National Assembly for Wales

Welcome to this Plenary meeting. I just want to set out a few points, before we start. This meeting will be held in a hybrid format, with some Members in the Senedd Siambr and others joining by video-conference. All Members who participate in proceedings of the Senedd, wherever they may be, will be treated equally. A Plenary meeting held using video-conference, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the Welsh Parliament, constitute Senedd proceedings for the purposes of the Government of Wales Act 2006. Some of the provisions of Standing Order 34 will apply for today's Plenary meeting, and those have been noted on your agenda. And I would remind Members that Standing Orders relating to order in Plenary meetings apply to this meeting, and apply equally to Members in the Siambr as to those joining virtually.

The first item on our agenda this afternoon is questions to the Minister for Education, and the first question is from Suzy Davies. 

Thank you, Suzy. The review panel is currently gathering evidence and interviewing stakeholders. I will receive the interim findings, which will include key considerations for 2021, next month.

Thank you for that. It's just to raise the point that some in the sector have been contacted only this week, despite the review's findings due to be published by the end of October, so I'm not sure when the interim one is due. What they say does matter if preparations for the summer are to be practicable. Qualifications Wales have got their own summer 2021 stakeholder group to meet between now and December. So, could you tell us how that work and that of the review will relate to each other? And when will schools and colleges know exactly what they need to teach and how pupils' work will be assessed? Because that Qualifications Wales work won't be finished until a third of the way through the academic year. 

Thank you, Suzy. The interim report from the review body will be made available to me next month, and their final review will be given to me before the end of the year. Clearly, in the interim, Qualifications Wales are indeed carrying out their own piece of work, but they have already given evidence to the review panel, I believe, and they will need to be cognisant of any findings that the independent review panel make to me and any decisions I make as a result of the work of Louise Casella.  

Minister, you know I wrote to you in August, asking for a review of the system, following the results publication, and I am very pleased that the review is taking place. But I am concerned about next summer's examinations or possible examinations. We still don't know what will happen next summer, as of this point. I also know that many teachers and pupils are also concerned about what will happen with examinations next summer. Are you putting into place a plan B, which could be based upon teacher-assessed work again but, this time, moderated to ensure that there is fairness in the system and everyone receives grades that are equal and equivalent across Wales?  

Thank you, David. I recognise that practitioners, parents and pupils are concerned about what will happen in the examination series next summer. I have previously said that it is my sincere hope that examinations will be possible, but clearly we have to have contingencies in place if we find ourselves in the situation, for a variety of reasons, where examinations are not possible. As I said, in answer to Suzy Davies, the interim review panel is not just considering the examination series for this last summer, but will be making recommendations for next summer. And, as I said, the interim report will be made available to me in October. 

Thank you, Jayne. We have published guidance for post-16 providers to help them operate safely at this time. Colleges and universities must carry out risk assessments to ensure that appropriate measures are put in place to manage the risks of COVID-19 transmission in their institutions.

Thank you, Minister. Ensuring our young people are able to physically attend school or college is very welcome, and I know that the Minister and teachers across Wales have worked incredibly hard to ensure this has happened, and continues to happen, even in the difficult and changing circumstances we see. However, one concern that I've received from teachers and pupils is around post-16 education in schools. Those young people who are in school are more likely to work part-time and have social contacts from outside their school. However, the social distancing and guidance is the same as for 11-year-olds. There's a perception that sixth-form classes hold fewer pupils, however, I understand that, in some subjects, in some schools, there are over 30 students in a class. What discussions has the Minister had about the guidance for post-16 students in Wales and what has been learnt, following the first month, which could inform future planning?

Thank you very much, Jayne, for that. You're right—our sixth forms come in all shapes and sizes, with class sizes that can vary considerably, but it is correct to say that, sometimes, in popular subjects in large schools, sixth-form classes can indeed have a number of pupils. We have been very clear in our guidance to both schools and colleges that we should look to minimise contacts between groups of students at this particular time, and it is really important that practitioners are able to socially distance from their class. 

Clearly, we are keeping under very careful review the operation of both schools and colleges, following the first month, really, of operations. I'm pleased to say that the vast majority of schools have not had a case and, where we have had cases of COVID in pupils or teachers, that's usually a single case in a single institution. We have had cases in our FE colleges, but I'm pleased to say that, working with local test, trace, protect teams, the disruption to learning has been minimised. But, clearly, we're keeping under constant review the guidance to both schools and colleges as a result of the experiences over the last four weeks, and we'll be looking to review guidance in light of what we have learned so far. What's really important to remember is that the advice to date from Public Health Wales is that there is no evidence that schools or colleges are vectors for the virus spreading, and cases that we have seen in schools are a reflection of what we're seeing in our communities.

Minister, can I ask you what additional support is in place for learners who have extremely vulnerable people in their households who could be susceptible to COVID? I've got a learner in my own constituency who would like to continue with her post-16 education, but unfortunately her local college has told her that she must attend the college site in order to undertake the A-levels of her choice. As a result of that, she's not able to participate in education at present. Is there advice that you've been able to give to colleges to overcome this particular barrier that some young people are now facing as a result of having siblings or others in their families who may be extremely vulnerable?

Thank you for that, Darren. We have had regular discussions with both schools and colleges about what reasonable adaptations can be made to support students who may themselves be very vulnerable or feel very vulnerable at this time. It would be important for that student to have a discussion with her college, but if, Darren, you would like to write to me about that particular case, I will make further investigations.

Questions now from party spokespeople. The Conservative spokesperson, Suzy Davies.

If you could turn your microphone on, Suzy Davies—okay, try again.

Sorry about that.

Yes, Minister, I was listening to your response to Jayne Bryant there and that observation that schools and colleges aren't vectors for the spread of COVID. Yet we've seen considerable numbers being sent home from some schools—200 in one case, and over 400 in another. You say you're monitoring what's happening at the moment, but have you learnt anything yet about why further education colleges seem to be doing a better job of minimising face-to-face teaching? They're losing fewer students than schools. Why is that?

Thank you, Suzy. As you said, we are keeping in close touch with our local education authorities and our directors of education. And in the case you've just mentioned—400 pupils leaving a school—I myself have spoken to the headteacher in those circumstances to understand why that situation arose. That's why, as I said in answer to Jayne Bryant, we are learning the lessons of these four weeks, where schools have worked incredibly hard to operationalise the guidance that we've made available to them. But clearly, in the light of those experiences, we need to understand what more we can do, how we can improve our guidance in schools, so that they can limit the number of direct contacts, and what other support we can give schools from our TTP teams, to be able to help them make decisions around which students can safely remain in school and not disrupt their education, and which students will, indeed, need to isolate. So, we're looking to review our guidance and, as I said, work closely with our colleagues in Public Health Wales and TTP to ensure that the advice given to headteachers is as good as it needs to be and that we have consistency across TTP teams in Wales.

Thank you for that. I think it would be helpful as well if colleges within a certain area might be prepared to speak to some of the headteachers in schools within their area about some of the good ideas that they've had.

Further education and higher education have both received over £20 million each from the Welsh Government COVID pot, despite a projected funding gap of more than £400 million for higher education. You signalled in the Welsh Conservative debate last week that that's one of the reasons why you don't support a partial reduction in fees for students who've lost out on the experience they've paid for. But, as we've heard, some students are having to stay in their expensive rooms to log in when they could have done that in a more familiar and cheaper environment at home—a home that many students will be leaving for the first time. None of the £27 million for HE is ring-fenced for student support. What are universities in Wales telling you now about how much of that money is going to unanticipated and speedy emotional and mental well-being support for students, and will they be coming to you for a top-up to the £27 million because of that?

Suzy, you'll be aware that the £27 million additional money that we've made available to the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales will be delivered to our institutions by the funding council. I met with the chair and the chief executive of our funding council just yesterday. And in my remit letter to them, emotional and mental health support for students is a priority for me, and I would expect part of that £27 million to be used to support universities deliver robust mental health and well-being support to students at this time, and also, potentially, to use some of that funding to ensure that financial distress that some students may experience is also taken into consideration. Obviously, Welsh students who are residing in Wales and studying—well, wherever they study—are entitled to our support programme. But I recognise that many students would usually supplement their income with part-time jobs, which may prove more difficult to come by at this particular time. So, both financial support and mental health support are a priority for me and a priority for the funding council, and we await bids from Welsh institutions to that pot of money, to ensure that that support is available.

Thank you for that. That's a good, strong message there to universities, so I certainly hope they're picking that up, because, at some point down the line, of course, we'll be scrutinising you on the spend of that £27 million, and I'm sure you will want that reassurance in the reports that you get back from universities in due course.

On a related matter—you'll know this—concerns have been raised with me, in my region and elsewhere, regarding some confusion about students living in large, off-campus houses in multiple occupation. Now, some set-ups are clearly single-person households in one building, but others can legitimately say that they're one genuine household of friends, sharing all facilities and costs like a family. This will impact on how the occupants of those buildings can respond to lockdown, and those in the latter situation are certainly at an advantage. I accept that this applies to non-students as well. But can you tell us how far down the road Welsh Government is to allowing solitary students to have a limited extended household in order to keep them sane? And, more generally, what concerns have you brought to the attention of the Minister for Housing and Local Government about what is understood by students to constitute an extended household, bearing in mind that they all have their own families, who may be happy to accept their own child in a bubble but not a whole household of friends?

Thank you very much for that. Can I assure the Member that I am not just seeking reassurances from individual institutions or the funding council about the levels of support institutions are putting in place for mental health? I met this week with the National Union of Students Wales to understand from them how their members are feeling. I will meet again with them next week, and I will continue to meet with them on a weekly basis so that I can receive reports from them as to how members are feeling. So, there are a number of checks and balances in how we are understanding what is going on on the ground.

I think it’s really important, Suzy, that we make clear that students will not be treated in a less favourable way than permanent residents of Wales. Wales is now their home. Our expectation is that they abide by Welsh regulations and guidance, but we certainly won't be putting additional restrictions in place. Indeed, in some cases, recognising some of the challenges around student accommodation—both on campus and off campus—the ability to share facilities has been made an exception to some of the issues around single households. But, clearly, we will continue to work with the housing Minister to ensure that those students who would be described as a single household are subject to the same consideration when we look at the wider issues related to individuals who find themselves living alone in the pandemic—some who might be vulnerable, some of them who are not vulnerable. But we all need that human contact and, as a Government, we're looking at finding ways in which we can allow that to happen safely, recognising that periods of isolation for those living alone can be particularly challenging.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Helen Mary Jones.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llywydd. Yesterday, Minister, the First Minister said in response to a question from Adam Price regarding students returning home for Christmas that he wouldn't treat students differently from anyone else. Now, I'm very glad to hear what you've just said to Suzy Davies—that you won't treat them less favourably—but I would suggest to the Government that this is a very distinct group of citizens. There can't be many other groups of citizens that will be moving in such large numbers from one community to another at particular times.

If a student is in a situation that they are in a university at Christmastime that is subject to a lockdown, does that mean that they can't go home? Everything that you've just been saying to Suzy Davies about the welfare of students and their mental and emotional well-being is very encouraging, but I would suggest to the Government that students do need to be treated differently, and perhaps what we need is a system whereby all students can be tested before they return home for Christmas, so that they could socially isolate when they get back home, if that's what they need to do—if they get a positive test. Otherwise, we will face, potentially, groups of young people or young people on their own over the Christmas holidays, and I know that you would not want to see that any more than I would.

Thank you, Helen Mary, for that. I want to assure the Chamber and, indeed, I want to assure students and parents that it is a priority for me, and a priority for this Government, to ensure that students who are residing and studying at Welsh universities will be able to return home for Christmas. I say that as a Minister, and I say that as a mum who has just sent my eldest daughter to university on Sunday evening. Believe me, she might have views about coming home for Christmas, but I desperately want her home for Christmas with me.

So, we will be working with our health Minister, working with our individual institutions and, indeed, working with the UK Government to ensure that the circumstances can be put in place to allow that to happen. SAGE, in their advice to the UK Government, is very, very clear that this needs to be worked out on a UK-wide basis because of the student flows across our borders. Individual students will be wanting to cross county and country borders, so, therefore, Governments need to work together on creating the circumstances that will allow that to happen. I discussed this matter with the universities Minister in the UK Government yesterday. I will discuss it again tomorrow with Gavin Williamson, and we are determined to ensure that students, when they want to, will be able to return home. But, clearly, we need to put the circumstances in place where they can do that safely.

Thank you, Minister. So, what you're telling the Chamber today is that you will be treating students, potentially, differently from other groups of people. If that's the case, I'm very glad indeed to hear it. I fully support your point about trying to develop a UK-wide response to this, because, obviously, we have a lot of cross-border flow. I would put it to you, however, that if the UK Government acting as the Government for England fail to sort themselves out on this, I do hope that there will be a plan B from the Welsh Government.

If I can turn, then, to students who are currently at university but not receiving any direct teaching or only receiving very minimal amounts of face-to-face teaching, there will be some of those students who would wish to return home and to be able to do their remote learning from there. What's the Government's position on that at the moment? For example, if you're, let's say, a student in Aberystwyth whose home is in RCT, is it permissible for that student to come from Aberystwyth to RCT to study for a period of weeks if that's what they feel they need to do, and is it then permissible for them to return to the university when blended learning and face-to-face learning can start again? It is quite a complex situation, I think, for students, and I think they would appreciate more clarity.

I wonder if you can give us a sense as well this afternoon, Minister, because I know you'll have your finger on the pulse with this, as to how much blended learning is taking place, how much actual face-to-face learning are students getting. I don't support, as you know, the Conservative position that would have students having their fees repaid, simply because I don't think our institutions can afford it, but I do think that if students are only getting very minimal or none at all in terms of face-to-face teaching, they ought to be allowed to go home to be with their families, if we can do that safely, in order that they can get that emotional support. Many of them, especially first years, of course, will be self-isolating potentially with people they've never met before, and that's not a happy place for an 18-year-old to be.

Firstly, with regard to the suspension of face-to-face learning in Aberystwyth, that decision was taken late on Sunday evening; it will be reviewed on Friday and I know it is the sincere hope of the university to be able to move back to a blended learning approach. A quick survey of social media will demonstrate to you that our institutions across Wales are already delivering a blended learning approach, whether that be our medics back doing face-to-face learning in Cardiff University, whether that's engineering students at Trinity Saint David, whether that's history students at Swansea, or, indeed, something that is of particular interest to me, our ITE, our education students at Cardiff Met, who are out and about, actually, doing their learning outside as part of their induction into the university and developing their skills in delivering outdoor learning activities. So, universities are working incredibly hard to deliver that blended learning approach.

What's really important to me, Helen Mary, and I'm sure it is to you, is that it needs to be a quality experience. Lectures that are delivered online need to be good lectures and good experiences, as well as that face-to-face contact. That's why I've received assurances from HEFCW yesterday that they will be monitoring the quality of the blended learning approach very, very carefully. And let me say, blended learning and face-to-face contact is not just important in the context of learning. It is an important part of how universities can check in with the welfare of their students, by having an opportunity to see them face-to-face, and I know a great deal of time, effort and resources have gone in to, for instance, expanding university estates and creating more space to allow that to happen safely. So, for instance, in the case of Aberystwyth, they have actually recommissioned buildings that had previously been mothballed so that they can indeed deliver that face-to-face contact in small tutorial groups, and I know that they're keen to continue to do so as soon as is possible.

I have allocated funding of £400,000 to local authorities this year to provide support to home-educating families in recognition of the additional costs that these families may incur when providing resources and opportunities that are typically available free in school. This provision of funding is unique to Wales. 

I'm very grateful for that response, Minister, and very grateful for the funding that has been made available for home-educated young people. One of the challenges that many of those who have been home educated have faced over the past examination period is that obviously they're not at centres whereby grades could have been provided to them, and as a result, many are having to face the prospect, potentially, of examinations next year. Can you tell us what assurances you can give to the parents of home-educated learners that there will be an opportunity for them to sit their exams next year, so that they won't have to lose out when compared to their peers in terms of being able to have access to the grades that they believe they should have secured this year?

Thank you, Darren, for the recognition of the financial resources that have been made available. As I said in answer to earlier questions, it is my sincere hope that examinations will be able to go ahead next year. However, we know that this virus and the pandemic is unpredictable, so we do need to have other provision in place, and we will need to ensure this time—because we have more time to plan—that the specific needs of children who are not attached to a specific centre have the opportunity to be awarded a grade. So, I know that this is under consideration at the moment.

Minister, home education can be an informed and positive choice for families and children, so the additional funding from Welsh Government is really welcome. But in June, you announced that due to the pressures of responding to the COVID crisis, it wouldn't be possible to proceed with the proposals set out in the consultation on home education statutory guidance and draft database regulations. You wrote reassuringly to the Protecting Home Education Wales organisation explaining that you hoped they would be taken forward by the next Government at the earliest opportunity, and that new or revised proposals would be subject to public consultation. So, could I ask, Minister, would that consultation also take into account any further representations by the Children's Commissioner for Wales or by child and safeguarding organisations on how these proposals—recognising they're primarily focused on educational support—can also assist child safeguarding in Wales?

Huw, I can give you that assurance that any further consultation on these proposals will indeed take into consideration the views of everybody that has something that they feel that they can contribute. It is disappointing that we have found ourselves in the position where we cannot proceed in the way I had intended; it is regrettable indeed. But I should stress that despite the inability at this time, due to pressures of COVID, not to proceed with new legislation, local education authorities still remain under the legal obligation to ensure that all children are in receipt of a suitable education, wherever that education is delivered, and that hasn't changed. We issued guidance to local authorities earlier in the year about how they could continue to fulfil that function and support home-educating families during the pandemic, and we're looking to spread good practice across local authorities in that regard, so that where improvements can happen, and need to happen, there are examples of how that can be achieved.

I have remitted HEFCW to work with partners in the HE sector to address student mental health and well-being. To support this work, I allocated HEFCW £3.5 million last year to support well-being and health in higher education, including student mental health.

Thank you, Minister. I know that you are very well aware that I share the concerns raised by other Members about the mental health of higher education students at this very difficult time, and also that the committee has written to all vice-chancellors in Wales to seek assurances about support for students. But what I wanted to ask about today was specifically suicide prevention. I was very grateful to you for meeting with me and James Murray, whose son Ben tragically died by suicide at Bristol university two years ago. Can I ask, following that meeting, what update there is in terms of encouraging universities to embed Papyrus's excellent 'Suicide-safer Universities' guide in their work? Thank you.

Thank you for that question, Lynne, and also thank you for the opportunity to meet with yourself and Mr Murray, whose testimony was powerful indeed. He outlined, very clearly, the steps that all institutions can take to make them as safe as possible for young people. As you're aware, I gave a commitment, during that meeting, that we would be pursing the issue of Papyrus's advice, to see what steps universities were taking to implement that advice. I would like to reassure all Members that each university, prior to the start of the academic year, have been asked to prepare COVID plans, and one of the questions that we were asking in those plans is what steps they were going to take to support mental health at this time. So, whilst COVID brings new challenges, it is a particularly important aspect of universities' work at this time, recognising that people could feel additional vulnerabilities and additional isolation, worries and anxieties on top of what we would usually see at the start of the academic year. We will continue to monitor their progress via the funding council, and indeed with my regular meetings with NUS Wales.

Minister, in earlier questions you said that this has to be a UK-wide approach to get students home for Christmas, and I'd agree on that basis, given the cross-border flows that happen with students. The education Minister—the Secretary of State for Education I should say, sorry, in London, highlighted to the House of Commons yesterday that he could see that there'll be a formal suspension of face-to-face lecture time and tutorials, and everything would move online so that a two-week period of isolation could be undertaken by students before they left their universities to head home before Christmas. Is that a course of action you subscribe to?

Andrew, as you say, it's important that we have a UK approach, if at all possible; that is what has been recommended by SAGE. And, as you said, there are significant cross-border flows of students—Welsh students into England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and vice versa, and therefore a co-ordinated approach, I believe, is best. I will be discussing a range of options with Gavin Williamson when I meet him later this week.

I published learning guidance in the summer, which set out our priorities for all scenarios, including blended learning. I have also announced a Recruit, Recover and Raise Standards programme and extra support for A-level students, and I have modified the curriculum requirements to take pressure off schools.

Thank you, Minister. Unfortunately, in recent weeks we have discovered just how hard it is to keep coronavirus in check. Future outbreaks are sadly inevitable. What we have to do is ensure that those outbreaks do not disrupt a single day of education. Minister, we have seen entire year groups sent home as a result of infections, and while we do everything possible to prevent the infections and stop such actions being necessary, we also have to prepare for the worst. Minister, what actions can you take to ensure a seamless transition from in-person to online learning, and will you ensure that schools are equipped to deliver classes virtually as opposed to providing self-paced learning?

Can I thank the Member for the supplementary question? Can I make it absolutely clear to the Member that whilst we have indeed seen disruption to education this term, 1,299 Welsh state schools have not suffered a COVID case to date? So, I think we just need to remember that, and give thanks to those teachers, support staff, governing bodies and local education authorities that are doing everything possible to minimise disruption to children at this time.

The Member will be aware that we have invested significantly in recent years in digital learning, both in terms of the infrastructure for individual schools, the provision of additional pieces of equipment for individual students and connectivity for students who don't have it at home. Just to give you an example of how schools are preparing to deal with disruption, during the month of September so far, since schools started back, we have seen the establishment of 25,000 Google classrooms; that is more Google classrooms set up in the period of one month than we have seen over a period of years. Teachers and schools are taking all steps necessary to be able to move to seamless synchronous and asynchronous learning should disruption happen to an individual group of students so that they can keep learning at this time.

Minister, good afternoon. I'm sure you'll join me in recognising the courage and resilience of our children as they return to school in what is a very worrying time for them and their parents. What thoughts have you given to providing more pastoral support and care to children in Wales, particularly in primary schools and nurseries at this time? In recent years, there's been an increasing demand for counselling services amongst schoolchildren, often discussed in this Chamber. Particularly now the COVID-19 pandemic is with us, we are seeing further disrupted children. So, how are you planning to increase counselling capacity in our schools, build resilience and support children? 

Good afternoon to you, Nick. Like you, I am in awe of the courage and resilience that have been shown by our young people at this time. Supporting them with their mental health and their well-being is important, and that's an important reason why we were determined to reopen schools fully for all children for this academic year and to keep them open, because we understand the impact that lockdown and not being in school has had on many children.

But, clearly, for some children, the return to school, whilst it is a happy one—they could, indeed, have anxieties as a result of the pandemic or the situation that they themselves or their families may find themselves in. That's why I have worked hard with my colleague the Minister for health to provide additional resources for school counselling this year, with a particular emphasis on being able to expand support in the primary sector, not through traditional counselling methods, which are not really appropriate for our younger children, but with a strong focus on family therapy and group work so that our youngest children can also be supported at this time. 

I just wondered if you could tell us a little bit more about the attendance rates at school, because I think that will give us an indication of how effective schools have been at reaching out to young people who may be feeling very anxious about returning to school and assuring them that they are going to be safe, and that they should be returning to school for their well-being.

Thank you, Jenny, for that. Overall, nationally, attendance rates run at approximately 80 per cent—just over 80 per cent—although there are some significant variations in that. Not surprisingly, those areas with a lower virus transmission are seeing higher levels of attendance. So, we see particularly high levels of attendance in Monmouthshire, in Pembrokeshire and in those areas, as I said, where we see lower levels of transmission. But even in areas of higher transmission, the vast, vast majority of children are continuing to attend school.

Undoubtedly, where there is a case, that can have an impact. Yesterday afternoon I had the privilege and pleasure of talking to the headteacher at Ninian Park Primary School here in Cardiff. They started off the term really, really positively with high attendance. Unfortunately, they had an individual case, which did see their attendance immediately after that case drop. But as of yesterday they were back to attendance in the region of 86 per cent, and that's because the teachers, the headteacher and the governing body had worked really hard to provide the assurance to parents that they needed that even with a case it was safe for their children to be back in school.

We will continue to work with local authorities to ensure that the Welsh Government is supporting them and the teaching profession in providing reassurance. In some cases, we know that parents are being incredibly cautious and trying their very best. It's cold season, so I know that our chief medical officers are working together across the United Kingdom to be able to provide more advice to parents to help them make decisions about when it is right for a child to be sent into school and when a child, perhaps, should be kept at home and get a test, if necessary. I know that teachers are working very hard to have those conversations with parents and to provide the necessary reassurance.

Diolch yn fawr, Helen Mary. Local authority Welsh in education strategic plans outline how demand for Welsh-medium education is met. Our annual monitoring of plans suggests an increase in learners accessing Welsh-medium provision in the majority of Mid and West Wales. New WESP regulations set out a higher expectation of targets, and that is aligned with Cymraeg 2050.

I'm grateful to you, Minister, for the answer. I know that you will want to join me in congratulating Powys County Council, who have recently put out to tender again to build the 150-place Ysgol Gymraeg y Trallwng in Welshpool. As someone who grew up in Montgomeryshire and was educated there, albeit a very long time ago, I very much welcome this investment.

I'd like to ask you about the next steps for the new Ysgol Gymraeg Dewi Sant in Llanelli. I'm aware that there are still issues with regard to finding an appropriate site. In the meantime, my inbox is full of people who are concerned about the difficulties of providing distanced learning safely on the existing site. Can I invite you once again, Minister, to reassure the families and the staff at the school that, when a new site is identified, the funding will be available for a new build and that that won't be lost because of the very unfortunate, and we won't rehearse the circumstances, inability to proceed on the original site? 

Like you and many other people, Helen Mary Jones, the re-provision of a new school for that community remains a priority for me. I look forward to receiving an application from Carmarthenshire council so that we can proceed with that project.

Minister, a report by Estyn earlier this year showed that standards in literacy, numeracy and Welsh second language require improvement in around half of primary schools and all secondary schools inspected since 2017 in Pembrokeshire. Given that Pembrokeshire local government education services are causing concern and require follow-up activity, can you tell us what discussions the Welsh Government has had with the local authority and, indeed, regional consortia about raising standards and improving outcomes, particularly in relation to the teaching of Welsh as a second language?

Thank you, Paul. Improvements in teaching Welsh as a second language is important right the way across Wales, not only in Pembrokeshire, and it'll be an important part of our reformed curriculum, our professional learning opportunities and our new initial teacher education provision. I myself met with representatives, with my officials and with representatives of Pembrokeshire, prior to the summer recess, to talk about what additional support the Welsh Government can give to that local education authority to help improve standards across the piece. 

The Bill is currently being scrutinised by the Senedd and therefore I do not intend to make a stand-alone statement on this matter. Though, as I have already indicated to Members, I am open to discussions and will listen to concerns.

I was going to say, 'Thanks, Minister', but I don't think I can now, really, because it's a very simple question about evidence. What I would have appreciated would have been some interaction on the question of evidence so at least we can have a grown-up discussion about this.

I think, having spoken to professionals in the field—this morning, actually—again, one question that comes to my mind is, 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it.' I think what we need to have is an understanding of the Welsh language, the special conditions that it takes to learn a language in immersion circumstances. And I think we really need to pay at least some attention, some real attention, to the so-called figure of a million speakers, which I think is just paying lip service at the moment, because I see no evidence.

I'm disappointed with the lack of engagement with the question. All I was asking for was some evidence, and you clearly have none. Thank you. 

I can assure the Member, Presiding Officer, that there are plenty of grown-up conversations being had about how we can deliver the targets of Cymraeg 2050. I am perfectly aware of the success of the immersion model in helping children acquire Welsh. My own children have benefited from it. There is nothing currently in the Bill that will prevent immersion from happening, but I am aware of concerns about how the Bill might inadvertently make immersion, or the increase in immersion, more difficult and therefore, as I said, I am willing to listen to those concerns and to engage positively with those people who positively engage with me.

Thank you for your answer to Mr McEvoy and also your previous answers to the last couple of questions, because it's all along the same theme. But I think the real barrier to being able to provide and to meet the Cymraeg 2050 target is actually the difficulty of getting Welsh-speaking teachers in play. We need more of them and we need them in all the different areas of Wales. There are some parts of Wales where it's incredibly difficult to get Welsh-speaking teachers. Conversely, we also have young people who are training as teachers who don't yet have Welsh and they're finding it sometimes difficult to find jobs that are non-Welsh-speaking. So, how are you going to address that balance in order to meet the Cymraeg 2050 target? And how can we encourage more people to become Welsh-speaking teachers so that we can not only do immersion learning but actually learning in the non-Welsh schools?

Thank you very much, Angela. The first thing that we need to do is increase the number of students who are studying Welsh at A-level, because we know that that qualification is often a precursor for people to go on to study Welsh at a higher level and then converting then into teaching Welsh, and we are promoting a Welsh A-level take-up scheme to promote that subject so that more students take it. Within initial teacher education, we are indeed providing opportunities for those students who currently do not have Welsh skills to be able to acquire those skills as part of their initial teacher education, so, even if they don't intend to go and teach in a Welsh-medium school, they can deliver high-quality Welsh lessons within the English-medium sector.

For those teachers who do, indeed, intend to teach through the medium of Welsh, we have provided funding—although, I have to admit that COVID has created some disruption to this programme—that will allow primary school qualified teachers to convert to be able to teach through the medium of Welsh in the secondary sector, because that is where we have particular shortages—in the secondary sector. And, indeed, those wishing to pursue a career teaching through the medium of Welsh continue to attract the highest level of ITE financial incentives if they choose to go to study for a teaching qualification in Welsh. 

Last week, I met with Coleg Cymraeg Cenedlaethol to talk about what more they can do, learning from the expertise that they already have in expanding Welsh-medium provision in the HE sector—what more they can do to work with our individual higher education institutions and the Education Workforce Council to ensure that we can increase the number of people who are acquiring those skills necessary to teach Welsh successfully in a Welsh-medium school or in an English-medium school.

I'm pleased to say that we have an uptick in the number of recruits onto ITE this year, but one swallow doesn't make a summer and we need to continue to press on this agenda.

Finally, question 8, Rhianon Passmore.

I understand that, for the week 14 to 18 September, attendance at maintained schools in Caerphilly was running at 77 per cent.

Diolch, Minister. Thank you for that answer. The Welsh Labour First Minister, Mark Drakeford, has stated that keeping schools open was a top priority for the Welsh Government. For the parents and children in Islwyn, it is imperative for their social and mental well-being that they are able to continue their education in school with all the necessary precautions. From Risca Primary School in the primary sector to Blackwood Comprehensive School in the secondary sector, children have had to leave school to self-isolate for a period of time.

From Welsh Government data that I saw on Wednesday, eight out of 10 Welsh children were in school, compared to six out of 10 for the previous week. So, Minister, with attendance rising, how can the Welsh Government reinforce to our communities that, for our children to be educated, there needs to be, on public health grounds, reassurance? When will they be asked to stay away from school and what actions can the Welsh Government take to encourage the ever-increasing rise in school attendance by Islwyn's children?

Can I thank the Member for her question? And can I assure her that this Welsh Liberal Democrat education Minister is taking all necessary steps and actions to ensure that children, whether they be in Caerphilly, or, indeed, anywhere else in Wales, have the disruption to their education minimised?

I thank the Minister.

The next item, therefore, is questions to the Minister for Health and Social Services, and the first question is from Jayne Bryant.

Thank you for the question. Whilst we have seen a rapid increase in cases in some areas, the specific advice to people in the former shielding group has not changed at this point in time. They do not need to take the strict shielding measures at this time. The Chief Medical Officer for Wales is liaising with CMO colleagues across the UK on advice to this group on minimising their risk of harm, and we will be writing to those on the previous shielding patients list in the coming days ahead.

Thank you, Minister. I know that the measures put in place by Welsh Government to support the most vulnerable were greatly received. However, I'm now receiving correspondence from those who were shielding asking for further guidance. So, I'm pleased to hear that there will be some correspondence. Those contacting me are not asking to go back into shielding, but that, when announcements are made on any restrictions, communication is also made with those who were shielding. In particular, as the local restrictions are in place, people just want to have comfort that they're doing the safest and the right thing. While I appreciate that we're learning more about the virus all the time, what discussions are you having with others about the communication with those who are most at risk?

Thank you for the follow-up question. Of course, we had an opportunity to discuss some of this in the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee earlier this morning. So, as well as a direct contact that we expect from CMO correspondence with people in that former shielded category, we'll use the variety of our channels, and, to be fair, there's been such interest in the former shielded group that I expect we'll get significant pick-up in national and local media when we recommunicate where we are.

I think it is important to emphasise the lessons we've learned from the first six months. We do think we've prevented significant harm for people on that shielded groups list, but it comes at a cost. There was a cost in terms of people's mental health and well-being, because many of the people felt lonely, even with the support that was provided. So, shielding isn't an end in itself with no harm that attaches to it; it's always a balance. We also know that the previous approach of having a list of medical conditions doesn't take account of all the evidence of harm from COVID. We know that if you're less well off, you're more likely to suffer more significant harm—that point about health inequalities has been re-emphasised with a vengeance with the first phase of the pandemic. And, also, if you look like me, you're more likely to suffer harm, so the point about ethnic origin isn't taken account of in a medical conditions list. And, equally, if you look like me, and if I were to weigh three or four stone heavier, I'd be at a greater risk again as well. Not all of those things are picked up with a medical conditions list approach, so we're learning from what's happened. We're going to have to apply that, with the advice we get from the chief medical officers, in advising people how best to take care of themselves. But that will definitely involve direct contact with people on that former shielded patients list.

Good afternoon, Minister. Local coronavirus help and support groups, like Feed Newport in Pill, and the ones I set up in Wyesham and Usk, did a fantastic job during national lockdown at protecting vulnerable people, making sure they didn't feel isolated, and delivered food and prescriptions to those who were previously shielding and self-isolating. These vulnerable people are now at risk now the virus is on the rise again. Shielding for extremely vulnerable people was introduced at the start of the pandemic in March and only recently lifted. However, your Government's advice, as you've just stated, is that these people do not need to shield at present. Can you explain a bit more your reasons for that decision, Minister? And in what circumstances would you feel the need to reconsider this advice for those shielding, as it's confusing for people, as outlined by Jayne Bryant? There does need to be more communication and more detailed communication, and I welcome the fact that you're going to send letters out, but also for COVID groups to prepare to help those people shielding again. And, Minister, will you just take this opportunity now to join me in thanking all the fantastic work done by voluntary groups throughout this pandemic in helping those most vulnerable in our society?

I'm very happy to reiterate the thanks that myself and other Ministers, and other leaders of local authorities in every part of Wales, have given to all those people who've volunteered to help other people out, that's both in combating loneliness and isolation and helping with services, from the specific schemes we've had to delivering pharmacy medication to, if you like, the wider befriending and some form of social contact, albeit not the physical contact that we are used to and value. I know that this is also an issue where families and friends are taking care of each other outside organised activity as well. I have continued to do my mother's shopping, in the main, and to deliver that each week. I can't go into her home, because I present a bigger risk to her than my sister does, who has less contact, and all of those individual calculations about managing risk are taking place in families and communities around the country.

We need to take account, as I said in answer to Jayne Bryant, of the learning from the first six months of the pandemic, of our understanding of the benefits and disbenefits of a medical conditions list, and we will then set that out for people on the former shielded list, but for the country at large, because, whilst we're seeing coronavirus cases rise, we've been very clear that people on the former shielded list should be particularly vigilant in following the advice on restricting the number of contacts they have, because, actually, managing your own contacts, restricting them to as few as you need to have, obeying the rules, and, indeed, having good hand hygiene and following the whole-nation requirements, are especially important for that group of people with a medical vulnerability. But, as I say, it's a more rounded approach we need to take, and that comes from learning not just from the figures, but also from our direct contact with people who were formerly shielded, and I'm more than happy to keep not just the Chamber but the country updated about the changing advice and decisions that we make.

Minister, thank you for your answers to the questions on this already. I think you'll agree with me that one of the major things that has been of assistance to people when they have been shielded is the priority delivery slots that supermarkets have offered to them. My understanding, from speaking to constituents, is that lots of those supermarkets are now bringing those priority slots to an end, at a time when we see coronavirus on the increase in so many of our communities. This is something that concerns not just my constituents, but me as well, so could I ask what discussions have you had with other Ministers around these protected delivery slots and just urge you to take some action on this?

That's an important point, I think, from Vikki Howells about the practical support that people have been provided with. The food delivery scheme actually didn't reach huge numbers of people, because they didn't need it. Everyone who needed it had a delivery from the free food scheme, but, once supermarkets had significantly expanded their own online delivery slots and prioritised people on that shielded list, the need for a free food delivery scheme was less than we had originally anticipated. So, that significant expansion in online slots needs to continue, and I'll certainly take this up and have a conversation with my colleague Lesley Griffiths, who has regular contact with supermarket retailers on a range of measures, and it's very helpful you've raised it with me today, because it's certainly something to take forward, as I've not previously had direct intelligence brought to me that there's been a reduction in slots. We absolutely want to see that continue, as we face up to what will undoubtedly be a very challenging winter and autumn.

Thank you. This winter, with the continued presence, indeed the resurgence, of COVID-19, we want to ensure that more people than ever receive the flu vaccine. That is why we have extended the eligibility criteria. We're working with key partners to maximise the uptake of the flu vaccine, and additional vaccine supply will be available to support anticipated increased demand.

I thank you for that answer. In his evidence session with the Senedd's health committee last week, Dr Quentin Sandifer from Public Health Wales said that

'in ordinary times, we would aspire to a 75 per cent flu vaccination uptake in eligible groups'

and that would 'maximise the protective effect'. So, clearly, we want to hit at least that this year. So, what, then, is being done to ensure that we achieve that maximum uptake? Has everyone eligible for the free flu vaccination been contacted by the NHS and are the stocks and the logistical arrangements in place to deliver a record number of doses on time? Given the spike that we've seen in coronavirus testing and absences at the start of the new school term and, given the increased danger of having both coronavirus and flu at the same time, where are we in terms of take-up and delivery of the nasal spray flu vaccination in primary schools?

Thank you for those questions. And it is a really important campaign, this year more than ever. In an average flu season, 8,000 to 10,000 people across the UK lose their lives as a result of flu, so this is a significant cause of mortality in normal times. Given the additional risk of corconavirus, it's even more important than ever that we have people taking up the offer of a free NHS flu jab, and indeed for other members of the public to protect themselves, if they can do so.

What we have done is we have, together with other UK nations, procured more of the flu vaccine than ever before—about 50 per cent more. That is to maximise take-up in the at-risk groups, and those people are regularly notified through their healthcare providers and will receive the same notification. We already see, though, positively, evidence of an increase in demand for the NHS flu jab, so that's good news. That does mean, though, that there is a need to make sure that people have ready access, whether in general practice or community pharmacies—our two main delivery systems for the flu jab for adults and adolescents—and it's important that continues.

On the nasal spray for younger children, both pre-school and in early school, we've actually, again, had increased supplies available to us, and that is rolling out within each health board as we speak. So over the coming weeks—. We've had a letter in my own household for our primary school age child to get consent for him to have the nasal flu spray as well during the season.

It's important that we get as much done, as far as possible, before we get into December. So we want as many people vaccinated as possible by November, if at all possible, because flu tends to circulate in larger numbers, in larger volume, from December onwards. So I am confident that the enhanced profile that this campaign has this year will lead to a continuing strong demand for uptake, and if we can have that high level of vaccination within our most at-risk categories, we'll then move to roll out another campaign for over-65s and, then, the over-50s.

But it's been a good start thus far and I do really think that, this year, we have seen a much heightened profile of the flu vaccine campaign. It normally receives a period of interest for a brief period of weeks and then largely rolls into the distance, but I think, with the additional threats of coronavirus, we will see more and more people wanting to take up the offer. 

The increase in demand, Minister, is very, very welcome, as is the extension of the eligibility criteria, but, unfortunately, I've got people in my own constituency who have been told they cannot schedule a flu jab appointment with their GPs until a month hence, which is clearly completely unacceptable, particularly for those in those vulnerable categories that you've already referred to. And, of course, it's not just the flu vaccine that some people need to access; there's also the pneumococcal vaccine to protect people against pneumonia, and I'm aware that there are shortages of that vaccine across Wales and, indeed, other parts of the UK at present. What action are you taking to make sure that there is sufficient capacity within the system to be able to meet the request for vaccination from all those who need it?

There's a mix in terms of the provision. So the UK Government normally procure flu vaccine supplies for across the UK, and that's where we've agreed to have an increased UK procurement exercise, and a range of GP practices also procure their own as well. We are aware of some challenges in supply and those are short-term matters, is our understanding. So, for example, one of the major manufacturers has decided to stagger the release of the flu vaccine this year, which is why some community pharmacies and some practices may experience a delay and a staging in the way they can deliver the vaccine.

In terms of what is and isn't acceptable, I think it's the case, as I said, that because flu circulation tends to take place later in the winter, through December, the important point is to use September, October and November to get as many people vaccinated as possible to provide that level of protection ahead of the peak of the flu season. We'll continue to work with both general practice and community pharmacy. And I would say that if there are real challenges in the supply, as opposed to a staggering of the supply, because the two are different, as ever we'll continue to work on this issue in a constructive way across the UK. It's one of the areas where all four Governments, regardless of political leadership, do have a very grown-up and, I think, effective way of working with each other.

I feel that Joyce Watson's question is hugely important, particularly in the light of the COVID crisis, where there are figures to show that the take-up of flu vaccines is much reduced amongst the most vulnerable. Perhaps this is because people are fearful of attending surgeries—a fact that may well be the result of doctors being reluctant to engage with all but the seriously ill. The low take-up is particularly worrying given the fact that in the last 14 weeks, the flu killed 10 times as many people as COVID. Is this part of the statistics that would prompt some scientists to say that the lockdown measures could kill 75,000 people? Minister, given the devastating effects lockdowns have on society as a whole, can you assure the people of Wales that the lockdowns will only occur once all available scientific advice is sought and that they will end at the earliest possible date that data no longer supports the lockdown?

I'm afraid, I think, that there was a large amount of misunderstanding in the first part of that question. Joyce Watson's question really is important because of the additional risks that we know come, not just in a normal flu season, where, as I've indicated, 8,000 to 10,000 people across the UK lose their lives as a result of the flu and its effects each year, but actually we're in a position where we are already seeing increased take-up. It isn't that there is a reluctance from people to have the flu vaccine this year—far from it. People are keen, not just in Wales, but my understanding, in terms of the sharing of information between all four nations, is that in all four of the nations of the UK people are keen to take up the flu vaccine and are looking to have it early, which is good news for all of us.

When it comes to the restrictions that have been put in place, both the current local measures we have and indeed the fuller lockdown measures that were introduced in March, they're only being introduced on the basis of the information we have available to us: on the medical and scientific information on the spread of the virus, on its impact and its likely impact if measures aren't taken to halt its spread. We will only introduce these measures where there is an evidence base to support them and it will reduce the harm from coronavirus, and we will lift them when the evidence is there that they are no longer a proportionate intervention in the way that people live their lives. 

We're acting now to avoid the sort of harm we saw in the first wave of coronavirus. I do not want to wait until our hospitals are full and I am having to report on significant increased death figures every day before we are prepared to act. Acting now is about avoiding even more draconian impositions on the way people live their lives, avoiding even more significant harm to families and communities across the country.

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

Thank you, Llywydd, and I'll pick up on the important questions about flu vaccination. I draw your attention to a recent study in Italy that has noted a relationship between flu vaccination rates and the severity of coronavirus symptoms and survival rates. In regions where more people over 65 had taken up the flu vaccine last year, there were fewer deaths or people having to go to hospital because of coronavirus this year. We can only guess, at this point, at the reason for that, but because we're very eager to restrict the spread of the flu anyway, it strikes me that ensuring that the flu vaccine is available for everyone who wants it, and not just the target groups, would be a very valuable investment, not only in tackling the usual winter pressures on the NHS, but also in reducing the impact of the coronavirus. So, as well as the commitment to encourage more people to get the vaccine, would you be willing to commit to extending it to everyone because that could be a good investment?

Well, first, to plan and to deliver an effective seasonal flu campaign, and this will be our largest ever seasonal flu campaign—we expect to deliver more flu vaccines than ever before to the people of Wales this winter—we need to make choices in advance of the season to be able to do that, and we have chosen to target and to increase significantly the amount of flu vaccine that we procure for the people of Wales and that we then deliver.

The question about whether we should have whole-population coverage in terms of the NHS campaign is rather out of the scope of where we are at present, but it's something that we can consider in the future. It's not currently supported by the joint committee that advises the Welsh Government and all UK Governments on the delivery of vaccination programmes. But, as ever, as the evidence base changes, then we're of course prepared to shift and to change our position, because the objective here is how we protect as many lives as possible, and avoid as much harm as possible, whether that's from COVID, the flu or indeed a range of other infectious diseases and conditions that we know are a regular challenge for how we live our lives today.

Thank you. I'll move on. As more restrictions are imposed on people across Wales, it's very important to show that we have learned lessons from the full original lockdown. And I've seen one report that says that as many as 50 per cent of people just didn't want to see professional health workers in terms of medical conditions during that lockdown because, very simply, they didn't want to bother the NHS. But even though the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee this morning did hear that the number of visits to doctors and A&E departments, and so on, have risen—that's a good thing—Tenovus Cancer Care estimates that there may be 2,000 people who are living with cancer without diagnosis, and still haven't visited a GP because of the pandemic. So what assurance can you give to those people—people who do feel more nervous now, as the new restrictions come into force—that the NHS is still open to everyone, and to encourage those patients who are lost in the system to look for medical advice?

Well I think we've been very clear and consistent about the concern we had for the harm that is caused as a result of non-COVID conditions. That's both the harm that could have been caused if our health and social care system was overwhelmed—and it wasn't; it was under significant pressure in different parts of Wales, but it wasn't overwhelmed—and also the harm caused by non-COVID conditions because people are not undertaking treatment, either because they're opting out of treatment because of the concerns they have, and we definitely saw that, or indeed because it isn't possible because of the system being overwhelmed.

You'll have heard me say on a number of occasions over the past months the concerns we had about the fall in emergency admissions. That's partly because some people didn't really need and don't need—and we discuss this every year—to go into an emergency department, there are other routes for their care, but the much bigger concern was that there are people who really do need emergency care who weren't coming into our health service. And that's not just cancer; stroke, we know that there was a significant fall in people attending the national health service with stroke conditions. Now, I don't believe and there's no evidence to support the view that that meant that, suddenly, there was a significant reduction in the incidence of stroke across Wales. It's about how people were behaving, and their concerns.

We have definitely learnt from the first six months. And so we now have streaming in terms of COVID-light or COVID-green zones, and COVID-red, COVID-positive or COVID-possible zones. That's important to give people confidence, and the way that we manage patients who are coming into our health service through either one of those routes, primarily for hospitals, but also we've had to change the way that primary care has worked. So the ability to consult and to see people virtually, to speak to people on the phone, there's been a significant increase, and that should give people more confidence. But the message from me, and from our whole national healthcare system, is we're open for business, we've learnt from the first six months, and if you have a serious healthcare condition, you should continue to come forward, you should continue to seek advice, support and treatment, whether via primary care or indeed hospital care, because the NHS has certainly not closed up and we look forward to people returning in larger numbers. The case for reform in our healthcare system will be remade about the need to change the way that we work, but that does mean people need to present at the earliest opportunity to allow us to intervene in the least invasive way possible.

But there are people though who are already in the system and who've faced a journey that's much, much longer than it would have been. And you'll have heard me make repeated calls about the need to structure services in a way that will allow treatments to resume, diagnosis services to resume, and so on, at a much faster rate than they are currently. Again this week I've heard concerns from surgeons—one of the royal colleges—that this isn't happening still to the extent that it's needed.

It might be understandable that the publication of referral-to-treatment data was suspended at the beginning of the pandemic, but here we are now on the last day of September and the last available data was published in March, and those were figures for January. RTT data provides a crucial insight into how long people are in the system, how long they're waiting, across all health boards, all specialities. And with elective services across Wales, we know, decimated by the outbreak, without the data we have no way of knowing the scale of the backlog problems we're facing within NHS Wales. And every statistic is a patient, waiting in pain, quite often. So, now that we're over six months into the pandemic, will you urgently make this data publicly available?

In health committee this morning, I and the chief executive of NHS Wales, Dr Goodall, provided a range of information about the scale of the backlog that has built up and the range of that backlog. I'll certainly look to see how and when we release information to provide more detail on that. I think returning to publishing RTT figures and percentages would be incredibly unhelpful, because it would give the impression that the NHS is somehow failing, when actually it is about how we're managing to cope with the demand that is coming through and a very different way of working. We're not in a position where we're going to be able to eat into that backlog through the winter. We're still in the mode of surviving the pandemic and maintaining as much activity as possible, but I've been very upfront about the fact that that means that we won't undertake the same level of activity. It would be wholly unrealistic, and set an impossibly unfair task for the NHS, to demand that it both prepares for and manages the pandemic, which is not finished, and eats into the waiting times that have built up. That's not just the picture here in Wales; it's right across the UK, and I'm sure you'll have noticed comments from the Royal College of Surgeons in response to the NHS Confederation report about England and the challenges they face, where they've been sharply critical of an attempt to eat into the backlog when actually their staff haven't had a rest following the first phase of the pandemic.

So, I still believe it will take pretty much a full Welsh Parliament term to get back on top of the activity that has not taken place, about the fact that people wearing additional PPE cannot undertake the same amount of activity as we would have expected in February this year. So, I'll happily go away and look again at how we provide information to inform people about the scale of where we are, not just people who want to read the transcript from this morning's evidence session with the committee, but to see how we do that in a way that is regular and reliable for members of the public and, indeed, of course, elected representatives. 

The Conservative spokesperson, Andrew R.T. Davies. 

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Minister, in the news today we've seen the outbreak at the Royal Glamorgan Hospital, and tragically eight people have been reported as losing their lives. We send our condolences to the families of the ones who have lost their lives. There are 83 cases of COVID at that hospital. Earlier in the year, we had an outbreak at Wrexham Maelor Hospital. Both hospitals have major accident and emergency departments for their particular areas, of which we have 13 across Wales. Can you highlight today if there are any similarities between the two outbreaks and, if there are similarities, how will you ensure that this doesn't occur in other A&E receiving hospitals? Because as we go into the winter months, obviously we know what winter pressures do, but with the disruption an outbreak like this causes, as well as the tragedy of loss of life and the general upset that it causes, this is something that we want to avoid at the other hospitals across Wales. 

I think there are differences as well as similarities. So, we picked up the issues in Wrexham Maelor, and we definitely learnt from what happened in Wrexham Maelor, about the need for clear executive leadership and for buy-in across the staff group for the measures that would need to be taken, about prompt isolation and reinforcing enhanced infection prevention and control measures. So, our whole system learnt a lot from what happened within Wrexham Maelor, and those lessons are being applied within the Royal Glamorgan. That is why we are, for example, testing staff who work on that site, it's why a number of wards have been closed, it's why there's an early diversion of activity away from that hospital, to allow the hospital to manage and to recover, and it's why there's been a reinforcement of the need to test patients on admission, whether emergency or elective.

It's also the case that some of the transmission in the Royal Glamorgan, as with Wrexham Maelor, came from transmission within the hospital, whether between patients or staff. What is different, though, about the Royal Glamorgan is that we have a higher reservoir of coronavirus within the surrounding community. So, a number of people have come into the hospital and needed treatment because of coronavirus, and we also know that some transmission has taken place within the hospital itself. There are risks for every hospital and closed environment if coronavirus takes hold within the staff or the group of people who are either being cared for or living within that environment. It's why we continue with our testing programme in care homes. I expect that we'll not just have more information from the health board, but there'll be a continued focus on whether the infection rate peaks, as it did in the Maelor, and recovers, and how long that will last for. So, I'm expecting to have regular updates from the health board themselves about the picture within the Royal Glamorgan each day. And I know that the chief executive of the health board is expecting to make further statements to the press about the measures that have been taken and the action, including, as I said, the diversion of patients away from that site. 

Thank you for that answer, Minister. As you highlighted, the reservoir in the local community is obviously one issue that does need to be understood, and the transmission into the hospital as well as in the hospital itself. Just this afternoon, we've had information from Public Health Wales that they've become aware of 2,000 test results that they were completely unaware of, and, obviously, when you're trying to understand local data, being able to understand the test results is a critical component of being able to track the virus in communities. Today, I welcome the news, obviously, that Rhondda, for example, and Merthyr have got their own local maps now that show the level of infection rates in those communities—something that I've been calling on you to bring forward for the rest of Wales. So, clearly you have that information. There are two parts to this, if I may seek assurances from you: can you enlighten us more as to these 2,000 results that Public Health Wales have been made aware of, as to why the system didn't alert Public Health Wales to the outcome of those test results, given their importance; and secondly, will you commit to making that data available that Merthyr are highlighting today and Rhondda are highlighting today about infection rates in local communities so that people can understand the prevalence of the virus within their communities?

On the second point, I have already indicated that I am looking to see how we can regularise the provision of that information so that it's not just ad hoc. And we're looking at what Public Health Wales already publish to give people the understanding of what is taking place on a local level. And it's not just the Rhondda area; it's actually the whole of Rhondda Cynon Taf where I think they're producing maps showing the rates that exist, together with Merthyr. I think it would be useful to provide that information on a regular and predictable basis. So, I am already looking at how we do that and to see what is already provided by Public Health Wales.

On your first point, unfortunately this has been a data glitch with lighthouse labs. The data haven't come in to NHS Wales Informatics Service to provide to Public Health Wales, and so Public Health Wales have alerted us to the fact they're awaiting those some 2,000 lighthouse lab test results. It's a matter that has been taken up through our normal management and information arrangements with colleagues in the UK testing programme. As soon as those figures are available, we'll need to make sure we understand where they are and how far back those test results go as well, because we have had some improvement in the turnaround delays in lighthouse lab test results, and so I'll want to understand how that tracks back and changes our understanding of the shifting picture of positive coronavirus cases across Wales. So, it's certainly not ideal, but, as I say, I expect us to resolve that with the people responsible for the lighthouse lab testing programme. 

Earlier in the response to my questions, you highlighted, and I highlighted to you, the disruption that's been caused by the outbreak at the Royal Glamorgan Hospital to services, and today in the news we're hearing that a million breast cancer screening appointments have been lost because of the COVID outbreak across the whole of the United Kingdom. What's really important is when GPs, obviously, have concerns and refer patients into the health system, people get the diagnostic tests that they require and then the treatment within the NHS. In Neath Port Talbot, there is already a rapid diagnostic centre that is available for such a service, but obviously we need such centres across the rest of Wales. Can you commit today to the rapid expansion of the rapid diagnostic centres, so that GPs do have that option and so that when patients are suspected of having further inquiries required when it comes to cancer procedures, they can get into the system, have the diagnosis and either get the all-clear or progress within the health service, in whatever part of Wales they live? Because we all know that, when it comes to cancer, time is of the essence, and if we do have disruption in the service, as we do because of COVID, then we need to use the best practice that's available to us, and I would suggest that rapid diagnostic centres are one of those avenues that need to be opened up. 

Two points: the first is that we have already restarted screening services, as I've previously reported back to Members. The second is: you may not have picked this up, but Tom Crosby has confirmed that there has been agreement within NHS Wales to roll out a national programme of diagnostic centres, following the trials that have been undertaken in Neath Port Talbot and, actually, at the Royal Glamorgan, at the diagnostic hub there as well. So, I will be providing proper detail to Members on the detail of that roll-out programme, but it's a good opportunity to say that the trial that we've been running in Wales has been successful, and we expect that to take place in a national roll-out. So, I think perhaps we're already half a step ahead of the question that's been asked today. 

Yes. We recognise the challenge of delivering essential services and routine surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. Management information indicates that treatment activity is around 40 to 50 per cent of that pre the COVID pandemic. Face-to-face out-patient activity is around just over half but it is increasing each month. We continue to see changes in the delivery of services, with virtual review in both new and follow-up out-patient appointments significantly increasing by a factor of 700 per cent, when comparing March 2020 to our current understanding of September 2020 figures. 

Minister, I'm pleased, of course, to hear that the resumption of services is actually increasing, but I have been contacted by a constituent who is desperately waiting for her son to receive dental treatment and has been told by the local health board that the approximate waiting time is 81 weeks, despite being added to a priority theatre list. Now, I'm sure you'll agree with me that an 81-week wait is just completely unacceptable. Therefore, can you tell us what discussions the Welsh Government is having with health boards about exploring other avenues for patients to receive treatment, such as outsourcing, so that constituents like mine are not facing an 81-week wait? 

In terms of the specifics, I think it would help—and I'd be happy to look at this—to have the specifics of the matter that the Member raises from his constituent, to understand the detail behind that and to be able to provide a more useful answer about that constituent. I want to be helpful in being able to do so. 

On the broader point about the waits that exist, there isn't huge capacity within the independent sector here in Wales, and the challenge is, as we move through the pandemic, how the independent sector is already looking to maximise the work that it undertakes individually, and, indeed, we still have provision with the independent sector to help us as part of our winter protection plan and the ability to have surge capacity. It will take a significant period of time to recover all of the activity that has been delayed as a result of the COVID pandemic. As I said in answer to earlier questions, the NHS Confederation report for England sets out a very similar picture in that nation about the range of activity and the length of time it will take to recover.

I think that the objective view would be that everyone would understand that that is what has happened, with the significant loss of life that has already taken place and the risk for even more significant loss of life if we don't take measures to ensure that we don't suffer in the next phase of the coronavirus pandemic. But that does have a consequence for the rest of our national health service activity. The objective view may be on the one hand, but if you're somebody who is waiting a long period of time, and living with discomfort, for activity, that may not be of much comfort to you individually. That's why, in terms of recovery, once we get through the survival part of the pandemic and understanding of what we're going to be able to do to provide, hopefully, a vaccine or effective antiviral treatment, we will then have a significant task ahead of us in Wales and in every other UK nation to understand how we successfully recover that. And that's why, as I say, I think it will take pretty much a full Welsh Parliament term to get back on top of that. That's not scaremongering; that's me being straight and honest with people about the level of challenge we can all face up to. 

Thank you for the question. Data produced by the Office for National Statistics report that there were 460 deaths involving COVID-19 registered in Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board residents in hospitals by 29 September. Those are the most up-to-date figures I have available to me. 

As large parts of the north move into local restrictions tomorrow, of course, we need assurances now from this Government that lessons have been learnt from this summer's outbreak in hospitals, such as Wrexham Maelor. Thirty two COVID-related deaths in six weeks—now, that isn't a criticism of front-line staff who have worked tirelessly throughout this pandemic, but it does raise serious questions about the Welsh Government and senior management's handling of the issue. People need to know why staff on COVID wards were sent back to work on other wards without being tested, why patients admitted to A&E were placed on wards before their COVID test results were back, why patients were released back to the community before their test results were known, why COVID-positive and COVID-negative patients were placed on the same ward. You go into hospital to get better, Minister, but that certainly wasn't the case for some people in Wrexham Maelor over the summer. So, given that Betsi Cadwaladr health board has been under your Government's direct control for the past five years, will you accept your part in this failure, and what steps are you now taking to make sure that that isn't repeated?

Well of course I have responsibility for the national health service here in Wales, and I'm proud to do so. When the health service gets things wrong, I'm the Minister responsible for the health service, just as when the health service makes a huge difference in saving lives and caring for people in the compassionate way that we've come to expect as a normal everyday reality of what our health service does the overwhelming majority of the time.

As I indicated in answer to Andrew R.T. Davies's questions earlier, we definitely have learned from the outbreak in Wrexham Maelor earlier in the summer, and those lessons are being applied in the Royal Glamorgan at present. It's important we continue to learn as the coronavirus pandemic continues. So, the leadership from Gill Harris in particular, as the nurse director, now acting chief executive until the new chief executive arrives later in the year, was particularly important, as was the way that stakeholders were brought together—not just the leadership team, but also the staff and trade union representatives—and the communications with families.

The risks for this particular virus are real and significant, and every one of these particular outbreaks—whether in a care home, a hospital or in community transmission—highlights the risks and why it's important for our healthcare professionals to adhere to the best infection prevention and control advice, and also why members of the public need to help them in doing so. So, there are, of course, lessons to learn, and I think it may be helpful, in terms of not just the Member's question, but, potentially, in dealing with the committee, to set out and highlight what we think some of those lessons learnt are as we go through the Cwm Taf Morgannwg challenges in the Royal Glamorgan at present, and to understand where we think there is room for improvement and what that means. You'll already see, though, that the chief medical officer's department has already written to all health boards reiterating a range of guidance and advice, and indeed the chief nursing officer has also reiterated the advice and expectations on infection prevention and control across the whole service.

I've been contacted by ambulance staff in north-east Wales concerned that the lack of ambulance staff testing could contribute to deaths due to COVID-19 in hospitals in north Wales. When I pursued this with the Welsh ambulance NHS trust, the chief executive stated that for asymptomatic ambulance personnel, testing is deemed neither appropriate nor reliable. Their deputy chief executive said, 'If and when the scientific evidence supports repeated testing of asymptomatic individuals, then it will become Welsh Government policy and will be adopted by us at that point'. How, therefore, do you respond to the statement to me by these ambulance staff that although it's of paramount importance that ambulance crews are protected from the transmission of the COVID-19 virus, most ambulance crews have not once been routinely tested, and only symptomatic staff have been given tests? Surely the scientific evidence that necessitates testing for care home staff would apply to ambulance crews, who also work in close proximity to the elderly, the vulnerable and patients with serious underlying health issues who could die in hospital?

The statements of the chief exec and the deputy chief exec are correct. The current scientific and medical evidence does not support the wholesale testing of asymptomatic ambulance staff. If it did, we would shift our position and make sure that we have the capacity deployed in accordance with that advice. The surveillance testing of care home staff has been something that has provided confidence in the sector, and meant that we have been able to deliver not just the testing for people that go into residential care, in particular when discharged from hospital, but that the staff themselves feel protected and we've been able to understand where outbreaks are taking place. The special vulnerability of care home residents is a different factor to the way that paramedics undertake their jobs and the range of people they come into contact with. It’s also a fact that we don't see the same level of staff change within direct contact when it comes to the ambulance service and dealing with people within the community. That isn't really a comparable position to the regular teams of people that need to care for people in care homes. It is the case that if the evidence changes, we will, of course, be happy to shift our position. There's nothing inconsistent with the current policy decision and the best, most up-to-date scientific evidence and advice.

The Deputy Minister to respond.

We have provided £400,000 to Age Cymru to establish a national telephone befriending service to provide emotional support to older people. We've also worked with local government and the third sector to ensure that wider practical and emotional support is in place, such as digital inclusion and buddy schemes. 

Can I thank the Minister for her response? Many older people, especially those living alone, are suffering from loneliness. Will the Government promote Zoom sessions for those who are living on their own so they can see and talk to their friends when they have access to ICT? And also, can more be done to increase the number of people getting the benefit from Age Cymru's excellent telephone befriender service?

I thank Mike Hedges very much for that question. I know that many people, including older people, are lonely. There are also many people not confident digitally, don't use the internet and don't have access to the appropriate devices, and that is why we did fund Age Cymru to establish a telephone befriending service, and as I said, we've given them £400,000 for the fund. We feel that the Friend in Need service is an excellent service, as Mike Hedges says, and our Welsh Government officials have worked with Age Cymru to ensure that links are made in each local authority to ensure that what Friend in Need supplies fits in with what the local authorities are doing as well. And then, through Digital Communities Wales, we are coordinating initiatives in local communities for people, including older people, to access skills and to have the motivation and the confidence to take part in Zoom meetings, as Mike Hedges says. But I think he's asked a very important question and we're certainly working on those ends. 

Deputy Minister, they say that often the loneliest place to be is in a crowd and you will know of the older people's commissioner's report that was issued earlier on care homes and loneliness, isolation, the whole blanket bans that we're having on care homes and how difficult it is with all the lockdowns. Before we go back down that road again, how can the Welsh Government ensure that this time around we can be far more compassionate and more targeted with how we treat each of the individuals that are involved in this scenario? Because we may have people in care homes, but there are an awful lot there who simply find it incredibly difficult to engage with the staff, incredibly difficult to engage with fellow care home residents—people who have got faculties, who do understand what is going on, it's that their bodies are not strong; their minds are absolutely fine. I've had distressing tale after distressing tale told to me of people who just felt so abandoned during the last lockdown and the blanket ban saying, 'You can't see the people you love, that's the end of the discussion', when they were locked up, or felt they were locked up, in their rooms on their own, with very little social contact with anyone.

Thank you, Angela, for that question. Certainly, we're very well aware of this very important issue about how we enable older people in care homes to have access to their loved ones. It's really treading a very difficult line between the protection of the health of the older people in the care homes and the staff and their mental health in terms of having the contact with their loved ones that they need and desire. So, we certainly don't support any blanket bans; we're looking to local authorities to try to approach this on an individual basis and to see where safe visits can be made. We also think it's really important to use all the technology that's available for residents of care homes to keep in touch with their loved ones. We did, of course, provide £800,000 for digital devices for care homes and hospices to enable that to happen, but I absolutely accept the point that there are many residents who won't be able to take advantage of those digital devices. So, we've given guidance about visiting outdoors, and during this very brief period of time—certainly not today—but some time before the winter comes, outdoor visits could still continue. Obviously, it's up to the provider and the local authority, but with our guidance, we want to encourage as much flexibility as possible and we absolutely accept that it's really important for residents of care homes to see their loved ones whenever it's possible for them safely to do so.

Minister, your microphone.

There we are. It's normally the other way round.

We continue to monitor the impact of the pandemic on mental health and well-being through a range of surveys and other evidence, both in Wales and across the UK. I will be making a detailed statement on our actions to respond to changing mental health needs in the near future. 

Minister, we look forward to that statement, because the longer the coronavirus is with us and the longer we have to adjust our lives, then the more profound the potential impact on mental health and well-being is. But some have been more severely affected because of enforced social isolation and shielding, because of financial loss or job loss, and the ever-present worry of exposure to infection, not least those who work in our health and our care sectors and our retail sectors too. Add to this the daily onslaught of social media and traditional media—this means that even when you relax in the comfort of your own home, the virus seems to seep into your living room too. Clubs and organisations like choirs, rugby, knitting clubs, community bingo, sports and arts, which normally provide a safety net of friends and support for all ages, have fallen quiet, too. So, Minister, as the COVID restrictions threaten to stretch into the months ahead, how can Welsh Government and partners provide resources and support to counter a gathering storm of loneliness and isolation and mental health problems that face us?

Thank you. We'll continue with the implementation of our all-age loneliness and social isolation strategy, which we published in February, but more specifically, we do take account of surveys and evidence from ourselves and partners about the direct impact upon mental health and well-being of loneliness and isolation, which is part of the reality of the measures we've had to take to keep Wales safe and to protect the maximum number of lives. The measures we've taken in local restrictions, where we've had to unfortunately take apart the extended household bubbles—I recognise that there's a consequence to that. So, what we have done in terms of working with partners is both on the immediate response to the pandemic and actually planning for the future. Our work has focused in the immediate stage on access to tier 0 and tier 1 support—that's the low-level intervention and support—and the current improvements include strengthening the core mental health helpline, the launch of the young persons mental health toolkit, and SilverCloud, which is an online cognitive behavioural therapy programme. We're also providing additional funding to the third sector to help fill gaps in this time of provision.

We're also looking ahead to the future and understanding that we expect an increased level of anxiety within the public at large that we may need to do something about, what we're going to be able to do in terms of access to specialist mental health services, but also, we need to actively think about what we're going to be able to do in terms of the mental health and support needs of our staff, in particular front-line health and social care. The impact of what our staff have had to do to keep people alive, safe and well is something that affects some people now, but we all know there's a well-known evidence base that some of that impact won't manifest itself for a period of time. So, during the next stage, the next term of this Welsh Parliament, we're going to need to have planned for and to understand how we can help to support our staff, and that's why we've already introduced additional support mechanisms across Wales for staff within health and social care.

Thank you for the question. Following a sharp increase in cases in Rhondda Cynon Taf, new restrictions were introduced on 17 September to reduce the spread of coronavirus and protect public health. Welsh Ministers reviewed these restrictions on 24 September, and at that time we agreed to retain the restrictions for at least another seven days.

Minister, thank you for that answer. Residents in my constituency will be extremely concerned by the news of the major COVID-19 outbreak at the Royal Glamorgan Hospital, which has sadly led to the death of eight patients, with a further six in intensive care, Minister. I'd like to express my sadness and shock at this news, but, of course, our thoughts are right now with their families.

I met with the health board chair today, and support the action being taken by the health board to ensure this outbreak is fully contained. Minister, could you update me on the latest position from the Welsh Government perspective, and in particular, can you give details of the support being provided by the Welsh Government to help control the outbreak? Could you also provide any details of the implications for those who have had operations postponed? And finally, Minister, I'd be grateful for a general update on how the local lockdown in Rhondda Cynon Taf is progressing in respect of infection rates, and with the Royal Glamorgan outbreak in mind, do you see a need for further testing resource to be targeted on RCT?

Thank you for that series of questions. In terms of the actions that the health board are taking, my understanding is they had a meeting with local partners, crucially the local authority, yesterday, where they discussed and agreed the range of measures being taken, and I do think it is a sensible safety precaution to minimise routine care when they are experiencing an outbreak of infection. That does mean that people will have procedures delayed and rescheduled at a later date, but that is in the best interest of those patients—not to admit them onto a sight for routine procedures where we understand there is an outbreak where harm is being caused. And that is a temporary measure while the outbreak is being brought under control.

At this point in time, the chief exec of NHS Wales is in regular contact with the health board to have a proper understanding of the measures that are being taken, and the oversight, as indicated earlier, for the measures and the control measures to understand what is happening, with both the staff testing that's in place, to understand if there's a need to do more. As a result of the staff test results, we get to see where the outbreak actually is, and to see how well contained it is. So, we're learning and applying the measures from the Wrexham Maelor Hospital. 

In terms of your broader point about measures within the community, I think it's important to reflect that whilst we haven't seen the same reduction in cases that we have seen, fortunately, in Caerphilly—and Newport is also making good progress—there is some cautious evidence to think that we may be seeing a plateau. It's still at a very high level, but we'll want to understand if that really is the case, and that will give us some further hope for the future. But the evidence of Caerphilly is that it is possible to see a reduction in rates, and that this is not a one-way escalator to further and further restrictions. We'll continue to measure and weigh whether there is a need to do more to help control the spread of the virus across the RCT area. 

The key point is that it's in the hands of people in their communities to look after each other, and the rules are there for the benefit of everyone. If we get a high level of adherence to that, then we can expect to see a reduction in the spread of coronavirus and the harm that we know it has already caused and is likely to cause. We'll continue to review matters on a regular basis; that includes a provision of testing services. We've actually seen a fall in the number of people taking up the testing services available, so the concern that the health board have is not that we don't have enough access to testing, but that actually there are people who should be getting a test who are not. So, again, it's an appeal for people to use the testing resources that are available within RCT, and we'll continue to review how and where they're provided to make sure they're readily accessible for the communities that need to access them. 

Minister, it's obviously a very serious event in the Royal Glamorgan. This is September—when we face the pressures of winter in late November, December and January, we could be under more severe pressure yet. Now, I know, throughout Wales, part of the management of the COVID risk has been moving some operations to other facilities—cancer operations, for instance, to the Vale Hospital and in Cardiff to Spire. And cancer treatment is going on, as I understand it—emergency treatment will continue at the Royal Glamorgan, but all other elective care has now stopped. Cancer patients in particular have to be protected from infection—you can have a very bad outcome if they've been operated on and are under immunosuppressant drugs. So, can you assure us that zoning hospitals, or moving certain care to specific sites, is going on and will be a way of ensuring that higher levels of cancer care can be delivered than otherwise when we face these sorts of emergencies?

Yes, I'm happy to provide that direct assurance—that is exactly what the health board are planning for with their partners. They've not just worked with the local authority partners about the need to have people leave the hospital to create more space in general terms, but in terms of your broader and more specific point about cancer services, they're already working with other partners too to see what can be moved to make sure that treatment continues as far as possible. So, I'm happy to provide the direct assurance the Member looks for.

I'm deeply concerned about the outbreak of, and the deaths from, COVID-19 at the Royal Glamorgan Hospital and what this will mean for both patients and staff. My sympathies, obviously, go to all of those who've been affected.

Many elective surgeries have already been postponed during the pandemic, and now the backlog is set to get worse. Emergency patients will now be transferred by ambulance to other hospitals, thereby adding a potentially crucial delay to them receiving life-saving treatment.

I want to know what the Government can do to bring this crisis within the hospital to a swift end and create a safe environment for patients and staff. You can improve on testing. Can you boost testing capacity on site so that we can track and trace the virus better? Can you improve the turnaround time for results so that people get those results quicker? The staff need improvements in testing and faster testing, so what can you do to help with that? Finally, do you have any confidence left in the lighthouse labs now? 

I think there's a range of things to run through, hopefully to provide some reassurance to the Member and any people watching. When it comes to outbreaks and outbreaks management, you'll have seen from the previous outbreak in Wrexham Maelor that we actually ran the tests through for the staff and for patients when an outbreak had been declared through our Public Health Wales labs, and they provided a very fast turnaround. The tests for an outbreak are prioritised, so they do have very, very fast turnarounds, so you can expect the 90 per cent plus that we achieved in Wrexham to be turned around within a day.

So, we're actually using NHS Wales tests for this, for the management of the outbreak, and that's exactly what they're intended for, with that additional capacity and the surge capacity that exists in our system. That should provide reassurance for staff and, indeed, for people going onto the site as well. If they do still require treatment and that is the right place for them to have their treatment, then they should be tested. Again, they can expect that to happen through Public Health Wales labs as well.

When it comes to the assurance about people being transferred to other sites, then people will be transferred by professionals within our Welsh ambulance service trust, and they can expect to receive a high quality of care. We're in the fortunate position that there are hospitals that are relatively near to the current site for the Royal Glamorgan, and I don't think that there's a basis for people to be concerned that life-saving treatment could be unduly delayed by that transfer. It's, as ever, a balance, in that if people need to be transferred away from that site, it's because there's a risk to those people in otherwise admitting them, and that's the risk that has to be balanced and the judgment that has to be made. I'm confident in the leadership of the health board; I'm confident in the way they have worked with partners to do so. I believe that we can look forward to the outbreak being brought under control. Certainly, there is no lack of testing or the availability for testing on site for people who really do need to get tested, and I think we demonstrated that with the previous response to the Wrexham Maelor outbreak.

Yes, I welcomed the recent Audit Wales report on the redevelopment scheme at Ysbyty Glan Clwyd. As recognised in that report, improved governance and assurance procedures for capital projects have been introduced and are now embedded into health board and Welsh Government processes.

That remains to be seen, Minister, because in 2012 the Welsh Government approved a project to remove asbestos and refurbish Glan Clwyd Hospital. The project was completed in 2019, at a cost of £170 million—55 per cent more than the original budget. Now, in the Auditor General for Wales's report, the findings are scathing: the Welsh Government never formally approved the health board's outline business case; auditors issued a 'no assurance' opinion on the health board's arrangements for governing and managing the project; and when approving the business cases, the Welsh Government did not sufficiently consider the risks associated with their advisers; concerns too that project design and costings were underdeveloped. Now, I do appreciate, as you mentioned, that steps have been taken to improve arrangements for approving business cases, but let's be honest, you are and were the Minister responsible. So, what assurances can you provide this Senedd with that you will not allow such bad financial management in this health board again? Thank you.

Well, when the project was agreed in 2012, I wasn't a Minister in the Government. It's important to make that factual point of accuracy. Actually, the characterisation of the report is partial from the Member. The comments I made in direct answer at the outset come from the conclusions of the Wales Audit Office report itself. It recognised weaknesses at the time, it recognised that the rationale for that was a desire to see the remedial work undertaken, it also recognises there is a significantly better clinical environment for patients and staff to work in as a result of the work that's been undertaken, and it also recognises there are improvements in the process and in the governance arrangements for capital projects, not only within Betsi Cadwaladr for north Wales, but, indeed, across the service as well. That is a more honest and rounded review of the report, rather than the partial version provided by the Member in her second question.

I thank the Minister.

The next item is the 90-second statements, and that's because no topical questions had been accepted.

So, the first 90-second statement today is from Mike Hedges.

Diolch, Llywydd. At approximately this time each year, Senedd Members from all parties don pink items as part of the Wear it Pink for breast cancer campaign. These photographs end up on social media and in local papers. This year, due to the pandemic, we cannot take part in an event in the Senedd, but I do not wish to miss the opportunity to show my support for the breast cancer campaign. I think it is very important. 

While we have a COVID pandemic, breast cancer has not gone away. Since launching in 2002, Wear it Pink has raised over £33 million for breast cancer research, which I believe is a remarkable achievement. I urge everyone to support Wear it Pink and help to make possible life-saving breast cancer research and life-changing support for those affected by the disease. 

Each year in Wales, around 3,000 women are diagnosed with breast cancer and over 550 women die of the disease. That's why I'm encouraging everyone today to support breast cancer awareness day. We cannot dress up and meet with breast cancer survivors, but we can show our support for breast cancer charities, and I'm trying to do that today.

Thank you. Now, with particular pleasure, I call Elin Jones, the Presiding Officer. 

Radio Bronglais is ysbyty Bronglais's radio station. It broadcasts all day, every day, and this week it is celebrating its fiftieth anniversary. The station was established in 1970 when members of Bow Street youth club presented a Sunday evening requests show for patients. Since then, the station has gone from strength to strength. A permanent studio was established with lottery support in 2001, and since 2013 Radio Bronglais has been streaming live online to all corners of the globe.

The station is run by a large group of volunteers and provides a platform for new local talent—the best known being Aled Haydn Jones, whose first contribution to the station was as a 14-year-old pupil at ysgol Penweddig. Aled has just been appointed head of BBC Radio 1. From Radio Bronglais to Radio 1. Well done, Aled, Aberystwyth is very proud of you.

The station has been nominated for multiple awards over the years. Some of the most challenging, and certainly some of the longest, interviews that I have faced have been on Radio Bronglais. And, of course, the station is appreciated by patients and hospital staff alike.

In the maelstrom of this health pandemic, let us celebrate and thank every hospital radio station, and wish Radio Bronglais a very happy birthday.

Diolch yn fawr. There'll now be a break for 10 minutes to allow changeover in the Chamber. 

Order, order. The Senedd is back in session.

We move to item 5, which is a debate on the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee report on the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak, and its management, on health and social care in Wales, and I call the chair of the committee to move the motion. Dai Lloyd.

Thank you very much, acting Deputy Llywydd. I'm very pleased to open this debate on the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee's report on the COVID-19 outbreak.

Before I turn to our findings, I'd like to pay tribute to the commitment and dedication of everyone who has contributed to the work of keeping our front-line services operating in the most difficult of circumstances. Whilst our thoughts turn automatically to the health and social care sector, we must also recognise the tireless efforts of so many other sectors and professions, often behind the scenes.

The public has also made huge sacrifices, and we need to recognise that. Families and friends were separated, and the most vulnerable were isolated from their wider support networks. Their collective efforts in adhering to the lockdown rules significantly suppressed the spread of the virus. Sadly, we now face similar challenges, and we are asking the Welsh public to show the same collective spirit to help curb this insidious virus once again.

When the first case of coronavirus in Wales was confirmed in March 2020, very few of us, I imagine, realised that the virus would have such a devastating and long-lasting impact on us all. It's been cruel and ruthless and it's stolen the lives of friends and loved ones. As a committee, we felt that it was important to consider the impact of coronavirus, and its management, on health and social care services in Wales. We have considered the response of the Welsh Government and relevant public bodies, as well as the impact on staff, patients and others receiving care or treatment in clinical settings or in the community. Our purpose in undertaking this work was to seek to identify what worked well and what didn't work so well, in order to learn lessons and to apply them quickly to any rise in infection rates.

We've taken evidence from a wide range of professionals in health and social care, public bodies and stakeholders, and we continue to do so. We carried out a survey of front-line staff, patients, carers, and those receiving care or treatment, to understand the impact of the pandemic on them. We also issued an open invitation to anyone who wished to share their experiences with us. I'd like to thank everyone who took the time to contribute to our work.

Our recommendations include 28 recommendations, and 21 have been accepted in full, and I'd like to thank the Minister for his detailed response. I won't have time to address every recommendation, but I will try to cover some of the key messages, turning first to personal protective equipment. Now, in the early days of the pandemic, a great deal of coverage focused on concerns regarding the adequate and continuous supply of PPE. Much of the early evidence we received reflected the fears and concerns of front-line staff about the availability of appropriate PPE. According to a survey carried out by the British Medical Association, 67 per cent of doctors in Wales did not feel fully protected from COVID-19 at work, and 60 per cent had had to purchase items of PPE directly, or had received supplies as a donation, because the NHS had not been able to procure adequate supplies.

The Royal College of Nursing also reported that many of their members, particularly community nursing teams, had called because they were distressed at being unable to access PPE. It said that 74 per cent of nursing staff had raised concerns about shortages of PPE, with over half having felt pressurised to care for a patient without adequate protection. Indeed, the Minister for health told us that the situation was a very real concern for Government at the time.

This position has improved, and we welcome this, but we cannot afford to be complacent. We need assurance on the continuity of PPE supplies, particularly in light of the recent rise in infection rates. We therefore made the following recommendations: the Welsh Government must, as a matter of urgency, publish a strategy for securing a resilient supply of PPE; stockpile sufficient quantities of appropriate PPE for any future outbreak; keep under review the PPE that it has stockpiled to ensure that it remains of adequate quality and is fit for purpose; publish a strategy for ensuring the resilience of distribution arrangements; work with partners to ensure that guidance on PPE is kept up to date in light of the most recent scientific advice, and communicate this advice clearly to staff. That's recommendation 1. I am very pleased to say that this recommendation was accepted and that a strategic plan for the procurement of PPE for health and social care is being developed.

Given that Wales has traditionally been reliant on supplies from China and other Asian countries, it is vital that we support manufacturers in Wales to develop our own homegrown supply. We therefore recommended that the Welsh Government review its own systems to ensure that the mechanisms are in place to enable manufacturers in Wales to respond quickly in supplying appropriate PPE in the event of any future outbreaks. That's recommendation 2. In accepting this recommendation, the Minister acknowledged the important role of Welsh businesses in strengthening our resilience to withstand a second peak of COVID-19, and said that the PPE procurement plan for health and social care will blend local manufacture and international supply.

Now, in turning to care homes, testing in care homes proved to be a controversial issue, with both the UK and Welsh Governments coming under criticism, as we know, for lack of testing in care settings. The Office for National Statistics figures show that there had been 663 COVID-19 deaths in Welsh cares homes.

According to Care Forum Wales, the practice of discharging hospital patients to care homes played a major role in enabling the infection to spread at such an alarming rate in care homes. The Older People's Commissioner for Wales said that she had concerns that older people’s rights may not have been sufficiently protected. The number of COVID-related deaths in care homes was a source of great concern to us. We believe that the Welsh Government’s initial attitude in terms of testing in care homes was deficient at the outset and their response was too slow thereafter. As a result, the number of deaths in care homes accounted for 28 per cent of all coronavirus-related deaths in Wales.

Recommendation 9 in our report called for the Welsh Government to ensure that all patients being discharged from hospital directly into a care home have been tested, in accordance with latest best practice, in order to ensure that residents and staff have maximum protection. This recommendation was accepted in principle. The Minister said that there had to be test results available before patients could be discharged from hospitals. I'd like to thank the Minister for this reassurance and for accepting our recommendation.

In turning to test, trace and protect finally, before I finish this first part, I'd like to talk about the test, trace and protect strategy—the contact tracing system of the Welsh Government. The test and trace programme under the strategy has a number of key purposes, including: diagnosing the disease; population health surveillance; contact tracing; and business continuity, enabling key workers to return to work more quickly and more safely.

A number of witnesses have highlighted the importance of the timely return of test results to secure the success of the TTP strategy. As Sir David King, a member of Independent SAGE told us,

'the turnaround time after testing is critically important. If you get the test result five days after the test is made, and that person is still wandering around in their community, imagine the number of people infected during that period.'

We agree that the speed of testing, the turnaround of testing results, and the accuracy of those results will be critical to the success of the TTP strategy. The longer the end-to-end turnaround time, from sample collection to the reporting of results to individuals, the greater the delay at the point when the disease is most infectious, or the greater the likelihood of—[Inaudible.]—.

[Inaudible.]—recommend therefore that the Welsh Government, working with Public Health Wales, should seek to ensure that every test result is returned within 24 hours. That is recommendation 19, and that recommendation was also accepted in principle.

We also heard that public support would be crucial to the success of the strategy. People must be willing to be honest in sharing details about their movements and their contacts, and to self-isolate if they are at risk for the benefit of the wider community. We recommended, therefore, that the Government, working with its partners, should ensure that they present clear public messaging and to rehearse those consistently at a local and national level, highlighting individual's responsibility to self-isolate, if they have symptoms, and the importance of seeking a test immediately. That's recommendation 25, and that was accepted.

Of course, if contact tracing is successful, people could be asked to self-isolate multiple times and this is a particular worry for people in low-paid employment who cannot afford to take time off work. According to the current guidance, anyone who is self-isolating is entitled to statutory sick pay, which is £95 a week, but this is not a sustainable wage or a living wage. The temptation to ignore symptoms and advice and to attend work is therefore a very real concern, and it's an area that requires urgent attention from the Welsh Government, particularly given that arrangements for statutory sick pay are not devolved. We've therefore called on the Welsh Government, as a matter of urgency, to pursue with the UK Government the arrangements for statutory sick pay for social care workers and others in Wales who do have to self-isolate. I welcome the fact that the Minister has accepted this recommendation and his assurance that he continues to raise concerns with UK Ministers about the financial impact of self-isolation. 

In closing, I would like to acknowledge that the scale of the challenge facing Governments and their partners in dealing with the effects of COVID-19 has been unprecedented. Enormous efforts have been made across the board, resulting in many significant achievements. Unfortunately, infection rates are on the rise once again. We must use the experience that we have and everything that we learnt in battling the first wave of the disease to ensure that any new measures introduced to control the virus are effective, timely and proportionate. Thank you very much.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute in this debate today. I appreciate I wasn't on the committee at the time of this review that was undertaken, or this inquiry that was undertaken, but I'd just like to pay tribute to my predecessor, Angela Burns, for the work that she did in her time on the committee, and also the Chair of the committee, the staff and the other Members who have produced a very detailed and concise piece of work, with some key recommendations, to say the least on it. And the Government, by and large, has engaged with those recommendations, although, as a politician of some 13 years standing, you're always a bit reticent when you hear 'agreed in principle' because, regrettably, that very often doesn't get delivered, and many, if not all of these recommendations, if taken in their entirety, would add hugely to an improved offer, an improved response, now that some months after this report was published we're seeing what many would call the second wave of COVID hitting many of our towns and cities and communities the length and breadth of Wales.

I think, in the report, as almost like a third person coming to it, reading it from cover to cover, the index of dates at the back is a timely reminder of how quick we've travelled in this year, from January right the way through to when this report was published in July, and the level, the volume, and the complete transformation in services, the way Government responds—I mean, you only need to look at our work here today and yesterday, how COVID has consumed everything that we do because it is all-encompassing.

Reading some of the comments around PPE and the recommendations around PPE, it was a timely reminder of the real challenges that the sectors face, both health and the care sector in particular. And reading it, it emphasised the point how health and the care sector need to be taken as equal partners, rather than one sector getting the provision of PPE in the first instance and then maybe the care sector getting what was left over and maybe playing catch-up. That does need to be rectified, if that situation of constraint of supply does happen again. And I'm pleased to hear the assurances of the Minister, saying that the supply of PPE has been greatly enhanced since the beginning of the outbreak, but it is really important that that parity of esteem is listened to and understood. In particular, if the Minister in his response could highlight what progress has been made in relation to the work that the Government have commissioned from Deloitte about the demand mapping around PPE, again, that would be good to understand how, if that squeeze comes on in the winter months, there will be equity across Wales in the supply chain of PPE.

Testing, as we hear much about these days, and the concerns around testing—in the absence of a vaccine, testing is really our only defence to be on top of this virus and to understand where the prevalence of the virus is and, ultimately, how it is tracking through our communities. Reading some of the recommendations that have been put in place, and, importantly, how they'll be deployed is of critical importance, in particular when you think of ramping up the volume of tests that will be available. It is a little discouraging to see that, in July of this year, the Welsh Government's own testing capacity was at 15,000; here, some two months later, in September, it's still on 15,000, and the comments that the First Minister himself made—I applaud him for his honesty—that maybe we'd be able to deal with that on a day basis, but it wouldn't be sustainable over any long-term period of time to use that full capacity. And so, working united across the United Kingdom, despite the problems of the lighthouse labs, will be the only solution to bring a real volume of testing here into Wales, and indeed other parts of the United Kingdom. It would be my sincere hope that many of the glitches that have hit the system can be ironed out.

I hope the Minister can give us an up-to-date position on how the testing numbers are being deployed, because, very often, as politicians, as the report highlights, we fixate on capacity, but it's the ability for the whole system to work, from the capacity through to the number of tests that are done, to the response rate, as the Chair highlighted, and the importance of getting that response back within 24 hours. Any effective testing system has to get at least 90 per cent of its results back within 24 hours. If it fails to do that, then we're really missing the goal of achieving that best effect from the testing regime.

I appreciate that my five minutes are nearly up on the clock. TTP: the scale of test, track and protect is enormous, as the report highlights, and the BMA's evidence in particular spoke of this enormous programme that will be required from between 7,500 to 8,000 contacts in a day, up to 0.5 million people at any one time being in the system. That gives a sense of the scale of operation that we're talking about, and if at the start of this year people said to politicians, 'What do you think are going to be your top-five challenges?', I don't think anyone would have touched on a COVID outbreak and the all-encapsulating nature of it.

So, I do commend the report to the public at large and I do commend the activity of the committee in undertaking this report, and I look forward to continuing the work of the committee when it revisits some of the recommendations to see that they've been implemented in the future. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer.

Once again, our Chair has given a very thorough and strong introduction to the report in his contribution this afternoon, and I wish to join him in paying tribute to all the NHS staff and social care workers across Wales for what they did during the pandemic at its peak, since then and are continuing to do now, and I'm sure that they will be doing through all of the winter. We clapped them every week at that time, but they deserve so much more than that. Their commitment is undying and unquestionable.

I think we need to remind ourselves, also, why we put the report in, because it was about the impact of the virus and what lessons we would learn from that. There are still so many families that have been devastated by that virus and the loss of loved ones, others who have suffered severe health conditions as a consequence of contracting the virus and spending a long time in hospital, and we must never forget those people in everything we do.

But we have come a long way since the start of the pandemic, and, hopefully, we have learnt a lot. There is much to learn, because if we look at the report and some of the issues that are raised, and I'm repeating some of the comments that Dai Lloyd introduced, but if you look at them, they are still relevant today, they haven't gone away. The PPE question: I'm very pleased that we do now have sufficient PPE, but when this came out, we didn't. No matter how much we thought we had, we didn't. I'm very pleased, also, that local businesses are now using opportunities to create and develop PPE—I've got one in my own constituency, Rototherm, which has transformed itself. Fantastic work is being done to ensure that Wales has a supply of locally based businesses that are producing the PPE.

But also, let's not forget what wearing the PPE does for staff, because if we read our survey of the staff, and some of the comments they made, they found it very difficult to work in those circumstances, and it took its toll on them. Sometimes we need to reflect upon that, so that we ensure that we protect our staff as well, and that we get this PPE right. We don't want to put people in a position where they are facing life-threatening positions when they are going to care for people because we haven't got the PPE for them. We must get that right. I know the Minister will say that we're doing that; we've got larger numbers now, and I very much appreciate that. But I also want to ask him, perhaps—because halfway during the pandemic, the guidelines for PPE were changed, and I want to ask whether there are more changes to come in those guidelines because of the lessons learnt during that pandemic, and people's ability—. Because paramedics are saying that sometimes they go into a situation wearing simply an apron and gloves, which is not sufficient on occasions. We need to make sure our staff are protected.

Can I also raise the issue of care homes? We know full well that, during the initial stages, they were vulnerable, and the residents, who are vulnerable themselves, became, unfortunately, victims of the virus. We saw many, many residents hospitalised, and some of those unfortunately did not survive. Dai has highlighted that there were over 600 of them. We are in a position now where we have put better protection in place, but we did ask for testing to be done on a regular basis. I know that's being done, and I'm very pleased about that, and we must make sure it continues, but I'm still concerned on the home testing agenda and the quality of training given to people to do that. There are too many false negatives and false positives coming through the testing system, and we have to minimise those. One of the ways of minimising that is by following recommendation 10, bullet point 2, which says, 'Ensure it's done by a suitably qualified individual'. There are many nurses already employed in care homes, and there could be others being used in those that don't have them, so I don't think it's something that the Government should have rejected. I think that the Government should have accepted that and made sure that there were appropriately qualified people taking those tests to minimise the possibilities of false negatives and false positives, because that does give misleading information, and it does give misleading confidence on occasions, so we need to address that.

The other issue, obviously, is testing—people have talked about testing—in general, and we raised this question about testing and getting ready. In fact, we actually said, I think in recommendation 8, that we need to prepare for a second wave, and that we should work with partners to take steps for sufficient capacity. Yet we're still talking about capacity. We're still talking about whether we're using lighthouse labs or not. There's a question there still being raised. I appreciate the Minister's already had this many times, but I hope he takes on board the fact that testing is not going to be something that will go away—it is something that is going to drive the agenda forward, and we must ensure that we address the capacity issue, both of the ability to take the test, but the ability to analyse the tests as well. Because that's where people are getting confused; they think, 'Oh, I can have a test', but don't forget it's got to be analysed and the results have got to be provided. We said at that point in time that we want more within 24 hours, and we're still not seeing some of those figures increasing. We need to address that point.

I'll close by saying I want to give huge thanks to the committee staff. Many people don't always appreciate it, but committee staff worked unstintingly throughout the period, and over the summer period, to ensure that we had the evidence we needed to provide this report. We must give thanks to them and to the witnesses that gave us the evidence. Those witnesses represent the people on the front line, and we can't forget that, either. So, thank you very much. And please, Minister, I appreciate we have come a long way, and I appreciate we are not where we were back in March, but let's make sure the lessons are learnt and that the advice is followed. Thank you.

I just have one more speaker before I call the Minister, and that's Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Thank you, Chair. I'd like to echo the thanks to the amazing work of the committee team, the clerks and the research team and so forth, who have worked so tirelessly through this period. I've been very pleased to be able to be part of this inquiry, which is ongoing, of course, and will continue for some time. It's the first report in a series, focusing on a number of specific areas. I'll go through those. One of the major elements that we looked at was testing, which is such a key part of the battle against the virus. We know that the system isn't as robust as it should be. There are a great number of my constituents who have contacted my office—people not being able to have tests at home and having to travel a long way to testing centres; people failing to have tests because they don't have an e-mail address or a mobile phone—not everyone has those—and some people having trouble driving to certain test centres. We have to ensure that this aspect is strengthened. 

I am pleased that the Government has accepted recommendation 8, namely that they should assess carefully the likely demand for tests in the future and ensure that there is enough capacity to test in the future so that anyone who needs a test can access one quickly and easily. But the truth is that there is a failure to meet current demand, let alone the demand over the winter. We need to differentiate between capacity and how much testing is happening in practice. The First Minister talked about 15,000 capacity, whereas actually very often it was only 2,000 or 3,000 tests that were being done.

I know that the problems of having tests have come to the surface as schools have opened, and capacity has been short when it was needed. I would have expected there to have been more preparation for that and more robustness in planning or building for the start of the school term. And despite the pledges that things will be better in a few weeks in terms of the lighthouse labs, it doesn't give much confidence in terms of winter robustness, as the second wave continues to grow.

I'm pleased that the Welsh Government has accepted recommendation 7 in terms of developing a clear plan for regular and repeated testing of health and social care staff, including asymptomatic staff. I have been calling for that consistently, and there are still too many people on the front line who are nervous. I hear stories about community nurses, for example, who don't get offered tests and are very concerned about passing the virus on to patients. We need to expand the scope of asymptomatic testing at home, for example. 

Another issue is the financial implications on local government during this pandemic. I do welcome the recognition that the Government needs to confirm as a priority the support package for local authorities to support the work of employing tracing professionals, as they've been doing. And that's recommendation 24. That's something I raised with the finance Minister in July. There were volunteers in local authorities and workers who had been pulled from other departments into the tracing teams, and I think that it is obvious that, even though the number of tracing staff has grown, as we heard in the committee this morning, there will be further support needed by our councils on this front. 

Further work that local government has been leading on is helping people to shield. And you've seen a great number of references in the report in terms of supporting people who have been shielding and ensuring that people are being fed, and so forth. And on that point, I was disappointed with the response I had to a letter from me asking for support for local authorities to be able to plan for providing food and so forth for vulnerable people during the second wave. There was a great partnership in Anglesey, being led by the council, with Menter Môn and local businesses, and Dylan's restaurant, and so forth, ensuring that food packages were being distributed. And Dylan's were very eager to see that preparations were in place to be able to respond quickly to a second wave. The response was very quick in Anglesey the first time, but of course we need to learn as we go. We have the background information now, and we need to ensure that there is better preparation, and I didn't hear that in that letter. So, I'd like to have an assurance that planning work is being done. 

And finally, I echo the recommendation in terms of adequate PPE during this pandemic. We've heard the word 'thanks' being said time after time to health workers and care workers but, of course, what they need is information now and in the future that the resources will be there to allow them to do their work properly. 

Diolch yn fawr. I call the Minister for Health and Social Services, Vaughan Gething. 

Thank you, acting Deputy Presiding Officer. May I first begin by thanking the committee for their time in considering this important topic, and what is an interim report? The scrutiny continues; I had the pleasure of more than two hours in the company of the committee today answering questions about the continuing work that we do on how we keep Wales safe, and the response of our health and social care system. I want to put on record my thanks to the staff across our health and social care sector, not only for their incredible hard work and dedication to care for people with COVID-19 and their incredible compassion and resilience—they really are a credit to each and every one of us—but also the work that they have done with others in addressing urgent health and care needs to protect those who are the most vulnerable within our community. 

I support and accept or accept in principle the majority of the recommendations from the committee. Our national winter protection plan has now been published and this is an overarching plan that sets out our expectations for health and social care, and informs engagement with wider partners and stakeholders. This ambitious plan will seek to embed our learning from the report to strengthen our approach over the forthcoming winter period.

On testing, the testing strategy published on 15 July outlines our plan for testing health and social care staff, and I've recently provided a written statement on the priorities for testing at the start of this week. Our strategy is based upon the latest evidence. As ever, it is subject to change as the evidence base may change during the course of the pandemic. And I would gently say to the committee that they will hear and they'll continue to hear anecdotal demand for asymptomatic testing. The committee can't demand a broadly evidence-based approach and demand fidelity to the scientific and medical evidence to help keep Wales safe, and then choose when to cherry pick and amplify demands that are made to overturn the evidence that we rely on to help keep Wales safe. 

We've openly set out the evidence base from the technical advisory group, and the committee have had the opportunity to hear evidence from the co-chairs of TAC, including the chief scientific adviser on health as well as access to the chief medical officer. We're continuing to openly publish that evidence and to make choices based upon it. 

We are acutely aware of the challenges posed by delays in the testing from lighthouse labs; that's been highlighted again today in the questions from Andrew R.T. Davies highlighting the delay of 2,000 results from lighthouse labs to flow into our system, and that's an important factor. In the overall lighthouse labs testing programme, those 2,000 tests aren't a significant amount but, actually, in terms of the overall numbers for Wales they could make a material difference about our understanding of disease prevalence in communities across Wales. So, I do recognise that that is a real challenge for us and, as I say, it's something we're looking to work constructively with different officials and, indeed, different Ministers and I'll continue to have those discussions not just with the UK Secretary of State for health, but also ministerial colleagues in Scotland and Northern Ireland. 

We were, at the point that I gave evidence to the committee, expecting to have the lighthouse lab in Newport open over the summer; that's now delayed and expected to open in October. That should help us in improving the volume of tests available, but there's also something about the robustness and access to the largest population base in Wales. So, that should be a positive step forward for us. But Welsh lab capacity is already being used for rapid deployment of outbreaks and incidents, and for NHS Wales. We continue to work urgently with Public Health Wales and our NHS to build on the work that is already taking place to supplement capacity from lighthouse labs with those that are operated by Public Health Wales.

Again, I was able to run through some of this with the committee this morning, with the update, for example, on the increased testing availability we'll have in north Wales, where this week we expect to increase the testing capacity by some 40 per cent. That is largely because of our deployment of Public Health Wales lab tests. We'll utilise and prioritise Welsh lab capacity as we see pressure and demand rising across the UK and, of course, to deal with hotspots here in Wales. I recognise that turnaround times are critically important to the effective functioning of our test, trace, protect system. And test, trace, protect is a successful Welsh innovation and delivery, designed and delivered between health and local government in partnership, across all the different geographies and politics of local government, working with their local and national health service. I recently announced additional funding of £32 million to increase capacity to process tests at Public Health Wales laboratories. That includes six new hot labs that are due to open in the month of November, and extending regional labs to operate on a 24-hour basis should take place before the end of October. And in the most recent week that we've been able to publish figures for, 94 per cent of new cases were successfully traced by our test, trace, protect service, and 86 per cent of their contacts.

I recognise the comments made by committee members about support for self-isolation. Our test, trace, protect service does contact people who are isolating. It's how they understand how successfully people are or aren't isolating. I've had feedback from my own constituents and others about the difference that call has made to them successfully continuing with self-isolation. But I recognise the issues raised by not just the King's Fund report, but also by SAGE and others about the concern over people not successfully self-isolating. So, it was welcome when Michael Gove, in a call with First Ministers across the UK, confirmed there should be new money available to match the policy offer that had already been announced in England—of a £500 additional payment on top of statutory sick pay for low-paid workers. We now expect the UK Treasury to honour that commitment, so the First Minister has been in a position to confirm that we will introduce that payment to make sure that people can successfully self-isolate.

Care home providers, as well as people living and working in care homes, have faced an unprecedented challenge this year, and my sympathies are with those who have faced months of separation from family and friends, and especially to those who have lost loved ones. We supported the sector through this exceptionally difficult period, and we'll continue to do so. We'll be publishing our care home action plan that the Deputy Minister has committed to. That will set out the actions we're taking to ensure that the care home sector is well supported ahead of the challenges of the winter period.

We have been challenged—we heard it again today—about the approach we took in discharging people from hospital to care homes during the initial phase of the pandemic. And if I can take this opportunity to draw the committee's attention to recent research undertaken by Public Health Wales in partnership with Swansea University. That research found no evidence that hospital discharges were in fact associated with a significant risk of a new outbreak in a care home. However, the size of a care home was found to be associated with this risk. Research investigating into how other factors, including policies around staff and visitors, might affect risk continues to be prioritised in support of our efforts to reduce or eliminate care home outbreaks.

Restricting visits to care homes has been exceptionally difficult and, in fact, heartbreaking, and we heard this again today in the committee. But it has been one of the necessary measures that we have had to take at various stages in the pandemic to reduce the risk of infection to care homes. We've worked collaboratively with the sector to produce guidance to support providers to reintroduce visits safely as lockdown restrictions were eased over the summer. That work continues, and I know that the group met again this week to consider how the guidance is working in practice, and, again, the understanding that there should be not be an entire blanket policy—there should always be an individual circumstance where the care needs of that individual could or should be met by visits.

Recent local restrictions mean that local authorities have again had to make some very difficult choices about care home visits, striking a balance between people's continued well-being and the risk presented by increased community transmission. And I again encourage our local authority partners to engage with Public Health Wales, working with their local incident management teams in reaching those decisions. I expect restrictions to be temporary, to be as least restrictive as is safe, and to be kept under review. A rapid response system is in place for local health boards to deploy mobile testing units to those care homes where there is a positive case, and a dedicated care home testing portal is available for ongoing testing of care home staff.

It is worth pointing out on PPE, which the chair spent time on in introducing, that since 9 March, NHS Wales Shared Services Partnership have issued 342.3 million items across our health and social care system, and 167 million items have been issued to social care—that's 48 per cent of the total of items. And we're still issuing around about 13 million items a week. The scale of activity is still significant, and since the very early days of the pandemic, we have provided that free of charge to care home providers. It is the legal responsibility of employers to provide PPE for their workforce. The NHS Wales Shared Services Partnership stepped in because otherwise we would have had an unacceptable risk of harm to staff and the people they care for, and I'm pleased to see that England have recently announced they will follow the lead that we have taken in making that provision of PPE freely available to the care home sector.

We've also been able to provide mutual aid to other UK countries, we have a healthy supply chain of future orders and we are in a much more robust position and we are stockpiling for the winter ahead and for future provision. In fact, I think our system stood up well to the extraordinary pressures and the very sharp tightening in the international market that we saw. That's both in ordering and delivering more PPE into the country, and, in fact, we've provided some assistance in terms of the conversations with England where they've had to reconstruct a central purchasing and procurement operation that was lost in the Lansley reforms. But more than that, we've also, as Dai Rees mentioned, seen Welsh businesses and manufacturers respond significantly to the challenge of creating more PPE. And in the future we'll need to have a different balance in what we procure from other countries and what we continue to provide from manufacturers here in Wales. There may be an additional cost per item to that, but it's the right thing to do to make sure that we have a more robust system in place.

Minister, you've now taken 11 minutes. We're not pressed—[Interruption.] Hold on. We're not pressed for time and this is an important debate, so if you take a minute or two to conclude, that's fine, but we do have to pay some attention anyway to the time limits.

Thank you. I'm fortunately drawing to the conclusion of my remarks, and that is that we have learned from the initial six months. We've learned about working closely with local authorities and public health experts on all of the local restriction measures. We've met with local authority leaders regardless of geography and political leadership, and that's a real strength of the position that we've taken here in Wales, in contrast with some of the choices where leaders have found that out in other parts of the UK, especially in England.

But we all have a part to play to keep Wales safe: the Government, health, social care, public services, businesses and, crucially, us as individual members of our families and communities. The rules are in place for all of us, they apply to all of us, they're for the benefit of all of us, and if we all play our part, then together we can keep Wales safe. Thank you.

I call on Dai Lloyd to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'm conscious of the time. Can I thank everybody who has contributed, first of all, to this debate? Excellent contributions all around, making a variety of points that come from our analysis in what was our first report as a health committee into COVID-19, fulfilling our scrutiny role as a committee and as committee members. There are other reports to follow.

Now, it's fair to say, obviously, that it's been a completely and totally devastating year. There was real fear on our hospital wards during those early days in February, March—real fear—and obviously we've heard about the challenges as well, outlined by colleagues, Andrew R.T. Davies, David Rees and Rhun ap Iorwerth: challenges around testing in those early days and we still have those challenges on testing, and similarly with PPE, although the situation appears far healthier as regards PPE.

We've taken a lot of evidence about social care and how as a society we view social care. And if this pandemic emergency had done nothing else, surely it must crystallise our view that we need to do something about how we organise and view social care generally. If we totally view it as having parity of esteem with the health service, should we not look to reorganise care along the same lines as we organise health? Mental health issues have been prominent as well in a lot of the evidence we took, and it's not surprising and it will be the basis of the next report from the health committee.

But in closing, can I pay a huge tribute, as I did at the start and as others have done, to the massive, heroic and epic response to this pandemic, not just in the health and social care sector, but also, as we've heard from Rhun, local authorities really came good during this—local authorities have shone, absolutely shone indeed. As well as thousands of volunteers in the background who have been doing everything from delivering food, medicines, sewing gowns, sewing masks, and also to the thousands of unpaid carers who really have felt the strain of the last six months. It's been a horrific time for many, and some who have recovered are debilitated by long COVID now, as we speak—chronic, debilitating and still suffering. Rehabilitation services are going to be key as time goes on, and that'll be the basis of another further report from this health committee. My thanks also go to clerks and researchers and legal support, and everyone that makes this health committee function so very well indeed. It's an excellent report, as I've heard many say, and a lot of that is due to excellent research and excellent clerking response.

So, in closing we say: stand firm and do the basics in terms of social distancing, in terms of hand washing, in terms of wearing a mask and in terms of decreasing social contacts—that's what we need to carry on doing—and support the motion. Diolch yn fawr.

Diolch yn fawr, Dai. The proposal is to note the committee report. Does any Member object? The motion is therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Item 6 is the Member debate under Standing Order 11.21, and the subject is universal basic income. I call on Jack Sargeant to move the motion.

Thank you, acting Presiding Officer. I'm very grateful to the Senedd Business Committee and to those that supported this motion allowing our Senedd to be part of the growing conversation around a universal basic income. The universal basic income is not a new idea, but it is an idea that is starting to make its voice heard. As always, there is resistance to change and some will always insist that looking to improve people's lives just isn't possible. These voices have been raised before in the cause of resisting change, saying we can't afford to do better: when children stopped being sent down the mines, when the introduction of the welfare state and pensions were mooted and, of course, when our magnificent NHS was brought into being.

In making the case for a UBI trial in Wales as a first step to Wales adopting the policy, I thought I would share with you what sparked my own interest in the subject. It was initially a very basic question: how do we avoid the ills of poverty in a world that is so chaotic and changing? How do we create a platform of security that allows people to grow, to learn, study and to fulfil their potential in an age of increasing uncertainty? What COVID has shown us is that we can and we should intervene to ensure everyone can be an actor in a market economy. As always, the people in the forefront of my mind are the amazing residents of Alyn and Deeside. My community has seen economic calamity before. My generation grew up in the shadow of the huge job losses at Shotton steel, and it is still the single biggest redundancy in western Europe. This devastating event could be repeated again across a whole range of industries due to automation job losses. This time, the Government needs to be working for us and not against us.

Artificial intelligence is set up to take even more jobs, and we could even make it serve humankind and embrace it, or we can allow it to create a wave of job losses that are not replaced. Alyn and Deeside has been identified as the constituency with the most to lose. It is not just manufacturing, retail and transport where changes have happened; thousands of white-collar jobs in the legal profession, accounting and healthcare will soon be done by AI. There are other huge changes that we are already going through or that are hurtling towards us that mean we may need to intervene to ensure people have the stability of a genuine safety net and springboard.

Llywydd, the first factor is already with us, and it can be seen all around us: poverty. Poverty is becoming endemic—homelessness and food poverty being the most visible signs. Footballer Marcus Rashford has recently shone a light on this issue, using his own personal story to explain just how terrible it is to go to school hungry. The effects of this can and often do last a lifetime. Now, we often kid ourselves that poverty is an issue for other people, but, friends, let this fact sink in: one third of households are a month's paycheck away from homelessness. Now, in a world where people's lives are increasingly precarious, what answer do you think we would get if we stretched that figure to four months? Another important contributor to needing to look at a UBI is the increasingly insecure nature of work, and the flatlining of wage growth for all but a wealthy few. A recent Trades Union Congress report stated that much of the employment created in the UK in recent years has been low paid and insecure, as reflected in the increasing use of zero-hour contracts and the growth in gig economy jobs.

The final factor is global warming, and the very real risk that, if we don't change the way we think about growth, there will be nobody around to benefit from it. Unsustainable booms where we don't take into account the need to go carbon neutral will be catastrophic. Now, this change, whilst necessary, will not be pain free, and there will be losers as well as winners. So, how we do we support them through it? Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern really sums up my position: growth is pointless if people aren't thriving. Ardern said that Governments should instead focus on the general welfare of citizens and make investments in areas that unlock human potential. She pointed to New Zealand's new well-being budget, which seeks to expand mental health services, reduce child poverty and homelessness, fight climate change and expand opportunities.

'Economic growth accompanied by worsening social outcomes is not success'—

Ardern said—

'it is failure.' 

So, what exactly am I asking for? After all, a trial seems quite vague. But, Members, really, it is quite simple. I want the Welsh Government to select a group of people and see if their outcomes are improved by a UBI. Such a group could be care leavers or the recently redundant in an industry particularly hit by COVID. We would then support this group while seeing if our trial matches the positive results of trials elsewhere. A trial in Canada demonstrated that young people are more likely to stay in training; a study in Finland demonstrated that people in receipt of a UBI are more likely to work. Now, this is in contrast to universal credit, which actively punishes work. 

I understand many, particularly on the small-state Conservative wing of politics, will say we can't afford to support people in chaotic times. But I often wonder why these same voices do not pipe up when universal credit costs spiral out of control, when billions are given to outsourcing companies that deliver appalling services, or major infrastructure projects, like the HS2, see costs rocket. And I also know many on my own side of the political spectrum are also unconvinced, not because they don't want to support people, but because they are worried about the finite resources in a country that has already seen the Tories cut so much of what we all value. So, what I would say to them is: look at the list of problems I've discussed today—what pressure will the consequences of these changes place on public services? 

Now, Llywydd, I am looking forward to hearing Members' contributions today, so I will leave you with this: if a market economy is to thrive, it needs all its citizens to be able to participate in it. It needs them to be able to absorb the coming shocks and be home owners, consumers, creators and entrepreneurs. If we are to give them the space to take responsibility and ensure that they can be this, then we are going to need a much better springboard—a much kinder springboard—and that springboard is a universal basic income. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you. I have eight speakers who hope to be called, or eight Members who hope to speak, so five minutes at an absolute maximum, please, and I'd really appreciate it if some Members could be more succinct than that. Mark Isherwood.

Diolch. According to Welsh Government statistics, 721,000 or 23 per cent of all individuals—children, working-age adults and pensioners—are living in relative income poverty in Wales, higher than any other UK nation. According to the UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Wales faces the highest relative poverty rate in the UK, and 25 per cent of jobs in Wales pay below minimum wage.

Universal basic income, or UBI, has gained significant recent interest. However, as the Bevan Foundation state:

'As with many schemes that affect people's income, the design and value of the proposals really matter.'

They found that although a UBI would help to reach people currently outside the benefits system and could reduce stigma, people have significant differences in needs. These, they said, are unlikely to be met by even a high rate of UBI, and they said:

'Most studies show UBI has only limited effects overall on people's engagement with the labour market.... In particular, women with children and older people have been found to slightly reduce their participation in employment with UBI.'

They also ask whether a high rate of UBI would be so expensive that it is difficult to invest in other essential services, such as the construction of new social housing and the provision of more low-cost public transport.

The Centre for Social Justice's report, 'Universal Basic Income: An Effective Policy for Poverty Reduction?', also argued that UBI is unaffordable, putting at risk the provision of important services in healthcare and education, adding that it:

'Doesn't meet the needs of low-income households facing complex problems such as drug addiction, dangerous debt, and family breakdown; provides a major disincentive to find work...and is no more generous to the most disadvantaged households than the provisions under universal credit.'

As the UK Secretary of State for business, Alok Sharma, said:

'What's very important in the way that we provide support, particularly more widely in the welfare system, is that we target it at people, and universal basic income is an issue that's being tested in other countries and hasn't been taken forward.'

Last year, the Finnish Government did not proceed with UBI after a two-year trial, concluding that it failed to help unemployed people to rejoin the workforce. Although a form of UBI is in place in Alaska, the level of payment is not sufficient to replace people's income and therefore acts only as a supplement. Although Spain has recently introduced a minimum income scheme, it appears to have more in common with the UK's social security system than the version of UBI being debated.

Reducing the amount of people living in poverty in Wales cannot be solved by one action. The Bevan Foundation calls for the development of an anti-poverty strategy that clearly sets the steps that the Welsh Government intends to take to reduce the number of people living in poverty in Wales. As Oxfam Cymru states, it's not the case that anti-poverty strategies don't work; it's about how those strategies are targeted. 

The Bevan Foundation has recently called for the Welsh Government to encourage local authorities to establish a single point of access for school meals, the pupil development grant and the council tax reduction scheme, stating that this would make it easier for families in poverty to access them. Where possible, they say, this support should be provided on a passported basis. As National Energy Action Cymru states, the Welsh Government should designate fuel poverty as an infrastructure priority.

Prevention is vital if people and organisations in Wales are going to address the major challenges we face, taking practical action to stop problems arising in the first place. Sticking plasters are just not enough; we need to find the underlying causes and finally do something to address them. If people keep falling into a river, would it not be better to build a fence upstream to stop them falling in, rather than endlessly rescuing them before they drown? As the Joseph Rowntree Foundation noted, universal basic income

'is not affordable, unpalatable to most of the public because of its "money for nothing" tag and perhaps most importantly—it increases poverty unless modified beyond recognition.'

That was a direct quote from them. Tackling poverty more widely will only succeed with citizen involvement at its core. We now need words to turn into real action, doing things with people rather than to them. At last, we need to fully embrace co-production, moving beyond rhetoric and consultation to doing things differently in practice, with service professionals, service users and their communities working side by side to provide solutions. Diolch yn fawr. 

I'm pleased to support the motion and grateful to Jack Sargeant for tabling it and giving us the opportunity to support and for his powerful opening speech. And of course, as Jack said, Mark Isherwood's contribution to the debate has just demonstrated that there will always be people who will look to find new and innovative ideas impossible and undeliverable. I would submit we have to be more ambitious than that. 

I've said in this Chamber before, and I'll keep saying it while it continues to be the case, it is a national disgrace that we live in a country where a third of our children are poor. The current benefits system is complex, it's punitive and it keeps families in poverty. It's also costly to administer and profoundly unfair. As the motion highlights, work, as things stand, is no longer a route out of poverty. Too many families in Wales with both parents working in zero-hours contract, gig economy jobs are still poor. 

There can be no doubt that COVID-19 will hit our economy hard, but even pre-COVID our economy was changing. The challenges of, among other things, automation and artificial intelligence are likely to, over time, transform the world of work. There may not just be enough of what we traditionally regard as work to go around. There are many actions that we can and should take to address these challenges, and I wouldn't disagree with everything that Mark Isherwood said, but exploring a universal basic income has to be one of them. 

The motion clearly outlines many of the benefits, and I would add to that list the capacity of a universal basic income to allow people to spend more time with their families, and particularly with children. I know too many families in the region I represent where both parents are working long hours in low-paid work. A universal basic income could allow them to reduce their hours, hugely improving their quality of life and the quality of life of their children. 

I am comfortable in supporting the motion as it stands, but there is a 'but'—it will be very difficult to establish even a limited universal basic income trial in Wales without the devolution of the benefits system. We could perhaps trial with families on low incomes that are above the benefits threshold, and goodness knows there are too many of those in our nation, but there would certainly be no point at all in providing individuals and families with a universal basic income from Welsh funds only to have them lose their benefits from the UK Government. 

And while I would certainly not oppose lobbying a UK Government to fund a Wales-wide universal basic income, I have to admit that, with the current UK Government in power, I am not holding my breath. Better, surely, to follow the careful, considered advice of the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee and to seek the devolution of the administration of benefits to Wales. Then, we could really trial universal basic income. And if it works, it could transform people's lives. Diolch yn fawr. 

Every now and then, an idea comes along, an imaginative and innovative idea, and I think we have a duty, particularly in this Senedd, to embrace those ideas and the opportunities that they can present to us. The idea of a basic income has been around a long time. Economists, philosophers and politicians have long debated how to abolish poverty. The 1945 Labour Government began this journey in earnest by establishing the welfare state, and it worked for many decades. It took the unemployed, it took those unable to work and those in low-paid work out of poverty. And it worked reasonably well in a society where there was near full employment, strong trade unionism and a public commitment to the common good.

Now, during the 1980s and subsequent decades, those three prerequisites, which underpin the welfare state, have been increasingly whittled away and undermined, which culminated in the disgraceful Tory Welfare Reform Act 2012. The attempt to create a new universal credit started off on the right track, with cross-party support, but alongside the bedroom tax, became discredited by a Tory Government fix with austerity. Since the days of Margaret Thatcher, political attitudes towards those on benefits have also become increasingly hostile. Consistent headlines about 'benefit cheats', 'welfare scroungers' and the latest Tory mantra, 'the deserving poor', have, I think, increasingly masked the poverty and inequality that has increasingly destabilised our society.

So, now is the time for new thinking and new ideas. The emergence of the idea of a universal basic income is timely and welcome. The underlying principle for a UBI is that all adults should be paid an amount of money sufficient to have a reasonable basic standard of living. Now, there is the nub. What is reasonable? What is basic? What is sufficient? Added to that are many other challenges. We have already had some universal benefits, such as free prescriptions and child benefits, until recent changes, which go to everyone and are paid for by everyone. Universal basic income would be the same. It is in some ways no different to the concept of a basic tax-free allowance, except that it goes further and becomes a non-means-tested payment to every adult. Now, there can, of course, be special top-ups for special needs and that is one of the concepts. But there are many variations. So, making it work, winning support is the real challenge. Will society accept it? Will those who work be prepared to accept this concept? How will it impact on wages and those in work? What obligations will it place on society to ensure that socially useful and proper work is available and that people take up that work? What are the responsibilities of the recipients? How do you enforce those responsibilities? And there are many other questions. 

Now, if the idea of a UBI has the potential to eliminate poverty, we must consider it and discuss it and debate it and then come to a conclusion. Jack Sargeant has got the ball rolling with this individual Member's debate. It is an exciting debate. Let's continue this debate with an open mind, because we have much to gain and little to lose. Thank you, acting Llywydd.

Having a universal basic income will, as with most innovative ideas, be likely to create both positive and negative outcomes. In the first instance, if we examine the benefits of such a payment, people would have the freedom to return to education, giving them a greater chance of better work opportunities. More would be able to stay at home to care for a relative. This has the potential to give considerable savings to the huge cost of social care. It could remove many thousands from the poverty trap engendered by more traditional forms of welfare programmes. People could access a simple, straightforward payment that could minimise bureaucracy. Again, a cost saving that would help pay for any additional funding costs associated with the basic income policy, because we all know that administering the current welfare system is hugely expensive and complicated. Young couples would have more freedom to start families and they would have a guaranteed income, possibly alleviating the low birth rates in some sectors of the UK population. A guaranteed income could help stabilise the economy during recession periods, thus mitigating the effect of economic recessions. However, as with everything, the right balance has to be struck.

If the universal basic payment is set too high, it may disincentivise people to enter the jobs market. Set too low, it will continue to keep a portion of the population in relative poverty. Again, if set too high, the demand for goods and services could trigger inflation, which, in the long run, might negate the increased standard of living for most basic income recipients. A reduced programme with smaller payments, on the other hand, won't make a real difference to poverty stricken families.

If we are to get general acceptance of the universal basic income, we have to prove the potential benefits to the many people out there who are totally opposed to what they feel are free handouts of any sort. Across the world, countries are either looking to experiment with UBI or are already doing so. These include some American states, Finland, Kenya, Canada and Taiwan. Monitoring the progress could give the Senedd the opportunity to benchmark the effect of a universal basic payment.

There are many academics, economists and even industrialists who now believe that if we are to create a fairer, more equal society, some form of universal basic income is not only desirable but inevitable. Automation has fundamentally changed the structure of the world's economy, with artificial intelligence taking us into another industrial revolution in the way we produce and market goods and services. The resultant effect on the need for both manual and office-based human intervention will drastically reduce the jobs market. I think we would all agree that this industrial revolution must not duplicate those of the past, with the terrible manifestation of the haves and have-nots. We must all accept that if we are to create a fair, equal society, a universal basic income is not only desirable but essential. However, we should be under no illusions: its instigation must be done with great care and caution.

An excellent introduction by Jack, and a really interesting debate by people from all parties, and that's how it should be. It seems to me that the COVID pandemic, and the collective action that has been required to beat it, is what has propelled radical responses into the spotlight. Who would have thought that a Chancellor of the Exchequer, in one of the most right-wing libertarian Governments the UK has had in living memory, would agree to pay 80 per cent of all this country's wages in order to save people's jobs?

I've long supported the principle of a universal basic income. I was an early adopter of Wages for Housework, long before many Members, including Jack, were born. We need to remember that the original family allowance, which then became child benefit, was intended to recognise the important work of bringing up the next generation. Sadly, it's been allowed to wither on the vine and is a completely insufficient contribution by society to the cost of bringing up our children. But until recently, I didn't feel that now was the time to be pushing for a UBI, because I thought, in the middle of a pandemic, there were just far too many other immediate problems that Governments needed to deal with. And in addition to that, Welsh Government neither has the resources nor, indeed, the powers to make it happen. But I think the depth of the crisis we are now facing, that are coming together, make this something that we really, now, urgently need to look at, because we are not just facing a pandemic, we are also facing the real possibility of the UK severing its ties with our European neighbours after 40 years without achieving a workable trade deal. And in addition to that, we have the gathering climate crisis, which, if we do nothing about it, will simply get much, much worse very, very quickly.

So, I am convinced that this is what we now need: a universal basic income to protect our country from the level of economic and social disintegration that is far greater and more devastating than anything we saw in 1973, 1982, 1989 and 2008. Above all, we have to avoid the violent political upheavals that are often triggered by the failure to manage economic shockwaves. Goodness knows what would have happened in 2008 if Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling hadn't managed to prevent the complete collapse of all our banks.

So, before COVID, Wales was already suffering from very high levels of insecurity, as others have already said. We know that one in eight people have insecure employment, and Wales has one of the highest levels of zero-hours contracts, which is probably the most insecure way in which anybody is forced to try and juggle home and work responsibilities. But underpinning that disgraceful statistic is the fact that one third of children in this country live in households that struggle to put sufficient food on the table without skimping on other essentials like heating and school trips, and this in the sixth richest economy in the world.

We also have this punitive and wasteful benefits system, designed to punish people for being unable to find a job, even if none exists. As Mick has already pointed out, universal benefit could have been, if properly funded and implemented differently, the reliable safety net that any civilised society needs when people get into difficulties, but it wasn't, and it isn't. It's just increased the misery and impoverishment of the most vulnerable. You can read on social media some of the appalling things that happen to people as soon as they have any change in their universal benefit. Simply forcing people to wait five weeks for any money on universal benefit is just a calling card for loan sharks and spiralling debt. Universal benefit is costing—

You will need to make this your concluding—. You'll conclude with this, please.

So, basically, I just want to say that we really do need to look to the future of how we manage all these changes, and the idea that there's not going to be enough work to go round is completely false, in my view. But we do need that underpinning to enable people to make the transition in this very, very radical set of changes that we are going to be suffering.

Clearly, as we've heard in the debate, the driving force for the discussion around universal basic income is the massive wave of technological change that is unfolding in front of our very eyes. There is an economic debate as to the extent to which automation, AI and related technologies are going to create mass technological unemployment permanently. There are serious economists that believe that what we're talking about now is something fundamentally different to earlier stages of mechanisation, that, actually, the extent of automation is going to reach into areas of the service economy. We're not just talking about automation, robots on the manufacturing factory floor; we're talking about white-collar professional services, legal services, being automated effectively, and, therefore, us being left with a totally different economic system whereby it's only a minority that are left in jobs at all. Others would contend that, eventually, because human beings have an infinite array of wants, new jobs will be created that we can't even imagine now. But even those economists accept that we are going to go through, over the next 10, 15, 20 years, a massive wave of rapid structural change and that will almost inevitably create levels of economic insecurity for many, many people. So, whichever view you take, there is a strong argument for creating an universal basic income as a means by which we manage that change to a very, very different economic future.

And there's another related argument. Many people will have followed the debate around Thomas Piketty's work showing that the arrow, certainly under capitalism, is over the long run towards inequality. One of the reasons for that, of course, is because ownership of capital is in relatively few hands and if you couple that then with automation, you can see where we're ending up again. Unless we create a system for the redistribution of income that is much more effective than the one that we have at the moment, then the rising inequality that has been a feature of the developed west over the last however many decades—and, indeed, Piketty argues, over centuries—we're going to see that rise exponentially over the coming years.

One of the advantages of UBI, of course, is that, because it gives people options, because it gives workers options, it means that they can refuse what the late David Graeber called—and this is in quotes, Deputy Presiding Officer—'bullshit jobs', and they can refuse low-income jobs. So, it creates what economists call a new reservation wage, because people don't have to accept wages and jobs at any level, and it actually changes the economic centre of gravity in terms of economic power.

UBI, I think, would unleash a wave of creativity, because it would—remember the enterprise allowance scheme? It was one of the few things the Thatcher Government did that I'd actually support. What it meant is that if you were in a band, et cetera, or a struggling artist, then you had a base level of income, if you used that scheme, at least, which could allow you to do other more interesting things. So actually, in an entrepreneurial sense, this is an argument that would appeal to some on the right of the political spectrum—that actually creating a UBI allows people to take some risks with their life because they have the basic economic security upon which they can do so.

It also allows people, finally, to make other choices in terms of paid work versus spending time with their family, as Helen Mary said, but also paid work versus unpaid work, voluntary work, et cetera, and allowing society to gain from those benefits. I'm all in favour of exploring a trial. I think redundancies—unfortunately, we've seen those recently in Wales—that could be one area. Youth basic income is something that other countries have done, but Helen Mary's central point is absolutely true—if we're going to do this as a nation, then we have to devolve welfare powers. So, let's get cross-party support for that as well.

Thank you. Dawn Bowden.

Thank you, acting Deputy Presiding Officer, and can I also thank Jack Sargeant for tabling this really important motion, which I'm very happy to support? I'd like to start by setting some context for my contribution, hopefully without repeating what others have said, and then to explain why I believe this is an idea whose time is coming, and why it would benefit communities like those I represent in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney.

So, first some context. In April 2018 I published a discussion piece for the Welsh Fabians about Wales being what I described as a well-being state, and in that piece I explored the suggestion that our traditional welfare state safety net could usefully evolve into a more holistic well-being state. The idea had emerged from a piece originally authorised by our now Counsel General, Jeremy Miles, who said, and I quote,

'Bevan was an architect of the welfare state. Tomorrow's task will be a Wellbeing State.'

But I needed to ask myself what exactly a Welsh well-being state would look like, and for me, at the core of such an approach must be to incorporate well-being in all our policies, much like we equality-proof policies and should, in my view, also poverty-proof policies. So, we should well-being-proof policies. And then I set out a range of ideas that might help build a well-being state, and that included a minimum income guarantee for a Welsh citizen equivalent to a real living wage, providing an uplift in circumstances for many within an associated cost-efficiency saving, and a top-up of welfare state payments with personal well-being payments, to be paid in short periods to offset stress and debilitating conditions such as mental health crises. It follows, therefore, that underpinning a well-being state should be a move from being a welfare recipient to being a well-being participant. This would acknowledge an obligation to be an active citizen in the community in which we share a common responsibility to enhance well-being.

So, what's the practical benefit of this idea for communities like Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney? Well, it could challenge and change some of the dreadful circumstances that have bedevilled some of our most deprived communities and that have been magnified during this current COVID crisis. As others have already mentioned, the likes of uncertain employment with zero-hours contracts, exploitative conditions and working practices and low wages and benefit dependency are scourges on too many of my constituents, and they deserve better. A universal basic income is a solution, and it's a sensible solution now, given what has happened as a result of this dreadful pandemic.

In crises, opportunities arise, and I believe that what was set out in 2018 and what is being developed in this current debate is a sensible and rational response to our current circumstances. I hope that our Welsh Government will be bold and responsive, and take on board the calls in this motion, because it's no longer good enough to keep doing what we do and expecting things to change. My constituents have waited too long for that, and we have to look at a different approach. Universal basic income could be a building block of post-COVID recovery, and it's something we should embrace. Thank you. 

And the final speaker before the Minister is Mandy Jones. 

I'd like to start by thanking Jack Sargeant for tabling this debate and the many Members of the Senedd who support the motion. I've heard some stuff about UBI, but I must admit that my brain usually switches off as soon as it's mentioned. It's always been locked away in the part of my head that says, 'Something for nothing? I don't think so.' So, in the interests of opening my own mind, I volunteered to participate in this debate and I've done some reading and some research.

I've worked all of my life, from my early teens. I've earned all of my own money, and I've raised four children largely with little help, financial or emotional, from both of their fathers. I cared for my elderly father when he was in his last years, too. I've done all sorts of jobs—menial jobs I was damn grateful for. I've done jobs for £1 an hour, and I was glad to have those. The only time I claimed any sort of benefit was when my spine collapsed. I needed that security blanket, and I was grateful for it. That said, if ever I fall on hard times again, if ever one of my sons is made redundant, if my daughter returns to Wales and can't find a job in our post-COVID world, I want a support network in place for them, for everyone, that is compassionate and realistic, and able to respond to the needs of the individual.

I do think the UK benefits system is a mess, administered by an entrenched tick-box civil service that just can't get it right. However, the fact that the bulk of the benefit is paid to people in work is beyond me. Why does the taxpayer effectively subsidise shareholders of large corporates that won't pay a decent wage to people for decent work? While this continues, pay growth will continue to stagnate, and I do think it's remained pretty flat since the financial crash. And yes, people will need the support of top-up benefits and food banks while this remains the case. It's a total disgrace.

I've read with interest reports of the trial of UBI in Finland in 2018-19, but the thing that concerns me is that the net result was that the unemployed became less stressed and a little happier. They did not during this period seek work or training opportunities. That would be a big problem. And surely, the aim is not for those who can work—and I accept that some people cannot do so, but for the others—to languish at home. It has to be to encourage them to find work or to upskill. And let's not forget that everyone in work gets a tax-free £12,500 and a pass on national insurance under £9,500. 

As part of my research, I've delved into the world of universal credit, built on the foundation of one payment for all benefits due. I personally have no difficulty with the concept of universal credit, but I do take issue with the way it's been administered, causing deeper poverty and untold stress for claimants. Is universal credit not the same sort of thing as UBI? This is a genuine question for those who know more about this than I do. We represent a nation of workers, all of whom should take great pride in the contribution they make to society, whatever they do, and they, more than anything, I think, want to see fair play. What would they think of a proposal for UBI? I'm not sure it's a vote winner although that is certainly no bar to discussing it in great length, and I'm not sure ordinary people are ready for it. Although I do understand that some of the sentiments behind the motion are perfectly laudable, I do find some of these sweeping statements in it questionable. 

My group will not be supporting this motion as it stands. We believe that the sense of purpose, self-worth and discipline of a job have far more merit than the Government handing out sums of money to those who don't necessarily need them. As I mentioned earlier, there are real structural issues with the welfare system in this country, not least the propping up of big businesses who don't want to pay decent salaries. While I now know more about UBI, and for that I thank you for this debate, I don't believe that UBI is the solution to this problem at this time. Thank you very much.  

I call the Minister for finance, Rebecca Evans. 

Thank you. I'm really pleased to be able to respond to what has been a really interesting debate. The idea of a universal basic income has much to commend it. If it were introduced within a coherent set of reforms to the tax and welfare system, its advantages have the potential to deliver economic gains to women and to disadvantaged groups in particular. The Welsh Government is, of course, fully supportive of those objectives and a trial could, in principle, help to establish how far these objectives could be realised in practice. 

Of course, no matter how attractive a policy is in principle, there are always some complications, limitations or unintended consequences that might risk undermining the contribution it can make to the goals of tackling poverty and inequality if they're not fully addressed and assessed. If a universal basic income were to be paid at a level that would make a real difference to people's standards of living, this would inevitably come with a high cost, and rather than being a criticism of UBI, this is simply a recognition of the reality that UBI would be intended to make a transformational difference to people's lives. 

Just for illustration, if a full universal basic income were paid in Wales to all working-age adults and set at the level of the official living wage, the cost would be in very round terms around £35 billion a year. If set at the level of the real living wage, the cost would be around £40 billion. And again, just for illustration, these figures are around twice the size of the Welsh Government's budget and, as a further comparison, income tax in Wales raises in total just over £5 billion. Of course, the costs could be much reduced if universal basic income was paid at a lower rate, but, of course, this would then reduce its attraction.  

Naturally, the introduction of universal basic income would also increase tax revenues and remove or reduce the need for some benefits. So, it therefore would require a comprehensive redesign of the whole tax and benefits system and, of course, most of the elements in this system are not devolved. It's important to recognise that even if a full universal basic income of the type that we've talked about were introduced, research indicates that some of the most disadvantaged people could be worse off, unless some of those elements of the benefits system were retained, at least in a modified form. So, obviously, we would have to be very much alive to that. Those who might be worse off would include large families and, particularly, families where members are disabled.  

In addition, the level and structure of taxes would need to change, both to ensure that the overall system was as progressive as possible, and also to raise the additional revenue that would be required. Very careful design work would therefore need to be undertaken to minimise the risks to disadvantaged groups, and to ensure affordability. 

When faced with such a complex change, I think we should also consider whether the desired objectives could also be secured more quickly or more effectively by other reforms to existing taxes and benefits. A good place to start would be reversing the disastrous cuts to welfare benefits introduced by the current and the previous Conservative-led UK Governments, and restoring the cuts that have been made to the funding of the public services on which those on the lowest incomes most depend. 

Once public services have fully been restored, we should also consider whether a model based on the development of universal basic services, with a focus on the services that are most intensively used by people on low incomes, could offer better outcomes than the provision of income in monetary form. A trial of universal basic income could go some way to helping us assess the benefits and the risks of making such a fundamental change, comparing it with the alternatives and determining what we would need to do to minimise the risks. In the Welsh Government's view, such a large and thorough trial would be essential before committing to a complete recast of the tax and benefit system.

The Welsh Government would be open to such a trial taking place in Wales, but we have to be realistic that such a trial would not be possible without the active co-operation of the UK Government, and this is because of the interaction of universal basic income with the tax and benefit system, as I've just described. If such a trial were offered, we would also require that conditions were met to ensure that the Welsh Government and this Senedd were able to play a significant role in the design, governance and accountability of any scheme. Were the Welsh Government to make payments to individuals without the co-operation of the UK Government, this could simply result in them being ineligible for existing benefits or paying more in tax. Aside from the fact that this would not then be a proper test of the effect of an unconditional payment, it would, in effect, result in the transfer of resources from the Welsh Government to the UK Government. And, sadly, our recent experience of the UK Government's approach to the taxation of our payments to social care workers doesn't suggest that we should expect their active co-operation. While we were able to make similar payments to flood victims without incurring those deductions, it's clear that we can't expect a consistent and reliable response from the UK Government on these matters.

Any trial should also be developed with social partners, and I recognise that there are some mixed views amongst those partners on the impact of any UBI scheme on job security and pay. I'm told that one unintended consequence could be an increase in precarious employment practices, or rates of pay that fail to recognise fair reward. So, quite rightly, UBI advocates would argue that any scheme would need to be backed by higher minimum wages and stronger regulations on zero-hours contracts to guard against these risks.

So, while the Welsh Government is open to the principle of a trial, the timing of any trial and the subsequent wider introduction of UBI must be dependent on there being in place a UK Government that is a true partner in our objectives on poverty, inequality and fair work, but, of course, I'm more than happy to continue the conversation. Thank you for a really useful debate.

Thank you. I call Jack Sargeant to reply to the debate.  

Diolch yn fawr, acting Presiding Officer. I'd like to thank the Minister for her contribution on behalf of the Welsh Government and also all Members who've contributed today from all sides of the debate, and those who have supported this motion before us today. If I may, I'd like to conclude by addressing some of the biggest challenges that we currently face and how a UBI could alleviate these.

Firstly, the issue of poor mental health. The charity Mind has reported that more than half of adults and two thirds of young people have said their mental health has worsened during lockdown. Now, as someone who has struggled openly with their mental health, this is deeply upsetting, but, unfortunately, it is not surprising. Now, I understand that a universal basic income cannot resolve the current pandemic, but it would at least guarantee everyone a solid foundation of financial stability from which to cope with the crisis, ensure a roof over their heads and provide food on the table.

A further example of issues we face as a society is period poverty, and whilst I welcome the Welsh Government's initiatives to tackle this, they cannot solve the root of the problem. Widespread poverty means that one in seven girls struggle to afford period products—a basic human necessity. Now, given that half of girls feel embarrassed by their period, this is just one example of how our lack of access to very basic needs causes even the youngest members of our society undue stress and humiliation. A UBI would ensure access to the very basics for everyone.

Now, to those who argue that a UBI is not the answer to the problems, and particularly those who have supported a UK Conservative Government over the past 10 years where poverty has increased, I would say this: the current system is broken. Helen Mary Jones was absolutely right when she said the current system isn't working. We have to be bold and now is the time for change.

This system, this current system, has unkindness built into it. Universal credit is not only difficult to navigate and costly, it is punitive, enforcing sanctions for arbitrary reasons and causing financial instability for millions across the UK. In fact, the current system, and particularly universal credit, fails to protect the vulnerable full stop. For instance, because payments are made to households and not individuals, those trapped in abusive relationships can easily be subjected to financial control, afraid they may become homeless or unable to support themselves if they were to leave an abusive partner. A universal basic income would restore these women's financial agency, providing the safety net that empowers them to leave dangerous and volatile situations.

Llywydd, we have an opportunity now to make a change that not only deals with the most difficult challenges our society faces today but protects our future generations from the inevitable economic shifts coming our way. I hope the Welsh Government will listen carefully to the points made today from all sides of the Chamber, and backed by calls for a UBI trial that could help transform the lives of our most vulnerable citizens here in Wales, because David Rowlands is absolutely right, a universal basic income is desirable and essential but needs to be carefully introduced. And it's important—and I will end now, Llywydd—as Mick Antoniw very carefully said in his powerful contribution, that we continue to explore this debate in this Senedd because it's right that we're talking about it in this Welsh Parliament. So, I'm proud to bring this here today. So, diolch yn fawr iawn, Llywydd. Thank you all very much, Members who have supported this motion already, and I would urge others, after following this debate, to vote for this motion today. Thank you.

Thank you very much. The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will defer voting under this item until voting time.

There will now be a 10-minute interruption whilst we allow for a change-over. Thank you.

The next item on our agenda is the Welsh Conservatives debate on value for money for taxpayers, and I call on Angela Burns to move the motion. Angela Burns.

Diolch, Llywydd. The motion tabled by the Welsh Conservatives today is very clear: do not waste the taxpayers' money. And the motion is clear because the Welsh Conservatives are the party that understands the true value of the taxpayers' money—money the people of Wales and the United Kingdom have worked hard to make—the graft it takes and the hope it gives for a decent way of life. We want our taxes to pay for a good health and social care system, a transformative education system and decent housing for those who need shelter. We want our taxes to help build a thriving economy, to deliver the infrastructure projects we need and to support cultural and societal growth. The taxpayer's pound is a precious commodity, and one no Government should take for granted, yet this Government, the Welsh Labour Government, have become ever more careless about that precious commodity, the taxpayer's pound. 

The evidence is clear and unambiguous: over £1 billion has been wasted by successive Welsh Labour Governments in the past decade. It makes no odds whether they're joined at the hip with Plaid Cymru or the Liberal Democrats—the waste goes on and on.

As I will demonstrate during this contribution, too many projects, policies and initiatives struggle—and I'm struggling, sorry, with my autocue here—to define clear objectives or agree outcomes, and even those that do are seldom subjected to the rigorous scrutiny that the use of the taxpayer's pound demands. 

Even worse, Llywydd—even worse—is that so many of the projects with potential—the ones that started as pilots—crash and burn, because, once the initial funding runs out, there's no-one with funds prepared to adopt and carry the project forward. So, this Labour Government is forever reinventing the wheel, like a hamster going round and round, ever busier but with no destination.

I have read endless committee reports, Wales Audit Office reports, health board reports, external organisation reports, third sector reports, think tank and research reports. Again and again, the same themes emerge: lack of capacity, lack of capability, lack of sustainability, lack of consistency, lack of focus, lack of objectives, lack of scrutiny, lack of value for money. The theme goes on and on and rather like the theme in Titanic, and, like the Titanic, this Government is holed below the waterline, and the taxpayer's pound is sinking into the abyss.

The passion I and my colleagues have to raise the game in Wales to ensure there is a deep sense of fiscal responsibility is why I'm rejecting most of the amendments before us; the Government's because it is utterly pointless and has no shame, no recognition of the taxpayer's pound they've consistently wasted, and no sense of responsibility—it's always somebody else's fault—Gareth Bennett's amendment because we don't do ostrich—move on, Gareth, the times have. Neil McEvoy's amendment I have some sympathy with, but I would need to be convinced that pushing everything through local authorities is the answer.

I will accept Caroline Jones's amendment. Trust is low, and I think the waste of money the public sees—the overspends, the lack of responsibility—has contributed to people in Wales giving up and not participating. Would you trust anyone who wasted £1 billion of your money? We've all heard of the usual suspects: £221 million on uncompetitive enterprise zones; over £9 million on the flawed initial funding for the Circuit of Wales; almost £100 million on delays and overspend on the Heads of the Valleys road; £157 million—gosh, that number's ingrained in our hearts, isn't it—on the M4 relief road inquiry; over £100 million just propping up Cardiff Airport.

But, as ever, there are devils to be found in the detail. There are lesser known screw-ups where there were no clear objectives, where there was no real capacity to scale up success, where there was no commitment to long-term sustainability, where the projects that were failing were not terminated promptly enough, where scrutiny was ad hoc or non-existent, or not reviewed by people with the authority or the guts to make the hard decisions.

An example of sheer fiscal incompetence can be found in the June 2020 Audit Wales report on Labour's rural development grant scheme. The report found that £53 million of grants were made without ensuring value for money. And I quote the Wales Audit Office report: out of £598 million already provided under the scheme,

'the Welsh Government granted £68 million through "direct applications". In this process, officials invited known individuals or organisations to apply without any competition.'

In short, the auditor general found that key aspects of the design, operation and oversight of the Welsh Government's controls over the programme were not effective enough to secure value for money. In other words, the Welsh Government granted funds without competition, did not document why applicants were selected and made individual grant awards without demonstrating sufficient consideration for value for money. If that were not careless enough with the taxpayer's pound, the Labour Government just handed out funds to existing projects without checking if they were successful. There was no meaningful programme and project oversight.

Let me turn from the Wales Audit Office to examples from the Senedd's Public Accounts Committee. The Public Accounts Committee published two reports over the course of this term highlighting concerns with the accounts of Natural Resources Wales. Seven years ago, the creation of NRW through the merger of the environment agency, countryside council and the forestry commission, was heralded as a way of providing a more accountable, streamlined and efficient way of managing and safeguarding the nation's environment and natural resources. Yet the reports by PAC have highlighted that NRW have failed to deliver on these goals.

The committee was damning in its condemnation of NRW following contracts it had agreed on timber sales. They highlighted the auditor general's findings that the contracts were novel, repercussive and contentious and reinforced views that uncertainty existed around whether Natural Resources Wales complied with principles of public law and state-aid rules. 

What makes these findings worse is that the lessons were not learnt, because 18 months later the Public Accounts Committee repeated its criticism. They found that there were a number of concerning issues around the awarding of these timber contracts that were unexplained, leading the committee to conclude there had been a cultural failure within the organisation in relation to governance and that a serious overhaul is needed. 

Minister, have you picked up the Titanic thing yet? Like a range of other public bodies and public projects in Wales, there was not enough oversight and accountability, no commitment to using the taxpayer's pound wisely and seeking value for money, and a complete inability to learn from failure. The mistakes kept going on and on.

Similar findings were highlighted when PAC investigated the Supporting People programme. It found that the pace of progress in addressing issues raised by previous reviews, for example, with regard to the funding formula and the monitoring of the impact of the programme, had been slow. There were also ongoing inconsistencies in the management of the programme at a local level. Minister, this was a programme that had been in place for 14 years, and, in 14 years, your programme could not get its act together. How long should it take? 

Nor did the Public Accounts Committee hold back on its scrutiny of the NHS Wales Informatics Service. Let me give you another direct quote:

'Our inquiry has raised serious question marks about the competence, capability and capacity across the health system to deliver a digital transformation in Welsh healthcare. And yet we discovered a culture of self-censorship and denial amongst those charged with taking the agenda forward'.

To be frank, that's no surprise. I've seen this culture of self-censorship and denial up close every month for the past decade or more. 

Other committees make the same points on portfolio-specific inquiries, including many on health, ranging from care homes to GP clusters, education and community spends. Minister, these are not partisan reports written by unfriendly think tanks or opposition politicians, but the findings of Welsh Parliament scrutiny committees with cross-party representation, often following reports by the auditor general.

I say to the people of Wales: do not despair, there is a lifeboat in sight. Because a Welsh Conservative Government would ensure that, from day one, it was accountable and transparent. We will immediately put in place the office of Government resilience and efficiency, which would be separate to the Government and have a cross-portfolio responsibility to ensure that policy and spending decisions follow the overall objectives of the Government and dovetail with each other. After all, we saw the disaster of the Welsh Labour Government's climate change policy. It was in direct contradiction with the M4 relief road debacle. It took £157 million before Labour figured that one out. 

OGRE will change that culture of self-censorship and denial. We will not be afraid to challenge and change. It is why we need a devolution revolution. OGRE will not just scrutinise expenditure, but it will scrutinise and ensure there is cohesion in all our policies, whether it's climate change and sustainability, human rights, raising educational standards, protecting the vulnerable and poor, food security, delivering properly funded social care, or protecting the NHS.

We, the Welsh Conservatives, will remember we're here to serve the citizens of Wales. We will spend the taxpayer's pound wisely. We will cut out the unnecessary layers of bureaucracy and ensure we deliver a more streamlined and transparent Government. Welsh Conservative policies have clear objectives, clear outcomes and rigorous management, where policies are given every chance to succeed, but evaluated and stopped if they are not working. No more taxpayers' pounds going into an endless abyss. 

Let me finish by making it clear that the last point of our motion is an exercise in hope over experience. We hope Labour will step up and stop the waste, but the reality is that, after 20-odd years and well over £1 billion of taxpayers' money wasted in just the last decade, I don't think Welsh Labour Government are capable of driving a culture change, of delivering value for money, of challenging decision making. We will call for it, but I'm not holding my breath. But, Minister, you should. The Titanic's going down.

I have selected the four amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will be deselected. I call on the Minister for Finance and Trefnydd to move amendment 1, formally.

Formally, Rebecca Evans?

Yes, formally.

Thank you. I call on Caroline Jones to formally move amendment 2, tabled in her name. Caroline Jones.

Diolch, Llywydd. I formally move the amendment tabled in my name. Trust in politics is at an all-time low and is being made worse by a trail of broken promises. People are losing faith in devolution, because devolution has failed to deliver the promised benefits. Policy failures and Government waste have accelerated the erosion of trust in our institution. 

As the Welsh Conservatives point out in their motion, over £1 billion of funds have been wasted in the past decade; funds that could have made a real difference to the lives and the people of Wales. How many people have died of cancer because, due to a lack of resources, an early diagnosis could not be made? How many homeless veterans have died because there wasn't enough affordable accommodation? How many children have had their life chances curtailed because they were failed by the Welsh education system? Imagine what a difference £1 billion could have made to all of those lives. Imagine how many doctors or nurses could have been employed. Imagine how many affordable homes we could have built. Instead, that money disappeared along with the hopes and dreams of many Welsh voters.

Successive Welsh Governments have promised much but failed to deliver. They promised to transform the Welsh economy. They set a target of achieving 80 per cent of UK GDP, which was dropped when it was clear that it couldn't be achieved. Despite millions of pounds of state aid, Wales continues to be the poorest region of western Europe. EU structural funds, which promised to transform west Wales and the Valleys were squandered—a colossal broken promise that failed to deliver economic prosperity. Policy failures that failed to deliver much-needed jobs in my region.

South Wales West has haemorrhaged jobs over the past decade and more. We witnessed the biggest employers downscale altogether. We were promised that new employers would replace the high-paid manufacturing jobs that were lost at Sony, Ford, Visteon, 3M, Tata and a whole host of other global manufacturers. What we got was a stream of failed schemes, wasted investment and a string of low-paid call centre jobs. The people of Wales stopped listening to the broken promises. Is it any wonder that less than a third of the electorate of South Wales West bothered to vote in 2016? Across Wales, the picture is repeated. This has resulted in huge levels of distrust in politics, and less than half of eligible voters bothered to turn out at the last Senedd elections. Is it any wonder when the Executive and the legislature spend much more time debating abstract constitutional issues than they do matters that affect the lives of ordinary people in Wales?

But we have to restore faith in politics and faith in the institutions. And we can start to do that when we deliver on the promises given to the people of Wales; when we deliver improvement to people's lives; when we eliminate waste. I agree with the Welsh Conservatives that we need to establish a cross-departmental office at the heart of Government that will ensure value for money, eliminate waste and provide openness and transparency to Welsh Government. The vast majority of us are here to deliver improvements to the lives of the people of Wales, and unfortunately far too many of those people now don't trust us and we have to rebuild that trust.

I believe in devolution and I believe in the Welsh Parliament that the people of Wales voted for. And I believe in working with every party to give the people of Wales what they want and to rebuild their lives and give them a better quality of delivery. And I urge Members to support my amendment and support the motion. Diolch yn fawr. Thank you very much.

I call on Gareth Bennett to move amendment 3, tabled in his name. Gareth Bennett.

Diolch, Llywydd. Thanks to the Conservatives for bringing today's debate, and I hereby move the motion on behalf of the Abolish the Welsh Assembly Party.

I think that Angela Burns has given us an interesting account of the waste of taxpayers' money that has occurred over the past 21 years. It's even more interesting given that the Conservatives are in favour of devolution, yet the evidence of the failings of devolution is staring them in the face. The Conservatives will say that these are the failings of a particular political party—Welsh Labour—rather than the failings of an institution, yet the danger is that in bringing this motion, they're unwittingly giving us a full-blooded critique of devolution itself. I suppose it depends how seriously we take the Conservatives' stated solution to the problem of wasting taxpayers' money, which is to establish what they call a cross-departmental office. Well, we didn't get a lot of detail on this, and I do wonder who would be in it. Do the Conservatives really imagine that the people running this office would be any different in mindset from the people whose spending they are scrutinising? I think I heard Angela say that the new office would be called OGRE, and I fear it would be a bit of an ogre. It's a bit like the old joke about politicians working out how to cut down the number of committees so they set up a committee to look into it. And that's all this cross-departmental office would be: another committee. We already have too many of those.

So, has devolution achieved anything? Well, the Labour Government's amendment gives us a list of achievements, which doesn't, in my eyes, amount to an awful lot. Their amendment today cites free prescriptions, for instance. Yes, we have free prescriptions, but we have a health service that barely functions. Five out of the seven health boards in Wales are in some kind of special measures, with Betsi Cadwaladr in north Wales having been in this position for five long years. I know that the health service in England has its problems too, but they don't seem to be on the same scale as here in Wales. All the evidence is that devolution has given us a health service that is markedly worse than the one we had before. In one case, we had patients who could no longer even go to their local hospital, the Countess in Chester, because the hospital was refusing to admit any more patients from Wales until the Welsh Government had paid the bill. This kind of episode simply wouldn't have happened before we had devolution.

What of the economic benefits that the people of Wales were promised that devolution would bring? Well, in 2003, Edwina Hart, then a senior Labour Minister, told us that poverty in Wales would be eradicated through her Communities First schemes. Fifteen years later, these schemes were finally abandoned. The Welsh Government was unable to cite any evidence that the areas contained within the schemes had derived any economic advantage from having them. This amounts to a waste of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money. As for eradicating poverty, well, what about the promise to raise Wales's GDP to 90 per cent of the average UK GDP by 2010? We never remotely looked like achieving this, and the Welsh Government had to do what it usually does with its targets—it abandons them.

One area where we have definitely gone backwards is inward investment. When we had the Welsh Development Agency, Wales punched above its weight and attracted more than 20 per cent of all UK inward investment. Under devolution, the WDA was scrapped so that we could have, instead, a committee of bureaucrats directly answerable to the Welsh Government. The result is that inward investment has plummeted and it's now only 2 per cent of that of the UK. This is a perfect example of how devolution has actually delivered decline in Wales rather than resurgence.

Can I also mention the M4 relief road that was cited by Angela? There was a choice between two routes, but the Welsh Government opted not for one or the other, but rather not to build the road at all. This after wasting more than £150 million of taxpayers' money on the project. Oddly, one of the grounds on which the Welsh Government cancelled the scheme was its cost, yet now that the UK Government are offering to get involved, the Welsh Government are so obsessive about protecting their rights as a devolved Government that they are rejecting the offer of assistance. The people of Wales end up with £100 million of their money wasted and a road system that still doesn't get them out of the Brynglas tunnels. Please ask yourself: has devolution really done anything at all to improve the Welsh economy? All it has done has been to waste money.

No, while I agree with the sentiments of much of the Conservative motion, I feel an easier method would simply be to give the Welsh public a chance to evaluate what has happened over the past 21 years and to vote to abandon the whole failed project of devolution. What we need is another referendum, with the people of Wales being given the option to abolish the Welsh Parliament and Government. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I call on Neil McEvoy to move amendment 4, tabled in his name.

Diolch, Llywydd. I campaigned for a Welsh Parliament all my adult life because I believe in this institution, I believe in the potential that we have here. I've just listened to Abolish the Welsh Assembly, and not a single idea in the whole speech, just a criticism of the institution, when really the criticism should have been directed at the Governments since 1999. I just find it really odd that some people would prefer to be governed by another country.

I'll say to the people sat to the right of the Presiding Officer that Margaret Thatcher got me into politics when I was younger, because I disagreed with almost every single thing she was doing. Quangos: we had the quango state in Wales, and it was a question of who you knew, rather than what you knew. I remember, I was in the Labour Party in those days, campaigning with colleagues against that very undemocratic system of appointing people into jobs that most of us thought they didn't really deserve. And then we had the Welsh Assembly in 1999, now the Welsh Parliament, and some of the very same people I campaigned with have supported doing exactly the same thing, where you have the cartel in Cardiff Bay, led by Labour, propped up occasionally by Plaid and the Liberal Democrats as their helpers, and they have created a self-serving bureaucracy.

This is the point of our amendment, because we're calling on the Welsh Government to ensure value for money by recognising the waste of public resources in the private—that's a key word—private third sector through duplication and top-heavy management. What we're proposing is a democratisation of service by redirecting funding to local government in Wales.

If you look at the very bloated third sector, chief executive after chief executive on huge salaries. If you look at the housing sector, the last time I checked there were 48 different organisations being funded by the Welsh Government, people supposedly fighting homelessness, and yet their £90,000 a year paycheck relies on people being homeless, so do they really want to solve the problem? I would argue not, because what Labour's created in Wales is a poverty industry. A poverty industry. If you look at care, the care industry now, where it's an industry to look after children, and Labour has been pretty clever politically, because they've privatised that whole service area. Eighty per cent of children now are looked after by private companies in Wales.

What we need is to see an end to this culture of canapés in the Senedd. You see the people coming in, the Labour boys and the Labour girls—jobs for the boys, jobs for the girls, Labour largesse and cronyism. Exactly what I campaigned against as a kid in the 1980s, we now see happening in the Welsh Parliament. And when I talk about the third sector, let me be absolutely clear, I am not talking about front-line workers, very, very often on low pay—poverty pay in some circumstances—with fewer rights than they would have working for a local authority.

It doesn't have to be this way. At the WNP we believe in meritocracy, we believe in equality of opportunity, people working hard and succeeding. We need to re-democratise our country and vote out of existence this cosy consensus. We need to give our democratically elected colleagues in local government the tools and the finance to provide services for our people, and we have to stop making profits in Wales out of the vulnerable. I think of children's services departments, where you see social workers rushed off their feet, with mountains of work, a lack of money, and then you see millions upon millions wasted on top-heavy management, chief executive after chief executive, so-called charities that are publicly funded and yet, at that front line of local government, people are really, really struggling.

The people have been taken for a ride by the Labour Party in Wales, and it's time to derail the gravy train. That's exactly what the WNP aims to do. Diolch yn fawr.

I'm pleased to contribute to this debate. At the very heart of any Government must be a commitment to continually review its own structures and processes to ensure that they're fit for purpose and delivering value for money for the taxpayer. Every Government must be able to look at itself critically and think about how it can deliver services efficiently and effectively. To see the improvements in our public services that we all want, we have to question how decisions are being made, how resources are being allocated, and we need to identify waste. Now, earlier this year I made a commitment to the people of Wales that, should I lead a future Welsh Government, as Angela Burns said, I would establish an office of Government resilience and efficiency. The whole point of establishing that office is to create an arm's-length, independent body that could identify where resources are being wasted and where Government processes are failing to deliver improvements to our public services.

Members can all point to examples of Government projects and schemes that have been delayed and over budget. For example, this year, Audit Wales has issued a number of reports on Welsh Government infrastructure project overspends, including the A465 Heads of the Valleys road and the £60 million overspend on removal of asbestos at Glan Clwyd Hospital. These reports once again highlight the lack of sufficient mechanisms within the Welsh Government to properly plan and deliver long-term projects. Nobody is disputing the merits of delivering the A465 Heads of the Valleys road, for example. Indeed, sometimes we can overlook the wider social benefits of developing infrastructure projects across Wales, and so it's worth reiterating that good infrastructure development, when it's delivered properly, has the ability to transform how we live and work in so many ways. Well-crafted and developed infrastructure can better connect us to essential goods and services, it can provide better living conditions, better schools for our children, and it can also provide jobs throughout the construction phase and along the supply chain. Therefore, perhaps, in responding to today's debate, the Minister will tell us how the Welsh Government is measuring the social benefits of each individual project in its pipeline, and perhaps the Minister can also tell us how the Welsh Government measures the social benefits of a project when it allocates that funding.

My colleague Angela Burns has already talked about millions and millions of pounds a year that have been wasted that could be spent delivering infrastructure to better support communities right across the country. That's valuable funding that could be used to widen roads, improve schools or build houses. Sadly, there have been countless reports over the years of projects that have shown waste in the form of overspending, investment losses and financial irregularities. Financial waste is one thing, but it's only one piece of the puzzle, and we also need to better examine our systems too. Procurement has long been a challenge for consultants and constructors, and I'm very much aware from the discussion that I've had over the years that that process needs to be streamlined, and that the information requirements have sometime been disproportional to the value of the bid. Therefore, we have to seriously look at developing a holistic approach to delivering improvements in procurement so that, as a Government, we can maximise our spend. I'm also aware that there is a need for regular engagement and communication between partners at all stages of development. Is the Welsh Government really asking itself whether the tendering process is working as well as it can be? What after-support and discussion is there for those who've worked hard on Government projects only for the project to be pulled? These are the sorts of issues that the Government needs to better understand so that the system can be improved for the better. Therefore, I hope that, in responding to today's debate, the Minister will take the opportunity to update Members on how the Welsh Government is monitoring the effectiveness of its procurement policies, and how it's critically evaluating the way it delivers infrastructure projects.

Llywydd, I believe that a cultural change is needed to really deliver improvements in our public service delivery here in Wales. I've made it clear that I'm committed to radically reforming how Government operates and how public services in Wales are delivered, and ultimately what the people of Wales want to see is an end to silo working, a much more conscious effort to eradicate waste, and to see their hard-earned money being used effectively to deliver transformational projects.

Now, there are plenty of examples of public sector oversight across the world, and we need to learn from the way other Governments have operated and see where we can adapt those practices here. For example, in New Zealand, the policy advisory group was established to provide politically impartial, free and frank advice to the Prime Minister and other Ministers. In a similar way, the office of Government resilience and efficiency would have the same role at the heart of decision making, but also the teeth to work across the public service and with other key stakeholders to root out inefficiencies.

Therefore, in closing, Llywydd, in order to drive forward improvements in our public services and deliver successful infrastructure projects across Wales, we have to commit to re-examining our spend and our processes. I believe that's best done by creating an office of Government resilience and efficiency—an office that can help transform the way our services are delivered and that drives the type of cultural change that the people of Wales want to see. I therefore urge Members to support our motion. 

I speak in this debate to support amendment 1, tabled by Rebecca Evans, and in particular point 1, which notes the poor value for money represented by austerity economics, as highlighted by the UN criticism of UK poverty. 

Angela Burns and her Conservative colleagues would need the skills not of Job but Jackanory to explain how the Cameron and Osborne devastating austerity project, alongside May's magic money tree, has somehow morphed into the UK Tory Government borrowing just under £174 billion between April and August. We on the Welsh Labour benches will take no economic lessons from the Conservatives. In a decade, they have shape-shifted from the economic piety of Ebenezer Scrooge to the economic policies of a national lottery winner in Las Vegas. So, the Tories can stop—please just stop your lecturing to the people of Wales and the Members of this Senedd about your superiority and fidelity to value for money for taxpayers because—[Interruption.]

I draw Members' attention to amendment 1, point 3, which welcomes the progress made in delivering innovative Welsh Government policies—free prescriptions, Jobs Growth Wales, presumed consent for organ donation, the single cancer pathway, the childcare offer, the doubling of the capital limit, twenty-first century schools, and the economic resilience fund. I could go on, but let me be succinct: the Tories understand the price of everything and the value of nothing, and it is Welsh Labour who the people of Wales trust with the public sector and with fiscal propriety to protect, nurture and grow Wales because the strong fiscal discipline and vision for Wales that we implement flies in the very face of a whole decade of evidenced UK Tory Government policy, as they continue to squeeze the Welsh public budget until the pips squeak. Wales is now £4 billion worse off since they came to office, and we work to counter this every day, and it is why they are desperate to weaken devolution and weaken this place.

The Tory UK Government has so far spent £57 million and rising in consultancy contracts—too many to mention. Deloitte is doing very well—£6.7 million in contracts, a further £3 million for providing to the Cabinet Office, and £2.5 million in contracts from the Tory Treasury—and PricewaterhouseCoopers, £3 million in consultancy. I could go on. So, the Tory approach to supervising taxpayers' money is deeply worrying, but it is no different to the way successive Tory Governments have always behaved, with the sell-off of our national industries, the break-up of our public sector and public services, and a desire to erode and grind down local government for privatisation. In contrast, here, the Welsh Labour Government in Wales strengthens and maintains our public service ethos. It is at its very core and central to our very being. In Wales, 'not for profit' means something.

Finally, let me return to the UK Tory Government borrowing just under £174 billion between April and August. In those four short months of summer, the Tories borrowed more than the UK Labour Government borrowed in the whole of the financial year when the Labour Government bailed out the banks and saved the economy from ruin. And that is important, because do you remember, in this very place, the endless goading from the Tory benches of fixing the roof when the sun shone, of them saying Labour had spent all the money, and that this, colleagues, was the only reason used to fulfil their deep ideological desire to shrink the state with a decade of austerity, and for what? In four months, they borrowed more than the Labour Government in an entire year. Yet again, typical Tories at the height of hypocrisy. Llywydd, they seek to claim the monopoly on economic competence, yet the Welsh people know they would not trust the Tories to sell them a second-hand banger, let alone trust them to manage our public finances. Thank you. 

I'm pleased to contribute to this afternoon's debate, and I've got to say, just listening to that last contribution from Rhianon Passmore, I do find it a bit rich when the Welsh Labour Government have constantly called on the UK Government to provide more funding to this place and more funding for public services in Wales at the very time that they just received an extra £4 billion to support public services and the Welsh economy. We get contributions that then say that the Conservative Party is economically incompetent. You can't have it both ways, Rhianon Passmore. You can't on the one hand call for greater borrowing and greater support and then, when that is provided, turn on the hand that has given you that money. So, I, for one, and the Welsh Conservatives on this side of the Chamber, are more than happy that the UK Government is borrowing money at the moment. It is supporting the UK economy, and it is supporting the Welsh economy and people in Wales, and I think, in next year's Senedd election, the people of Wales will see that that support has been offered. 

Point 1 of the motion goes to the heart of what this motion is all about: the successful management of taxpayers’ money depends on clear objectives, agreed outcomes and rigorous scrutiny. How often in this Chamber and virtually over the last few months have we spoken about the importance of building back better after the pandemic, and developing a more sustainable economy and transport infrastructure? Well, that process of building back better must involve eliminating waste, increasing efficiency and delivering value for money for the taxpayer. And let me be clear what I mean by 'value for money', because that doesn't mean always going for the cheapest option and settling for less than best. But it does mean embedding and developing an anti-waste culture at the heart of Government, ensuring that there is always a watchful eye over Government spending across departments, and one which flags up Government waste at the earliest opportunity. 

I certainly don't see our proposals for a new department as working in conflict with existing mechanisms for scrutiny—far from it. I see them as complementing those existing mechanisms, including the Senedd's own Public Accounts Committee, which was referred to by Angela Burns, Audit Wales and the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales. In June 2020, Audit Wales produced a report on the Welsh Government's rural development grant scheme, finding that £53 million of grants were made without ensuring value for money or effective competition. The Auditor General for Wales found that key aspects of the design, operation and oversight of the Welsh Government controls over the programme were not effective enough to secure value for money. The failures listed included inviting funding applications from certain organisations without documenting why, giving additional funds to existing projects without first checking their success, and exercising insufficient project oversight. 

There were, of course, earlier examples of lack of efficiency which have been referred to by other Members—Communities First, for instance. Communities First's strengths, including a strong brand and trusted employees, were a good thing, but, unfortunately, they were overshadowed by a lack of co-ordination and duplication of delivery work. There was a lack of an anchor to that project, and there have been similar programmes since. Quite simply, it wasn't value for money and it wasn't picked up quickly enough. 

The problem doesn't just include the Welsh Government itself; it does extend to Welsh public sector bodies too, as Angela Burns mentioned. Audit Wales reported that Natural Resources Wales would have its accounts qualified as a result of its handling of timber contracts, again referred to earlier, which auditors Grant Thornton stated heightened exposure to the risk of fraud. And in January 2020, the auditor general qualified the organisation's accounts for the fourth year in a row due to doubts as to whether NRW acted in accordance with its statutory duties and public law principles. 

We need to build greater resilience into the system, and that doesn't just mean financial resilience; it means resilience in data handling too. Flaws were only recently exposed in the Welsh Government's handling of personal data with the three significant data breaches culminating in the details of 18,000 individuals being posted on Public Health Wales's website for 24 hours. This included, as we know, details of nearly 2,000 care home residents. 

So, it's not just a question of financial resilience; it's a question of resilience across the Welsh Government, and across the public sector, which is why we are proposing some of the changes that we've put forward. This is a motion that is basically about giving the people of Wales confidence—confidence that, when they vote, whichever party or parties form the Welsh Government, resilience and value for money will be built into that process and into that system from the start, not added as an afterthought. We need to build resilience, ensure value for money for the taxpayer, and promote, all-importantly, a new culture of efficiency. That is what this is about: increasing scrutiny and casting a light on some of the darker corners of Government, as we start on the long journey of building back better.

And in conclusion, Llywydd, Neil McEvoy said—and I agree with him—we need to reconstruct; I think you said we need to change the culture of Government, by removing the darkness—. I've got your quote quite wrong there, actually, by the way, Neil McEvoy; I should never try to quote you—you do it far more eloquently yourself. But you said that things can't go on as they were before, and we need to make sure, I believe, that we do not remove the very democracy that provides the opportunity for change that we are trying to seek.

I want to focus my remarks on the economy and infrastructure and why the creation of a cross-departmental office for government resilience and efficiency is fundamental if we are to see the end of the silo working that has characterised the performance of successive Welsh Governments over the past 20 years. The establishment of the office at the heart of Government, as outlined earlier by Angela Burns, will ensure that all Government departments of central Government have a laser-like focus on working in a cross-departmental way, delivering projects that require substantial investment in transport and infrastructure on time and on budget—something that hasn't so often occurred to date. Surely, this is an ambition that can command cross-party support.

Many projects require substantial investment, and transport and infrastructure are notorious, as we all know, for running over budget, whilst taking longer and longer to complete. The list is long: the Circuit of Wales, Cardiff Airport, enterprise zones, £157 million wasted on the mothballed M4 road to nowhere. Angela Burns mentioned that £157 million. What about the £15 million spent on properties along the M4 relief road, compulsory purchased? They remain assets of the Welsh Government. But what about the legal costs and the professional fees that have been wasted in buying those properties? And we think of the two properties that were purchased just last year, two months before the Welsh Government scrapped the entire project. So one Government department buys two properties; two months later, another Government department—the First Minister's office—scraps the very project that the properties were purchased for. Isn't that an example of why we need this office?

Paul Davies mentioned a number of reports from the Wales Audit Office, or Audit Wales as it's now called—the overspends on the A465 Heads of the Valleys road, the £60 million overspend on the removal of asbestos at Glangwili hospital—highlighting the lack of sufficient mechanisms within the Welsh Government to properly plan and deliver long-term projects. Those are the words of Audit Wales, not my words: 'the lack of sufficient mechanisms within the Welsh Government'. As I've previously said in this Chamber, Presiding Officer, the Welsh Government has been guilty of a failure to properly plan for long-term delivery of road infrastructure and road improvement schemes, a failure to appropriately manage the procurement and delivery of road schemes, and a failure to support Wales's road network with appropriate levels of financing.

I remain concerned with this ongoing lack of planning to deliver infrastructure projects on time. And in spite of plenty of assurances to the contrary, we still see no change in this area. We need to start delivering responsive, high-quality, efficient and accessible public services that represent value for money for the Welsh taxpayer, by establishing an office to deliver cross-Government efficiency and public sector transformation, which has responsibility for ensuring public value, planning, performance, and supporting procurement. In my view, Presiding Officer, a new Welsh Government office for Government resilience and efficiency would be a critical friend. It would provide the clear, cross-departmental oversight and robust scrutiny that is required and is necessary to ensure that taxpayers' money is spent appropriately and is not being wasted by the Welsh Government. I urge Members to support our motion today.

The Minister for Finance and Trefnydd, Rebecca Evans.

Llywydd, delivering value for money is a constant priority for the Welsh Government. It was the case prior to the pandemic and our targeted response to the COVID-19 crisis has been driven by that same commitment. Our objectives as a Government are focused on bringing about a more prosperous, more equal and greener Wales. In order to achieve that aim, we're taking a long-term approach, underpinned by the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 because we know how short-termism can damage life chances, while building up preventable, wasteful costs to the public purse. When taking decisions, the Welsh Government follows governance requirements set out in 'Managing Welsh Public Money'. This ensures that value-for-money considerations are embedded in the preparation and scrutiny of all ministerial advice and in Welsh Government major projects and programme management.

Transparency and accountability also play an essential role in supporting the scrutiny that tests the responsible use of public money. I regard this as integral to our approach. Unlike the UK Government, we presented a first supplementary budget in May to provide a greater degree of transparency with the details on the budget adjustments made since the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic. And, of course, Members will recall the confusion created by the Chancellor's summer economic update, after which the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies called on the UK Treasury to follow our practice by publishing similar adjustments in order to provide greater transparency. Our intention is to be as transparent as we are able to be on the resources available to Wales as a result of the consequential adjustments to the Welsh block grant and on allocations from reserves. 

In response to the Finance Committee's report on the first supplementary budget, I have written to the committee providing further detail on consequential funding. I am committed to publishing a further supplementary budget in due course detailing further allocations, and we'll use oral and written statements to provide Members with updates on the in-year financial position as it develops. We've always taken seriously the responsible use of public money because of the powerful role we know it can play in transforming lives. I am proud that sound budget management has supported the delivery of decisions in Wales that set us apart, including free prescriptions, Jobs Growth Wales, the single cancer pathway, the childcare offer, the doubling of the capital limit that people can keep before paying for social care and the ongoing development of twenty-first century schools and colleges across Wales.

During this crisis, we have moved quickly to establish a fighting fund, held in a central reserve dedicated to our COVID response. As well as using new consequentials, the reserve has been boosted by repurposed budgets, as set out in the first supplementary budget. And thanks to this strategic approach, we have been in a position to confirm allocations, including close to £0.5 billion for local authorities, £800 million for the NHS stabilisation fund and over £800 million in grants for businesses. Allocations from the reserve are rigorously scrutinised through a process that was established early on in the pandemic. I consider COVID-19-related finance issues on a regular basis, including allocations from the reserve, with support from other Ministers and a range of officials. And since March, almost 100 of these meetings have taken place, which have supported our ability to speed up the decision-making process in recognition of the urgent pressures that we face.

I know that the Permanent Secretary also takes her personal responsibilities as the principal accounting officer very seriously. Together with the Permanent Secretary, I chair an efficiency board, which considers ways in which the Welsh Government can use its own resources to best effect. This process has radically redefined our relationship with sponsored bodies, securing a more effective, strategic approach and efficiency savings. We have also established a governance centre of excellence to ensure that all of the Welsh Government can access experienced and professional advice and challenge. Scrutiny by Audit Wales and the Public Accounts Committee is, of course, a welcome source of external challenge and review. The recommendations produced are monitored for implementation by the Welsh Government audit and risk assurance committees to ensure lessons are learned and actions are taken. Audit Wales is a standing member of this committee.

It's important to note that the proportion of Government activity represented by the cases raised during this debate—. And it's, of course, right that those are examined and those lessons are learned. And, as I've detailed, we have a process in place to ensure that happens. However, each year, we issue around 11,000 grant award letters to third parties from about 400 different grant schemes. Very few of those grant awards give rise to issues that call for scrutiny by the auditor general and a report to the Public Accounts Committee. 

So, it's right that we recognise those cases that have been referred to today, but they do represent the exception, rather than the rule. I just don't think it's credible to suggest that the reports, which rightly draw out challenging and critical feedback, support an overall conclusion that the Welsh Government is not using public money responsibly. Delivering value for money is ultimately reliant on sound budget management, something which is increasingly undermined by the UK Government's refusal to take seriously the concerns raised by devolved administrations. I've previously described to colleagues numerous examples of the UK Government's failure to adhere to the statement of funding policy, which has made the Welsh Government worse off—from eleventh hour capital reductions to pension funding shortfalls.

It's concerning that the UK Government still refuses to act within the fiscal framework to allow us greater access to, and control over, the Wales reserve in order to better plan for our response to the pandemic this year. Far from seeking new largesse from Whitehall, this request is simply about allowing the Welsh Government to make decisions about how to use the funding that we have set aside to manage during uncertain times. We'll continue to target our resources in a manner that promotes value for money for the people of Wales and we will continue to urge the UK Government to provide the fiscal flexibilities necessary to support that aim. 

I call on Darren Millar to reply to the debate. Darren Millar. 

Thank you, Presiding Officer, and thank you to everyone who's contributed to what I think has been a very important debate on the need to ensure value for money for Welsh taxpayers, because, as one wonderful woman, Margaret Thatcher, once said,

'There is no such thing as public money; there is only taxpayers' money.'

And we are responsible, in this place, for making sure that it is spent very wisely. I'm sorry to hear that the Minister does not accept the need for improvements in scrutiny of the way that public money is spent, because we heard whole long lists from speaker after speaker in the Senedd debate today about failings in the Welsh Government's own processes, which have resulted in over £1 billion worth of waste of taxpayers' money.

Of course, we must remember that when taxpayers' money is wasted there are opportunity costs, as Caroline Jones quite rightly spelt out. There's money that you can't, then, invest in our health service, that you can't invest in our education system and that you can't invest in Welsh infrastructure. So, it's absolutely right, when she said that we need to rebuild trust; we need to rebuild trust in a future Welsh Government to manage these things properly. 

I disagree wholeheartedly with Gareth Bennett when he said that this is evidence of the failing of devolution. It's not. It's the evidence of a failing Welsh Labour-led administration, and its junior partners, also, need to accept some of that blame. Plaid, of course, have been unusually absent in making a contribution to a debate on this matter in the Chamber today, which I find pretty extraordinary. 

Neil McEvoy's contribution started so well with a reference to Margaret Thatcher, but it quickly went downhill, and the less said about the end, frankly, the better. But I will say this, in response to Neil's contribution: he's quite right to identify the cronyism that is all too apparent here in Wales. But I will say, in response to him, in terms of his comments about the third sector: we are not at war with the third sector as a Conservative Party here in Wales, we are at war with waste and inefficiency, and that is why we need, as Paul Davies has said on multiple occasions, a devolution revolution—a revolution that radically reforms and reshapes and re-energises the Welsh Government into the lean fighting machine that the people of Wales expect it to be.

We need to be able to have a system that is not slow to pull the plug on projects that don't work, and that is quick to invest in projects that do work, so that we don't have this perpetual pilot-project process that we have in Wales where there are demonstrated improvements, as Angela Burns said at the outset in her opening contribution, where we have proven projects that work, and the Welsh Government doesn't roll out further. There are many international examples. Paul Davies pointed to one in New Zealand. We know that the UK Government has the Office for Budget Responsibility as well, which also contributes to the scrutiny processes of the UK Government and the way it orders its finances.

I was very disappointed by Rhianon Passmore's contribution—completely and unnecessarily partisan. Of course, she was given short shrift by Nick Ramsay in his response, who, I thought, rebuked Rhianon Passmore, frankly, with finesse.

Russell George focused his remarks on roads and infrastructure, and the significant overspends that we've had on those, and I think it's absolutely right that he mentioned the ridiculous situation where we had a number of homes and properties purchased within just weeks of the First Minister's announcement. More taxpayers' money down the pan. Of course, that's not the only example, of that—we also saw that with the Pinewood project site.

So, I implore Members of the Senedd to support our motion on the order paper today. We need an arm's-length, cross-departmental, independent office of budget responsibility, or Government resilience and efficiency rather, to ensure that taxpayers can get value for money here in Wales. It will complement the other systems that we have in place with Audit Wales and the Public Accounts Committee and the work of this Senedd as a whole, and I commend the motion to Members.

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? Are there any objections to the motion? [Objection.] Yes, there are objections, and therefore I will defer voting until voting time. 

And in accordance with Standing Orders, there will now be a break of five minutes before we move to voting time. 

Therefore, the first vote is on the Member debate under Standing Order 11.21(iv)—universal basic income. I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Jack Sargeant. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 28, 10 abstentions, 13 against, therefore the motion is agreed.

The next votes are on the Welsh Conservatives debate on value for money for taxpayers. I call for a vote on the unamended motion, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 10, four abstentions, 37 against, therefore the motion is not agreed.

The next vote is on amendment 1, and 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 Rebecca Evans. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 27, no abstentions, 24 against, and therefore amendment 1 is agreed and amendments 2 and 3 are deselected.  

The next vote is on amendment 4, tabled in the name of Neil McEvoy. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour six, no abstentions, 45 against, and therefore amendment 4 is not agreed. 

A vote now on the motion as amended.

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 27, no abstentions, 24 against, and therefore the motion as amended is agreed.

The next item on our agenda is the short debate, and the short debate will be presented by Rhun ap Iorwerth. I call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to introduce the topic that he has chosen. Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Thank you very much, Llywydd, for this opportunity to address some of the challenges and opportunities facing the constituents that I represent on Anglesey and, as an important part of a wider regional economy, the challenges and opportunities that apply beyond the bridges as well. Some of them are old factors related to our location or geographical features; others are newer—consequences of a challenging political or economic context.

I will try to give an overview of where I think we are. I'm looking forward to seeing whether the Minister agrees with me on some if not all of my impressions, and is ready to commit to supporting us on Anglesey in every way possible to deliver on our aspirations as a community on the island. Yes, what I have to say may sound depressing at times. There are issues of real concern, which I will mention. How often have I heard people say, 'There are no jobs here. There's nothing to keep our young people here', and recent events have reinforced those feelings. But I'm an optimist and I can see many opportunities—opportunities that already exist that need to be nurtured, and other new opportunities that are emerging at the moment, and we need to pursue them with all our might.

I was brought up in Anglesey. The island always had a strong hold on me, and I suppose when I met the Anglesey girl who would later become my wife, that relationship was cemented once and for all, and that's what ensured that I would also return to Anglesey to bring up my own children. And, yes, I did return, because like so many of our young people, I left—I went to university, to work, in Cardiff, and London for a while, but I know that not everyone feels that they have that same opportunity to return, or to not leave in the first instance.

An opportunity to keep our young people, or to bring some of them back, was the main appeal of Wylfa Newydd locally. Of course, it wasn't supported across the board, by any means. Hundreds of long-term jobs, a prosperous period during the construction phase, but also an extremely challenging period—a period that could, without very robust mitigation measures, have a severe impact on our communities. And pushing for that mitigation, promoting local benefit, local job opportunities—that was always my priority when dealing with that development, and I did that working very closely with the county council. And the developer did understand the importance of those things; I have no doubt about that. But now, of course, that development has been put on hold—a major economic blow in terms of the jobs and local revenue promised. There's no escaping that. And I will continue to work and to discuss with Horizon as they consider whether, or how, to resurrect the scheme. But we have to be prepared to consider that we now have a new context, a context where relying on one major investment cannot be seen as a panacea. And certainly, there are major risks in raising people's hopes again without having solid foundations for doing that, and I know the Minister would agree with me on that.

So, we do need to look at our other strengths and opportunities. I've heard some say that years have been lost or even wasted—years that could have been used in developing new alternative plans. Well, the good news—and I've always argued this point—is that not all our eggs were in one basket on Anglesey. They may not have generated the same headlines, there may have been far less scrutiny of them individually, but taken together, there are other very exciting initiatives in the pipeline in Anglesey that have been quietly gathering momentum in recent years, and now, more than ever, they need support to make them a reality.

Well, where to start? Let's start with energy: the energy island programme is still alive and kicking. We are an island that has pioneered for centuries in renewable energy. We know that Anglesey is often described as 'mam Cymru', the mother of Wales, but in order to provide food for her children, there were almost 50 windmills milling wheat across the island over the decades. Whilst declaring an indirect interest here, not only that my mother-in-law used to run a restaurant in one of Anglesey's most famous mills, Melin Llynon, and that my in-laws were involved with the development of wind energy on the island in the 1990s, we as an island now are turning our sights to the sea. The appetite for clean energy is growing and when the next offshore windfarms off the northern coast develop to the west of the current windfarms, well, let's make sure that Holyhead is the port that serves them, as Mostyn has served the more easterly windfarms so effectively.

And under the sea, let's help to get the Minesto installation scheme over the line, turning their research into a commercial venture that will bring good jobs to Holyhead. We need to ensure that Morlais energy scheme goes ahead—a testing area for tidal current technologies that will bring local benefits in terms of jobs and investment, as well as allowing research of international importance. And it's being run as a social enterprise by Menter Môn, which will direct the economic benefit to our communities and young people. Yes, it needs to be developed carefully and cautiously—that's true of every new technology—but the Welsh Government needs to do everything it can to help secure this investment so it can move on to the next phase, and likewise the UK Government.

Like so many energy developments, it's supported by expertise from School of Ocean Sciences at Bangor University, a school with a reputation for international excellence, and a school located in Menai Bridge on Anglesey. And may I thank the Government here for a positive response to my calls for a renewed agreement with the university to secure the future for their research vessel, the Prince Madog? There will be need for further support for this resource in years to come, which is important not only to developments on Anglesey, but to our national energy ambitions too.

Now, to return to the land, and to Gaerwen, where the M-Sparc science park, again part of Bangor University, shows what ambition can deliver. And I pay tribute to my predecessor, Ieuan Wyn Jones, for delivering that. The fact that M-Sparc has filled so quickly with innovators who have decided that their future is on Anglesey is an inspiration. I look forward to seeing the next phase of the development, and the following phase, as a statement of confidence in our hi-tech and innovative future on the island.

One development that we don't yet have a physical location for, but one that I'm looking forward to see delivered by a Plaid Cymru Government, is the headquarters of a new public energy body, Ynni Cymru, a body that can offer so much to us—co-ordinating energy developments, leading on the creation of a truly green Wales, including a national retrofitting programme, and trying to drive clean energy prices down for the people of Wales. And where better than the energy island to house this new body?

Here's another energy development that Ynni Cymru could help to develop. There is some very exciting work happening under the auspices of Menter Môn again, entitled 'hydrogen island'. Now, I led a debate in the Senedd in February outlining the benefits of hydrogen in the decarbonisation agenda on the day of the launch of the new Wales Hydrogen Trade Association. Well, already, through the work of hydrogen Môn, we are seeing major scope to develop hydrogen on the island, using clean energy to produce it, produced locally. Again, I ask you, Minister, to consider how the Welsh Government can help to deliver this, and there are a raft of partners ready to support this.

But, whilst there is huge potential in the energy sector, let me bring you back to those windmills I mentioned. The tradition of food production on Anglesey is still strong and growing. I've been trying to persuade the Government over the last few years to develop a major food production facility in Anglesey—it's a perfect development for us. And although I've been discussing this issue with the Minister for environment and rural affairs, I would like to draw you in as the Minister for economy too. What's happening at the moment is that an impressive number of companies—more and more companies indeed—have been spending on converting other business premises into appropriate places for food production. I am still convinced that it would be better to prepare bespoke properties for them, to create a hub, or even hubs, for food production, which could also be a shop window for the sector too. The food technology centre at Coleg Menai is exceptional, it's grown recently, and we should be creating the spaces locally and providing the support to businesses starting their journey, so that they can grow and develop and employ people on Anglesey.

Of course, the food production industry goes hand in hand with the agricultural sector in Anglesey, which is second to none. It helps to create that green image—an image that's so important in terms of tourism too. Now, I don't have time to focus too much on tourism here, but I will say that it is hugely important to us. What I will also say is how important it is to create a tourism industry that is truly sustainable economically, environmentally and culturally, and also sustainable in terms of being sensitive to the fragility of our housing market, a very topical issue at the moment. I'm truly pleased to see what feels like a real debate starting on that within the tourism sector in Anglesey and beyond. I think now is the time for that to happen.

Returning to agriculture, we are facing one of the biggest challenges that we have faced, and that is our departure from the European Union. I was amazed to see the Conservative Anglesey MP voting against amendments to the Agriculture Bill in the Commons recently that would have helped to protect the interests of farmers in Anglesey as we depart the European Union. The amendments would have made sure that agricultural imports under new trade agreements had to meet the same high standards as the farmers of Anglesey. By rejecting such amendments, she undermined the farmers that she is representing. That, of course, is on top of fears of losing markets because of Brexit.

And Brexit brings me to the port of Holyhead. Trade through the port grew incredibly quickly after the creation of the European single market. Holyhead is the second largest roll-on, roll-off port in Britain. It has shaped the economy and character of the area—over 1,000 people are directly employed and many more indirectly. And there is a real nervousness in looking at clause 40 of the internal market Bill and the likely impact that that will have on the flow of trade coming from Northern Ireland at the moment—a third of the traffic in total—that would move perhaps to England or even to Scotland.

If difficulties and paperwork and delays happen—. They talk about developments in Kent on the news all the time, but there's hardly any talk about developing resources in Holyhead, and there are only weeks to go until departure. It tells you everything about the attitude of the UK Government towards the port of Holyhead. These things do fill me and the people of Anglesey with dread, and we need a solution. But I will do everything I can to urge the Welsh and UK Governments to ensure that we have a prosperous future, despite Brexit.

Now, to conclude, Llywydd, very good news on Anglesey last weekend—we succeeded in attracting the Island Games to Anglesey in 2025, or perhaps a year or two later, depending on COVID. They are games that are very happy; they draw thousands of sportspeople from islands across the world to one of the biggest events of its kind in the world in terms of multisports. I'm very grateful to the Government for pledging its support for that, and also Anglesey council. There's been a small group of us as a committee that have been working hard to reach this point, and I would like to thank the Island Games volunteers, who have worked so very hard.

But, in these parlous times, it's good to have something to look forward to, and it will be something for us as a community in Anglesey to look forward to. And the message today, with the right support from Government, and with a spirit of enterprise: there is a very bright economic future that we can look forward to on Anglesey.

I call on the Minister for Economy, Transport and North Wales, Ken Skates.

Diolch, acting Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I begin by thanking Rhun ap Iorwerth for bringing forward this short debate today, and also thank the Member for his participation in last week's round-table discussion concerning the future of the Wylfa site?

There's no escaping the severity of the wider economic situation that we face right now across Wales, across the globe, and particularly on Ynys Môn, where a number of unfortunate announcements have been made in recent times. On Anglesey, we've already provided, though, £4.1 million of support to more than 250 businesses through the first two phases of the economic resilience fund as we try to fight the economic impact of the virus, and that funding will help those businesses through the pandemic.

Now, the funding is over and above what was announced by the UK Government and, just this Monday, I announced the next phase of the economic resilience fund, a further £140 million for businesses across Wales to help them deal with the economic challenges of COVID-19 and also—also—the UK's impending exit from the EU transition period.

Now, a key component of Anglesey's economy is, as Rhun has identified, tourism and hospitality. So, the £20 million that has been ring-fenced as part of the third phase of the economic resilience fund will be vitally important to many businesses on the island. We're also looking at how we can use the third phase of the ERF to stimulate employment opportunities for under 25-year-olds. There will be an incentive to take on young people who would otherwise be further marginalised and left behind as we look towards a recovery.

Now, I have to say to Members I do welcome the Chancellor's recent decision to extend the VAT reduction for the hospitality and tourism sector until March of next year. I also welcomed his decision to extend repayment deadlines for businesses that have deferred VAT and provide more flexibility for businesses that have taken out Government-backed loans. Overall, though, the measures announced back on 24 September are unlikely to be sufficient to prevent a large rise in unemployment in the months ahead. 

Here, in Wales, we've made the pledge to support everybody to find work, education or training or to start their own businesses, and we're supporting that pledge with £90 million of funding. The economic recovery group for the north Wales region is also considering how we can collectively deliver support to businesses right across north Wales in line with the significant support that we're already providing across the whole of Wales through the Business Wales service.

In the meantime, we'll continue to press the UK Government to take bolder steps to assure our economic recovery and support future prosperity for businesses and people across the UK. We were, naturally, deeply, deeply disappointed by the announcement by Hitachi back in mid September. And I know, I am acutely aware of how the announcement has been felt on the island, and in particular in the north of Anglesey. It'll impact, as Rhun has identified, not just on Anglesey communities, but also on the north-west of Wales and indeed the wider region of north Wales. Wylfa, though, is still the very best site in the UK and Europe. It's a fantastic site, it's one of the best for large gigabyte scale nuclear or small modular reactors, and I remain confident that this is not the end of the road.

We can only address the challenges we are now facing by working collaboratively for the benefit of the people, businesses and communities of north Wales and Ynys Môn. Co-ordinating and co-designing our short, medium and long-term actions and priorities is a key and that's why I hosted that round-table event that I've already mentioned, which Rhun ap Iorwerth attended. I thought it was a constructive meeting, where we took stock of the Hitachi announcement, naturally, but where we also agreed on our respective roles and responsibilities on the next steps. Several issues were raised at that meeting and, indeed, in pre meetings with the leader of Ynys Môn council. Many have already been raised by Rhun ap Iorwerth, including not only the future of the Wylfa site, obviously, but also other important matters, such as the need to establish a border control post on the island. So, I'll now be holding regular tripartite meetings with the Secretary of State for Wales and the leader of Ynys Môn council to discuss the progress that we are all making on developing these important matters.

In the meantime, of course, we'll continue to provide every support possible to businesses on Anglesey, and Rhun ap Iorwerth has today identified numerous opportunities on the island that we as a Welsh Government are investing in. We're currently working with both Menter Môn and Ynys Môn county council on funding for a feasibility study for a green hydrogen production plant and a fuelling distribution hub on the island, and this will further develop plans to establish an embryonic hydrogen economy on Ynys Môn and for the north-west of Wales as a region.

We're also supporting other businesses, such as Joloda Hydraroll in the community area of Gaerwen, Rondo in Llangefni and, of course, Boxed Solutions at Parc Cybi in Holyhead. All three businesses, either with or following initial Welsh Government funding, are now planning their future expansion programmes, and we're pleased to be able to offer our support to these important projects.

We continue to regularly collaborate with the local authority to further enhance the business-ready infrastructure, such as transport links and other benefits that can be realised within the Anglesey enterprise zone. We've recently invested £1.6 million, as part of a joint venture with the local authority, to deliver 30,000 square feet of new industrial starter units at Penrhos, which are due for completion just next month.

On energy, hugely important, as Rhun has identified, not just in terms of providing employment, but in giving the island, and indeed north Wales, a great positive image. Ynys Môn is leading the way; it's leading the way in terms of innovation, ensuring flexibility and smart approaches to electricity networks. The island is also becoming a hub for tidal stream development, but further development will be dependent on revenue support from the UK Government. I can assure Members that we'll be providing further evidence for the need for UK Government revenue support for marine technologies in the current call for evidence. And I'm proud that Wales has two zones for demonstrating wave and tidal streams arrays, reducing some of the uncertainties that lead to a high cost of capital and providing developers with opportunities. Both are supported with EU funding, one being the Morlais site in Anglesey.

Rhun ap Iorwerth also mentioned another key sector for Ynys Môn, that being the food production sector, and I was delighted that one of the most innovative proposals to the foundation and economy challenge fund came from Anglesey. It was the Môn shellfish programme, which is seeking to introduce more shellfish into schools, community centres, introducing people to what is, actually, a relatively simple way of cooking—I know that, because I took part in one of their cookery classes—and I'm hopeful that this particular challenge fund innovation will be a great success. All of the indications are that it already has been, in many communities across Ynys Môn.

And, of course, the Island Games success that Rhun has pointed to. What a fantastic shot in the arm; we desperately needed good news, and Team Ynys Môn delivered it for us. And I was delighted that, as Welsh Government, we were able to sign off at £400,000 to help secure and deliver this fantastic event.

I have to mention the growth deal, of course, the north Wales growth deal. It's progressing well and it will be an important component of future recovery across north Wales. There will be several opportunities, as I know Members are aware, for projects on Anglesey through the growth deal. It provides an opportunity for north Wales to bring forward renewable energy and innovative low-carbon projects, and we're exploring the wider potential of Holyhead port as a fine gateway to north Wales and to the UK. So, I remain focused, I can assure Members, on signing that final deal agreement, the growth deal, by the end of this year, with the North Wales Economic Ambition Board and the UK Government, so that capital investment can start flowing through the region and to Ynys Môn in 2021. So, I'll naturally keep Members updated, and I'll work across party political divide in a concerted and collaborative effort to strengthen the economy and the communities of Ynys Môn.

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