amended. Open the vote. 

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 30, no abstentions, 22 against. Therefore, the motion as amended is agreed.

If you're leaving the Chamber, can you do so quietly, please, and quickly?

We're going to now move to the short debate, and I call on Jack Sargeant to speak on the topic he has chosen. Jack Sargeant.  

Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer, and thank you for this opportunity to lead my first short debate in the Senedd on improving our democracy and political debate: why Wales must lead the way in creating and delivering a kinder politics. I'm also very pleased today to be giving a minute of my time to colleagues from across the Chamber, including Adam Price, Julie Morgan and Darren Millar.

I entered this Assembly during the hardest time of my life and my family's life, and for many of us it still is the hardest time of our lives. Back then, I pledged to my constituents, the people of the Labour Party and, indeed, people across Wales that I would play my part in delivering a kinder politics and also building on my dad's legacy. He embodied a kinder politics, with his ability and willingness to never be a bystander and always strive to work cross-party. He called out bullying when he saw it and supported people through their difficulties. I intend to do the same: to build a kinder politics, not just in politics itself, but kindness in life in general.

We will at times hurt people, because that is life. However, we should never intentionally do so, and we should all be conscious to be kinder to each other. To achieve that, we need fundamental change in culture. Change in culture of our politics to make it more accessible to the people that we represent, treating each other with respect, regardless of our views and listening to ideas and working across party divides for the good of the country, because that’s what the people expect from their elected representatives.

I believe this debate is a timely one, with recent news headlines and statistics revealing a rise in hate crime, politicians receiving hate messages online and public unease on the rise. A huge increase in social media, social and political challenges are all factors in why our modern politics has become a diverse and tribal one. For all the great progress we have made as a country, Wales is part of a UK that faces many divisions, not just on the issues of remain or leave, but young or old, north and south, rich and poor, urban and rural. Many people look to my party to lead the way and heal these divisions, but it is our duty, all of our duty, to play our own part and lead the change we need.

The next generation of people across Wales look to us to act in their interests. In the Senedd Oriel there is a display board with things that people from across Wales and further afield want to see, and in my first speech in the Senedd I said that I hoped, as a representative of a new generation in this Assembly, I could do something to build a better, kinder politics for all for the future. And this means getting more of the younger generation involved—our future generation with fresh ideas—in this place and in other political institutions.

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to read through some of these ideas on the board in the Oriel and I stress that many people across this Chamber should go and have a look for themselves, because I wasn't surprised to see that so many children and young people refer to the need for better mental health services and to ensure that we end bullying in schools. This, of course, will take time, but with the right leadership we can ensure that, within our own political parties, we lead the way to end bullying within our ranks. I firmly believe that leadership is about listening, and for my party, it's about listening to the people of Wales and reaching out to our new members and those current members, and supporters of this Assembly and the Welsh Government. It's about involving people in our debates on policy and decision making. 

The public look to all our political parties, often without much trust, to lead by example, but they also look at us as individuals to act, and it's just not good enough to notice the need for kindness in our political opponents; we also have to look at ourselves. For democracy to be effective, parties, at the very least, have to function. Implosion and infighting attitudes are all impacts that parties across the board have, and ultimately, the current tribal nature of UK politics runs the risk of all MPs and AMs no longer being able to unite those people at the furthest end of society.

The job of Government is to take the anger and frustration that so many groups across the UK and across Wales are feeling about their future and turn that anger and frustration into action and success. Governance is about healing those divisions and unifying the very best of all these ideals, not just the mainstream ones, but all those that stir the most emotions. We know that from our political division there has been an increase in hate crime, and the harsh reality is that race, ethnicity, religion, gender, disability status and all related categories all continue to determine the life chances and well-being of people in Britain in ways that are totally unacceptable.

Now, some will argue whether a kinder politics is possible at all, but a kinder politics is only possible if more of those who will benefit can vote, for example. Politics should be the space where the battle of ideas allows our dialects between different political positions, and we've seen, in past years, the rise of identity politics as a simplistic answer to complex problems, but there is more to offer and it is important to start crafting new and competing political projects. A return to kinder politics means also the possibility to offer more viable policy alternatives for the people to choose from, rooted in fairness and social and factual analysis. A route to kinder politics also means tearing down the echo of the chambers and the disconnect between the public and elected Members. And, what happens on both sides of the Chamber and all sides of the Chamber, be it in the media, in Parliament and the Assembly and in public forums, is the creation of echo chambers, and we no longer see the exchange of proper ideas, but rather, a solidification of one's ready-formed mindset—the bubble mindset. One consequence of this is that extremist positions can thrive more easily than they used to. Personal interaction has now become virtual and that has allowed the radicalisation and the risk of radicalisation in a tone of discourse, with the news and debates on social networks being turned nasty.

For politics to work at its best it also needs compromise, and compromise is a form of kindness. It is about respecting others to genuinely take their views on board. Sometimes in politics we agree to things that don't necessarily benefit us, but because it is the right thing to do, and in such circumstances, it is an unkind thing to try and reframe or redefine that compromise. It appears that some, including the powerful in our economy across the UK and in political life, cannot imagine that kindness works as a political strategy. Many see kindness as a weakness. It is a character trait avoided and mocked. Well, I do not agree with that, and I will not give in to those who suggest that a change in culture, a kinder politics and a kindness in life isn't possible. Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer.

In the 1960s, the American writer James Baldwin argued for a new politics of love. It was a brave call at a time when freedom riders were literally being lynched in cold blood and hot rage. Hannah Arendt wrote Baldwin a letter in response arguing that politics and love must be strangers. She saw in it a slippery slope to sentimentalism and the banishment of reason. When you leave the door ajar to love, she argued, you also leave it open to its opposite, hate, and she had experience of that, brutally, of course, in Nazi Germany. Baldwin—black and gay—disagreed:

'Love takes off the masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within.'

Loving each other means that we have to be fully ourselves with all our vulnerability, and learning that to be heard we also must learn to listen. Kindness is not weakness. It's a different type of strength, what Baldwin described as

'the tough and universal sense of quest and daring and growth',

and it's in that spirit that I'm glad to support the call for a new kind of politics where love is our motivation, our ideal, our virtue and our common goal.

Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to say a few words in this very important debate. I'd like to congratulate Jack Sargeant for putting forward this subject, because I think this is a difficult subject and I think he shows courage in putting it forward. I do think we need a kinder politics—a politics of mutual respect—and I think in the short time he's been here Jack has contributed to that mutual respect.

Before I came here as an Assembly Member, along with others in this Chamber, I was a Member in the House of Commons, and when I came here it did seem a more consensual Chamber. It did seem that people looked to where they agreed as well as where they disagreed, and I felt that there was a great deal of mutual respect. But I do feel that that has deteriorated over the last few years, and I feel that as an example, as Jack has said, to the public, in this Chamber we have not always been very good examples recently, and I think it has become more confrontational. There's been more shouting and there's been less tolerance of each other as individuals.

I'd like to support this debate very strongly, because I do believe it is possible to hold passionate views, to differ very strongly, but to still respect each other, and I think that we ought to do that in this Chamber. I think Jack's debate today highlights that, and I'd like to give it my fullest support.

I too, Presiding Officer, also want to rise in support of Jack's calls for a kinder politics here in Wales, which respects the dignity of every human being. After all, we're all equal, we're all made in the image of God, and we all have a right, I think, to be heard. We forget sometimes, I think, and lose ourselves in the theatre that is this Assembly Chamber. I would be the first one to acknowledge that sometimes, when passions run high, we say things that we'd like to stuff back down our throats. But one thing that is for sure is that there is a great deal of unity, and there has been in my 11 years in this Assembly Chamber, and I would concur with the view of Julie Morgan that there is much more that unites us than divides us, and I think that it's very important that we should be people who disagree well, so that even if we don't share the same views, we can at least appreciate the views of those that we disagree with.

I think that Jack's call certainly hasn't fallen on deaf ears as far as I'm concerned, and I very much hope that we will all do what we can in this Chamber and outside of this Chamber, to make sure that that respect is there, that the kindness is always shown in the words that we share and in the actions that we take towards other people. So, congratulations to you, Jack. I'm fully behind your calls, and I'm sure I speak for all on my benches in saying so.

Thank you. Can I now call the leader of the house to reply to the debate? Julie James.

Diolch, Llywydd. I'm also extremely grateful to Jack for tabling this debate today, because of course Wales can and should lead the way to promote kinder and more diverse politics. The quality of the discourse in this Chamber and elsewhere in public life of course should set the tone for public debate in Wales, and, Deputy Presiding Officer, I too think that the level of debate in the Chamber has changed significantly over the last year or so, and I regret that as well.

I didn't hear the exchange between my colleague Kirsty Williams and Darren Millar earlier on, but I would like to say something that I have been very struck by here—we can often have very vigorous disagreements, vigorous debate, vigorous argument, and Darren and I have exchanged vigorous and passionate views on opposite sides of the spectrum, but what the public don't see is that, actually, we're friendly outside, that we have much more in common than that which divides us. If you wanted to do it as a percentage, we actually agree on a very large amount—we're arguing about a very small amount of difference. We're actually all here for the same reason: we're here because we want to make Wales a better place for constituents and for all of us, and we have a different route-map to get there, but we're all trying to get to the same place. So, I think what the debate does is it highlights that.

So often in public life, it's regarded as a sort of adversarial thing, but we all know that, actually, much of what we do here is consensual, that we argue about small bits of factual detail and nuance, but, actually, very largely we agree. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to get legislation through. We're often going in the same direction, but perhaps we have a slightly different route. If you want to use the Google Maps analogy: your estimated time of arrival might be two minutes slower if you go down this route, but we're trying to get to the same place.

Actually, I think that's something we should talk about more. In encouraging, for example, young women to come forward into politics, it's often a surprise to them that we get on very well, that we all, across the parties, get on well outside of the Chamber, that we often have that discourse, because what they see, of course, is the vigorous debate in here. They assume that that goes out into the committees and so on, because, actually, people don't watch the committees as much. They don't see the consensual working, the hard work and the detail that goes on in them. I think, actually, we've got a duty to make sure that people do see that bit of consensual—to quote the Jo Cox quote that Darren used, we do have

'more in common than that which divides us.'

It sometimes takes a horrific act like the death of the MP Jo Cox to bring forward that kind of surge of emotion. I was very struck by how, after Jo died, for a moment, the media talked about politicians as the public servants we all know they are, and this terrible dichotomy that we all have where a local politician is often very admired locally, but, actually, politicians in general are not. There was a little surge, wasn't there, of people actually understanding all of that work, and then we relapsed back into the hurly-burly of everyday life? But I think that the positive behaviour and role modelling should actually be something we celebrate, and when we do talk to the young people in our youth parliament, for example, and Jack's highlighted this, we should get them to have that kind of consensus building, because you know that we all achieve more when we build that consensus, and we're often trying to go in the same direction.

I think there are several things that we need to also really consider very hard in this Chamber. There are things we could do, the Commission could do and we could all do, around things like internships—paid internships, proper internships—that encourage people who are not currently represented in the Chamber to be here. So, specific internships for people with disabilities, for example, or people from diverse communities who are not currently represented here could be offered so that we can show people that this place is a welcoming place for all of them.

I recently met with a group, just like the Deputy Presiding Officer, of young people from a diverse range of ethnic minority backgrounds, and I was very struck by them saying that they had not felt welcome in the building because, when they looked through the glass walls into the building, they didn't see anybody who looked like them, and so they didn't feel it was a place for them. I was quite shocked by that. I think we need to do something about that. We need to make sure that this place is a welcoming, transparent place for all of our communities in Wales, for our young people as well as—well, for every community. That's the point. And people do look to see somebody who looks like them, to see if that place is a welcoming place for them. I personally, for example, would find it very difficult to walk into a coffee shop or a bar that didn't have anyone that looked like me in it. I think I probably wouldn't be very welcome there, and you can extrapolate that into public life. And you do see that that lack of role model really matters. 

In terms of things like hate crime, Jack mentioned the rise in hate crime. We are working very hard to make sure that we encourage people to come forward and report all of the crime that happens, because we know that there is under-reporting, and part of that issue is people—and we've spoken to all of our police commissioner colleagues on this as well—understanding that something will be done if they report it because, actually, there's a lot of assumption around that. The police commissioners across the party spectrum have worked very hard to ensure that, actually, something will be done if you report such a crime and that we highlight that—that this is not an acceptable way to behave in modern Wales, and we've worked very hard to do that. 

Similarly with our asylum and refugee plan and our nation of sanctuary plan, which we are very proud of and which we are just analysing the responses to. We want to make sure that everyone in Wales can make a proper contribution to our life, that they can use the talents that they brought with them in Wales for all of our benefit. We know that we couldn't run our national health service, we couldn't run many of our public services without the contribution of people who came here, escaping sometimes the most horrendous situations and then are able to turn themselves around and use their skills for our benefit. I'm never happier than when I see that happen, and I hope you will see the really lovely video that's available on Facebook—it comes up very often on my feed anyway—of the two young people in traditional Muslim dress in Carmarthenshire speaking Welsh over a stream. It's extremely heart-warming, and they talk about how their lives have changed since they've been in Wales in Welsh, which is just absolutely lovely. I think it's that kind of role model that we need—those young people to come forward into public life having made a life here that Jack is highlighting. So, I'm delighted that he said that. 

I just want to say one last thing about that. [Interruption.] Of course, Angela. 

Thank you for taking an intervention, because I think, actually, the one thing that we haven't mentioned is the role the media play, and I think it's vital that the media desist on some of the ways that they portray people, politicians, refugees, so that these good role models, these good stories, the broadening of our understanding and the acceptance of different ways of life are portrayed in a far more positive way because, to be frank, you can pick up any paper, broadsheet or tabloid, and it's always the negative thing that comes out. It's the politician who spends 32p on cat food or the person in Muslim dress walking down a street and saying something that's misinterpreted. You know, we always look for the worst, and I'm afraid to say that I think that the media have to be part of helping everyone to develop a new and kinder type of politics. One of the reasons I think it is so important is if we do not do this—leave the fabric of our society open to just the extremes of all the edges. The good people won't want to take part in it, because they'll take one look and say, 'This isn't for me', and they will go away. Once we do that, we vacate that, and one of the things we know for a fact is that nature abhors a vacuum. If we leave that vacuum, then it will be filled by people who don't have that love that you talked about, and that Adam so wisely spoke of, at the centre of it.      

I couldn't agree with you more, Angela. One of the things that we've been very pleased to be doing is collecting a series of positive stories from around Wales to get them into the media, and to interest journalists in better magazine-type pieces than the kind of stuff that you're talking about.

I wanted to finish by saying that without young role models like Jack, it's very difficult to get that picture across, and I would encourage all of you—. So, one of the things I do, and I speak in a lot of schools—I know Suzy does and Caroline does because I see them there, because they're from the same bit as me—I speak to a lot of young people in schools, a really diverse range of people, and I say, 'Look, you'll have heard all that stuff about politicians, you'll have heard that women politicians get a load of grief and all the rest of it, and some of that is true. But I do this job because I love it and because, actually, it really is a valuable thing to do. You come to realise that you're doing something that's very important and, actually, you have a serious chance to change the way that your nation does certain things.' That's the thing that we need to get across, because it's lost in the gloss of difficulty and the lack of kindness. But if we were to show the kind of strength that Adam talked about in kindness, and Julie talked about as well, in the way that we debate things, if we were to show some of that consensus and the real satisfaction you get out of doing a public service—not just an elected one, other public service lives are possible—then we will get a kinder sort of politics, because we will be emphasising the part of our job that is that part and not emphasising the part of our job that is the kind of cut and thrust that you sometimes get in First Minister's questions and all the rest of it. And I don't think there's anything wrong with us pointing out that, actually, Darren's rather more of a pussycat outside the Chamber than he sometimes is—to quote my colleague Kirsty Williams. Not to spoil your reputation, Darren. [Laughter.] But, also, that we do have more in common than that which divides us, and I think, Deputy Presiding Officer, that's a good place to stop. Thank you, Jack, for the debate.  

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