National Assembly for Wales

Welcome. Before we begin this meeting, I want to set out a few points. This meeting will be held in a hybrid format, with some Members in the Senedd Chamber and others joining by video-conference. All Members participating in proceedings of the Senedd 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, and these are 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 Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs, and the first question is from Adam Price.

Thank you. In response to the recent flooding, Natural Resources Wales have been in dialogue with trunk road officials to determine the best, long-term, sustainable solutions. It is now for NRW and south Wales trunk road authority to assess these options and, if appropriate, bring forward a scheme at this location. 

The South Wales Trunk Road Agent and Natural Resources Wales have been in correspondence with Llanegwad community council, but the problem is that there is a difference of opinion between them on the best way forward. Specifically, SWTRA has recommended a system to gather debris further up the river and NRW opposes that. So, the question that the Llanegwad council and I are asking, quite naturally, is which of the Government agencies does the Government agree with. And could we have a meeting with both agencies in order to resolve this issue for local people in the Pontargothi area?

Well, I'd be very happy to have a meeting, if there is that difference of opinion, to certainly hear both sides' views. I've increased the funding available, so, if NRW want to bring forward a scheme, I'd be very happy to look at that. This is something we need to look at in the not too distant future. So, yes, I would be very happy to have a meeting. 

I've had regular discussions with all the major retailers throughout the course of the pandemic and discuss the matters relating to social distancing regularly. The supermarkets are well aware of the regulations that apply here in Wales and that local authorities will take enforcement action if necessary.

After I initially wrote to you on behalf of constituents about this, you stated that you do have regular meetings and you have been reassured that their policies continue to maintain social distancing in all stores in line with Welsh Government policy. Constituents responded to your letter, stating that wasn't the case in the three stores they had visited in Mold, and it wasn't the case in their local store in Buckley, in this case. When they asked the staff about it, they were told that they were not required or that they weren't allowed to say anything to non-wearers. Another said they'd had a letter from a supermarket head office, which clearly stated that they've advised staff not to challenge people for not wearing masks, which didn't agree or tally with the correspondence you had sent. In your reply yesterday, you said staff should ask people not wearing a mask to do so, whilst acknowledging those who have an exemption, adding that if the public have any concerns, they should report that to their local authority. How, therefore, do you respond to information that there is a convoluted mechanism for local authorities to report concerns, with various trading standards across the UK tasked with liaising with different particular store chains, and local trading standards therefore feeding back to the relevant trading standard for that store's head office, and head offices dealing with four country variations of the legislation?

Thank you. I continue to meet regularly with the major retailers; I'm due to meet them again next week. In relation to face coverings and social distancing, the measures are still in all the stores—in different forms, but they are all certainly still there. It is, as you know, mandatory for the public and shop workers to wear face coverings in shops and enclosed public spaces, and the guidance is available on the Welsh Government website. There is obviously a public responsibility as well in relation to social distancing, and we would encourage the public to co-operate as much as possible in relation to that. And even while you're wearing a face covering, it's really important that you maintain the 2m social distancing as much as possible.

In relation to your question around convoluted ways of reporting it, I certainly have not received any complaints around that. I know of local authorities that have brought forward enforcement notices in a variety of supermarkets across Wales. And, again, I've found it to be very straightforward. I've not had any complaints about that. If you want to write to me specifically in relation to the supermarkets you referred to, I'd be very happy to look into it.

Minister, a number of weeks ago we were getting concerned about supermarkets in the Rhondda Cynon Taf area because standards were dropping. Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council, who've taken on, I think, 20 enforcement officers, or so, have been meeting with and have gone round the supermarkets. And I can say, in the Rhondda Cynon Taf area and the Pontypridd area, that the standards of discipline within the supermarkets is very, very high. And I think we've all been very impressed, and by the fact that the supermarkets are even now very safely administering flu vaccines. What I'd like to ask, though, is about the maintenance of the resources that local government need to actually keep this level of enforcement and monitoring going, all the way through to the next couple of months, which I think is going to be necessary. Has there been any discussion between you and the Minister for Finance over the resources that are going to be required by local government to ensure that we don't slip back and that we maintain the level of monitoring and enforcement that is being maintained at the present time?

Thank you. I am aware of the proactive role that Rhondda Cynon Taf have taken in relation to this issue. I haven't had any direct discussions with the Minister for Finance in relation to this, but I'm sure my colleague Julie James has certainly done that, because it is, as you say, very important that they are able to maintain this level of enforcement. You'll be aware of the significant funding that Welsh Government has given to local authorities, for a variety of reasons, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Minister, just like in RCT, Torfaen environmental health department and public protection staff have been working incredibly hard, undertaking spot checks on supermarkets in the borough. Will you join me in congratulating and commending the public protection team for their hard work? But will you redouble your efforts to emphasise to supermarkets, at a senior management level, that they have an absolute responsibility to keep shoppers and their staff safe, and to do everything that they can to recognise and enforce social distancing requirements?

Thank you. Around the first point of your question, I think it's excellent that Torfaen County Borough Council have been undertaking the spot checks. I think we've asked a huge amount of our environmental health officers right across Wales during the pandemic, and I think it's fair to say local authorities have really stepped up to the plate in relation to that.

In my regular meetings with the supermarkets, I certainly always re-emphasise the need for them to take responsibility for the shoppers, and they're very happy to do that. As I said in a previous answer, the social distancing is still there now, face masks are obviously mandatory, and I think we all have to accept there's a shared responsibility for us all to act and modify our behaviour and responsibility to shopping in supermarkets.

I've also unfortunately had quite a bit of correspondence about an increase in the abuse that shopkeepers and shop assistants have been receiving as well, which, obviously, we don't want to see. I've been in correspondence with the police around this issue also. 

Questions now from the party spokespeople. The Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Llyr Gruffydd.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Tomorrow, Minister, of course, is the deadline set by Boris Johnson to come to an agreement with the EU on a post-Brexit trade deal, after which, he says, the UK is ready and willing to walk away, leaving us with 'no deal' chaos and realising the worst nightmares, of course, of the agricultural industry here in Wales. And we all know the figures: 82 per cent of beef exports from the UK go into Europe; 78 per cent of dairy produce exports; and 90 per cent of lamb exports currently going in to the EU. Now, a London School of Economics report has found that, even with a free trade agreement by the end of this year, food trade between the UK and the EU will be slashed, driven primarily by non-tariff barriers. So, can you outline to us what contingencies the Welsh Government is putting in place to mitigate the devastating 'no deal' damage that's looming and, specifically, the steps that you're looking to take in relation to the beef, the dairy and sheep sectors in Wales?

I'm sorry, Llyr, I missed the beginning of your question. There was no volume at all, so I wasn't quite sure who you were referring to. But, certainly, in relation to the red meat sector, and also poultry and eggs, the Welsh Government is doing a significant amount of work. You'll know that we've had several campaigns with Hybu Cig Cymru to promote the red meat sector specifically. Last year, we had detailed discussions around a support scheme for the sheep sector, because, as you said in your question, the figures are certainly very concerning, if we don't have that trade agreement with the EU, our closest neighbours, as a market of over half a billion people. So, those conversations have started again with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and with my ministerial counterparts in Scotland and Northern Ireland, about the significant support for the sheep sector. 

I'm glad you share my concerns. I'm not sure that that gives me the assurances I was looking for. I didn't hear any specifics, other than 'ongoing discussions'. Now, we're 12 weeks away, of course, from this potential eventuality, and your Government needs to be ready to implement actions in 12 weeks' time. I was hoping to hear, maybe, how you were looking to ramp up cold storage capacity, to handle surplus produce that will no longer be exported. I was hoping that you'd maybe tell us how public procurement would be stepping up to the plate in order to try and absorb more domestic produce. Maybe you could tell us what discussions you're having with the UK Government to ensure that the risks of 'no deal' aren't escalated by trade deals with Australia and New Zealand potentially allowing for an increase in quota for lamb exports coming into the UK from those countries. 

Also, we saw reports last week that 2 million UK lamb carcasses may go to waste under a 'no deal' Brexit. Can you tell us, Minister, whether your Government is now planning to handle thousands and thousands of tonnes of additional food waste that potentially you will have to handle as a result of a 'no deal' Brexit?

Well, you will appreciate that as, as you say, we're only 12 weeks away from the end of the EU transition period, these are ongoing discussions. So, I absolutely appreciate they're urgent, but you will also have to appreciate that the UK Government are leading on a great deal of these, and, of course, while we're making plans for a 'no deal' Brexit, we are reliant on a lot of information coming from the UK Government. I and my ministerial colleagues are all having increased meetings with the UK Government. I had two yesterday with the UK Government, not specifically around red meat but in relation to fisheries and energy, for instance. So, those discussions are certainly increasing. 

Obviously, trade discussions—. I don't lead on trade discussions for the Welsh Government; that was Eluned Morgan, and now Jeremy Miles. But these sorts of things will obviously be discussed by them also. We have made the UK Government very well aware that we know a 'no deal' Brexit would be absolutely catastrophic for the red meat sector, for agriculture and, indeed, I think, for the whole of Wales.

Well, you still haven't given me any specific actions, but I'll move on, because actions do speak louder than words and we saw this week how Tory Members of Parliament in Westminster removed from the UK Agriculture Bill, of course, clauses that would have protected food standards in this country in future trade deals. And in doing so, of course, they let Welsh farmers down. They exposed them to the risk of cheap imports undercutting their produce and undermining their livelihoods. Now, weeks ago, many of those very same Members of Parliament were wearing a wheatsheaf in support of the Back British Farming campaign, but their actions this week have clearly exposed that as a hollow and meaningless gesture. So, do you agree with me, Minister, that the only way now to protect Welsh farmers in future is to maximise the powers we have here in Wales to do as much of that as possible ourselves?

I absolutely agree with you around the disappointment expressed. It's been very interesting to see both the National Farmers Union Cymru and the Farmers Union of Wales extremely critical of the UK Government in relation to the votes that took place on Monday evening around the UK Agriculture Bill. We want to see our very high standards maintained; they had the opportunity to put it into legislation on Monday and failed to do so. I've always made it very clear that we will have our own Welsh bespoke agricultural Bill. I still intend to bring forward a White Paper before the end of this calendar year in relation to that and we want to do all we can to maintain existing high standards of food safety and animal welfare. We're working very hard on the frameworks—you'll be aware of all the frameworks that are currently being done in collaboration—in relation to this matter also.

Conservative spokesperson, Janet Finch-Saunders.

Diolch, Llywydd. Good afternoon, Minister. There are 119 intensive poultry units in Wales with 40,000 or more birds. One hundred and sixteen of these are in Powys. Natural Resources Wales's Powys poultry pilot study—an assessment of cumulative atmospheric releases—found that smaller, non-regulated, but covered-under-planning poultry units do have a greater impact on the local ammonia concentrations than the larger regulated intensive units. It is noted that 12,000 free-range laying hens have a greater environmental impact than 80,000 meat birds. That was in 2005, yet, five years later, it is NRW that remain responsible for environmental permitting for the sites and for completing the habitat risk assessments for developments of only 40,000 or more birds. Are you confident, Minister, that NRW are regulating the category correctly or should the 40,000-bird red line in section 6.9 of Schedule 1 to the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 be lowered in respect of the 2015 report?

Janet Finch-Saunders quotes figures from 2005 and 2010. Certainly when I was planning Minister a few years back, this was something that I asked planning officials to look at for me, because we were seeing that cumulative effect that Janet Finch-Saunders refers to. I'm happy that NRW are monitoring in the way that they should be, but if she has, again, any specific concerns, I'd be very happy to take that up with NRW.

Thank you. Many concerns have been raised with me across Wales generally in terms of intensive poultry units—not so much about them being there, but how they're actually regulated and monitored. Now, there are around 8.5 million chickens on permitted units in Powys. Around 77,000 people have signed a change.org petition 'Save the River Wye!' and they're demanding a moratorium on all new poultry units in Powys. Their wish is for a moratorium to be in place until the full environmental and community impacts of existing units are assessed. So, I do welcome the fact that NRW is carrying out a detailed review of data to better understand the cause of the increased algal blooms in the River Wye. Now, according to the Wye and Usk Foundation, NRW stated in a public meeting last week that they expect the review to show that the upper Wye has been exceeding its permitted phosphate levels for at least the last four years. So, should what NRW advised be correct, what urgent steps will you take to tackle the level of phosphates in the river, and will those measures include a temporary moratorium?

Well, I don't want to predict what NRW will say. I'm not aware of the comments to which you refer in a public meeting last week. I obviously wasn't there myself. I can't pre-empt any recommendations that NRW come forward with until they do.

For me, the concern is that there's a real risk of our farmers being negatively portrayed. Poultry producers are highly monitored and routinely inspected, but it must also be acknowledged that when applying for IPUs, applicants have to undertake steps such as conservation plans, manure management plans, and pollution prevention plans. The River Axe catchment in Devon has used a three-year regulatory farm visit campaign to undertake advice-led regulatory audits. These visits led to infrastructure improvements. In fact, every pound spent by the Environment Agency in regulatory visits resulted in investment of £33 for infrastructure improvements. Will you look to support farmers where they wish to invest in relevant infrastructure improvements, and confirm that any future actions will not only be in relation to agriculture, but will tackle issues like warm water temperatures and sewage treatment works too?   

The Member will be aware that, earlier this year—around Easter time—I laid draft agricultural pollution regulations. At the time, and probably for the previous three years, when agricultural pollution was discussed, I made it very clear that we would look to support our farmers if they were looking for new infrastructure, for example, in order to deal with agricultural pollution and to avoid agricultural pollution, which of course the majority of farmers do. What I did say is that I would not give funding to bring them up to be compliant. I expect them to be compliant. We are seeing far too many incidents of agricultural pollution and, as I say, the draft regulations are there for people to look at. It was really important that they were laid for transparency, and I will be looking to take further steps in relation to the regulations. Poultry producers are highly monitored and routinely inspected. I have committed not to do anything while we are at the height of the pandemic, but, clearly, we are still seeing incidents of agricultural pollution that will need to be dealt with.  

Thank you. The Welsh Government's strategy is to increase the production of fruit and vegetables in an environmentally sustainable way, in line with the objectives of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015.

Minister, you'll be aware that our food standards and our animal welfare standards, of which we are so proud, are under threat from multiple sources. I'm very concerned that a free trade agreement with the United States could lead to adulterated food from the United States flooding our shores. George Washington University has been undertaking research over the last five years on meat that is sold in United States shops. Fourteen per cent of poultry and 13 per cent of pork had traces of salmonella, and E. coli was present in 60 per cent of pork, 70 per cent of beef, 80 per cent of chicken and 90 per cent of turkey products. This is a terrifying prospect. But the most immediate threat to our food security is the disruption of fresh food supplies imported from Europe, which Llyr Gruffydd has already referred to, in the event of a worst-case scenario of a 'no deal' Brexit. We learned last week that the UK Government has suppressed this information to devolved Governments, preventing you from having all the information that you need to prepare for such an eventuality. As Wales imports most of our vegetables and fruit from Europe, what can be done now to increase our production of these important aspects of our daily lives, and to protect people from massive price rises and shortages, to which low-income families will be particularly vulnerable?

Thank you. You highlight two areas of great concern, and those were around our animal welfare and food standards. Of course, you are quite right; they are under threat, and the UK Government did have the opportunity to protect them in legislation and didn't do so on Monday evening with the amendments that went through the House of Lords. Your point about information not being shared with us, as the UK Government always said they would, is clearly a matter of concern to myself and my ministerial colleagues, and I'm aware that Jeremy Miles, the Counsel General and Minister for European Transition, has written to Michael Gove on that issue also.

On your specific question around horticulture, again, I think the most effective immediate step to protect people from higher prices and reduced choice would be for the UK Government to secure a trade deal with the European Union—our closest neighbours and our biggest market. We cannot produce all the fruit and vegetables that we consume in Wales because of constraints on our climate and our geography. So, trade absolutely remains essential. But you'll be aware that the Welsh Government have supported the production of fruit and vegetables here through agricultural land mapping and through horticultural business support. We've provided grants to farm businesses, we have several schemes to encourage more fruit and veg to be grown here in Wales, and I'm pleased to see these grants being taken up. I should just say, I do want to reassure Members that our food supply system is secure, but the best way to keep it that way and to avoid unnecessary price increases is, as I say, for the UK Government to secure a trade deal with the European Union.

Before I call Nick Ramsay, just to say that I have noticed a growing tendency for self-promotion amongst the Zoom backgrounds of various Members. I think I can see at least three this afternoon on Zoom backgrounds. So, I will be sending out guidance on this issue to all Members, remembering, of course, that Members in the Chamber have no opportunity for self-promotion on any backgrounds that they have. I seek to treat all Members equally at all times, whether in Zoom or in the Chamber. Nick Ramsay. 

Diolch, Llywydd. I've got Janet Finch-Saunders behind me, so that's all the self-promotion I need for this question. [Laughter.]

Minister, we talk a lot about building back better and building back greener in this Chamber. It strikes me that expanding horticulture is one way that we can do this. Of course, Welsh horticulture is massively supported by seasonal agricultural workers coming to the UK to pick fruit and vegetables on farms, and this has continued through the pandemic, as I believe that they've been allowed to self-isolate for 14 days on the farm where they work and live. Can you look at ways that these exemptions can be extended, or will you have discussions with the UK Government if it comes under their remit? This won't just be of benefit to horticulture; I understand that, in the run up to Christmas, there's a shortage of trained poultry processors as well, which could be plugged with an eight-week extension to the exemption for seasonal migrant workers.

Thank you. We were certainly very concerned about seasonal agricultural workers not being able to come to the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic. Right at the beginning, probably back in April, I was involved in weekly discussions with the UK Government around this issue. Certainly, as we continue to go through the year, as you say, it's not just fruit pickers or vegetable pickers; there are other seasonal workers who we rely on. They are conversations that I do have with the UK Government, and I'm sure that other ministerial colleagues do too. 

Diolch. Agriculture plays a key role in supporting the Welsh language to thrive in our rural communities. By supporting farmers to manage their land's sustainability, our proposals balance the needs of the current generation with those of the next whilst supporting the resilience of Welsh-speaking communities.

Thank you very much for your response. I know that you'll be aware of the report published recently by Farming Connect, 'Language of the Land', and we know about the census figures that show that 43 per cent of agricultural workers speak Welsh, as compared to 19 per cent of the general population. Now, under the well-being of future generations Act, the Welsh language and culture are a pillar that stands side by side with economic sustainability, environmental sustainability, and social sustainability pillars. So, with that in mind, can you tell us whether payments for public goods should be extended to invest in the sustainability of the Welsh language in rural areas?

I am very aware of the 'Iaith y Pridd' report, which was recently published by Farming Connect, and the views expressed by participants and published in the report will add to our evidence base as we consider and develop our future proposals for supporting the sector as we leave the common agricultural policy. I thought it was really important to fund that piece of work, through Farming Connect, because I absolutely recognise the important role of the sector. You mention 43 per cent; we know the agricultural sector, probably, is the—well, absolutely is the highest sector that uses the Welsh language, so it's very important that we do that. As we bring forward our proposals under 'Sustainable Farming and our Land', obviously that will be considered, and I have to say, the Welsh language is something that we have recognised back in 'Brexit and our land', and 'Sustainable Farming and our Land' is absolutely a core underpinning principle.

Minister, under your proposals, farmers will need to make changes to their business models, producing more and thinking about different products with less, and Brexit will bring both threats and opportunities in its wake. How is your department working with colleges and universities to ensure that our young entrepreneurs—Welsh speaking—do see agriculture as an exciting, modern and ethical sector that they can enter so that they, in turn, can prevent the Welsh-speaking workforce from slipping away from our land?

It is really important that we keep our farmers on the land, because that is one way of protecting the Welsh language. I've done a significant amount of work, while I've been in portfolio, to encourage young farmers. Aberystwyth University I visited, and Harper Adams University, which, obviously, is just outside of Wales, to ensure that the courses that they're offering are certainly attracting our young Welsh farmers. And that certainly seems to be working, because we see a significant number going particularly to those two universities, I would say.

Again, I think it's really important that our 'Sustainable Farming and our Land' and, obviously, then, when we bring forward a bespoke Welsh agricultural policy, support the language in a way that keeps those communities together. You will have heard me say on previous occasions, when I went out to New Zealand, hearing how, when they had that cliff edge, when that basic payment scheme stopped back in the 1980s, they felt that loss of community. For me, it's an additional part of our agricultural sector that we need to support in the Welsh language.

We regularly assess air quality in line with statutory requirements. Recently, we commissioned a study to assess impacts of COVID-19 on air quality. This showed a mixed picture with levels of some pollutants decreasing and others increasing. We continue to assess the situation to inform and develop future actions.

Thank you, Minister. Last week we marked Clean Air Day, where we received updated data, highlighting that south Wales, pre lockdown, had the UK's second-worst levels of air pollution—toxic nitrogen dioxide levels were 1.6 times greater than EU legal limits. Now, during this year's lockdown, we saw air pollution in Wales dramatically improve, and the Welsh Government also introduced a clean air plan, albeit on the streets of Cardiff. Now, as chair of the cross-party group on the clean air Act for Wales, can I ask when will this plan be introduced in the Senedd and when will we get the opportunity to ask questions on the details of the plan and contents of the White Paper that will become the foundation of the legislative framework for a new clean air Act for Wales?

Thank you. And I was very pleased to attend your cross-party group last week, or the week before—I can't quite remember now—and I think it was very important that we recognise Clean Air Day, not in the way that we were able to last year, but I was really proud to be able to support that key initiative. As you say, I did launch the clean air plan in August, and it is does set out the key action that we will be taking to reduce air pollution and its effect on public health and biodiversity, and also the natural environment in Wales. The plan also sets out measures to achieve compliance with both European and domestic legislative requirements.

As you say, we will be producing a White Paper on clean air, and we're developing that to enhance the existing legislation that we have. I do intend to publish a White Paper on a clean air Bill for Wales by the end of this Senedd term for Members to scrutinise.

Minister, one of the consequences of COVID is that we've seen a lot of our urban spaces being reshaped at a greater pace than any time in the last 25 years: one-way systems for pedestrians, no-traffic zones, suppressed traffic anyway. We've also seen greater calls for certain areas to have much more regulation of traffic, and other cities around the world, such as Paris, are beginning to exclude traffic other than for residents from large areas so there are more open spaces for children, for instance, to play in. All this has a great benefit for air quality. Will you be co-operating with your colleagues to ensure that this sort of approach is going to go forward as part of the clean air plan, because planning our environment, our urban areas, our traffic flows is essential to this?

Yes, I agree with the points that David Melding has made. Dai Lloyd referred to the fact that I launched the plan on Cardiff streets, but I launched it on Castle Street, which, obviously, has been closed to traffic, and it was a very sunny day, and it was good to see families out enjoying, using that street in a different way. I think you're quite right that one of the benefits—I suppose we have to look for benefits of COVID-19—is that we have seen local authorities reshaping their areas in a way that we haven't done before.

I'm certainly very happy to have those conversations with local authorities. I'm sure they're all coming forward with plans. If we're going to achieve a carbon neutral public sector by 2030, this is just the sort of thing that local authorities need to be looking at.

Minister, I spoke last week at the launch of the Living Streets Cymru manifesto for walking in Wales. They want all people in Wales to be able to breathe clean air and they want the next Government to prioritise the climate emergency, introduce a clean air Act for Wales and clean air zones all around Welsh schools, create more urban green spaces and green corridors where people can walk and cycle, and work towards a goal of net-zero carbon emissions in towns and cities, tackle pavement parking, put more investment behind targets for children walking to school and adults choosing active travel. So, Minister, will you read their manifesto in detail and ensure that as many measures as possible are taken forward by the next Labour Government?

Thank you, Huw, for raising those points, and I'll certainly be very happy to have a look at the manifesto. Some of the things you refer to—you'll be aware my colleague Lee Waters made a statement yesterday around tackling pavement parking, the Welsh Government's put significant funding into active travel over this term of Government, but we increased that funding during the COVID-19 pandemic. So, there are things that we're doing. The First Minister, when he brought forward his manifesto two years ago, was committed to a clean air Act, and, as I said in an earlier answer, we're currently developing the White Paper on a clean air Bill, subsequently a clean air Act, so that we can enhance the legislation we currently have here in Wales.

Thank you. Welsh Government remain fully committed to supporting farmers after exiting the EU. I have confirmed the level of basic subsidy will be unchanged in 2021 and recently announced over £106 million of investment in a range of schemes over the next three years to support farming and our rural economy.

Well, I thank the Minister for that answer and I must say that it's very encouraging—the interventions that you mentioned. Minister, I mentioned last week in my question to the Counsel General, and I make no apologies for mentioning it again, that British farmers are amongst the most efficient and innovative farmers in the world and are capable, given the right resources and incentives, of vastly increasing the food they produce for the British public. There is much outcry from some sources against so-called 'chlorinated' washed chicken and other products from the USA, but we heard no such outcry against imports of pork products from the continent, where pigs were kept in appalling conditions, often in cages stacked three high. Does the Minister not agree with me that husbandry standards in the UK are amongst the best in the world, and far above those practised in many parts of Europe, especially in the new acquisition states? Therefore, is it not the case that the more home-grown foods we can produce, the better? We will not only see the benefit in the quality of the food we eat, but also gain huge environmental advantages in that our food will no longer be transported to our tables from thousands of miles across Europe.

Touching on the comments earlier by colleague Llyr Gruffydd, if we cannot export to the EU, then ipso facto they cannot export to us. This would leave a huge void in the UK market for all UK meat products and all UK food products. Does the Minister not agree the consequences of a 'no deal' scenario cut both ways?

No, I don't. I have to say, my focus is not on British farming, it's on Welsh farming. We've done a great deal of work to support the agricultural sector, particularly since 2016, following the referendum to leave the European Union. So, we want to make our agricultural sector and our farmers and their businesses as competitive and as sustainable as possible. We've put significant funding—ironically, from the EU—into making sure we focus on the red meat sector and on the dairy sector, to ensure that farmers were able to make their businesses as resilient as possible.

I am very proud of the animal health and welfare standards we have here in Wales, and our food standards, and I want to ensure that that continues. I'm sure we can find pockets of bad practice all across the world, but my focus is on Wales and Welsh farmers. 

Andrew R.T. Davies. Are you able to unmute yourself, Andrew R.T. Davies? It's not looking possible, is it? No. I think that's a 'no'. I'm going to have to move on.

Question 7—Michelle Brown.

Our overarching ambition is to create a more prosperous, equal and greener Wales. In planning recovery from the pandemic, we are determined to take forward a green recovery that will improve outcomes for Wales, generate a more sustainable and resilient future economy, tackle the climate emergency and address declines in biodiversity.

Thank you for that answer, Minister. One opportunity you announced with great pride last month is the sustainable food packaging hub that you have invested £2 million in at the Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre in Flintshire. On the face of it, it sounds impressive, with the laudable aim of making food packaging more sustainable. But all that glisters is not gold, and the hub isn't good news, as it seems, is it? In fact, for some people it's very bad news indeed. In the press release you put out, the stated aims of the hub include increasing automation, and in your quote you talk about your desire to reduce reliance on manual labour. Increasing automation requires increased use of electricity, so although the packaging produced may be recyclable, its production process will have an increased carbon footprint, and reducing manual labour means shedding jobs. Far fewer employees will needed to run an automated production facility compared to one that relies on manual labour. You're spending £2 million of taxpayers' money in an effort to find out how you can make as many of those taxpayers redundant as possible. The packaging industry employs 85,000 in the UK, which represents 3 per cent of UK manufacturing output. You're supposed to be the Labour Party, not the 'less labour party'. So, Minister, I'd like to ask you how many low-skilled packaging workers will be sacked as a result of Labour's £2 million investment?

I think the Member completely misses the point about the facility that's been brought forward in the Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre in Flintshire. The idea was to support more sustainable packaging. People are far more keen to have a look at what ingredients, for instance, are in their food and what we need to bring forward is a really good packaging centre, and I'm afraid I don't recognise the comments that the Member made. 

Ynys Mȏn is leading the way in innovation for flexible and smart electricity networks. It is a hub for tidal stream development and, together with opportunities in offshore and floating wind, nuclear and hydrogen, Ynys Môn has the potential to be a global leader in established and innovative energy technologies. 

Thank you. I have no doubt about the potential of Môn in the low-carbon field. The Morlais scheme is very exciting, and I'm looking forward to that receiving permission very soon. We need to drive the Minesto project ahead. The expertise to support these projects is available within Bangor University in Menai Bridge. We have the ability to develop innovation in M-SParc. There are possibilities in terms of hydrogen development in Môn, and I encourage the Government to invest in those. But there is very great potential, as the Minister mentioned, with regard to the next developments with regard to marine wind—offshore wind and particularly in terms of floating turbines. But to derive the most benefit possible, we need to ensure that Holyhead becomes a hub to service those on the land. Now, the British Government's record on energy projects in Wales isn't great—I'm thinking about Wylfa and the Swansea bay tidal lagoon—but we heard the announcement from the UK Prime Minister on investing in ports for wind energy, so will the Minister give a commitment that the Welsh Government will do all it can to maximise the potential for Môn and Holyhead in this area? 

Yes, absolutely, I'll give that commitment and, certainly, as part of the offshore wind sector deal, we're working with industry and partners to capture the economic benefits from investments in new projects. The Member might be aware that Welsh Government is a member of the offshore energy alliance, which is a north Wales-north-west England group of industry players and stakeholders. That was set up to look at regional benefits. We've also been working with the Crown Estate, who have identified north Wales's waters as one of four priority locations in relation to this. I attended a marine renewable energy conference in Dublin last year, where I spoke with several floating wind developers who are very interested, obviously, in the area off Anglesey, which, as you say, has been identified as a possible location for floating offshore wind demonstration projects of less than 100 MW under the current Crown Estate guidelines. So, absolutely, encouraging developers and organisations to provide an expression of interest to the latest Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy call, following the Prime Minister's announcement of a £160 million upgrade to ports and factories to support the offshore wind industry. 

And finally, question 9—Helen Mary Jones.

Unfortunately, the diesel spillage affected the Burry inlet cockle fishery, which is managed by Natural Resources Wales. Recent samples of shellfish were found to be safe for human consumption and therefore the cockle beds have reopened. A stakeholder group has been established to assess the impact on the local cockle picking industry.

Thank you, Minister. I'm very glad to hear that very positive news, but you will be aware that people are concerned that deposits of diesel further up the estuary may work their way down towards the cockle beds. Can you give us assurance today that you will continue to monitor what is happening with regard to the ongoing pollution risk there to ensure that this small but very important local industry, which I know you know is unique—the hand-picked cockles, not dredged in the environmentally damaging way—to ensure that this really important industry remains sustainable into the future?

Yes, absolutely. That monitoring will continue. NRW did close the bed on evidence and advice, but, as I said in my opening answer to you, that's now been reopened. But it is really important that that extensive monitoring and surveillance and modelling continues, and you have my assurance it will. 

Thank you, Minister. 

The next item is questions to the Minister for Housing and Local Government, and the first question is from Vikki Howells. 

Thank you, Vikki. This crisis has highlighted the fundamental importance of a home, and our response has accelerated our work to end homelessness. Over 2,200 people have been brought into temporary accommodation, together with the support they need. We are investing £50 million to transform provision, focused on prevention and rapid rehousing.

Thank you, Minister, and it was good to see the announcement of the additional funding to tackle homelessness that you made in August. I want to flag up one initiative today from Rhondda Cynon Taf, and that's the authority's creation of a social letting agency to manage private rental properties that would be subdivided into single person accommodation for people otherwise at risk of homelessness. I know that the project is funded by Welsh Government, but how more generally do you see social letting schemes fitting into your work to eliminate homelessness in Wales and the vision for the future of housing? 

Thank you, Vikki. I'm very aware of the project in RCT, which we're very pleased to be able to support alongside other new initiatives of that sort. Working with local authorities, we've agreed to extend the private rented sector leasing scheme pathfinder to a further three local authority areas—Rhondda Cynon Taf, Ceredigion and Newport—to ensure more stock in the private sector to house homeless individuals over a period of five years on a lease basis. As a requirement of this and other schemes, local authorities are also able to provide tenancy support services that will help tenants to address any support needs and should help them to maintain their tenancy.

As I've frequently said in the Chamber, we aren't the repository of all good ideas, and many local authorities and partner organisations have helped us with a range of excellent ideas that we've been very pleased to support in order to further our goal of ending homelessness in Wales. 

Laura Anne Jones. You need to be unmuted, Laura Jones. Yes. Carry on.

Yesterday, the UK Government announced an additional £2 million for faith and community groups to help them get rough-sleepers into accommodation. I'm just wondering, with the money that you've already provided, whether you're looking at doing something similar to that, and do you have any announcements coming forth to make sure that we're completely covered over the winter months, obviously, with the nights getting colder? Thank you.

So, we've already invested a large sum of money in our homelessness provision, and it's very differently structured to that in England. So, we've already worked with faith groups, community groups, voluntary sector groups, charities in the—. You know, everyone has worked to pull together in a collaborative fashion in Wales so that we've been able to house a very, very large number of people over the course of the pandemic, and those include people who are presenting every day as homelessness as their circumstances change and so on. So, we've absolutely worked with faith groups, alongside a very large range of others, in that collaboration. I'm very proud of the collaborative way that Wales has worked, and we are absolutely determined that not only will people not be forced back on to the streets if they've already been housed, but that we continue to support people who are becoming homeless as a result of the circumstances that they face in this awful crisis. 

The pandemic has placed additional financial pressure on local authorities arising from new responsibilities, additional costs and loss of income. We are providing up to £0.5 billion of funding to support local authorities, and are continuing to work closely with the WLGA and local government to assess and respond to the impact.

Thank you, Minister. As Audit Wales point out in their recent report, Wales's councils will struggle financially, despite nearly £0.5 billion in additional funding from the Welsh Government, and, while everyone looks to central Governments for action on tackling the pandemic, it's local government that are implementing the measures and keeping our schools open. Minister, what discussions has the Welsh Government held with the UK Government regarding additional resources to tackle the pandemic, so that we don't see cuts to vital local services, such as day care or library services, next year? Thank you.

My colleague Rebecca Evans has had a series of discussions with Treasury and other officials at UK Government level, obviously emphasising the need for as much certainty as is humanly possible in the budgets going forward. This has not been helped by various announcements from the UK Government about changing the normal rota, if you like, of budget announcements and so on. But she's been working very hard on that. In the meantime, we have worked very closely with local government across the piece to ensure that we understand exactly where they are in terms of both cash flow and additional demands on their resource, and I'm very pleased to say that, through the local government hardship fund, which has been made available through our COVID-19 fund more generally in the Government, we've been able to meet all of those demands and work in harmony with local authorities to understand the pressures going forward.

Minister, I recently spoke with Monmouthshire County Council leader Peter Fox, who told me that the pandemic has understandably had a massive impact on local government resources and they are worried about the medium-term sustainability of statutory services, let alone non-statutory services. Monmouthshire County Council has seen a huge fall-off in funding this year, including business rates, but also from usually dependable sources such as parking charges. As the COVID-19 situation continues to deteriorate, what discussions have you had with Monmouthshire County Council and other local authority leaders regarding resilience over the winter months to reassure them that funding support will be available to them as swiftly as possible so that they in turn are able to support local businesses and local services?

Thank you for that. We have a very large range of liaison meetings with local authorities. I meet with the leaders extremely regularly; my officials and Rebecca Evans's officials meet with treasurer and other officials in the Welsh Local Government Association and individual local authorities so that we have as good a shared picture going forward as we possibly can between us of what the pressures look like in each individual local authority.

The local authority hardship fund has been set up on an actuals basis, paid quarterly in arrears, in order to be able to cover off the individual circumstances of each local authority, and, as you've just rightly pointed out, Monmouth, for example, is heavily reliant—more reliant than other authorities in Wales—on council tax revenues, because of the structure of the revenue support grant distribution formula and other support networks. So, we're working very hard with them to understand on an individual basis the effect of their particular circumstances and to work with them in terms of putting claims into the hardship fund, as I say, on an actuals basis in order to get the money out to them.

We also upfronted the revenue support grant payments at the beginning of the year in order to ensure that they didn't have cash-flow problems. So, it isn't a problem for them to claim the actual expenditure back in arrears. So, I'm as confident as I can be that we're on top of that situation. Much will, of course, depend on what the UK Government does in terms of a rollover budget or a comprehensive spending review or whatever it is we're looking at. In the meantime, we work very closely with local government to understand what the various scenarios might look like for them.

Minister, you've answered basically the very important questions, and I'm very much appreciative of the extra funding the Welsh Government has given to local authorities to ensure they can face the difficult times, because there's a large amount of loss of income as well as the challenging costs that they're incurring. As we see this COVID-19 epidemic continuing into the winter, we're now seeing a situation where previously councils were able to reallocate staff to different jobs, but those staff are going back to their jobs and therefore there's now going to be a demand upon them as they need to deliver those services, plus additional services for COVID-19. Are you confident that the funding from the UK Government will be sufficient to ensure that local authorities are able to ensure that they can deliver all their services and the additional services that the COVID-19 epidemic, which is re-raising its head, will require?

Thank you, David. That gives me the opportunity, which I'm very grateful for, to really appreciate the effort and work that local authority staff at all levels have put in, and I would actually just like to take this opportunity to encourage them, where at all possible, to make sure they take some leave and recharge their batteries as we go into, as you rightly say, what might be a very difficult autumn and winter indeed.

The local government hardship fund makes available £0.5 billion, as I said, to support local authorities to the end of the financial year, and, as you rightly said, local authorities were able to redeploy staff to areas of greatest need at the beginning of the pandemic, when other services were shut or not operating to full capacity. And as the range of services has reopened, of course that's much more difficult for them to do. And as a result of that, we've made it clear that authorities are able to claim for both overtime costs and for additional staffing costs from the hardship fund, and we've already paid for additional staff, for example, to run the community hubs over school holidays and to administer the business grants for us. Other key areas going forward are supply cover for teachers having to self isolate, cover for waste operatives that are self-isolating and costs for cover for extra care staff, to name just a few. There is a long, long list of staff that might be in that particular area. It's those areas particularly where people can't work from home that are the most pressured and that we're particularly supporting.

We've also put extra funding in place where we're asking local authorities to deliver extra services for us as a result of the pandemic, so one example is the track and trace teams. We've asked health boards and local authorities to use redeployed staff where possible, but we have put in place a budget of £45 million, for example, to cover the excess costs of additional staff. So we are working very hard with them to understand the staffing and other pressures and to make sure that we can cover that off.

Questions now from the party spokespeople. Conservatives spokesperson, Mark Isherwood. 

Diolch, Llywydd. Last week, Audit Wales published two reports regarding local government in Wales. The report on 'Financial Sustainability of Local Government as a Result of the COVID-19 Pandemic' said that, in the first six months of this year, councils in Wales recorded financial costs of £325 million due to the pandemic and, whilst this has been largely offset by the Welsh Government's local government hardship fund, the report cites figures from the Welsh Local Government Association estimating that, by 2022-23, councils will be facing budget pressures of approximately £600 million. The Auditor General for Wales suggested that some councils were better placed than others to deal with the financial impacts of the crisis, where, overall, they hold usable reserves of around £1.1 billion, as in March this year, but this varies widely: Rhondda Cynon Taf, over £119 million in useable reserves, to Conwy, around £14 million, and Blaenau Gwent, around £12 million. How, therefore, do you respond to the report's statement that, whilst the financial support provided by the Welsh Government has largely offset the immediate financial concerns, it may be the case that councils have to increasingly use their reserves should the financial impact continue over future years? And how will you address the inequality in the ability across councils to do this?

Thank you, Mark. We did rehearse a little bit of this during my recent appearance at the local government committee, during which I was answering some scrutiny questions on the response to COVID-19. So the answer to that is contained in the answer I've just given to a number of Members earlier, which is that we are working with each individual local authority to enable us to understand their very specific circumstances: what their reserve position is; what they would have expected to receive in fees and charges and council tax and national non-domestic rates; what their reduction in income looks like; what their additional costs are; what their particular circumstances in that particular local authority are, in order to be able to assist them in making claims for the hardship fund, which, as I've emphasised on a number of occasions, is paid out on actuals, rather than any kind of formula-driven approach, so that we can understand where each local authority is and understand its resilience plans and so on. 

There are a large number of reasons why different levels of reserve are held in different authorities: as a result of locally determined policies; as a result of earmarked reserves for particular capital projects; and a large number of other reasons too numerous to mention here. So I'm confident, at the moment, that we are on top of that and that we are not in a position where any local authority in Wales faces any particular financial crisis, but, of course, much depends on the UK Government's attitude to budgets going forward. I'd very much hoped that we would have a comprehensive spending review that would have allowed us to give some certainty over a three-year, at least, budget, but that doesn't look like it's going to be so now, and obviously if you have to plan on a year-on-year basis for local authorities that's much more difficult to do in terms of long-term planning and leads to some undesirable short-term effects.

But we've worked very well with local authorities; we've co-operated very well. I'm very grateful indeed to the officers of the local authorities and the WLGA and to all my officials who've worked extremely hard through this period to make sure that we have resilient local government in Wales. 

Thank you. Well, I hope that means that there will be consideration in future years over how to help those with the least reserves specifically who may have less flexibility in all the areas you mention.

But, in their second report, 'Commercialisation in Local Government', Audit Wales argued that

'With future funding at best unpredictable, new thinking is needed to transform the way councils operate to protect and improve services for their communities. The result is that there has never been a more pressing need to innovate and transform local government, to think big and think radically about what councils do and how they do it, and the relationship they have with their residents.'

They found that there is public support for councils to act more commercially, citing a citizens' survey carried out by themselves that found that nine in 10 respondents broadly supported their council pursuing commercial activities that ultimately support the local area through economic growth and investment in the most disadvantaged communities. How, therefore, do you respond to the report's arguments that councils need to define and agree what commercialisation means for themselves, their communities and citizens, and that changing the culture of organisations was the topic flagged most consistently as the key challenge facing councils becoming more entrepreneurial?

I think it's really obvious from the way that local authorities have reacted to the pandemic that they are indeed very flexible and resilient organisations that have been able to turn around the way that they respond to both the public and to service delivery, in what can only be regarded as a miraculous period of time, and have pulled together in order to be able to do that in a way that I think most people would recognise as highly entrepreneurial in any sense. Because some of the innovative ways that they've been able to respond to the pandemic are really very inspirational indeed.

In the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Bill, which has just gone through Stage 2 of the committee just very recently of course, we're also giving councils the power of general competence. You'll be aware, as a member of the committee, that one of the things we are seeking to do is put regulations in place that ensure that, in acting in a commercial way, the power of general competence is used in specific ways, with specific provisions for business planning, company structures, and so on, which will encourage the kinds of thinking that we are expecting to see and also discourage the kinds of speculative commercial ventures that led in the past to some authorities, particularly in England, over-stretching themselves in terms of ventures that went very badly wrong. I know myself, having lived through it, back at the end of the 1980s, that some commercial ventures for local authorities can be spectacularly backfiring on occasion.

So we're very careful to work with our local authorities to ensure that we understand the commercialisations that they want to put in place, that we encourage them as appropriate, that we have the right kinds of guidance and the right kinds of governance structures in place to enable them to do exactly as you suggest, to maximise income for spending on their local services whilst at the same time protecting the public from any over-commercialisation or unduly risky operation that might put those services in jeopardy.

In reference to the early part of your response—and I acknowledge what you say—nonetheless, Audit Wales highlighted the need to change the culture of organisations and the key challenge for them to become more entrepreneurial. And they found that the skills of elected members themselves was a barrier to councils taking advantage of commercial opportunities and greater entrepreneurship, with almost two thirds of elected members themselves who'd responded to their survey saying that elected members' ability to effectively decide on options was a barrier to their council pursuing commercial ventures. And these responses were echoed by corporate management teams, who said that only 19 per cent believed that elected members are sufficiently trained and skilled to be able to consider and approve new commercial ventures. How, therefore, do you respond to the report's argument that the best approaches involve elected members early, and have specific, well-defined and regularly updated policies appropriate to local circumstances and which support councillors to discharge their governance, decision-making and oversight responsibilities?

Of course, we largely agree with that, which is why we're putting the provisions into the Act that allow us to put the regulations in place to do exactly that.

There is also a big issue about diversity in democracy. You cite the skills of particular councillors, and so on, but we know that there's a real lack of diversity in our democracy across local government. And so, together with my colleague the Deputy Minister and Chief Whip, we have been working very hard on a programme of diversity in local democracy, hoping to encourage a much wider range of people to come forward, particularly younger aged people with more commercial skills, perhaps, who are still working, to enable us to ensure that the diversity in the decision making of local authorities, going forward, has a much wider range of voices around its table than we currently see in some local authorities.

And whilst we do that, we will also, as I say, be putting the regulations in place to encourage local authorities to use the general power of competence, but to do so in a fiduciary resilient fashion, both taking the risks that we think are acceptable and protecting the public from undue commercial risks, which, as we have seen in the past, have led to some circumstances in which local authorities have got themselves very close to being not able to carry on. So, we're very keen, Mark, to walk the tightrope between both of those things and to work very closely with Audit Wales in order to do so.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Delyth Jewell.

Diolch, Llywydd. Minister, I want to ask about some of the remarks made by the First Minister yesterday about unsafe buildings. I'm sure you'll be aware of the buildings I'm referring to; I'm referring, of course, for example, to flats with unsafe cladding. The First Minister said that developers should pay to make good the deficit in those buildings and that leaseholders should not be footing the bill. The Government has been aware of this issue for a while now, so my question is: why hasn't the Government forced the developers to foot the bill yet?

Well, unfortunately, Delyth, we don't have all the powers necessary to change the basic law in order to be able to do that. Would that we could; I would very much like to be able to do that. There are some things we can do going forward that will protect people from being in that situation with new buildings, but that won't help the people who are currently in very difficult situations in buildings around the place—a large number of them have been mentioned previously in Plenary. 

We are currently investigating ways of being able to assist people to do the works without them losing all of their equity, but if I was—. It's a really difficult thing to do, let's just be clear. The relationship between the leaseholder, the freeholder, and the contractual obligations between the leaseholder, the freeholder and the original builder, the management company and so on are different in every single building. So, it's actually extremely difficult to unpick on a global basis the particular circumstances of each building. And I have a range of meetings coming forward to meet with the residents of particular blocks who've asked to meet with me. And I should say at this point, Llywydd, that I have one of these in my own constituency, in the middle, so colleagues in the Government are dealing with that particular issue for me, because I wish to represent them as their constituency representative.

And what we would like to be able to do—. So, there is a way for the local council to do the works necessary to make the building fire safe. And we're very keen—. We've been working with the fire services—my colleague Hannah Blythyn has been working hard with the fire services as well—to ensure that we've had all the right inspections done and that people are as safe as is humanly possible for them to be without the works that are required to be done to make it 100 per cent. But, of course, if the local council does do works in default for those buildings, then what they do is they land charge the properties in the building to recover the cost of those works, and those poor people lose the whole of their investment in their property. Now, if it was a life and death scenario, of course we would do that because we don't want anybody to be in that situation. But it is a balance between trying to make sure that people do maintain some equity in their leases and that we get the fire safety arrangements in place that we want. And I'm afraid that's just really complicated, and it does require the UK Government to do some things. We're currently working with the UK Government to try and put some of those provisions in place, but it's just not possible to put a blanket kind of court arrangement in place that allows them to sue the builders in the first place. If it was, we would have been able to do so.

I'm not often charitable to the UK Government, but, in this instance, I will say that it's quite a complicated thing to try and unpick. So, we are working very hard to try and put in place a scheme that would allow leaseholders to come forward and claim money off us without losing all of their equity, but it's going to be impossible to do without them losing some of their equity, and it's just a question of how we get that very complicated set of circumstances sorted out. So, it's not possible to talk about it on a global basis. Each individual building, the way the lease is arranged, the way the obligations are arranged, who owns it, where the management company is, and so on, all make a huge difference to what's possible. So, I'm afraid it's just hugely complicated.

Minister, I appreciate your candour with that in setting out the difficulties. I do think it's helpful that you've confirmed that Wales does need further powers in order to give greater protection, and, obviously, Plaid Cymru would support the Government in seeking those extra powers. 

You've set out some of the provisions that you're looking to introduce within the Government's powers as they stand. Some of the things that we would like to see the Government doing, and that we would certainly support, would include some of what you've set out: a change in planning law to allow previous performance by a developer to become a material consideration as well; ensuring planning departments have the resources that they need to ensure that planning conditions for large developers are adhered to, so that we don't see the same developers making the same mistakes or cutting the same corners; and bringing plans forward for regulatory change, as you've just been referring to, and introducing them now because—in the candour of your answer, you did obviously refer to this—the earlier we solve this albeit very complicated situation, it is going to be the better for the mental health of people who live in these housing blocks. Would you consider these other measures, Minister, and would you say so on the record? Because I think the publicity about reputation becoming a material consideration may be enough to make these developers put the situation right without us having to force it.

Yes, of course, we're prepared to look at all possibilities for that. I will say, again, that some of those things sound attractive, but they're actually much more difficult to do in practice. So, I'm going to use my own name as an example: so, I could be Julie James Building Inc. and I could sell Julie James Building Inc. and I could go away and start up Julie Jones Building Inc. and Julie James Building Inc. would be banned from planning because of the poor things I'd done, but actually the person who was behind that could have gone off and started up something else. So, there are a lot of complex issues. This is not just about a headline name. So, again, some of these things sound as if they're easy to implement, but actually in practice are very difficult to pin down so that you're actually making sure that the individuals responsible—because in the end, it is individual policies that are responsible—are there. A lot of these buildings are built by specialist joint-venture vehicles between a variety of different companies, finances and so on. So, it's attractive, and I understand the attraction of saying that we would do it, but it's much more complicated in terms of actual—. In terms of actually writing the regulations, it's much more complicated than that. But we are looking to see what can be done.

And, again, Delyth, I just want to emphasise that, of course, we're very keen to put it right going forward, but that doesn't solve the problem of the people who've got the problem now—I can't retrospectively do that. And so, what we're also looking to do is just to see what can be done to assist the people who find themselves in that terrible position at the moment. So, I have an enormous amount of sympathy for them, but it is very difficult, because in the end, buying a house, buying a home, is where you live, but it's also an investment and it's the dichotomy between those two things that's so very difficult to get right in these circumstances.

But I would like to assure the Senedd that, where it was a life and death risk, there are powers in place for a local authority to do that, but it would mean losing the equity for the people inside the building and that is not generally something that they are prepared to contemplate.

Well, again, thank you for your response to that, Minister.

I should say, Delyth, for understandable reasons, I wasn't blaming them for that. I just want to make that very clear—I'm not putting any onus on them; I understand where they are coming from, but it is very complicated.

No, thank you for clarifying that, Minister. I don't think it did come across in that way, but it's obviously good to have that on the record. I don't doubt for a moment the complicated nature of this. I would urge you not to wait to take action on it because obviously we want to be able to give residents hope. But I am glad to hear that you are considering a range of these different options, and, as you say, not just options that will help future residents, but also trying to put the situation right for residents who are caught in this awful situation already.

Finally, Minister, I wanted to reflect on some of the remarks made by David Melding yesterday, where he blamed a lax regulatory regime in both England and Wales for allowing these scandals to happen in the first place. Again, this touches on some of what we've already covered, but it's not just the fire safety issues here—unfinished estates, the miss-selling of leaseholds, as we've touched on, and broken promises by developers, as we've spoken about, have become a hallmark of development over the past decade. The case for a windfall tax on the profit of large developers is very strong. Would you support that call?

Yes, I think there are calls for all kinds of reactions to this. The UK Government—and we're co-operating with this—has put, of course, a New Homes Ombudsman in place as a result of some of the other issues that are not to do with high-rise buildings. A large number of our scale house builders got themselves into serious difficulties in some of the building practices that they had, and I think those are well known. And that's why the UK Government has put the New Homes Ombudsman in place in order to protect people against, frankly, scandals of that sort. And that's why, here in Wales, we're determined to put our planning system in place robustly so that people have a robust planning system to go through and then, on top of that, a robust building safety inspection regime to go with that, to make sure that we learn those lessons and make sure that we have a robust system. Now, unfortunately, because of the pandemic, our building safety regulations are now delayed. We are about to put out a White Paper on that and we are working very hard with the leasehold reform provisions that the Law Commission has looked at. They recently reported, and we're looking to see what can be done in conjunction with some UK legislation, if at all possible, just due to the lack of time we've now got in Senedd provisions to be able to do this.

It's one of the real sorrows about the pandemic, alongside all of the other things that we know of, that we've lost the chance to put some of those building safety reforms in place. But there is, I think, consensus across the Chamber, so whoever forms the next Government will have a ready plan to go, and I'm sure that, very early in the new term, whoever the Government is will be able to implement those reforms. I don't think they're in any way controversial, and I'm sure we'll be able to that very rapidly.

Question 3 is withdrawn [OQ55673]. Question 4, Adam Price.

Thank you for the question. One Planet developments are exemplar forms of sustainable and low-impact development that are strictly controlled in terms of the evidence needing to be supplied before they receive planning permission. Monitoring of the policy shows that, between April 2013 and March 2019, 20 One Planet development applications were approved and seven were refused.

Is the Minister aware that certain aspects of this policy have caused some ill feeling in rural areas, and would she be willing to consider calls from a council such as Carmarthenshire County Council to review the policy? Specifically, does the Minister believe that it's fair that applicants for rural enterprise dwellings have to prove validity that the developments are sustainable on the basis of evidence over the past three years, whilst the requirements under the One Planet developments are to submit forecasts to demonstrate that the developments can be sustainable at the end of the five-year period?

Well, no, I think that's a slight mischaracterisation of where the policy is. The number of One Planet developments approved each year is very small compared with other forms of housing. So, between 2013 and 2019-20, only 20 One Planet developments have been approved, compared with 251 rural enterprise dwellings over the same period. Last year, only 10 One Planet developments were approved. In Carmarthenshire itself, 13 rural enterprise dwellings were approved while five One Planet developments were approved and six were refused. We get an annual monitoring report to the planning authority to evidence compliance with the management plan by identifying activities carried out during the previous 12 months. At the moment, we haven't asked for that data due to ongoing COVID-19 pandemic relaxations of the rules, but we are going to request the data in April 2021 for a two-year period, and just to emphasise that failure to meet the terms of the management plan could result in enforcement proceedings in respect of breaches of conditions, subject to which the planning permission was granted. So, I'm afraid, no, I don't have any current plans to update the overarching policy of guidance on One Planet developments.

Minister, I suspect you know the impact of these applications on the view of farming families in Gower, as one has been turned down very recently not so very far away from you. Locals are not best pleased that they have to jump through various hoops in order to keep their young people living in the area, where some of these One Planet development applications do tend to come from people living outside the area. If you're talking about sustainable communities, rather than these experiments, we really do have to think about ways of keeping young people in their localities rather than them feeling obliged to move out of them. You're right that there are no current plans to update the overarching policy of guidance on this. Considering that that is, at least, coming up to being 10 years old now, I want to know why, as it predates the well-being of future generations Act by at least three years.

So, it's very much part of 'Planning Policy Wales', however, which has only very recently been reviewed, and, as I said in response to Adam Price, One Planet development planning applications are determined in accordance with the approved or adopted development plan for the area, unless there are material considerations that indicate otherwise. And, as you've just said, they're routinely turned down where they don't conform. The planning system isn't there to prevent people from making planning applications; local authorities are responsible for determining those planning applications in accordance with the rules. And I'm not sure whether Suzy Davies was implying that only people from outside an area can make a One Planet development application, but, of course, that's not so; anyone can make one if they want to bring one forward. So, I'm not quite sure what the implication of that was.

Obviously, we have a large number of other planning policies in place, including policies that allow individual houses to be built where there's a need for an agricultural family to be able to expand its dwelling. So, typically, where a farmer wants to retire and a son or daughter of that farmer wants to take over, we have applications for dwellings on the farmhouse to enable us to accommodate that, and the policy is perfectly capable of looking at that. So, I'm not entirely certain why One Planet developments attract the kind of criticism that Suzy Davies has just outlined, but there are, of course, a large number of other ways of making sure that our young people stay in our rural communities and our communities in general, and one of those, of course, is this Government's plan to build a range of social and shared equity housing across Wales at some scale and pace. 

Thank you, Jenny. Building on the long-standing success of the Welsh housing quality standard and the Warm Homes programme, our new reconstruction plan identifies the upgrading of Welsh homes, particularly social homes, as an early priority. This will drive green, economic recovery and innovation in our SMEs and communities.  

Well, excellent work going on in social housing. Retrofitting existing homes is obviously a major challenge for us, as I see that 1,000 homes are to be retrofitted as part of the COVID recovery programme, but there must be hundreds of thousands of existing homes that need retrofitting to meet our zero carbon targets, as we have probably the oldest housing stock in Europe. So, I hope that our COVID recovery strategy will embrace that challenge. On a more urgent note, before the internal market Bill prevents devolved administrations from ever taking the action needed, what is being done to fast forward change in the new building regulations so that all new homes meet those zero-carbon standards?

Thanks, Jenny. I know it does seem like a small amount of work, but it's a part of a very important journey to decarbonise all homes in Wales, and I am delighted to say that, actually, we've just put an additional £10 million into the optimised refit programme this financial year, so that does bring the total amount available to £19.5 million. The whole point of the optimised retrofit programme is to establish the pathway for how we decarbonise the whole of the housing stock. So, I'm sure you've heard me say before, but it's quite clear that a one-size-fits-all approach simply does not work, and so if you're decarbonising stone-built terraced housing in a steep valley, you would want to have one set of techs and systems in place, and if you're decarbonising 1970s cavity wall ranch style housing in my constituency for example, you would clearly want something completely different.

So, the whole point of the optimised retrofit programme builds on the recommendations in the Jofeh report to trial and test the way forward to decarbonise homes in Wales, to establish the new processes based on a common-sense approach, and create opportunities to ensure that we have the right tech, the right measures and materials, we have the right supply chains, we have the right foundational economy for this, we have the right skills, we work with our FE colleges to make sure that we skill up the workforce as we learn from our innovative housing programme, which this is very much a part of, so that we can roll it out across the piece outside of the social sector and into the private sector. But, we're in a good place to start that piece of work, and I very much hope that we'll be able to do that with some speed and dispatch so that we can trial that and then roll it out accordingly.

Minister, this is probably one of the most important areas of public policy, and will be in the 2020s, and even in the private sector we'll require a lot of grant aid so that home owners can install new boilers and insulation schemes, and so forth. So, all this retrofitting, particularly in the old housing stock—a good proportion of it before the first world war—will require great skill in fitting and installation. We've heard about the leasehold scandal just now, and some of that was caused by, actually, good materials being so badly fitted that they were a fire risk. So, how will you ensure that the regulatory system does not fail again, as it has in the last 20 years for our poor leaseholders?

I think that David Melding, as always, makes a very, very good point. One of the reasons that we want to do this in the way that we are is to understand what the build requirements look like for retrofit, to make sure that we can work alongside our skills providers to ensure that we have that right set of skills, and that we understand what the new technology looks like, and how to fit it, and what the consequences of not doing it properly are, and that we can build that into the new system for building quality control, which I was just discussing with Delyth Jewell in an earlier answer.

I know that the Member has taken a great deal of interest in the building safety programme that we put forward, and the pathways, and I think that he concurs with me that there isn't much that is controversial in that. It's just a question of making sure that we get those regulations right, and we get the skills programmes right that go with it. In addition, of course, we have a number of tried-and-tested programmes that the Welsh Government supports: Nest, Arbed. There are a range of schemes available to tenants in the private rented sector, for example. Just very recently—he may not be aware—landlords in the private rented sector with an EPC rating of F and G have been contacted by Rent Smart Wales and offered grants that are available from the Warm Homes fund, ECO and ECO Flex to bring their properties up to a better standard.   

Thank you, Andrew. We continue to work with local authorities and fire and rescue services to ensure residents are kept safe, with all possible measures in place to mitigate risks. We are exploring the scope for financial support to help fund remediation in a way that is fair to taxpayers and leaseholders.

Thank you, Minister, for that answer. In the 13 years that I've been an Assembly Member, I cannot think that I've had such heartbreaking stories brought to my regional office, and meetings with residents on this particular issue, where no fault at all is attributed to the residents, and a clear line of fault lies with the original builders of the sites and the implementation of the building regulations. The First Minister yesterday, in response to questioning on this, touched on the moral obligation that builders who erected these structures should have in putting the works right. What help can you afford residents, and offer to residents, when it comes to turning those words of moral obligations to real actions on the ground, so that residents aren't left in this state of limbo and, ultimately, end up picking up the tab themselves?

Andrew, I absolutely agree with you. There have been a range of stories that are just heartbreaking. The First Minister was absolutely right in saying that we need to re-emphasise on a continual basis the moral obligation on the people who build these buildings to such a poor standard. The directors of those companies really should be looking to themselves to put right those defects. But, as I was explaining in an earlier answer, we don't, unfortunately, have the means to compel them. Unfortunately, the contractual arrangements in each particular building are totally different. So, the way that the building was built, the management company that supports it, the often single-purpose vehicle that was put in place to do the development, the way that the management structures for the leaseholders work, and so on, are all very different in each of the buildings.

I would very much like to find a way to enable a fund to allow the leaseholders to be able to start those works. It's very difficult to do that without seeing how we can protect what, after all, is their investment in the property. I know that it is their home as well; I'm not trying to sound heartless about it. But, it's very difficult to see how a taxpayer can put right an investment that's gone wrong in that way—you know, to the financial improvement of the individual investor. So, we are trying to find a way that would balance out allowing people to keep some equity in their homes and allowing them to access a fund that would improve the structure of the building. As I said in my earlier answer, it's easy to say and very much more difficult to organise.

We are also keeping a weather eye on the UK Government fund, which is to remove the cladding but, as I understand it, not any of the other structural defects. Once you've taken the cladding off, there's often a range of other issues that need to be replaced. So, we're keeping a weather eye on that, and Andrew, if you have any more information that you can share with us on how that fund is working, I'm very happy to talk to you about it.

Thank you, Darren. Since 2011, support to people in Wales to improve their home energy efficiency has been available through our Warm Homes programme, which has helped more than 61,400 households reduce their energy bills. Improvements to home energy efficiency in the social housing sector is supported through the Welsh housing quality standard.

Thank you for that answer, Minister. I recently held a meeting with residents in Llysfaen, which is just outside Colwyn Bay in my Clwyd West constituency. I've corresponded with you on behalf of residents in Llysfaen in the past because there was the potential prospect of a gas mains connection scheme for that community. It's quite an elevated community and very exposed to the elements, so heating costs are very high. Unfortunately, the proposed gas scheme didn't stack up because of the financial costs of getting those mains connections in place. What assurances can you provide to my constituents that, should an alternative scheme that is non-gas related come forward, you'll be able to sign it off prior to the end of this financial year, if that package is presented to you by Arbed am Byth?

Well, Darren, obviously, I can't comment on an individual scheme of that sort or give such an assurance, as I don't know enough about the individual detail. I'm more than happy, though, to talk with you about the detail of that and to try my very best to see what we can do for residents who find themselves in that situation. As you rightly said, Arbed, which is actually in the portfolio of my colleague the Minister Lesley Griffiths, provides schemes of that sort to assist people who find themselves off gas grid, with oil and various other more expensive alternatives for heating a home, and insulation and so on.  So, I can't give that very specific promise that you ask from me, but I'm very happy to talk with you and my colleague Lesley Griffiths in terms of what schemes might be available for that particular instance.

Thank you for the question, Jack. We keep our national planning policies under review at all times and update them when necessary. Interested parties can inform future reviews of policies through correspondence and discussions with myself and with officials, as well as contributing to official Welsh Government planning policy consultations.

Thank you for that answer, Minister, and thank you for also agreeing to meet with Pen-y-ffordd Community Council in my constituency, alongside the Deputy Minister as well. The council of Pen-y-ffordd are truly passionate about their area and are very knowledgeable when it comes to issues of planning. I know that you want communities, Minister, to have more of a role in shaping their own environments; how do we ensure that expertise and experiences like that of Pen-y-ffordd Community Council is listened to when changes to planning rules are being considered?

I'm very happy to come along to that meeting, which I think is very shortly now. One of the things we do, of course, is go out and talk to the community councils in this particular instance about their experiences of contributing to the planning regime and how they can contribute more fruitfully in future. The particular community that you're talking about is in a local authority area where the local development plan is yet to be finalised and that does make things slightly more difficult. But, of course, during the finalisation of the LDP, there are a large number of opportunities for individuals and community councils and other organisations to make their feelings known as that plan goes through the inspection process and other processes designed for democratic engagement in the planning process.

People often ask me whether anybody actually responds to any of these rather dry planning policy consultations, but just by way of example, the latest version of 'Planning Policy Wales' was published in December 2018, and over 210 individual responses were received to the last consultation, which is the highest number we've received on a Welsh Government planning policy document, and that's in addition to organisations, and so on. We're always really interested in encouraging people to come forward and make their views known to me and to the officials, and in fact, the future generations commissioner has recently praised our approach to developing 'Planning Policy Wales', including incorporating the ways of working into the document itself.

During the various consultations that we've undertaken more recently, I've taken great pleasure in engaging with, for example, groups of young people in terms of what they would like to see in their local area and so on. So, we're always very keen to engage in that way. I think that my colleague Hannah Blythyn, in responding to an earlier question from you on a similar point, echoed this in saying that all voices are welcome in the development of Welsh Government planning policy. In fact, we know that Pen-y-ffordd Community Council did in fact comment on the last revision to 'Planning Policy Wales', so, as you rightly say, they are obviously an engaged and knowledgeable community council. So, I'm looking forward to our visit, Jack.

I thank the Minister. 

The next item is the topical question. The question is to be asked to the First Minister and will be asked by Adam Price.

Llywydd, no letter from the Prime Minister has been received in reply to my request. I have therefore asked for the necessary work to be brought forward that would allow for devolved powers to be used to prevent people from travelling into Wales from high-prevalence areas of the United Kingdom.

May I start by correcting one thing that was suggested yesterday, First Minister, which is that there is any anti-English motivation in raising this issue? I can say that with some assurance, because I am the son of an Englishwoman. It's not only insulting to me, to my family and my party to suggest that there are anti-English attitudes involved here, but it also hides the real reason for raising the issue, namely safeguarding the public and providing equity and fairness to people, for example the young woman from the Bangor area who simply asked the question: 'Why can't I visit my grandmother when people from lockdown areas in other parts of the UK can come here on holiday?' Now, could we have—whilst accepting that it's clear that continuous correspondence is pointless—can we have a timetable from you, First Minister? Is the draft legislation ready? Are you ready to publish that legislation? What is the timetable now in terms of legislation? What are the plans in terms of the implementation of that legislation? And, also, how are you going to communicate this across the UK, and is it possible to do that now so that it does have an impact in terms of travelling from lockdown areas during the half-term period, which will start in England next week?

Well, Llywydd, it is important to emphasise once again that this isn't an issue with regard to the border between Wales and England; that's not the point here. As Adam Price said now, it's a matter of fairness in terms of what we've done here in Wales and what we've asked the Prime Minister to do in England. So, that's why I've written, once again, to the Prime Minister. The timetable for the powers that we have in Wales is to do it by the end of the week. That gives more time for the Prime Minister to do the things that we have asked him to do; to do the same thing for people who live in England as we have done for people who live in Wales. We've already heard from the First Minister in Scotland, and she is eager to support what we're trying to do here. Now is the time for the Prime Minister to do the same thing. If he isn't willing to do so, the timetable for us is to use the powers in Wales by the end of the week.

Paul Davies. Can Paul Davies be unmuted?

There we go. Paul Davies.

Diolch, Llywydd. First Minister, if the Welsh Government introduces a travel ban on English people entering Wales, then it's absolutely essential that it publishes the data it has to prove that transmission rates are accelerating due to travel. Now, as I said in my questions to you yesterday afternoon, the people of Wales deserve to have sight of the data that underpins the Welsh Government's position on this matter so that they can be confident that the Government's actions are proportionate to the threat of the virus in their area. Therefore, will you now publish the data outlining the causes of virus transmission so that we can see for ourselves whether a travel ban is necessary?

Now, I've read the paper that accompanied your letter to the Prime Minister yesterday, and that paper confirms that the data does not constitute definitive proof in favour of a travel ban. In fact, that paper goes one step further and suggests that it should be considered alongside a range of other factors before a conclusion is reached. And it also shows that transmission rates in relation to travel have already peaked in August into September. So, do you believe that this paper constitutes enough evidence when, by its own words, it implores you to consider it alongside other data to justify a travel ban?

Finally, on 23 September, First Minister, you said that the Welsh Government wasn't seeing any spikes at all in infection due to travel and tourism, so perhaps you can tell Members when exactly did the Welsh Government start seeing spikes in transmission as a direct result of travel and tourism?

Llywydd, let me assure the Member that the people of Wales do not need the sort of explanation that he is offering. The people in Wales are clamouring for us to take the action that would protect them from people travelling into Wales from high infection areas elsewhere, and nowhere is that more true than in the Member's own constituency, where people are anxious and fearful of the effects on their area of people from very high transmission areas elsewhere—not being able to travel there from Wales, but, absurdly, still being able to travel from England to those areas. So, he is entirely out of step with the views and the preferences of people in Wales.

I was glad to publish that paper yesterday. It certainly does not implore me to do anything, and I'm more likely to rely on the advice of those who are experts in genomics, rather than amateur readers of their advice. If he wants two other bits of evidence—as I say, not that people in Wales need his evidence, because they are well convinced already—the evidence is, Llywydd, that up to 80 per cent of new infections are spread by superspreaders. So, it doesn't take many people to come in from an outside area who are a superspreader to have a very large effect. Secondly, using the novel techniques developed by specialists in Bangor University, we're now monitoring the waste water from points along the coast of north Wales and north-west England, and we're seeing significant loads of genomic copies of COVID-19 that show an increase in the likely prevalence of that virus in catchment areas. It demonstrates that visitors from beyond Wales bring the virus with them. That's what people are anxious to avoid, that's why we took action here in Wales. Wouldn't it be good if his party was willing to do the same?

I thank the First Minister.

The next item is the 90-second statements, and the first statement is from Lynne Neagle.

Thank you, Llywydd. This week sees the celebration of Erasmus Days, designed to mark the life-changing opportunities the international scheme provides for vocational learners to gain work experience and training in European countries. As someone who was benefited from the Erasmus scheme, I'm pleased to report the Erasmus+ spirit is alive and well in Gwent. Over the past year, more than 200 learners from Coleg Gwent have taken part in ColegauCymru's 2020 project that has seen European work placements enjoyed by students in public services, sport, photography, animal management and travel and tourism. Coleg Gwent's health and social care department has been particularly active in Erasmus+, building strong relationships with organisations in Finland, Poland and Sweden. One Coleg Gwent childcare student has worked in a special school in Poland for two weeks and has benefited from seeing the difference and similarities compared to special schools in Wales and said the experience would improve their future practice.

I know from personal experience how life-changing an international learning experience, particularly for young people from our most deprived communities, can be. As a young person from a Valleys community who'd never even had a foreign holiday abroad, I was able, through the Erasmus+ scheme, to study at the University of Paris. It is vital our young people, particularly from low-income families, get such opportunities. I would like to thank Coleg Gwent and ColegauCymru for working hard to provide these transformational opportunities, and thank you, too, to Erasmus+.

Llywydd, 5 to 18 October marks Wool Week 2020. The aim is to promote the virtues of and foster greater use of this exceptional natural material. In fact, if there was a material category in the Royal Welsh Show, I tell you, wool would always win the red rosette. It is natural, renewable, biodegradable, an insulator, hygroscopic, breathable, resilient, elastic, trans-seasonal, easy-care, odour-resistant, flame-retardant, and has a high level of ultraviolet protection. Compare that to any man-made items of clothing, carpet, building insulation, mattresses, bedding and the negative impact they have on the environment. 

Despite Welsh wool being a gold-standard product, our farmers are receiving as little as 28p a fleece, much less than the cost of what is essential shearing. I have written to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, and I am in talks with British Wool, the Campaign for Wool, carpet and bed retailers and the Welsh Government, asking them to stand with our farmers. So, I ask you, as Members of this Senedd, to sign the Welsh wool pledge circulating, and by doing this put on record your commitment to do everything possible to promote and indeed buy Welsh wool. Diolch yn fawr. 

I've got my Prince of Wales check wool suit on. [Laughter.]

Thank you very much, Janet Finch-Saunders. We will now suspend proceedings for a short break.

Order. Order. The Senedd is back in session. 

We move to item 5, which is a Member's debate under Standing Order 11.21, endometriosis—I hope I've pronounced that correctly—and I call on Jenny Rathbone to move the motion. 

Thank you, acting Presiding Officer. If men suffered from prostate in the way women suffer from endometriosis, we would not have waited this long to get this profoundly debilitating and invasive condition recognised and addressed. Now women have stopped suffering in silence, considerably more attention has been paid to endometriosis.

There are now three 'endowalls' in Cardiff. I'm unable to show you the one created by Jaimee Rae McCormack in Cathays, which was the first, but I invite you to go to my website to see that and other pictures of the EndoMarch by women and their families in Cardiff on the last Saturday in March last year, which helped educate the general public about what endo does to women. These public awareness campaigns are needed, because half the country has never even heard of endometriosis, even though it is more common in women than asthma or diabetes.

This debate is timely, because it is while we are scrutinising the new curriculum Bill. Listen to one girl's experience: 'When I was 13, I fainted in school from horrendous stomach pains. I was taken to A&E where they did blood tests and ultrasound. A doctor told me that everything looked fine on the scans so it was nothing to do with gynae. This happened regularly for four years. I would be rushed to A&E with the same pain, would get told it was nothing and I just needed to learn to deal with period pain.'

One morning it was so bad her mother took her to the GP and from there they did get a referral to a gynaecologist, and they finally, five years after that story started, got that diagnosis. There are thousands more people like this young woman, unaware that it is not normal to have constant pain in your lower abdomen, pain when you go to the toilet or have sex. 

So listen up, members of the Children, Young People and Education Committee scrutinising the curriculum Bill: menstrual well-being education must become an integral part of young people's journey to become healthy and active informed citizens. Girls and young women, boys and young men too, need to know what a normal period is, and, if it's not normal, where they can get help. The school nurse, the teacher, the attendance officer all need to know this too, as well as the GP and the gynaecologist.

This is not a new condition, nor is it particular to Wales, but it is unacceptable that it takes eight GP appointments to get referred to a specialist. It is unsatisfactory that some gynaecologists miss endometriosis simply because it does not show up on ultrasound.

Debbie Shaffer, a founder member of Fair Treatment for the Women of Wales, spent 26 years trying to get an accurate diagnosis, at which point specialist care was beyond her reach. Their research revealed that most GPs and local gynaecologists are not even aware that specialist centres for treating endo even exist.

The Welsh Government has grasped the nettle. In 2017, a task and finish group was set up involving all stakeholders, and its thorough report was delivered to Welsh Government in April 2018. In line with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance, Welsh Government is providing funds for all local health boards to have at least one endometriosis specialist nurse, and one of their first tasks must be to provide endo awareness training for GPs. This is all good stuff, but at least one third of women with endo need complex surgery that only specialists can provide. As with most conditions, the longer they wait, the more difficult and expensive it is to treat. 

South Wales has the one and only Welsh endometriosis centre, in Cardiff. North Wales women are referred to Arrowe Park in Birkenhead. The Cardiff team has three brilliant consultant gynaecologists and Wales's only endo specialist nurse for the last several years, and is widely recognised as a centre of excellence. Gynaecologists come from across the UK to acquire the skills to run these specialist centres, which are now springing up across England, but not in Wales. In England, the money follows the patients. Tariffs per patient range from £5,500 to £12,000. In Wales, health boards still operate a historic one in, one out local agreement, which is absurd for operations that last six to nine hours. Last year, four in 10 of the Cardiff patients were from outside Cardiff and Vale University Health Board. In England, that would have generated between £300,000 and £600,000 to pay for complex, minimal access pelvic surgery. Instead, the tab was picked up by Cardiff and Vale health board. This is financially unsustainable. It's impossible to expand the service to meet the huge unmet demand unless it's funded differently.

And we have to guarantee dedicated theatre time to the three existing endo consultants. Being on the Heath hospital site, they are constantly losing their precious theatre slots so medical emergencies can be dealt with. And COVID has aggravated the very long waiting lists already well beyond the 36-week referral-to-treatment target. To tackle this, the task and finish group recommended the immediate establishment of a virtual south Wales endometriosis centre, across Newport, Swansea, Bridgend and Cardiff. That's over two years ago. To support this, the Cardiff endo consultants are keen to do theatre sessions at the Royal Glamorgan Hospital and elsewhere to increase the number of people with their complex surgical skills. At least three more specialist endo-gynaecologists are needed for a tertiary service that does not need to be on the Heath site.

These are complex issues, difficult to resolve in the middle of a pandemic. But to honour all the grass-roots campaigners who have raised the profile of endometriosis in Wales, we must ensure that all women in Wales who need it have access to an endo specialist centre.

I'd like to thank Jenny Rathbone for suggesting that we should hold this debate, because this is an incredibly important issue that does affect so many people. One of the points that Jenny made at the very beginning is that this is not simply a woman's issue, but actually it is very much something that affects the men who are in the lives of the women who have this chronic and debilitating illness.

I just thought I'd very quickly read out the definition for endometriosis, because not everyone's completely clear what it is or what it does to people. It is a condition where tissue that is similar to the lining of the womb starts to grow in other places, such as in your ovaries or your fallopian tubes, and it can affect women of any age. Now, the constituents and friends of mine who I know who have got and had this awful condition report the most excruciating pain throughout their lives. They often have to go and have multiple operations to try to get rid of this excess tissue that's growing everywhere. And it doesn't just grow; it actually knits together and fuses with other parts of your organs—so organs fuse together, particularly your bowel to your stomach, your ovaries. And it can have an extraordinary effect on your life going forward.

I'm just going to read an excerpt from one of my constituents, before I actually talk about a particular piece I want to cover. This young lady had an urgent laparoscopy; she had to lose an ovary, part of her bladder and part of her bowel. She has chronic pain in her pelvis and throughout the whole of her body. She has daily migraines. Getting out of bed is an achievement. She has to take painkillers every four hours. And she says, when her periods come around each month, it is a living hell, that endo is a disabling disease that's ruined her life, and, from what she's read online, it's ruined many other lives, and that her hopes and her aspirations have been ruined by this illness. And she goes on to talk about the effect it's had on her relationships. It's ruining her chances of being able to have a family.

And so one of the points I thought that Jenny made that was so absolutely crystal clear is that we need to look at this in the round, because this does affect more than just the individual who has it. People with endometriosis very often get post-traumatic stress disorder, and can often suffer from sepsis, which, as we all know, is an absolute killer. Not only does it ruin people's chances of being able to have children, but, of course, it makes things like IVF even more difficult to have success with, because those tubes are blocked, they are pretty much ruined. And IVF is a dodgy business anyway—you don't have guaranteed success—and so people with endometriosis really do have the cards stacked against them.

I touched earlier on multiple surgeries, and let's really think about that. You're having to go in maybe once a year, maybe a couple of times a year, to basically have parts of your insides cut away in order for you to be able to stand up straight, to sit down without pain, to be able to wee, to be able to poo, to be able to have a period without being in excruciating agony. Wow—that's a future that must strike most people as a fairly grim one going forward.

And, of course, then we come to sex. Sex and intimacy—what we all crave for in good, healthy relationships. That becomes very, very difficult to have, and it affects the men in the relationship as well, because they don't want to think that they might be hurting the person they love. They don't know how to approach them, when is a good time, because of this awful, awful pain. And from what the women who've talked to me about this have said, just taking a couple of paracetamol doesn't cut it. 

So, I've taken part in this debate because what I'm asking for is for there to be more of a drive to help to find some kind of really sustainable pain relief, and, above all, a way of being to cut the incredibly long waiting list to be able to be diagnosed. Jenny said— and she's absolutely right—too many people are written off as having fatigue: 'Yes, you're having a bit of a heavy bleed this month; don't worry dear, you'll be all right.' These women are not all right, and they actually need to have sympathetic doctors who really understand that this is a major issue that has long-term effects and can in fact lead to people having to lose all or part of their bowel function as well. So, it leads to irritable bowel; it leads to all sorts of other issues that are related to the soft organs in the lower part of our abdomens. 

So, Minister, if I was going to ask for a couple of take aways from this debate, it would be to have a long, hard look at how we can actually have shorter waiting lists throughout Wales, and that there might be more guidance given to specialists and to GPs that this is a real issue, that it affects not just the person who has it, but the families around them, and that it should be treated with the respect that we accord many other conditions. We just feel that endometriosis is 'just one of those women's things', and has been left slightly to one side. Thank you for your time. 

I'm pleased to support this motion. I just want to say a few words paying tribute to the persistence of my colleague Jenny Rathbone in striving to ensure that we can debate this topic today. It's such an important issue. As has been said, endometriosis affects one in 10 women in Wales, and that means 160,000 women in Wales can expect to be affected by this cruel condition. Tissue will grow and attach itself to the organs in their pelvis, causing irritation that can lead to considerable pain, pain in the pelvis, back, leg, groin—intense pain during periods, during sex, using the toilet, just going about daily life. This can impact on the ability to work or the home life, as debilitating pain can make even common activities difficult. This pain can lead to fatigue, depression, infertility, or even, as a BBC report noted last year, suicidal thoughts.

However, knowing the true scale of the condition can be difficult. Some women just stick with the pain, desperately trying to manage, self-treating, or perhaps, as Jenny Rathbone has previously mentioned, not realising just what they are facing. Even if someone has taken the step to speak to their doctor, endometriosis can be underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed, resulting in women not being able to get the right help. It can also be incredibly difficult to access specialist help, a point captured in the second point of today's motion. Point 5 offers one solution to this, calling on the Welsh Government to make sure enough endometriosis specialists are trained to meet the needs of the nation. And I am pleased to see that the Royal Glamorgan Hospital in Llantrisant, which serves so many of my constituents, is being considered by specialist consultants as a centre for further surgery. This is allied to the research that needs to take place to deepen our understanding of the causes of the condition and also the most effective interventions, as point 3 in the motion sets out.

We know that there can be particular challenges amongst teenage girls in accessing treatment. This raises the potential of an untreated condition causing a lifetime's impact. Our fourth point sets out the possible solutions to tackle this by raising awareness through ensuring schools make all pupils aware of what is a normal menstrual period and when to seek medical advice.

As I close, I just want to reflect on the impact of the current coronavirus pandemic on women affected by endometriosis. Anyone receiving treatment or waiting for an appointment is likely to experience delays or cancellations. If you're waiting for a consultation, this is likely to be done remotely. Endometriosis UK have issued a stark warning that because most surgery will be regarded as non-urgent, it will be cancelled or reissued or subject to a greatly increased waiting list. I'm pleased that the charity is working closely with the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to monitor this situation. But today's debate offers a timely reminder that we cannot forget about the women whose lives will be changed by this condition.

I hope the Senedd will support the sensible steps that we outline so that we can do all we can to ensure that those women are in turn supported to the best of our ability. Thank you.

I'm very pleased to be able to take part in this debate and indeed support all parts of the motion. Can I start by commending Jenny Rathbone in setting the scene and explaining the issue in the full detail that this complex matter merits?

As has been mentioned, endometriosis is a condition where the lining of the endometrium—the lining of the womb—parts of it start to grow outside of the womb. We don't quite know why actually, but it starts to grow in other places, like the ovaries, fallopian tubes, bowel, bladder and other parts of the pelvis. And its effects can be devastating—surprisingly common, as we've heard, but the effects in some women can be devastating in terms of chronic, debilitating, severe pain.

Now, we all get pain from time to time, and when you're in the middle of a painful episode of whatever, we are usually reassured by the knowledge that it's not going to last that long, be it joint pain, toothache or whatever. It is a totally new level of debilitation to suffer from pain that is so severe that you cannot see a way out of it because it tends to go on for months, weeks, years. 

There's a relationship to the time of the month, in that it tends to be worse at the time of the period, but not always so. That's why there is a challenge to making the diagnosis in the first place, and it's not always period-related symptoms either. Yes, there's a chronic severe pain, but you can also have symptoms like constipation and diarrhoea when the endometriosis particularly involves the bowel. All of this can produce a huge impact on the woman's life and on the lives of people all around her, as we've heard: on relationships, on the ability to have a baby, on employment prospects. So, there are huge societal costs to not managing endometriosis effectively.

We certainly do, as we've heard, need more than one large, multidisciplinary tertiary specialised provision dedicated to endometriosis in Wales. The Cardiff unit is excellent, but it's the only one. And there's the devil's own challenge, from a GP point of view, trying to get women with endometriosis seen in secondary care in the first place—there has to be a level of severity. So, it's very difficult to get people seen early on in the process before they develop any severe symptoms. And sometimes, when women have severe symptoms, it is then also the devil's own challenge to get them seen in secondary care as well. With those women who have a complex type of endometriosis that involves multiple organs, really getting seen in Cardiff is the only way forward because it's not just a problem for gynaecology—it's a problem for those other parts of the anatomy as well. It's a problem for colorectal surgeons, it's a problem for urologists, bladder surgeons as well—it's not just a gynaecological issue, which is why we need those advanced tertiary multidisciplinary centres.

All in all, I think there should be a dedicated all-Wales endometriosis pathway, from presentation—from when the woman has the problem—to primary care, through secondary care, through to tertiary care. There should be a dedicated, badged pathway, and our specialised nurses have a prominent role to play in that.

But also, from the very start I think it does need to be part of education in the curriculum Bill, as Jenny Rathbone mentioned at the start. It needs to be part of menstrual education, what is normal for girls and women to have, and boys and young men need to know that as well so that there is empathy when these situations come along, because endometriosis needs to be considered whenever a woman has severe period pain, particularly when it's coupled with infertility issues. It should be right up there in diagnosis and it's not at the moment, sometimes not from the woman's point of view and certainly not from primary care's point of view, and occasionally even secondary care. Severe period pains, combined with inability to get pregnant, should be a warning sign.

But, all in all, in drawing my remarks to a conclusion, can I commend Jenny Rathbone and others who are supporting this motion? This motion deserves to succeed and we deserve to have an improved specialised service for our women with endometriosis, but also coupled with improved education at the start of menstrual life. Diolch yn fawr. 

I want to start by thanking Jenny Rathbone for bringing this debate forward today, because all too often women's health issues don't see the light of day. They don't get discussed and therefore they don't necessarily get due attention. So, endometriosis, as everybody has said, is an extremely debilitating disease, and it does then consequently have a devastating impact on women's health in terms of their quality of life and their ability to conceive. Both of those conditions impact on a woman's physical but also their mental health well-being.

There are, all too often, and we've heard it repeated here today, significant delays from when a girl or a woman first present with symptoms to getting a definitive diagnosis, and the average time is seven years. The symptoms are frequently put down to normal menstruation. It is not normal every single month of every single year to be in excruciating pain—pain so severe that you very often can't get out of bed, that you can't function, that you can't eat, that you can't sleep. That is not normal. There is nothing normal about it. In other words, it's something to be endured, and that cannot be right. It isn't right.

The other factor, of course, is that the timescale also means that by the time women realise what is going wrong, by the time that they've been listened to by the medical profession, it's too late for them to have children in many cases, because by that time—and it's been mentioned already—what might have happened to have helped and to have enabled an individual woman to have conceived has gone too far. There is no help once you've reached that point.

Women—and it has been touched on—will also suffer financial hardship and it can make it impossible for them to work for several days of each month. There has been a report by the endometriosis task and finish group, and it stated that there is a cost both to businesses, between $200 and $250 in absenteeism each year, but there's also a cost to the woman herself because when employers look at promoting women, when they look at things like reliability, and if they have a look at a sickness record that shows three or four days of every single month that there is an absence, they're not very likely in very many cases—because they don't understand what's going on—to be particularly sympathetic in thinking about affording them a chance for promotion. So, the effects, again, come back to the individual, the family and the business.

Management and treatment of the disease often require—and Dai said it quite well—a multidisciplinary approach because you can't simply just operate as a gynaecologist on endometriosis if you also have to look at the organs that it's attached to. That is why the operations are so long, so painful and so complex, because you'll have more than one person in that theatre performing that multidisciplinary operation.

But I did write very recently, in fact, this week, to Hywel Dda health board and I wanted to know about the pathway for patients with suspected or confirmed endometriosis. They informed me that they'd applied for funding from the women health implementation group to employ a specialist endometriosis pelvic pain senior nurse and they've also applied for funding for physiotherapy, psychology and pain services, in order to be able to offer a holistic endometriosis treatment plan. They've not yet had any confirmation regarding that funding, and I'd ask you, Minister, whether you're able to advise as to when they might receive an answer.

I've also been informed—and I quote, and it's been said already—that patients with severe diseases are referred to Cardiff and Vale UHB specialist endometriosis centre, and we've all heard already how difficult it is to get people onto that pathway. So, I absolutely support what Dai Lloyd has already said, that there has to be a clear pathway for people, and also for the medical profession so that they understand how they're supposed to direct people through the system and that the system isn't a further block to those individuals who are already suffering.

I find it really, really worrying that women—here we are, in 2020—are still somehow ignored, that because it's seen as an issue that only affects their periods, not their life or the life around them, all too often, that we are in this position here today. I know an awful lot about endometriosis because I've got two members of my own family, very close to me, who have suffered it, and I have seen what that suffering looks like, and I can tell you one thing now: it's not very pleasant.

Thank you very much, Jenny, for bringing this forward. I think it's one of those debates where people will be called 'brave' for speaking out. I think 'spilling your guts' is actually going to have a little bit more of a literal meaning in the rest of this debate than others may be comfortable with.

Joyce talked about the economic effect on women, but I think it's worth bearing in mind as well that our health and social care systems are primary employers of women in Wales, and by far the majority of unpaid carers are women, and if one in 10 of those disappeared on a rolling monthly basis to care for themselves whilst in the throes of an endometriosis episode, there'd be a pretty big gap in the number of people available to look after our cancer patients and other dementia patients and our mental health patients, let alone our own families.

When I was a young woman, I'd never heard of endometriosis. My closest friend knew what it was, because she'd had it pretty much from puberty—diagnosed much later, of course, as you might imagine—and I now think what a terrible friend I was, because I never really asked her what was happening to her. I never asked her about how much she lived in dread of her period, how she coped with the indignity of flooding, how she stayed awake when she would have been anaemic and exhausted from that excruciating pain we've already heard about, how she even managed to put one foot in front of the other, and what it was like, some months, to bleed for longer than you didn't.

Roll forward some decades, and let's think of my former member of staff; I have her permission to mention her. She has a degree, she has a Master's, and was only ever able to work part time because of the effects of endometriosis and its treatment. She had all the above symptoms. She was told she would have difficulties conceiving. Early menopause was introduced as an attempt to treat this, a sort of chemical castration for women, with all those delightful symptoms exaggerated for being artificial. Mercifully, that was stopped, but now she has frequent migraines and anxiety to add to everything else. Like all chronic conditions, there is a spectrum of intensity in how it is experienced. However, the level of ignorance about endometriosis is staggering, considering its prevalence, which is why I draw your attention to parts 4 and 6 of this motion.

During the last Assembly, we had a debate on whether page 3 girls should be banned, and I was speaking in it. In the morning, I had to visit a newsagent to do a media piece, taking two young work-experience people with me. And not for the first time, I was having a bad period. 'My age', I thought. 'Perimenopause', I thought. 'I'm into my late 40s; this is how it's going to be for a while.' So, I didn't really think about why I needed sanitary protection the size of sofa cushions changed several times an hour. I didn't ask why the toilet bowl looked like a butcher's bucket. When my heart was going like the clappers and I nearly fainted in the lift, I put it down to not having time to eat and running around with these teenagers; not acute anaemia. And it wasn't the first time: 'Maybe I should go to the doctor, but when and why? Surely this is something that all women go through it a certain age.' But the time did come on that day to do something, because when I was standing here in this Chamber, talking about women being treated as sex objects, the contents of my womb and God knows what else were flooding down my legs and pooling around my shoes.

The doctor asked me if I had a history of ovarian cancer in the family. That didn't really make me feel much better. And several months later, after a completely unrelated minor operation, the surgeon casually mentioned to me that I had stage 4 endometriosis, and I quote: 'This is a mess, and because of your age, it's probably not worth operating.' Nicely put, but confirmation, at least, of the source my pain. Members, this condition is nasty, and apart from coping with these symptoms, my own experience is still common. Women will tell you that this disease makes them feel dirty, secretive, anxious about where the nearest loo is—toilet closures really are a feminist issue—it crushes their libido and wrecks intimacy, as Angela pointed out. And women will also tell you that despite describing all the symptoms I've just horrified you with, GPs don't think endometriosis when they hear them, and that's the point in our motion; point 2.

I would also say without criticism that specialists don't always have many tools to combat this disease. There's still too much they don't know, and as we've heard, there's no pathway for treatment. Now, women want to be well. One in 10 of us push through this stuff, as Vikki said, month after month, feeling like hell, meeting social expectations because talking about this wrecking ball is just too embarrassing. Minister, I want you to understand that this is not a cinderella disease; it is a real ugly sister of a disease—a real ugly sister—and I hope this debate captures your attention.

Thank you, Suzy. The Senedd at its best, if I'm allowed to comment from the Chair. I now call on the Minister for Health and Social Services, Vaughan Gething.

Thank you, acting Deputy Presiding Officer. I am grateful to Members for tabling this important debate today. As we've heard, endometriosis is a condition that affects a significant number of women. We've also heard about the profound impact it can have on the lives of people affected and their families, with the descriptions of acute and chronic pain, the use of strong analgesics and the impact that has on a women's day-to-day tasks and function, and the lead to the feelings of isolation and a loss of control.

It is true, as I acknowledged, that it can take a significant number of referrals, in primary and secondary care, before referral to an appropriate form of treatment for the condition is made. And a diagnosis can be difficult because sometimes the symptoms vary, and can be similar to a range of other conditions. The symptoms can be similar to pain caused by irritable bowel syndrome and pelvic inflammatory disease, for example. In additional, painful periods can be mistaken or normalised by family members and medical professionals alike, as we have heard in today's debate, and endometriosis is often more common within the same family.

We know that, in spite of efforts to change things, there can still be a lack of understanding of endometriosis amongst some health professionals, and again, we've heard that in today's debate. And current provision certainly does, on a number of occasions, fall short of what we should all expect. That has resulted in delays in diagnosis and suboptimal care on some occasions, with the obvious impact on the quality of life of the women affected. Health boards have the responsibility to deliver high-quality gynaecology services. It's vital they provide robust and effective care, including earlier diagnosis, for the management of endometriosis in accordance with NICE guidance.

Now, following the previous report from Fair Treatment for the Women of Wales, we established a task and finish group to review endometriosis services in Wales, chaired by Richard Penketh—and the work of that group has again been referred to in the debate. It was made up of a multidisciplinary team of clinicians, academics and, crucially, patients. The task and finish group considered a number of sources, including NICE guidance, research and evidence produced in Wales, before publishing their report in 2018. NICE guidance provides a clear pathway in listing the symptoms of endometriosis, and directs healthcare professionals as to when a women should be referred to a gynaecology service for an ultrasound or a gynaecology opinion. After the task and finish group's report, my officials wrote to health boards seeking assurance that services are being delivered in line with NICE guidance.

It's important that serious health issues affecting women are dealt with effectively and appropriately. That lies behind the reason that I directed the women's health implementation group, chaired by Tracy Myhill, the chief exec of Swansea Bay health board, to consider the recommendations of that task and finish group's report, together with its work on vaginal mesh and tape. Now, the women's health group was established to provide strategic leadership to ensure an all-Wales approach to break down barriers and join up pathways across our service. And, of course, women's health should be managed in the community wherever possible, with the minimal need for intervention.

Now, with the motion, the Welsh Government will be abstaining, but is broadly supportive of the motion and its objective. And certainly we'll be carrying on improvement work, but we don't support the specific proposal and the wording around more research into the causes and cures for endometriosis, as, unfortunately, there isn't a cure per se, in the normal sense of the word, and it's not a preventable condition. What is important is that health boards provide a service model that enables much earlier diagnosis and appropriate referrals to a suitably qualified health and care professional with the full range of skills necessary, amongst other things, to be able to remove endometriosis lesions. That should be combined with high-quality pain management and physiotherapy support to enable better outcomes. 

On Joyce Watson's particular point—and others raised some points about the waiting times, not just in Hywel Dda but more broadly across the country—the work of the women's health implementation group was paused by the COVID pandemic; the implementation group will be meeting, though, in November, to consider health board proposals for improvement. So, the answers that Hywel Dda and other health boards are awaiting should not be long in coming. 

Last year, we published guidance on living with persistent pain in Wales. The guidance aims to provide advice to those experience persistent pain, their families and their supportive health and care professionals. The guidance also includes actions on what you should expect from your healthcare provider as a person living with pain. This guidance should help women affected by endometriosis to manage their levels of pain, to be better able to live their lives.

The task and finish group's report did, however, recommend research in a number of other areas, including the development of an effective symptom awareness tool, evaluation of the follow-up processes after surgery, a multidisciplinary approach to symptom management, development of educational resources, and ongoing monitoring of patient outcomes to understand if we are being more successful. I agree that that is something that should be taken forward by the women's health group, and also Health and Care Research Wales, to help identify the availability of research funding for these endometriosis-related questions. Again, the women's health group should consider this action through their endometriosis-specific work.

In relation to the recommendation regarding schools and ensuring that pupils are made aware of normal menstrual health, I agree with many of the comments that were made. Thinking back to my own experience as a teenage boy, growing up and going to school, this was never mentioned in anything other than very mechanical terms, as far as boys were concerned. The new curriculum for Wales guidance is clear that growing up has a critical impact on learners' health and well-being. So, schools and other settings need to consider how to support learners to understand and manage these developmental changes, as well as how those changes affect learners in a range of different ways.

The health and well-being area of learning and experience recognises that there are a range of conditions that affect learners that they need to be able to recognise, understand, and seek help for. Within the new curriculum, schools are given the flexibility to cover puberty and menstruation at a developmentally appropriate stage, and to provide learners with the knowledge and confidence to seek support and help deal with the physical and emotional changes that occur through life. The education Minister commissioned a relationships and sexuality education working group to include a range of stakeholders and practitioners. That group is focusing on developing an RSE code and supporting guidance that will form part of the new curriculum framework. I expect that group to consider issues such as menstrual well-being as part of their work. The women's health implementation group is working to produce learning resources around menstruation to better equip young people to understand what constitutes a normal period, and when to seek medical advice. This is an important piece of work and consistent with one of the major recommendations from the endometriosis task and finish group. That stressed the importance of early education about endometriosis and menstruation. 

The task and finish group's report stated that a key factor that causes delay and poor outcomes for women with endometriosis is that there are a significant number of gynaecologists who do not consider that they have the necessary skills to excise endometriosis lesions completely. Most gynaecologists will instead undertake diagnostic laparoscopy and then offer medical management; or, alternatively, ablate the endometriosis lesions. These approaches result in repeated treatments and surgery. I want to reiterate that health boards need to emphasise the appropriate pathway to enable early diagnosis before specialist intervention is required.

I am concerned that a condition that affects around one in 10 women is currently considered something that can only be treated by specialists. I expect the women's health group to consider this issue, together with the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and Health Education and Improvement Wales, to discuss the appropriate level of training provided to gynaecologists to enable them to deliver the necessary intervention when a woman presents to them with early endometriosis. Specialists should only be required when the disease has progressed too far and becomes more complicated. I will be writing to health boards to remind them of their obligations, and to seek further assurance that gynaecology services will offer the full range of treatments required by their population.

To conclude, I want to reaffirm my commitment, and the Government's commitment, to all aspects of women's health, and in particular to care for those women whose lives are affected by endometriosis, and their families and friends. As I've outlined, we are working to increase levels of awareness of menstruation in young people, and to enable girls to seek medical advice when necessary and at the earliest possible stage. I expect health boards to plan for and deliver the full range of gynaecology services required to comply with NICE guidance. In finishing, I would say this: if the same number of men lived with the same discomfort that endometriosis causes, then I do not believe that the health service response would need the further improvement today that is still plainly required. We have made some progress in the last three years, but we have a great deal more to do.

Helen Mary Jones to reply to the debate.

Diolch yn fawr, acting Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I just say how grateful I am to Jenny Randerson, as many others have already said, for tabling this important motion—[Interruption.] Rathbone—I've gone into some kind of time warp. I'm very sorry, I've got my Jennys muddled up. I do apologise. But I'm really grateful to Jenny for tabling this and to everybody who has supported it. This is such an important issue and we've had so many really important contributions today.

I can't possibly respond to all the points that have been raised, but I hope that people will forgive me if I begin with Suzy Davies, because I think that that level of openness and honesty about how these issues affect our lives is so important. And I think that when women such as ourselves, who have got roles in public life, who are seen, perhaps, as being successful and confident—if we talk openly about the impact of these kinds of issues on us, it will raise awareness and it will help empower other women to raise the issues in their own lives. So, I'm personally very grateful to Suzy for being so open and honest with us today. I think you were right to say, acting Dirprwy Lywydd, that this is an example of the Senedd at its best.

So many issues have been raised: the impact—and Angela talked about this—of the physical agony, and many other people talked about that; the impact on our lives. I think Joyce Watson's point about the impact on women's working lives and the long-term economic effect that that can have over a whole lifetime, and others have raised that.

Jenny began, of course, talking about the importance of awareness, and our motion is very clear about that. And before I mention others, I want to come back, if I may, to some of the Minister's comments. Now, it's very welcome that he acknowledges the issues with the number of referrals and the length of time it takes, and he emphasises the local health boards' responsibilities, and, of course, that is the case. But I'm glad to hear him commit today to writing to the health boards once again, because whatever has already been said, it's clearly not getting through. He tells us that the NICE guidance does give a clear pathway. Well, we've heard from Dr Dai Lloyd that that's not a pathway of which he, as a practising GP, was aware and was able to work with and deliver. So, there's obviously a lot of work to be done there in terms of awareness of that pathway. And I would suggest to the Minister that he may want to ask the women's health group to examine that pathway and see if it's fit for purpose here in Wales, or if there are other things that need to be done.

I'm very glad that the Government is broadly supportive and understand that it's the usual practice for them to abstain, but I was a bit disappointed by what the Minister said about research, because there is a clear need for more research and he referred to that later in this contribution. And he says that there is no cure now. Well, of course there is no cure now. You know, decades ago, there were no cures for all sorts of illnesses that we cure now. And this comes back to the point that many speakers have made, and the Minister referred to it, indeed, himself: if this was an illness that affected and debilitated men in the way that it affects and debilitates women, we would've had that research and we would have a cure.

And the Minister refers to the living with pain guidance. Well, I have to tell the Minister today that women suffering with this condition do not want their pain managed, they want it gone. And we desperately, desperately need more research to enable us—. Because there will be a physiological cause for this and where there is a physiological cause, there will be the capacity to intervene. And the Minister said himself that if this was a condition that men were suffering from, we would've had something done. Well, we need the research to have that done, and we don't just need research into pain management, though that's important in itself.

So many really powerful contributions—Vikki Howells talking about the scale of the problem; Angela Burns, as I've said, talking about the way that it affects women's lives; Joyce again highlighting some sort of family experiences, the financial hardship. So many important messages coming out of the debate today. I'm glad to take from the Minister's contribution that he acknowledges that there is more work to be done. What I would say to him very, very clearly is that the cross-party group on women's health will be on the case with this. We will be following up the commitments that he's made, and where we feel that he needs to go a little bit further, we will push him. Because as we've heard from Suzy's contribution and as I know from the experiences of a very, very close friend of mine, this is not a condition with which women should be asked to live. We need a cure.

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

Item 6 is a debate on the Finance Committee's report: inquiry into a legislative budget process. And I call the Chair of the committee to move the motion—Llyr Gruffydd.

Thank you very much, acting Deputy Presiding Officer. As Chair of the Finance Committee, I'm very pleased to be opening this debate today in relation, of course, to our inquiry into a legislative budget process. I would like to thank all of those who contributed to our inquiry and, of course, to the Minister, too, for her response to our report.

Now, the Wales Act 2014 gave the Senedd powers over stamp duty land tax and landfill tax, the power to vary the rates of income tax in Wales by up to 10 per cent, as well as providing the Welsh Government with wider borrowing powers and new powers to borrow for capital expenditure. At that time, the Senedd and the Welsh Government worked together to create a new budget process that considered the best way to alter the existing budget process to accommodate the new powers. Now, as six years have passed and as our Parliament has evolved in the meantime, we felt it was the right time to undertake an inquiry to establish whether the Senedd now needs to move to a legislative budget process.

Now, due to the global pandemic caused by COVID-19, work on this inquiry was halted and our evidence session with the Minister for Finance was cancelled. The Minister has subsequently provided us with written evidence, and we're very grateful to her for that information. As it will be for the next Senedd and the next Welsh Government to take work forward on a legislative budget process, we took the decision, as a committee, to push ahead and to publish our report rather than take oral evidence from the Minister. We have made 20 high-level conclusions, and we hope that these would form the basis for any future work on a legislative budget process. And given the time available to me today, I will focus my comments on the main issues.

Our first conclusion is that we believe, as a point of principle, that there should be annual legislation to pass the Welsh Government budget, and this would ensure that the Senedd is able to effectively influence the Executive.

Our evidence gathering for this inquiry commenced with a visit to Scotland, where we held formal sessions with representatives from the Scottish budget process review group, a group established to fundamentally review the Scottish budget process. It included representatives from the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government and eight external experts. The committee notes that any new budget process should have three main components: first of all, the approval of taxes; secondly, the approval of the supply of finance to the Welsh Government; and, thirdly, the approval of public spending, as set out in the Welsh Government's budget proposals.

Our conclusions 3 to 5 in our report recognise that legislation will need to be brought forward, setting out the rules for spending money, accountability requirements, accountability of officials and auditing arrangements. Now, as a committee, we firmly believe that a legislative budget process will better reflect the maturity of the Senedd and the principle of equitable balance of control between the legislature and the Executive. Any new process must ensure that the principles of simplicity, transparency and accountability are at the heart of its development.

One of our main considerations was whether there should be a budget Bill or a finance Bill. An annual budget Bill would authorise expenditure, while tax proposals would be agreed by tax resolutions. A more comprehensive finance Bill could encompass all tax-setting decisions, as, of course, is the case in Westminster.

Our conclusions 6 and 7 detail that we believe further consideration is needed to establish whether a budget Bill or a finance Bill is better suited for the authorisation of Welsh spending plans and taxation, and how tax resolutions fit into such a process.

Now, whilst we firmly believe our budget should be enshrined in legislation, we also recognise that a certain amount of flexibility in any process is required, due to the instability of public finances at a devolved level. For this current financial year, and the next, we are experiencing, of course, this instability. The UK system remains highly centralised, with late UK announcements and fiscal forecasts affecting the block grant, with the UK Treasury retaining considerable control over the way the Welsh Government is able to budget. We recognise that any new system will need a degree of flexibility to accommodate delays at a UK level, without causing undue pressure on the Senedd's Plenary or committee system. I'm pleased that the Minister agrees that any process needs to have the flexibility to cope with any uncertainty to the UK's timetable for fiscal events.

One of the main principles of the current budget process has been to ensure early funding notification for those relying on Welsh Government funding. We've continued to consider the importance of early funding certainty for the NHS, local government and other delivery partners, such as the third sector. As such, the committee recognises that a legislative budget process would need to consider when that certainty of funding can be given.

The conclusions I've summarised here today and the others contained in our report all lead to the main conclusion that the Welsh Government budget should be a Bill, and a Bill that is passed by us, the Members of this Senedd. However, we recognise that there is further work needed to move to a legislative budget process, and that work should be undertaken by an independent group here in Wales. There are a number of questions that we believe this group should consider, including particularly, of course, whether an annual budget or finance Bill is better suited for the authorisation of Welsh spending plans and taxation, and, as well, how the Welsh Government's modelling and independent forecasting will be built into that process.

We believe that the shared, joint approach in Scotland has worked well and believe a similar approach is required in Wales to make recommendations on how to modify the budget process to reflect the current devolution settlement and how this could sit within the legislative budget process. I am pleased that the Minister has confirmed that the Welsh Government would be open to considering establishing a joint body of the Government and the Senedd, with invited independent experts, to review the budget process. With those words, I look forward to hearing other Members' and, of course, the Minister's contribution to this debate. Diolch.

The Finance Committee's inquiry into whether we should have a legislative budget process may not have been the talk of pubs and clubs across Wales, but it's an issue that we as a committee considered to be of considerable interest to the future smooth running of this place. I think particular credit should be given to Alun Davies, who's been banging the drum for this since long before the rest of us, myself included, had even heard of it, and has stuck by the need for a finance Bill, even when, at times, it seemed too difficult to achieve and has been far from a priority.

The last two years have seen the Welsh Government's powers increase dramatically, with the devolution of a range of taxes—stamp duty, landfill tax and, of course, the Welsh rate of income tax, as well as borrowing powers. The question that we as a committee wanted to answer was, 'Has the time come for this now to be couched within a legislative budget process?' But what do we mean by that? Well, put simply, it means giving the legislature a greater say in the budget-setting process. It can come in different forms and does across the world, but would almost certainly involve a budget Bill or a more comprehensive annual finance Bill that would require the consent of the Senedd to Welsh Government tax and spend proposals.

Now, of course, no Government likes being constrained too much and having limited financial room for manoeuvre when the unexpected happens. That's understandable. The new process would have to respect the Welsh Government's need to be able to act swiftly and decisively at the times when it needs to. Stable Government requires that. There does, however, then need to be a mechanism for these decisions to be scrutinised afterwards within a set time frame and in a predetermined, structured way that reassures the electorate and, indeed, us in this Chamber.

As chapter 4 explains, the term 'budget system law' describes a range of legal instruments around the world to codify rules for formulating, executing and reporting on an annual budget. The committee concluded that any Welsh version of this should have three different components: the approval of taxes, the approval of the finance supply to Welsh Government and the approval of public spending proposals.

The then finance Minister, Mark Drakeford, said that the day is coming for a finance Bill, but we should be pragmatic about it. Some say the Welsh Government does not yet have enough fiscal powers to justify a finance Bill, with all the work that it would require, and that the time is not right. I disagree with this. When people say the time is not right, too often they mean that the time will never be right. Well, I'll put my view out there, and I say I think the time is right for a legislative budget process, preferably a finance Bill, and I think the limited range of fiscal powers at the moment is an advantage, not a hindrance. Let's test the legislative process machinery, to coin a phrase, now, before greater tax powers are devolved. I think the case for a legislative approach and a finance Bill is growing inexorably, and this is increasingly becoming a question of democracy as much as a question of budgeting. We need legislation that sets out the rules for spending money, accountability requirements, accountability of officials and auditing arrangements.

Turning to the conclusions of our report—and there are a lot of them, so I'll be selective—our first conclusion was that the Senedd needs to exert greater influence over the Executive than it does at present to satisfy the need for greater accountability required by the new taxation powers. Our second conclusion is that we should follow the Scottish example and establish an independent group to take this process forward and look in detail at some key questions, such as: is a finance Bill needed? How does the Welsh Government's forecasting capacity fit into this? And how do we better engage with the public in the budget-setting process?

Can I also say that, as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, I was pleased by the inclusion of conclusion 9, that sees Audit Wales as a stakeholder of particular significance? Audit Wales has a breadth of experience that it can bring to the budget-setting process, but it is important that its roles of approving public expenditure and monitoring accounts are kept separate. Audit Scotland told us that Scotland has a modified legislative process for the budget, which reflects the time-critical nature of forming a budget. So, arguments about speed should not be deployed against this idea.

Conclusion 4 talks about maturity, and this is an important aspect of this debate. There needs to be an equitable balance between the legislature and the Executive, and this will strengthen the roles of both Welsh Government and the Senedd, rather than weaken them.

So, in conclusion, Cadeirydd, we think that the approach taken in Scotland is worth following, where experts and stakeholders come together to agree a way forward that meets the needs of all whilst maintaining simplicity, transparency and accountability. At the end of the day, this is about devolution growing up. We now sit in a Parliament in name as well as role, and it's time for the process here to start reflecting that better. For me, it is no longer a question of whether we have a legislative budget process, but when. Let's get on with it.

I thank Nick Ramsay for his speech and the Chair for his introduction. I'm very pleased that we had this report as a Finance Committee, and I found it very valuable taking the evidence and considering and interrogating the witnesses that we had. Like Nick Ramsay, I'd actually like to thank Alun Davies as well for pushing this idea. It's not that often I agree with Alun on matters, but I think at least in principle and in theory I found his points compelling and persuasive around a legislative budget process.

One challenge I faced is that, although I've sat on budget or audit committees in a police authority and a council, and done some budget work in a private context, many of my assumptions about a budget and what it is, or what a legislative budget process would be, have been influenced by my past membership of the House of Commons and assuming that how they do things there is somehow normal. I think this process, and looking at countries—Scotland, but also international examples—has helped me understand better, from a bottom-up, principle basis, what is a budget Bill, what is a finance Bill, what are the different ways of doing this, and, in particular, how unusual Westminster is in its approach.

So, overall, I find the arguments for passing a law for tax persuasive. I don't know how much that's because I'm used to the finance Bill process in the Commons, and having that basis where actually you have an annual finance Bill for taxes and a proper degree of scrutiny. That legislative annual process strikes me as working well, but then, on the spending side, the Westminster comparison is much less encouraging, and a Parliament that came into being to control spending gave up that power in the 1930s, and there are no votes or scrutiny, really, at all in that Westminster process. There are three estimates days, which used to be about what departmental estimates were and scrutinising and approving them, but, from about the 1930s onwards, they became for select committees—well, they stopped happening and then were select committee report things instead. So, I don't think we've anything, really, to learn from the Westminster process on spending, and I think clearly on that side the process that we have is (a) better, and (b) has improved during my time in the Assembly and now Senedd. I think there is a greater degree of detail that we get from Ministers, and I do appreciate that.

And I think there's a balance to be struck, because I think a Government and Ministers are going to be wanting to show what they're doing well and telling people about extra money they're getting and selling a good news story, and, to the extent that they're advocates for that in the budget process, I find that a little challenging, because also I think we rely on Ministers to set out and explain through their public comments—those to committees, but also the documentation they give—what's actually happening to the budget in an objective sense to allow people to make comparisons and to interrogate it. And I think there's a degree of tension between that sort of advocacy of a particular approach and helping people understand what's going on with what is often a very complex set of policy interactions. 

The Government reply said that the current process

'provides for the Senedd to propose amendments following the laying of the Draft Budget that is equivalent to the legislative process for the Scottish Budget'

and I'd appreciate, if the Chair comes back at the end, his comments on that. Does he agree with that statement? Because I'd understood when we were doing this we were looking for a legislative process, and that's what we saw the Scottish one as, but it seems to me almost that the Government's telling us we've got that already, which I don't think was the understanding of the committee. Similarly, the Chair mentioned a budget Bill or a finance Bill—conceptually, couldn't it be both, whether separate or combined? We don't need just one or the other, do we?

I was then listening to Nick Ramsay and what he was saying and, while I think there are strong theoretical arguments for a legislature, a parliament, to have a legislative process for a budget, I'm myself not convinced that the degree of tax-raising powers that we have are yet sufficient to justify it, and in principle I'm against having those tax-raising powers without the referendum that was the promise, let alone more. So, for that reason, I hold back from joining the charge to push this strongly, albeit it's a report I agreed because I think some of the arguments in principle are well made. 

I also think it's very good that we're going to have this joint body, and with experts as well to help consider this process further. It is very complex, and I think the degree of engagement between Government and the Finance Committee, particularly given other pressures that have been faced, is good and I'd like to thank everyone involved and I hope it's useful to other Members to have this report and this debate. Thank you. 

Thank you. I don't seem to have any other Members trying to attract my eye. Ah, I do. Alun Davies. 

Thank you very much, acting Presiding Officer. I was surprised to hear both Nick Ramsay and Mark Reckless refer to my advocacy of a legislative process. My own notes here read that I came to this from the point of view of having no preconceived ideas and no principled approach to start with but to listen to the evidence. Perhaps I listened a little more, how shall I say it, actively than I'd thought myself. 

In many ways, I enjoyed the investigation, I enjoyed the report, I enjoyed the debate and the conversations that we had as a committee between ourselves and our witnesses. And, in many ways, I felt that this report and this debate goes to the heart of our role as a legislature and as a Parliament. It is right and proper, of course, that the Government has a right to its business and its budget. The Government enjoys the confidence of the Parliament and it has a right to its business, and that includes its budget. But we also have a right as parliamentarians to scrutinise that budget and to scrutinise and challenge the spending and taxation decisions of Ministers. I recognise the force of the point that Mark Reckless made about the range of those powers, but I would say very, very clearly that, if a Government wishes to tax me, whether it's a penny or a pound, I would anticipate and expect my elected representatives to challenge that Minister and to challenge that Government as to what that funding is necessary for and how it is expended. And I would certainly anticipate any Parliament fulfilling that role. 

But, really, this debate goes to the heart of the two imperatives: the right of Government to its business and the right of the legislature to its scrutiny. I did become convinced, during the conversations and during the inquiry, that we have not got that balance in the right place today. In many ways, the way in which we debate and discuss our budget remains a hangover, if you like, from the old days of administrative devolution and the old days of a body corporate. It does not reflect today's reality of a parliamentary democracy, and this is probably the final element, if you like, of that particular jigsaw that we need to put in place. 

I did read the Minister's response and I recognised what was being said—'we have no principled objection but perhaps not yet'—and I get that, I understand that, but if not now, when? I do believe that we can't constantly have these debates without coming to a conclusion and to ensure that we are able to move forward. I share with Mark Reckless the concerns about the Westminster process, and I agree with him that they are not adequate, that we should not seek to replicate those here, but I do believe that we've got something to learn from our Scottish friends, and I do believe that there are other international examples where we can also learn those lessons. I do believe that a legislative process provides both the scrutiny for the Senedd, but also the necessary stretch for Ministers. And I believe that we do need to test Ministers in a way that is more profound than we're doing at the moment, and I believe that the legislative process provides for that sufficient test and that scrutiny that doesn't exist at present. 

But I'll conclude, acting Presiding Officer, with this: there is a need to reform our systems, but I recognise that, within our systems, we are—[Inaudible.]—within a UK system that is itself broken. The way in which decisions are taken by the Treasury, the way in which decisions are taken by the Westminster system, mean that we are constantly running and chasing decisions taken elsewhere, and that needs to stop and that needs reform. I hope that the Minister, in responding to this debate today, is able to look hard at our processes here within our own democracy, but that she also able to have a more profound conversation about the wider financial structures of the United Kingdom, because they equally need reform. And I hope that we will be able to form some sort of agreement between this place and the Government—if not today, then over the coming months—and that those Members who are elected next May will be able to take that forward and complete this much-needed reform. 

Thank you. I don't think I have any other Members trying to attract my eye, so I'm going to call the Minister. I call the Minister for Finance, Rebecca Evans. 

Thank you, acting Presiding Officer. I welcome the Finance Committee's report on their inquiry into a legislative budget process. It's provided a really valuable opportunity to reflect on the changes to the budget process over the course of this administration, and it's also demonstrated how the good working between the Welsh Government and the Finance Committee over many years has improved the budget process in Wales. 

We're all familiar with the increases in the fiscal responsibilities of the Senedd over this Senedd term. The most significant of these was the devolution of tax powers, which led to the jointly agreed budget process protocol in 2017. As part of this debate, it's also right that we consider the suitability of the current arrangements, particularly given the way in which these processes have needed to respond to the circumstances that have impacted our budget preparations in recent years. 

Before I respond to the points on legislation, I want to focus on flexibility, because flexibility is an important requirement for a budget process. It's a positive reflection on our existing approach that, despite the unprecedented circumstances, our jointly agreed 2017 protocol has provided us with sufficient flexibility. This has included ensuring that the increased scrutiny period that the protocol introduced—from five weeks to eight weeks—has not been unduly compromised, despite the circumstances that have affected our preparations. 

In contrast, a legislative process introduces additional time constraints, which could impact on flexibility and scrutiny. Given that Wales and Scotland have both faced the same circumstances, I read with interest the assessment of the Scottish legislative budget process and I would argue that our protocol has provided equivalent abilities to respond without the need for legislation. It is right, however, that as we continue the journey of devolution and seek greater fiscal responsibilities we should also consider the potential role of legislation such as a budget bill or a more comprehensive finance Bill.

We're already committed to using legislation where there's a demonstrable need to do so. We're developing tax legislation at the moment to ensure that we have a mechanism for making changes to the Welsh tax Acts at short notice, as required, whilst allowing for proper scrutiny by the Senedd. Any consideration of a legislative budget process also needs to be balanced against the potential disadvantages, and I welcome the Finance Committee's recognition that these risks need to be fully explored to ensure that we don't adversely impact upon our ability to provide funding certainty to partners and to stakeholders.

Alongside scrutiny, I recognise the importance of enabling the Senedd to have an opportunity to influence budget priorities and allocations earlier on in the process. We've already taken a number of steps that have been achieved without the need for legislation, and this includes the agreement to a Plenary debate before the summer recess to influence our early preparations, and I would welcome further discussions on what other improvements can be made to our current approach.

We have also continued to improve transparency by providing a greater level of detail and supporting information. In this context, I welcome the Finance Committee's acknowledgement of the steps that we have taken to publish our tax and borrowing plans and forecasts. We also now publish the chief economist's report; the Welsh tax policy report; the Welsh taxes outlook; the children and young people's budget leaflet; the budget improvement plan; and consolidated written evidence to Senedd scrutiny committees. This is more than is provided in many other national budgets, including countries where they have legislative budget processes, but, of course, we are committed to exploring what more we can do.

The issue of providing multi-year settlements is also something that we've discussed on many occasions. Unfortunately, our ability to provide longer term funding is largely dependent on the UK Government's budget cycle and the extent to which we can provide realistic and sensible planning assumptions given the current fiscal and economic climate. As such, a legislative budget process wouldn't impact on this issue.

So, in summary, today's debate has shown that there are many benefits identified within this report that we can explore taking forward without the need for legislation. However, on the fundamental point of a legislative budget, we do not feel that the additional benefits of undertaking these reforms have yet been demonstrated, but, that said, in recognising the importance of this longer term agenda, we would be open to discussing the option of a review process, such as the Scottish budget process review group. With both Government, Senedd and invited external experts engaged, a review could be undertaken of the benefits and issues of introducing further reforms to our budget process, including the use of legislation.

So, in closing, today's debate has provided an important opportunity to consider how we continue to ensure that our budget process is both transparent and inclusive. Diolch yn fawr.

I call Llyr Gruffydd to reply.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd dros dro. For a minute, I thought the Minister was rowing back a little bit from what I had understood the position to be, but I think—. I'm presuming that being open to continuing with this discussion is actually saying that you are happy to and that you will engage, and I'm sure your successor in the next Senedd will hopefully be amenable to that. 

Just in response to the contributions—and can I thank everybody who has participated—this may not be the talk of pubs and clubs, Nick, but the implications of budgets certainly are the talk of pubs and clubs, particularly when we're talking about tax varying powers and taxes potentially going up or down, increased funding levels, decreased funding levels. Certainly, those are the things that people are talking about and the level of scrutiny that this place affords that process, I think, needs to be as robust as possible. And you're right: it is about devolution growing up because as responsibilities and fiscal powers here grow and evolve, so should the way that we scrutinise, influence and arrive at those decisions. You and other Members talked about striking the balance, the right balance, and there is a balance to be struck—I think committee recognises this—between the Government's ownership of its budget and its ability to bring its own budget forward, but also this legislature's ability to influence and change it where we feel that's appropriate and necessary.

Now, whether it's a budget Bill or a finance Bill or a hybrid or some other model is something that we can discuss, but certainly that is a discussion that I'm particularly keen—and the committee is particularly keen—will happen in the next Senedd. The current set-up is a hangover of administrative devolution, as Alun Davies said, and whilst that is being tweaked and modestly refined—and the Minister referred, of course, to the additional debate that we can now have pre recess—I would contrast that to the process that's in Scotland, where there's strategic year-round consideration of the budget. Committees publish pre-budget reports in October, before the Government tables a budget, and the Government then needs to respond to those reports as it publishes a budget. And prior to Stage 1 of a budget, conveners or committee chairs hold a Plenary debate, and then, of course, that influence isn't so much brought forward in amendments, because if the Government is in listening mode, then much of that is dealt with before we get to a point where changes and amendments need to be brought forward. So, there is a lot that we can learn from Scotland, and the Minister is right: flexibility is important. We've learnt that in the last few years, haven't we? Certainly, having that agility within the system is important. Yes, the system that we have now is comparatively agile and is probably serving us pretty well in that respect, but, of course, that doesn't mean that it can't be done utilising a legislative approach as well, and that's exactly what I hope is going to be explored as we move, hopefully, to the next stage in this discussion with, hopefully, the creation of a group to consider this further.

We have come a long way, of course, since the start of devolution in 1999, with more powers for the Government and the Senedd, the powers to set tax rates here in Wales, et cetera, and it is important that the way we pass a budget reflects those changes. In any modern democracy, it's key for a Parliament to properly hold a Government to account, especially on its spending plans and tax levels. These are decisions that affect people's lives every day and we want to make sure that the process is fit for the future and to ensure that the process is simple, is transparent, and that the Government is truly accountable to Members of the Senedd and consequently to the people of Wales. Taking work forward on a legislative budget process will be a matter, as I said, for the next Senedd and the next Welsh Government, but I very much hope that this report from the Finance Committee will serve as a foundation for the continuation of this work. Diolch.

The proposal is to note the committee's report. Does any Member object? The motion is therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

There will now be a short break to allow for a changeover in the Chamber.

The next item on our agenda this afternoon is the Welsh Conservatives debate on the impact of local coronavirus restrictions on employers. I call on Russell George to move the motion. Russell George.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I would like to formally move the motion in the name of my colleague Darren Millar, and I can also indicate today that we will be supporting the amendment in the name of Caroline Jones this afternoon as well.

Presiding Officer, the UK Government has provided in excess of £4 billion to the Welsh Government to combat the virus. To date, the Welsh Government, I'm afraid, has not been open and transparent about how they have spent that money. Small and medium-sized businesses are, of course, the backbone of our economy, and we need to fully support them. Wales has previously, I'm afraid, not been a very friendly environment to do business in, with owners paying higher business rates, and lower thresholds for business rate relief. This has been compounded by COVID-19 restrictions, and a lack of urgency in ensuring that much-needed support is delivered to the front line, rather than sitting, unfortunately, in Welsh Government coffers.

I welcome the announcement of the £60 million additional funding from the Welsh Government to support businesses that are affected by local lockdowns. But, following today's announcement, I would be interested to know if areas that are not lockdown areas but will be affected by the wider restrictions announced will also be able to tap into those funds as well. In fact, I think that perhaps we do need more enhanced funding as a result of the announcement today. In contrast, with the coronavirus job retention scheme and the self-employment support scheme, the UK Government has provided support for around 30 per cent of the working population in Wales, protecting hundreds of thousands of livelihoods in Wales, while the self-employment income support scheme is providing support for over 100,000 people with a share of nearly £300 million. This is without, of course, taking into account the wider winter economy plan, which will allow businesses to access a range of loan schemes and extends the temporary VAT cuts to tourism and hospitality, as well as deferring repayments of VAT to support businesses up until March 2022.

We welcome Caroline Jones's amendment, as it's clear that blanket local lockdowns to combat coronavirus, such as the ones that the Welsh Government is implementing, I believe, are damaging to the Welsh economy and are preventing businesses, especially in the tourism and hospitality sector, from recovering from a disappointing period—and summer period as well. It's vital that the Welsh Government's decisions to implement local lockdowns are proportionate and minimise damage to any hopes of business recovery, and this is why we on these benches have repeatedly called for the Welsh Government to introduce smart hyperlocal lockdowns to reduce the spread of COVID-19 whilst minimising the economic and social impact of restrictions.

Furthermore, the introduction of targeted hyperlocal lockdowns may prevent the need for wider county-based lockdowns, helping to ensure proportionality in the response to local outbreaks, as well as reducing the risk of clusters spreading to wider parts of local areas. The First Minister has previously said that hyperlocal restrictions are a very sensible approach. So, we would encourage the Welsh Government to protect lives and livelihoods by ensuring that restrictions are as proportionate a response and as targeted a response as possible to those areas that require intervention, as opposed to its current blanket approach. To help an ailing Welsh economy, we therefore are calling on the Welsh Government to publish ward-level if not postcode-level data in order to distinguish the biggest causes of the transmission to those areas affected. This would allow other parts of our economy to still function whilst ensuring that that transmission does not spiral out of control.

I will now talk about the Conservative approach—what we would propose—and I'm happy to outline our approach. We would introduce at least a £250 million COVID-19 community support scheme to help towns and cities across Wales, business-rate-free zones where all businesses would be free from paying any business rates at all, and scrapping business rates completely where the rateable value is under £15,000 outside of those zones. That's what we would propose from next April onwards. Businesses need security now in what's going to happen next April onwards. Going forward, Presiding Officer, it is also important that the Welsh Government, I think, waives the 10 per cent investment required by businesses in order to access the third phase of the economic resilience fund. Many businesses, especially in the tourism and hospitality sector, have faced dramatic losses in revenue over the summer. They're bare to the bone; there's nothing left in the cupboard, and we're asking them to contribute 10 per cent in order to receive any kind of economic support. Surely, that's not acceptable and that has got to change.

Whilst the Welsh Government has provided financial support for businesses, those that have a rateable value of £500,000 will not receive any business support at all, despite employing thousands of people. Now, in stark contrast, the UK Government has granted a rates holiday to all retail, leisure and hospitality firms for a year, irrespective of size. And that's exactly what the Welsh Government should be doing here. It's also important that the Welsh Government extends business rates relief to landlords who are unable to let vacant commercial properties. With the closure of many businesses, it's important that landlords are supported by the Welsh Government.

So, I believe that what I've set out today is a plan that will provide targeted local interventions and earlier interventions. We need to have a more sustainable and effective way of tackling local outbreaks whilst at the same time stimulating and helping the wider economy to recover. Ultimately, we need to protect lives and livelihoods, Presiding Officer. So, I look forward to contributions from Members this afternoon. 

I have selected four amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 5 will be deselected. In accordance with Standing Order 12.23(iii), I have not selected amendment 4. I call the Minister for Economy, Transport and North Wales to move formally amendment 1, tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans.

Move.

I now call on Helen Mary Jones to move amendments 2, 3 and 5, tabled in the name of Siân Gwenllian.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I am grateful to the Conservatives for, once again, tabling an opportunity for us to discuss the economy. There are two things, I think, that are worrying our constituents across Wales at the moment. One of them is their health and the other is future prosperity and jobs, and I think it's really valuable for us to have these discussions.

Of course, we don't disagree with everything in the Conservative motion by any means. That any effects of measures to do with the virus should be proportionate on businesses is obviously essential. I think Russell George's points about ward-level data are well made—people need to know what the situation is. It has been put to me that it's difficult for that to be published because individuals could be identified. Well, to be quite honest, if the sample is small enough that individuals might be identified, the ward probably doesn't need to be in lockdown. So, I really think that that's something—and it could, of course, help with compliance. If people understand why they're being asked to stay at home, they're more likely to do it.

However, where we can't agree is the perspective about what the UK Government has done so far. Now, the furlough scheme was good, though there were people who were left out, there were people who were not helped. Those people are still campaigning, and I'd ask Members to look at the ExcludedUK campaign's website to see how those people being left out—how it has affected them. But, on the whole, it was a very powerful scheme and it did work very well. And one of the reasons why it worked very well is that it worked for smaller companies as well as for larger ones.

I want to talk about amendments 2 and 3 in one breath, Llywydd, because they support each other. In terms of the UK Government's support, we know that the job support scheme, as it's now being brought forward, does not work for many Welsh companies. It doesn't work for hospitality; it doesn't work for food wholesale; it doesn't work for health and beauty; it doesn't work for tourism; it doesn't work for small businesses. And those are just people who've spoken to me this week about support that they can't access. Now, one could argue, Llywydd, that this is understandable. You know, if the UK Government is acting as the Government of England, we must acknowledge that the Welsh economy is very different from the English economy, and it may be appropriate for them to bring that forward. But it doesn't work very well for many of our businesses.

So, hence our amendment 2, pressing again the point about the Welsh Government needing to have the borrowing powers to be able to act on some of this themselves. The Welsh Government keep saying that they lack firepower. Well, I think what they need is a bit of backbone to demand that firepower. They should ask for the borrowing powers instead of complaining, as they do in their amendment, about what the UK Government has not done. Why are they not asking for the power to get the money to do it themselves? Because, of course, this is how the UK Government is funding it. They haven't got a magic money tree; they're borrowing on the international markets, which is a perfectly sensible way to proceed. The Welsh Government should be demanding the right to do the same.

Now, with regard to our amendment 5—and to a certain extent, I agree with Russell George here—the Welsh Government does need to look again at elements of the new phase of the economic resilience fund. There's a lot of emphasis, in the new scheme, on calls for development bids for companies to be able to move on, and perhaps that was the appropriate thing to do, given the position of the virus when this scheme was being devised late in the summer. But time has changed. As more and more areas are going into local restrictions, I believe we need more emergency support. And I do agree with the point that Russell George has made about companies not having money in their back pockets to contribute to this kind of thing, especially not small and medium-sized businesses. As the gaps in UK Government become clearer, Welsh Government must stand ready to respond, and that must mean responding to changed circumstances.

The Government amendment—oh dear, here we go again. Of course, we agree with some of it; it would be difficult to disagree, and we obviously agree with point 4 about the UK Government job support scheme. But we heard this afternoon the Minister for local government and housing saying very clearly, as I've heard her say before, 'We don't know it all as a Government; we're not the fount of all wisdom'. Well you'd never know that, Llywydd, from their habit of 'delete all' amendments. I would submit to this Senedd that that is not a respectful way to proceed, and, at the very least, if we're going to spend our time on these opposition debates, the very least the Government ought to do is to give us the courtesy of line-by-line amendments.

And to be here.

I'm not able to respond to that intervention since we're not allowed to have interventions, but I don't care where Ministers are, I care what they do.

I stress again the need for the Government to reconsider the economic resilience fund. We can't support this amendment, because if you support this amendment, you're assuming that they are the fount of all wisdom and they've got it all right. And I would say that when it comes to the economy Minister dealing with opposition people, that is not how he conducts himself. You would never know how co-operative he has been through this crisis with Members of the opposition if you looked at this rather self-congratulatory amendment from the Government. With that said, I would commend to the Senedd, Llywydd, amendments 2, 3 and 5. I so move.

I thought it was a bit uncharitable, actually, some parts of the comments that were just made by the Plaid Cymru spokesperson in respect of the UK Government's action, because, of course, we started this decade with no idea, frankly, of the significant changes that we were going to encounter in the early part of the year. And since the start of the pandemic, I have to say Her Majesty's Government, I believe, have really delivered for Wales. They've delivered for Welsh businesses, they've delivered for families and they've delivered for our communities, in a way that UK Governments, frankly, haven't done before. The Welsh Government complains it doesn't have the firepower—it's been given £4 billion-worth of firepower by the United Kingdom Government in order to assist Wales to get through this crisis and this difficult time.

But the crisis has also, of course, brought to the forefront the importance of our relationship as a union of the United Kingdom, and the pace of the announcements from the UK Government, the financial support, the business support—all of those measures demonstrate the importance that has been placed on dealing with the impact of this crisis in all parts of the UK. We saw a UK Government that, frankly, acted at incredible speed in order to put programmes in place, taking difficult decisions in terms of restricting people's freedoms, whilst at the same time trying to make sure that the impact on businesses, the impact on employers, the impact on people's pay packets was as small as possible.

And I have to take my hat off to Rishi Sunak, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What an amazing guy that we've got in the Treasury at the moment, making sure that Wales has the firepower to be able to deal with the problems ahead and to weather this storm—not just the storm that's already been, but the big storm that, of course, is brewing across Wales and the whole of the UK at the moment.

Now, of course, we have seen different approaches in different parts of the UK as a result of devolution, and that's absolutely fine as far as the devolution settlement is concerned. But there have been things that UK Government has done across the UK as a whole that I think have been very beneficial. Let's just remind ourselves of some of these things. We've had help for employers with their wages as a result of the coronavirus job retention scheme. We've seen help for businesses to stay afloat with VAT cuts. We've seen tax deferrals, support for the self-employed, bounce-back loans. We've seen important support for the hospitality sector through the Eat Out to Help Out scheme, and, of course, we've seen this new economic plan for the winter that provides even further support for our businesses and for the public sector as well. So, without the UK as a whole being able to step up to the plate, I think Wales would have really struggled to meet the challenges that we are currently facing.

And what's the Welsh Government been doing? Well, it was commendable that it established an economic resilience fund. I think that that was absolutely the right thing to do. We must remember, of course, that Wales gets proportionately, for each consequential, an extra 20p on every pound, so it's got the ability to be able to do that, and I'm pleased that it did it. But it had its drawbacks. There were criteria set with the economic resilience fund that meant that some people have lost out, and I think that when you've got extra firepower in your back pocket, as the Welsh Government has, it's important that you use that firepower and target it at those gaps that Helen Mary Jones and others have spoken about. The threshold, for example, of £50,000 turnover before you can apply is an unacceptably high threshold, particularly for those many smaller businesses that we've got in Wales, including many, frankly, in the Minister's own constituency. I'm surprised he's not listening to them and adapting the scheme to make sure that those businesses can apply. And I have to say, strongarming businesses to unionise their workforce in order to qualify for grants is completely and totally unacceptable. It's an insult to those businesses, many of whom are perfectly decent employers who are fair with their members of staff, encourage their workforce and have been supporting them through thick and thin during this crisis. To have a Minister who, instead of being preoccupied with saving the economy and saving those businesses and saving those jobs, is more preoccupied with bolstering the ranks of the unions, the biggest supporters of the Labour Party, is totally unacceptable. So, I hope that he will reflect and apologise for issuing a letter that suggested that those businesses should have to unionise. I hope that people will support our motion unamended today, because I think there's a great deal of merit in it.

Llywydd, I want to broaden this debate today, because the interventions by both the Welsh Government and the UK Government not only have implications for Wales and the UK, but have worldwide implications. The World Health Organization are now advocating that national lockdowns should be the last resort in combating COVID-19, so why are both the UK and the Welsh Governments still pursuing this disastrous policy?

We in the developed world owe it to those in the third world to keep our economies strong and open for trade. Only by maintaining a strong western economy are we able to purchase vital goods from some of the poorest countries on earth. The imports from these countries literally mean life and death, because only by maintaining these exports are they able to—and I use this term in the strongest possible sense—feed themselves. We are literally protecting lives in the world's richest economies at the expense of lives in the poorest countries on earth. What is even more appalling about the west's lockdown strategies is that they say it is to protect the old, many of whom—or, I should say, many of us—have had long and fulfilled lives, and for most of our lives enjoyed all the luxuries of a rich, modern economy. Yet this sort of protection is at the expense of the young and the very young in these poorest countries of the world.

This does not mean we abandon our old and vulnerable to the virus and its consequences, but simply we change our strategies. Perhaps we ought to examine some of the latest statements from the guru of the COVID crisis, chief medical adviser to the UK Government, Chris Whitty. I quote: the vast majority of the British public will not contract the virus at all. Of those who do, a significant proportion will not know they have had it. They will be asymptomatic. Of those who do show symptoms, 80 per cent—and remember, I'm quoting the chief medical officer of the UK—will have a moderate reaction, and a small proportion of these may have to go to bed for a few days. An unfortunate minority will have to be hospitalised and may need oxygen treatment before returning home. Of this minority, a small minority will require critical care, and a tiny minority of these will unfortunately die. And this, again: overall death rates will be less than 1 per cent; even in the very highest of the high-risk groups, if they contract the virus, they will not die. All the words of the chief medical officer advising the UK Government.

All the statistics show that COVID-19 is little or no threat to the young and healthy in the western world. So, the lockdowns are there to protect the sick and the vulnerable. But surely the strategy should be to make sure that those who are in this category are adequately protected, either by self-isolation at home or with the strictest anti-COVID regimes in our care homes and hospitals.

We have no right to carry on protecting ourselves at the expense of the world's poor. Unless we catch the virus and fall desperately ill, we in this establishment will suffer little from this pandemic. Our salaries are guaranteed, our stomachs will always be full. We must end this selfish madness, reopen our economies and ensure we're strong enough to carry on bringing in those imports from the world's poorest nations, so they can carry on protecting their vulnerable, their old and their young, simply by ensuring they are adequately fed. Thank you, Llywydd.

Mark Isherwood. You need to be unmuted, Mark Isherwood, before you start.

As our motion states, we must recognise the significant adverse impact of local coronavirus restrictions on businesses and other employers, and note the need to ensure that coronavirus restrictions that impact upon employers are proportionate. To help keep our economy functioning whilst protecting against COVID transmission, you need localised data, and unless the Welsh Government provides this, obvious conclusions will be drawn. Instead, this First Minister's decision on lockdowns in Wales appear to be based on a paper that has not been peer reviewed sufficiently to be published. Just to be clear, scientific peer review is the cornerstone of science.

The following statements have been received from constituents in Flintshire, Wrexham, Denbighshire and Conwy: 'I would like to question the validity of the local travel restrictions imposed on councils in north Wales. If I travel outside my own county, it is to go hiking, where I keep my own company, to help with my mental health issues. I wonder if you'd be able to point this out to the health and First Ministers on my behalf. I feel as though I'm living under a dictatorship here in Wales in comparison to other parts of the UK'; 'I'm writing as a concerned citizen to express my thanks for the way a number of Senedd Members have spoken out against the appalling and ridiculous restrictions imposed on north Wales by the Welsh Government. I live in Prestatyn, which means I can travel 30-plus miles but only 2 miles east and 3 miles west'; 'We can't have a drink in a socially distanced bar with our neighbours or other close friends, yet we can wander around a crowded supermarket, where we can pick up and put back items on the shelves'; 'We were the only people at the bar and we feel for the staff as, if this continues, they will close with the loss of many jobs. It's almost as if the Welsh Government are intentionally targeting tourism and the hospitality sector'; 'I'm writing to you with great concern to express my continued dismay and anger at the way the Welsh Government is handling the ongoing coronavirus crisis. It feels like we're living in a dictatorship'; 'I live half a mile from the English border, so most of my life is lived in England: dentist, chiropody, leisure et cetera. I can travel 30 miles in the opposite direction and stay in county, but not half a mile across the border. It makes no sense whatsoever'; 'I wholly support the fight against COVID, but it must be viewed in context. The COVID restrictions are riven with inconsistencies and illogicalities. Added to that, the disparity in the regulations between Wales and England is confusing and are unhelpful, particularly for those of us who live on the border. Many businesses are trapped in impossible no-win situations and will fail as a result of Welsh Government policy'; 'I'm concerned about the COVID-19 infection rates but fear the Welsh Government are on some sort of crusade and seem hellbent on using restrictive lockdowns as the main solution. I must confess to being a loyal member of the Labour Party, but in all consciousness, I cannot support that direction here'; 'I find it alarming and preposterous that the Welsh Government can openly state that you have to agree with their social policies before you can receive Government funding'. This quote really is an insult to pluralist democracy and the first step on the road, quote, to a fascist dictatorship.

Hospitality representatives wrote: 'It is deeply concerning that such blunt instruments are being considered again, given the significant damage inflicted on our sector during the national lockdown earlier this year; and, 'I have a number of clients operating hospitality businesses, all of whom have struggled to stay viable economically but also have always placed employee and customer safety first. We're still being driven by risk-avoidance, when we should be in risk-management mode—an accredited and monitored licence to trade grading system, with a clear message to consumers and providing some solace during this pandemic.'

It's also incomprehensible that the Welsh Government has excluded small bed and breakfast businesses from grant support again. Yesterday, the finance Minister told me that they should speak to Business Wales, but having tried this many times, they state that any loan agreements would push them into unmanageable debt and restate that they support the local economy and should be entitled to help. Just what have this Welsh Government got against bed and breakfasts in Wales? These decisions are being taken in Cardiff, and this Welsh Government must be held to public account. I hope that the media take note of that also. Thank you. 

One of the big employers that we have in Wales is, of course, the Royal Mail, and we have all sung, and quite rightly so, the praises of our postmen during the COVID pandemic. And, of course, many speakers have also talked about the importance of the safety and well-being of those people who work within businesses. Can I say, then, how surprised I am that the Royal Mail, an organisation that, certainly in Cardiff, has had an outbreak of COVID, at this moment in time is looking at the introduction of multi-occupancy vehicles? All the more surprising, because in their guidelines, when they're looking at the safety provisions, they say, 'Do we need to take any different approaches to the Public Health England advice in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?', and they say, 'No, we will continue to be led by the Government and Public Health England.'

I've raised this with the Royal Mail. They have now actually changed that guidance, but isn't it quite incredible that, when we have laws in Wales to protect workers, we have the Royal Mail basically saying, 'No, we're going to disregard Welsh law and we're going to apply the English criteria'? Because in Wales we quite rightly have laws to protect workers by regulating social distancing. I hope this is a matter, Minister, that Welsh Government will take up, because there is obviously a concern about the way in which the Royal Mail is operating and the introduction, at this particular moment in time, of multi-occupancy vehicles.

Can I also say, then, in terms of other businesses, we have some great businesses in Wales who have worked with their trade unions constructively, collectively, to deliver for those businesses and for safety for workers? And that's why we have within Wales a social partnership, because we recognise that that partnership and that role of trade unions in terms of safety, in terms of in-work poverty, in terms of ethical employment and giving a voice for workers, is something that actually works, in a way that the UK Government in England has approached trade unions very, very differently.

So, it is of absolutely no surprise that we see this clause within this motion that just really reveals what the Tories really are about: anti-union, anti a voice for working people at a particular time when it is their safety, it is their livelihood, it is their risk as a result of COVID that is so, so important. And it is, I think, absolutely shameful that you put that in, because it is misleading. You know absolutely that there is no requirement in receipt of Welsh funding to recognise a trade union, but it is absolutely proper and right that Welsh Government should say, 'If you want public money, you can be expected to apply ethical standards of employment', and ethical standards of employment—we know that those who are in trade unions have higher standards, higher safety and less in-work poverty.

Can I also say how disgraceful it is that the Tories, when they talk about business—there's not been a single Welsh Tory I've heard that's come up that has spoken up in terms of the British Airways workers in south Wales, those that have been fired and then re-hired on lower terms and conditions by an organisation that has received public money and now seeks to use COVID to its own advantage? Where were the Tories then, when there was an opportunity to speak up in terms of those particular Welsh workers?

Llywydd, what was not acceptable during this COVID pandemic, and all the difficulties that exist for businesses and workers and their common interest, was that austerity is reintroduced and our public sector workers are made to pay the price of this COVID pandemic. Already, we see Tory discussions taking place about how to restrict pay in the public sector, how to cut the public purse burden, and this is not acceptable. I think one thing that comes out of this COVID crisis is that, yes, we support our businesses, we support ethical employment, we support those who work in those businesses, we support social partnership, but there must be no going back to how things were before when we come out of COVID. And it is a great pity that the Tory party in Wales has shown itself yet again just to be anti-trade union and anti-working class. Thank you.

I thank the Welsh Conservatives for bringing forward this debate, and for acknowledging that my amendment would have added to the debate. As I've said previously, lockdowns were a necessary evil at the start of this pandemic whilst we built up capacity to deal with the outbreak. However, we have had seven months to build up that capacity, and it is getting harder and harder to justify the damages to business, the economy and the health of our constituents that result from such measures. And although I acknowledge that many businesses have been helped during the previous lockdown, there were many grey areas where many businesses fell between the cracks, and we could soon be entering the territory where the cure is worse than the disease. How many businesses have to close, how many people have to lose their jobs, before we realise that we are doing more harm than good? We need assurance now that no business will be left to stand alone.

I am not one of those that say we shouldn't take any action—far from it—and to let this disease run its course. We definitely should be taking measures to combat COVID-19, but we now have proof that an immune response doesn't last long with a SARS-CoV-2 virus. We're already seeing people in America catch the disease for a second time, and, in a report out yesterday, it seems that the second infection can be even more severe. So, we can't rely on natural immunity and we have no idea when a vaccine will be available. It could be another one or two years before we have a vaccine and can get it to everyone in Wales, and until then we have to learn to try and live with the disease, and that means us all wearing masks in public, keeping 2 metres apart, regularly washing our hands for a minimum of 20 seconds. And what it doesn't mean is locking everyone down. We have to keep on top of outbreaks, but that means containing the infected, not locking away the healthy.

So, when a COVID case is identified, everyone who has been in contact with that person should be tested, regardless of symptoms, and everyone should be placed in strict quarantine until it's clear that they are no longer contagious. Country-wide or even county-wide lockdowns are not always the answer and neither is closing businesses. We have to have targeted, hyperlocal measures—a surgical approach, as opposed to the scorched earth one we appear to be set on.

For example, in my region, we have three counties locked down, effectively the entire region of over 0.5 million people locked down because of 600 cases. We restrict the liberties of 0.5 million people, shutting businesses, causing people to lose their livelihoods, because 0.1 per cent of the people in that region caught COVID-19, the majority of whom caught the disease because they didn't always obey social distancing—that's not always the case, but it is in a lot of the cases—and, as a result of the selfishness of some people, businesses in my region are suffering.

I've had a pet-grooming business contact me in the last couple of days because restrictions have massively impacted their business. They may be forced to go out of business altogether because there's no support available to them. This business is far from unique. Businesses have complied with social distancing regulations, they have implemented COVID hygiene measures, but yet they're still suffering because of the actions of a small minority of individuals.

So, this disease is here to stay, and I'm afraid we have to find a way of learning to live with it, otherwise we could end up doing irreparable damage to our economy and our society. And I appreciate it's a balancing act, and a very difficult one at that, and nobody knows all the answers. Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd.

Minister, this is not the first time that I've had to raise with you the negative impact that your county-wide economic lockdown is having on my constituents in Aberconwy: retailers taking as little as £6.50 a day despite overheads of thousands; hoteliers desperately worrying about their business and, indeed, their own mental health. Our local authority's extremely vulnerable to serious damage because this economy and people's livelihoods are so heavily reliant on tourism; the sector worth £904 million to the county. A report published by the Centre for Towns found that Llandudno has nearly 41 per cent of employees in shut-down sectors—the highest rate in north Wales. Criticisms are already levied against you from elected politicians and the industry itself, simply requesting that scientific evidence that tourists are carrying COVID-19 into north Wales—prove it. Even the First Minister has repeatedly said that there is no such evidence, and yet, today, talk about further restrictions, now already known as 'Drakeford's Welsh wall'. And I said wall, not wool. [Laughter.] How can you justify not including coming on holiday as a reasonable excuse in the regulations? Now I, more than anyone, with an older demographic and vulnerable people, know that there is a exponential rise of active COVID cases, and we're not stupid; we know that measures have to be taken. However, have you stopped to think of the long-term mental health impact on these business owners trying to fight for their own existence? And I don't just mean the buildings; I'm talking about the existence of their employees and indeed themselves. Information released by Business Wales today relating to the £1,000 or £1,500 local lockdown fund grant will simply not go anywhere near to help these businesses, and I'm actually very furious—and I think it's underhand—that you've included a 21-day rule. I don't think many of my businesses even know that yet, but they have to be locked down for 21 days before they're even entitled to a penny. I think that's disgraceful. And you have made matters even worse by making funds a first-come, first-served basis. We know how chaotic, when applying for this grant funding, it can be, and many will be left far behind. This fund needs opening up so that all businesses affected by the lockdown have some financial support. And to add insult to injury, you have the audacity to suggest to my hoteliers that—you know, there was an expectation on any businesses to join a trade union, thereby you creating a socialist utopia. Will you withdraw that innuendo, because that has really, really caused concerns?

At this time of crisis, the best action employers can do to support employees is to try and save their jobs. That is only possible if proportionate support is given by the Welsh Government and this ridiculous economic lockdown is lifted. Similarly, the constituents of Aberconwy deserve an answer as to the reasoning behind this economic lockdown. These people are incredibly intelligent, and you are treating them not so. How have we reached the point in which you have local data for Bangor, Bridgend, Llanelli, Merthyr Tydfil, Rhondda Cynon Taf, but not wards in Conway county? We've repeatedly called for smart, hyperlocal lockdowns, which even Dr Atherton has noted as being a more democratic way of introducing restrictions. Communities like Betws-y-Coed deserve to know if there is a record of COVID-19 in their village, and, if so, whether it is proportionate to have the gateway to Snowdonia crippled by the economic lockdown.

And indeed it is not just the coast that is being hard hit, but it's rural Wales too. Llanrwst has seen Glasdir close its doors for good; as of August, 1,200 individuals in the agricultural, forestry and fishing sector have been furloughed. For Aberconwy and rural Wales, the pandemic has gone to highlight the huge reliance on agriculture and tourism. We need to champion diversification and grow other sectors in rural Wales. The potential is clear, with exciting developments such as Aberystwyth University's brand new Aber innovation campus, and the development company in Trawsfynydd, Cwmni Egino. However, such developments and strengthening of new sectors in rural and along the coast in north-west and west Wales will only be achieved if, in response to the pandemic, the Welsh Government listen to the dramatic calls to make not only Wrexham and Deeside the primary focus for north Wales in the national development framework, but Caernarfon, Bangor and the Menai strait area too.

Whilst I repeat the importance of backing our existing tourism sector, the pandemic really has shone a light on the need for your response to COVID-19 to include seeing the whole of west Wales, from Penmaenmawr to Pembrokeshire, supported in developing other sectors too. Minister, First Minister, Welsh Government: you are failing the people of Wales. You are failing our businesses. You are failing their employees. Please rethink this, and let's demolish Drakeford's Welsh wall.

I thank the Conservatives for tabling this debate today. It's a welcome focus on the impact of coronavirus on employers, though I do note with regret that there isn't a single mention in the whole of the motion of employees whatsoever. In fact, the only tangential mention is an attack on unions and on unionised workplaces. Now, this is perhaps to be expected, even though it's very disappointing, but it does allow me, as a lifelong and proud union member myself, to urge all employees to always join a union, because they are your lifebelt when the economic seas are choppy.

Now, there are bits of the Conservative motion that are pretty hard to disagree with: for example,

'that coronavirus restrictions that impact upon employers are proportionate.'

Well, of course, the contrary would be to urge that the restrictions were disproportionate, which makes no sense. But I ask Conservative Members of this Senedd: proportionate to what? Proportionate to the scale of the pandemic challenge, I assume, whilst balancing that against the need to protect jobs; the balance between protecting lives and protecting livelihoods. Now, I agree, it goes without saying, you can't disagree with that, but that is why I will be supporting the Labour amendment, which notes that

'the Welsh Government is dedicating more than £4 billion to its response to COVID-19, a sum greater than the Barnett consequentials received from the UK Government.'

The Conservative motion mentioned the UK Government contribution of course, but somehow forgot to mention the added Welsh Government contribution. The Labour motion also accurately recognises the Welsh Government's £1.7 billion package of COVID-19 support for business, which is the best anywhere in the UK, including a £500 million economic resilience fund, which is helping to protect in excess of 100,000 jobs. The Conservative motion failed to mention this; it's a regrettable error.

Somehow, they also forgot to mention, let alone welcome, the Welsh Government's £140 million plans for the third phase of the economic resilience fund, including £20 million dedicated for tourism and hospitality, or to note that Welsh businesses continuing to trade are able to receive support under the ERF3 rapid reaction fund, which is not the case in relation to business support in restricted local areas in England. So, thank goodness, therefore, that the Labour motion corrects these additional Conservative oversights, and that Darren, and his colleagues, will be able to vote with the Labour benches as we provide an accurate record of the full support for businesses in Wales in extremely difficult times.

But, I do still have businesses and employers who are not able to gain support from any of the schemes available at national, UK, Wales or local level, and that's why I want the UK Government—because surely this is what the UK Government is for at times of UK-wide crises like these—to reach deeper into the pockets of the Treasury to provide additional support for those who've fallen between the cracks, and that would include those who fall just outside the criteria of current UK and Welsh schemes. So, Minister, I will continue to bring individual cases to you to seek adjustments here and at UK level. For example, my constituent Chris who runs a gym, a small gym, he's seen three iterations of the ERF scheme pass by with frustration, because every time he works his way through the computer form, he gets to the bit that says he has to have a £50,000 turnover and he's actually got a £46,000 turnover, and computer says 'no'. So, I would look for extending the reach of these schemes with funding for people like Chris.

So, in this, I have some sympathy, actually, with some of the amendments of Siân Gwenllian, but I ask the Minister for assurance that these criteria in Wales will be constantly reviewed to match Welsh needs and feedback from Members of the Senedd of all parties. And I would join the cause on the UK Government, from Welsh Government and from the UK Labour Party, to make available a comprehensive package of funding for local areas subject to additional restrictions to tackle the virus. And even at this very late stage, I would join this Welsh Government and UK Labour in urging Boris Johnson and Chancellor Rishi Sunak to reconsider their decision to terminate the job retention scheme, because the replacement job support scheme does not give enough incentive to employers in the most vulnerable sectors to retain employees through this crisis, including, by the way, for north Wales colleagues, those in tourism and hospitality, which affects us as well. And on that basis, and on the basis that the Government's motion supports an ethical approach to partnership in business, putting fair work at the heart of Welsh Government's response with every recipient of business support signing up to the principles of the economic contract, I support the Government amendment to this debate, and would urge others to do so.

The Minister for Economy, Transport and North Wales—Ken Skates.

Diolch, Llywydd. I should begin by thanking all Members for their contributions this afternoon and saying that I am proud of what the Welsh Government, working with social partners, with local government, with the Development Bank of Wales, has done to support businesses, to support communities and to support working people through these tremendously difficult times.

As Huw Irranca-Davies said, our £1.7 billion package of support for businesses and for jobs in Wales is the most comprehensive and generous package of support for businesses anywhere in the United Kingdom. Our economic resilience fund has so far helped more than 13,000 businesses, safeguarding more than 100,000 jobs—jobs that could have been lost if those businesses had been across the border in England, where such support does not exist.

We've also supported 2,000 start-ups in Wales—start-ups that would have gone to the wall potentially had they been located in England. And we've put in place a range of other measures, Llywydd, including repayment holidays to the Development Bank of Wales, protections against evictions for businesses, and support for creative professionals—all of this support unavailable across the border in England.

Now, Llywydd, the virus continues to pose a major threat. When it comes to restrictions on businesses, the evidence suggests that the later you act, the longer the restrictions then have to remain in place, and, consequently, the greater the damage to businesses, to the economy, to people's lives, with more deaths and more suffering. And I have to say today that comparing our actions as a democratically elected Government, responsible in saving lives, and comparing us to the behaviour of fascist dictatorships is about as ignorant as it is offensive. We will keep current measures under constant review and we will continue to work closely with our partners, as well as with public health experts, local authority leaders and the NHS to assess the latest position.

Let me just remind those Conservative Members in the north today that local authority leaders in the north agreed to those local restrictions. So, will they criticise those local authority leaders as they criticise Welsh Government? Will they criticise police leaders? Will they criticise health leaders who also agreed? I doubt it, but the invitation, Llywydd, is there for them to do so in their response.

Llywydd, we are continuing to prepare for next week's opening of the third phase of the Wales-only economic resilience fund. This includes £80 million for business development grants, as well as the £60 million local lockdown business fund. Let me stress, Llywydd, that, with regard to the business development grants, £20 million is being ring-fenced for tourism and hospitality businesses, with discretion for 100 per cent grant awards requiring no match funding. So, we are already doing what one of the points in the Conservatives' motion this afternoon calls for. Let's be absolutely clear again: this is grant funding that is unavailable to tourism and hospitality businesses across the border in England.

The local lockdown fund will open for applications in Caerphilly county borough by the end of this week. Unlike in England, businesses continuing to trade are able to receive support. I know that businesses in Wales have appreciated this extra support that is not available over the border in England, but it comes, of course, with responsibilities. This is taxpayers' money that is being used. This is working people's money that is being used to support businesses.

Every business receiving support from our economic resilience fund has signed up to the principles of the economic contract. That reflects our commitment to public investment with social purpose, even in the hardest of times; to promote fair work, which, I'm afraid, it seems that the Conservatives today so clearly oppose; as well as promoting better mental health, promoting skills, and promoting clean, green growth. We make no apology for this, or for our social partnership approach, which during the pandemic has been invaluable.

Llywydd, we've already had more than 18,000 inquiries for support from the third phase of the economic resilience fund, but I'd also like to highlight just how effective another of our institutions has been during this pandemic. Since the start of this crisis, the Development Bank of Wales has made 1,335 COVID-19 Wales business loans to firms in Wales. In comparison, all of the high-street banks in Wales—all of them; every single one of them combined—have administered, on behalf of the UK Government, 1,391 loans as at last week. It means that our Development Bank of Wales has been as important as all of the loan power offered by all of the high-street banks and the UK Government. So, I am incredibly proud of what the Development Bank of Wales has done through these last few months, by both the speed of their actions and their creativity.

But as I've repeatedly said, the UK Government must bring more support to the table in supporting businesses and jobs as we enter these difficult winter months. That's why I regret the decision of the UK Government to terminate the job retention scheme. Its replacement, the job support scheme, clearly offers insufficient incentive for employers in the most vulnerable sectors to retain employees through the crisis, including, crucially, businesses in the tourism and hospitality sector.

We also remain disappointed that the UK Government has not responded to our continued requests to provide the flexibility we need to respond and invest in Wales's recovery, specifically the switching of capital resources into revenue, thereby increasing the Wales reserve and our borrowing power to do as Helen Mary Jones outlined. And as for the shared prosperity fund, well, negligible progress has been made with that particular fund according to a leading Welsh Conservative Member of the UK Parliament, in spite of the obvious urgency to bring forward plans for replacement EU funding.

Llywydd, as I've said, this is a time like no other. Coronavirus and the increasing risk of the UK reaching the end of the European Union transition period without a deal have placed incredible pressure on everybody—businesses, individuals and families. We need UK Government and we need colleagues across the Chamber to support us, the Welsh Government, in providing the resources and the reassurance that our businesses and communities need at a time when they need it most.

I call on Suzy Davies to reply to the debate. Suzy Davies.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Thank you, everyone who has taken part in the debate today. Shall we just begin by welcoming the assistance provided by both our Governments? Just to make it clear that the Welsh Conservatives here do appreciate some of the things that the Welsh Government has done here, but we have some questions to ask you.

I just want to start with a point that Russell George made about more than £4 billion being brought to the Welsh Government for COVID response on top of the additional UK support through the tax and benefit system that Darren Millar referred to in his contribution. I think it would be a shame, wouldn't it, if we didn't acknowledge what the UK Chancellor has managed to do in what has been called 'unprecedented times' a number of times today, and the response that came from what he was able to do as a result of being caught completely unawares by something that has affected countries across the world.

When you say, Minister, in the motion that you're spending extra above the £4 billion consequential, I'm wondering quite how straight you're being with us there because, of course, it's not extra, is it, really? This is money taken from existing Welsh Government budgets in order to plonk into the pot being run by the star chamber, resulting in some of your departments having to beg to have it back. And while we would, of course, welcome the ERF, I think you'd have to acknowledge as well that you wouldn't be able to have an ERF to the extent that you do were it not for the money that was coming in, at least in part, from UK Government. 

As we heard earlier, this supplementary budget doesn't really reflect the use of the consequentials that we are talking about. Certainly, there was £2.2 billion coming from UK Government at the time the supplementary budget was done, and that was just—I think it was a £1.8 billion budget. Really, as opaque as ever when we're talking about budget scrutiny. And that's why I'm disappointed in the response from the finance Minister to the debate before this one, calling for legislation in order to introduce budgets.

But I think my main objection to your amendment is point 8. It's your Government that has chosen to lock down what you call local areas; it's your Government that has closed the market for our COVID-compliant tourism and hospitality sectors in much of Wales—and if Plaid had their way, they'd close it down altogether. This debate is about your disproportionate response to a threat that we all want to control, so you pay for it. Or better still, listen to what Wales is telling you and make it proportionate, which, of course, the law requires. Earlier today, the leader of my group was referred to as making amateur interpretations of a document that was made available earlier. Well, I think if you listened to Janet Finch-Saunders today and if you listened to Mark Isherwood today, you will have heard evidence of the damage that your decision is doing to our industries.

Going back to the ERF just for a minute, as the chair of the cross-party group on tourism, actually, I will welcome the £20 million earmarked in the latest round of the ERF. But I don't accept Helen Mary Jones's implication that this sector's not important in England too, any more than I accept the assertion, or implication, made by Mick Antoniw that the non-unionised workforces are, by definition, unfair workforces. Let's remember, of course, that the UK Government has cut VAT on tourism businesses and they're not planning to introduce a tourism tax. Minister, you didn't say very much about the tourism-related businesses—the tourism chain, if you like. These are events management businesses, for example, exhibition organisers, arts and entertainment businesses, which are still wondering what you've done with the missing consequentials from the UK Government there, single director limited companies who operate in the media, arts and entertainment, which seem to have slipped from view in the latest iteration of ERF, as have, or should say 'still are', the small businesses, the small B&Bs, in particular, that need support from the ERF. The very businesses that need cash flow support, they just don't have the 10 per cent to bring to the table at this stage. And I think, Huw Irranca-Davies, I might mention that the word 'businesses' means employers and employees—of course this is about employees. I think we should mention, as well, that some of the funding, despite agreeing with the Minister about the good work of the development bank, that some of the ERF 2.0 money was a bit slow coming to the table, and if I heard right, despite the fact that Caerphilly's been in lockdown for a month now, it's only now that they're able to access the additional funding aimed at those lockdown areas.

I just want to talk briefly about those maps that Bridgend County Borough Council are producing at the moment—those ward-based data maps. That data is available, and I think Welsh Government, as a whole, should expect to be able to refer to these as evidence for the need to lockdown in the way that you want to do that. I don't think it would be fair to say that Blaengarw and Newton, both within the Bridgend County Borough Council area, are communities that mix an awful lot and are likely to transmit this disease to each other. Not so long ago, you were arguing that no-one should travel further than 5 miles from where they lived; now you're insisting that they do if they want to shop and can't do that without crossing a county boundary to get to those nearest shops, those salons, those restaurants, and, yes, those COVID-compliant tourism destinations.

David Rowlands made the point that we don't, with the way that things are going at the moment, distinguish between our most vulnerable and our least vulnerable, and how to protect them—it's more of a sort of one-size-fits-all approach that isn't working. So, I repeat the call made by the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, and other Members, actually, to show your workings, Minister. And that doesn't mean sending a short statement out 20 minutes before we sit down here in the Chamber; it's a statement that refers to SAGE, which the health Minister, on television this morning, said was mainly about England and that's why we need a separate technical advisory group for Wales—to get the science right—moments before lamenting that this wasn't being dealt with on a four-nations basis via COBRA. To that, I just say: well, Boris doesn't agree with you; Nicola Sturgeon doesn't agree with what you're doing, apart from that very politically expedient nation boundary; and, of course, Keir Starmer is asking for you to do different things as well. So, if you're talking about a four-nation approach, please be careful what you wish for.

And then, finally, Llywydd, I just want to finish this and reference something that Caroline Jones was talking about. A total lockdown, which was hugely expensive in terms of mental health, physical health and the economy, didn't suppress COVID once it started to be relaxed. But we can't remain in permanent lockdown for many, many reasons, and while I don't agree with everything she said, the essential point she was making is that this should be about the rapier, not the bludgeon. And that's what I want Welsh Government to start demonstrating now, particularly as what's not coming through at the moment is the Government response to that bigger forward look—none of the things that Russell George mentioned, as policies that we would introduce, which may be of interest to you, and I certainly hope they are. Because Helen Mary was right when she said we shouldn't really be making decisions based on health or the economy; these are interconnected decisions, and we will need, as David Rowlands was indicating, really, a prosperous and healthy Wales in order to function in the future. Thank you.

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

In accordance with Standing Order 34.14D, there will be a break of five minutes now before we move to voting time.

We have now reached voting time. The first vote is on the Member debate under Standing Order 11.21(iv) on endometriosis. I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Jenny Rathbone. Open the vote. In favour 36, 13 abstentions, none against, and therefore the motion is agreed. 

The next vote is on the Welsh Conservatives' debate on the impact of local coronavirus restrictions on employers. I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 13, no abstentions, 36 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed.

Amendment 1 is our next vote. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 5 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, 22 against. Therefore amendment 1 is agreed. 

Amendment 2 falls. 

Amendment 3 is our next amendment, tabled in the name of Siân Gwenllian. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 36, five abstentions, eight against. Therefore, amendment 3 is agreed. 

Amendment 5 is de-selected, and so the next vote is on the motion as amended. 

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 27, no abstentions, 22 against. The motion as amended is agreed. 

That concludes voting time. We will now move to the short debate. 

We now move to the short debate. I ask Alun Davies to introduce the subject he has chosen. 

Thank you very much, acting Presiding Officer. I should say at the beginning that Dawn Bowden has asked to take a minute of my time, and I've agreed to that. 

I wrote in the Western Mail this morning that one of the certainties of political life in Wales is the launch of a Valleys programme by an incoming Government or administration, and in saying that I should also, of course, declare my own interest in that in that I was a Minister who launched such a programme four years ago. In doing so, I followed a line of Ministers, which was probably led by Cledwyn Hughes back in 1966 when he established the derelict land unit of the old Welsh Office. I can see at least one of our Members remembers that incident back in the 1960s. I don't want to fall into the trap of spending time attacking your predecessors, especially when they're not there to defend themselves, but I think since then we've seen a succession of Ministers launching programmes in the Valleys in order to address the obvious problems faced by communities there. Some of those programmes have been principled attempts to actually create change, and others have been more a PR exercise to obviate the need for fundamental change.

I certainly hoped when we launched the Valleys taskforce some years ago that that would be one of those principled efforts to make real change, fundamental change to our futures. The Minister responding to the debate this afternoon was a part of that, and I felt we worked well together. He will use this opportunity to tell us whether that is true or not, no doubt, but I felt we worked well together. But he will also recollect the fundamental flaws that we needed to overcome. As a Minister back in 2016, I had a tiny budget, a small group of civil servants and no opportunity to run or lead programmes. He will remember that I had to go to speak to him and his officials to seek his support and his budgets in order to lead any economic change and, in the same way, I had to go to another Minister and other Ministers to try to persuade them to use their budgets and their officials to provide resources for other parts of the programme. It was disjointed at best and flawed at worst. It'll be for others to determine how well we did, and I won't seek to take part in that vanity this afternoon.

Since then, since 2016, myself and the Minister stood in Ebbw Vale in 2017 and launched the Tech Valleys programme in my own constituency. We've seen the Cardiff and Swansea city deals progress uncertainly, I think is probably fairest to say. We've heard talk of a shared prosperity fund but, to date, I'm not convinced that any of us taking part in this debate knows what it is or where it's going to go. We can assume that the Valleys will be a part of that. But what we have seen is work refocused, priorities changed. We haven't seen the improvement that we needed to see, and we all know that through all of the decades of these programmes, the Valleys remain the parts of Wales facing the greatest social and economic challenges. And it's also fair to say, I think, that if committee resolutions, press releases and speeches could eradicate poverty, then the Valleys would be a modern utopia. 

It's clear to me now that we need to revisit the fundamentals of this debate and how we take this forward, and I'd like to start that debate this afternoon. The Valleys taskforce came for conversations that took place ahead of the last Senedd election in 2016. There were many of us then who were pushing for a Valleys development authority. For all sorts of reasons, it was felt inappropriate and a taskforce was, in many ways, a compromise. I'm not convinced that that compromise is going to deliver in the long term. I believe we need to revisit that debate today. I want to do that by taking about four Cs, if you like: consistency, capacity, coherence and commitment. 

We need policy consistency. The Valleys have suffered too much from Ministers who either have a plan or a need to experiment with an economic theory, and every new Minister, myself included, needs a new plan, new target, new objectives. But the consequence of that is start and stop. It's right and proper that we review and change an approach that is not working, and it would be foolhardy to do otherwise. But to chop and change without such a review and without such a reason for a review is foolhardy. To set out targets, strategies, objectives and programmes at the beginning of a Parliament, only to dump those approaches halfway through, is to invite frustration from the people we represent, and to guarantee failure for our own programmes. We need to ensure that we are able to have consistency over the long term. 

But if we have policy consistency, we also need a means of delivering on that debate. We need a significant increase in capacity. Outside of Rhondda Cynon Taf, it's difficult to see any one of the Valleys authorities with the capacity to deliver on the scale required to create the conditions for a fundamentally different economic future. The hard truth is that most local authorities in the Valleys are too small to deliver the sort of economic inputs that I saw in Flanders some years ago, when we were looking at the Valleys park. The scale of the ambition there—and Dawn Bowden is here from Merthyr; she and I discussed the Crucible project—was fantastic. It was brilliant to see. But she knows and I know that it'll never happen without the capacity to make it happen, and that capacity simply doesn't exist today.

The Minister knows that the Tech Valleys programme that he and I launched has fantastic objectives—objectives that I signed up to that I want to see. But we also know that in Blaenau Gwent, we don't have the capacity to deliver it, and we've got to accept that and understand that. We also know that the only organisation, if you like, with the capacity to deliver and the firepower to deliver change is the Welsh Government. But we also know, if we're honest amongst ourselves, that Ministers and departments and officials all have different and competing priorities. Certainly in my experience, too much time and resource is wasted on trying to co-ordinate these competing funding streams and priorities, and not enough time delivering on what we actually have to do. 

And brings me to another C: coherence. It's been a fact of life, since the abolition of the Welsh Development Agency, that the key policy levers required by policy makers have sat in different places, with different leaderships, different priorities, and different objectives. The need of the Valleys for a coherent programme has never been greater. But the confusion of different structures, and the crowded field of competing priorities, mean that we have little in terms of coherence. We have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to strategies and management, but we don't have the ability to deliver coherently. I've been campaigning for a train station in Abertillery, as the Minister knows only too well, I'm sure; we share nightmares about these things at different times. The Cardiff city deal proposed a compromise of a new stop in Aberbeeg. Now much as that would be appreciated, it's not a station in Abertillery, and it's never going to be. It's never going to deliver the step change that we require. But why is the Welsh Government, and why was the Valleys taskforce at that time, and why is the Cardiff city deal working in the same place according to different priorities, with different ambitions? We need to find ways of addressing that.

So, we need a commitment and a focus to our future, which is razor sharp and enduring. We know that things are going to get more difficult and not less difficult. The UK Government, I believe, is trying to politicise the way that the shared prosperity fund will work, and it will not deliver coherence with any of the other programmes we have in the Valleys. We're not going to see more coherence in the future, but less coherence. So, I want to see and I want to open up the debate on where we go in the Valleys. I believe that we need a Valleys development authority. I believe we need to bring together local government, and the resources of local government, with Welsh Government. I believe we need to involve the businesses in the Valleys, and the communities of the Valleys. And we need to do that on a statutory basis, with statutory powers and the ability to direct development into the future. We need to be able to do that at arm's length, I believe, from Government, where a Minister will set the priorities and will set the objectives, but where the authority itself will be responsible for delivering.

I hope that we can have this debate, and I hope that we can have a debate that is a rich debate and a positive debate, because I believe if we can get these things right in the Valleys, where things, I think, are potentially most difficult, then there's no reason why you can't get this right—I see Rhun ap Iorwerth is with us—in Anglesey, and in other parts of the country as well. And I know that the Minister has worked hard to ensure that we do have that focus in different parts of the country. So, I hope we can have this debate, I hope we can do it together, and I hope that we can have a debate that has a focus on what we want to achieve for the people that we all seek to represent. Thank you very much. 

Dawn Bowden. Can we unmute please?

Apologies for that, Llywydd; I am now unmuted. Can I thank Alun Davies for giving me a minute of his time in this debate? I hear the case that he's set out on behalf of his constituency and the wider Valleys communities. Alun, of course, draws on considerable experience, both as the constituency member for Blaenau Gwent, and as a former Minister who grappled directly with the deep-seated problems of our Valleys communities. 

Having now served almost one term in this Senedd, and, more recently, as a member of the Valleys taskforce, I'm clearly of the view that all that we have achieved so far—for example, the twenty-first century schools provision, new health and care facilities, transport and communication improvement, skills and apprenticeships, caring for our special Valleys environment, heritage and culture—has not yet gone far enough to turn around some of those deep-rooted economic, social, health and well-being issues described by Alun.

Of course, these problems are too often rooted in the experience of poverty, which the policies of successive UK Tory Governments have only exacerbated. However, unlike Alun, I'm not at this point making a case for a specific structural response to these matters, although, as always, he makes many salient points in his contribution. But in this Senedd term, I have noted the use of the Valleys taskforce, the North Wales Economic Ambition Board, enterprise zones, like the Haven Waterway and the Cardiff capital region. And in the case of the Valleys, I do hope that we now pull together the best of these lessons that these different models have provided, so that we keep improving the outcomes for our constituents in Valleys communities in the next term of this Senedd.

I call the Deputy Minister for Economy and Transport to reply—Lee Waters. I beg your pardon, I'm sorry, we have the boss—I call the Minister for Economy, Transport and North Wales, Ken Skates.

Thank you, acting Deputy Presiding Officer. It is a pleasure to be able to respond to the debate this afternoon. I'd obviously like to thank Alun Davies for bringing forward this debate, and also thank Dawn Bowden for contributing to it. Because there is no doubt that the last few months have been some of the saddest and most challenging that any of us can remember. And while we look at the work of combating coronavirus, which is not at an end, we must also focus on the future and on the work of the recovery, and in particular as to how we can give areas across the Heads of the Valleys the hope and the opportunity of a new economic future—a break with the past, a greener, fairer and more prosperous future.

As Alun has so eloquently made clear, the legacy of deindustrialisation across the Heads of the Valleys over the last 40 years has been significant, but we must overcome it. It left a mark on the environment, it left a mark on the health of the people of the area, and it requires a complex set of interventions to address. We don't have time this afternoon to run through all of them, but I'd like to just touch on a number that Ministers and Welsh Government are leading on, to help to shape that brighter, sustainable and fairer tomorrow for people in communities such as Blaenau Gwent and across the Heads of the Valleys.

The first and perhaps the most important is the opportunity that we have to re-energise and redesign many of the town centres and high streets that we have across the Valleys, to bring back pride in those towns. Often, they've felt too remote from centres of intense urban activity, they've felt too far away and left behind from the fruits of growth during the course of globalisation. We need to rebalance the way that the economy works in Wales, and across the UK, and in so doing we must promote the interests of towns.

COVID is a tragic event, but it's accelerating a significant shift in the way that we live, the way that we work, and the way that we structure our lives. And the growing use of digital technology and of more flexible working, away from large urban centres, does open up the opportunity for us to put new footfall and, by definition, new energy back into the hearts of many of our smaller Valleys communities. And that's why we've agreed the 'town centre first' approach right across Government. And the starting point for all Government policy is now: can this be done in the town centre? Can this building, can this function, can this new service be done on a high street or a town-centre location—from further education to care, from remote working to new forms of supported living, from Welsh Government activities being decentralised and deconcentrated into towns within the Valleys, from local government activities being located on the high street and in town centres? The opportunities are only limited by our own imagination and willingness to change. And we only need to look at some of our recent new further education buildings that have done so much to help re-energise areas in which they are located.

But, of course, I recognise equally that this is only one part of the answer. The story and the rich history of the Valleys, and the ongoing strength of the regional economy, lies in production, in the manufacturing, the development of high-quality, industrial goods, products and services, as can be seen in sectors like automotive and advance manufacturing, which have been so important in the communities that Alun Davies and Dawn Bowden represent and serve. And that's why our Tech Valleys programme, and its commitment to investing in new digital technologies to create a sustainable regional economy, is so vitally important, as Alun said. A £100 million of Welsh Government commitment to Tech Valleys over 10 years will create 1,500 sustainable jobs, and we remain absolutely committed to providing the expertise and the capacity needed for it to succeed.

Through the investment made by companies such as Thales, we're already seeing the potential of new opportunities arising from the fourth industrial revolution and from cutting-edge industries, such as 5G battery technology and research into future autonomous vehicles. But as I've mentioned, many of the challenges facing the Heads of the Valleys are not simple in nature and so require responses that are themselves highly sophisticated and wide-ranging—things that go much wider than simply the economic portfolio, again, as Alun said, taking into account the need to align economic development with spatial planning with transport policy and delivery.

To build a resilient, green and fairer economy of the future in the Heads of the Valleys requires interventions across the gamut of transport, housing, regeneration and health. And, acting Deputy Presiding Officer, of course, infrastructure is key to the success of any regional economy, alongside skills. In June of this year, we announced the appointment of Future Valleys as the preferred bidder for the next stage of work on the transformational long-term plan to dual the A465. And construction, I'm pleased to say, will start in earnest in early 2021. We expect that project to deliver £400 million of direct spend in Wales, with gross value added generated for the wider Welsh economy at over £670 million, with £170 million spending within the local supply chain. 

And, of course, metro is another piece of infrastructure that can support the Heads of the Valleys economy, with upgrades of the Ebbw Vale and Maesteg lines very much part of our planning work. And we have to ensure that those services for trains are ultimately delivered for those areas that lie outside what we describe as core Valleys lines at the moment. These investments are going to be critical as the Heads of the Valleys economy recovers from challenges of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic over the next few years.

I read with interest Alun Davies's promotion of the Valleys development agency, not least because I was determined to create a place-based decentralised approach to economic development when we published the economic action plan. And part of that plan saw challenge and guidance from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development with regard to how to best deliver regional economic development—how to create the right institutions and vehicles to ensure that you have strong and powerful regional economies. And, of course, in its recent report, the OECD promoted the creation of regional development agencies, which align perfectly with Alun's argument and which I'm very, very sympathetic to.

I'll leave my contribution there, but suffice it to say that both myself and every Minister in the Welsh Government remains fundamentally committed to supporting the Heads of the Valleys to succeed. It's played a pivotal and rich role in shaping our history and it can play a central role in our proud and vibrant future—a brighter and a greener and a fairer future that can support individuals in communities right across the region. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister. That concludes today's business.