National Assembly for Wales

Good afternoon. I call the National Assembly to order.

Item 1 on the agenda is questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure, and the first question, Leanne Wood.

We recognise the importance of an effective, affordable and fully integrated public transport system right across Wales. The national transport finance plan, published in July 2015, sets out investment for transport and infrastructure for services from 2015 to 2020 across all parts of Wales.

Back in 2013, the Assembly’s Enterprise and Business Committee published a report entitled ‘The Future of the Wales and Borders Rail Franchise’, and one of the key recommendations made by the committee in preparation for the next Wales and borders franchise, due to take effect in just two years’ time, is to, and I quote,

‘Develop and publish a rolling stock strategy as a matter of urgency’.

The report said that it was necessary

‘to ensure pressing decisions on rolling stock compatibility for electrification and accessibility legislation are taken in good time to avoid the increased cost and disruption’.

Can you tell us where the rolling stock strategy is, please, and, if it doesn’t exist, can you tell us what your Government’s been doing for the last three years?

We’ve been examining the rolling stock, which of course, right across Britain, is under pressure, but we’ve been examining the rolling stock within Wales and available to Wales since that report was commissioned and completed. We’re discussing it with potential delivery partners as part of the next franchise, and also, in setting out the outputs as a novel and innovative way of designing a franchise, we expect those potential bidders to be able to meet the demands of Welsh passengers.

Now, we know that, in the last 10 years, the number of people travelling by trains in Wales has increased by more than 10 million. We also know that, in the next 15 years, there will be something in the region of 74 per cent more people travelling by rail. So, there is a very real and urgent need to address the shortfall in rolling stock, and that’s why we’ve been working with the sector and examining what it is that Welsh Government can do to ensure that there is the availability of carriages on our network.

I’m sure the Cabinet Secretary will agree with me that we should seek to ensure that our public transport systems contribute to meeting our environmental goals and the growth of our green economy. What consideration has he given to how the Welsh Government’s financial support for bus services can be used to promote the widest possible use of low-carbon-emission buses?

I’d like to thank the Member for his question and say that the voluntary Welsh bus quality standard, which was published in March of this year, encourages bus operators right across Wales to introduce lower emission vehicles, especially in those areas where the quality of air that we breathe is threatened by harmful emissions where traffic congestion persists. Under that scheme, local authorities are able to prioritise lower emission vehicles under the enhanced requirements of the standards, and if they are achieved, then they can attract a premium payment available from the Welsh Government’s bus services support grant.

Cabinet Secretary, over the summer the issue that has been raised with me by constituents is commuters being stranded on stations on the Cambrian line. The issue here is that not only are trains cancelled at short notice, but they’re cancelled at no notice. So, there are no bus services put on to help commuters stranded, and, also, the station is still demonstrating that the service is about to arrive. I wonder, Cabinet Secretary, if you are aware of this problem, and is this something that you’d be prepared to investigate?

Yes. In fact, I met with Members from across parties on Monday in north Wales and I pledged to them to provide information from Arriva Trains Wales concerning the efforts that they are endeavouring to make to address what I think is an unacceptable summer of rail service provision. It clearly demonstrates that the current franchise is not fit for purpose, and that’s why we must ensure that the next one meets the demands of passengers in the interests of people of Wales who use that service.

Yes. Wide-ranging support is available for entrepreneurs, small and medium businesses, right across Wales, through our Business Wales service. Our absolute focus remains on supporting jobs and the economy.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Can I say, I was greatly encouraged by a report last week that highlighted the positive signs of growth in my own constituency of Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney? We have a new factory—General Dynamics—at Pentrebach, bringing in 250 new jobs, high-quality jobs, into the area, and 150 new jobs to EE in Merthyr. And the report also quoted a local restaurant owner, who said,

‘Merthyr still has its rich industrial heritage, but the town is developing into a modern commercial hub, with lots to offer locals and visitors’.

That is something that I would totally agree with. However, what I think we all appreciate, Cabinet Secretary, is that, alongside new jobs from larger companies, the economic prosperity for areas like Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney will be best secured by also encouraging new small and medium enterprises to come into the area. With the right support, such companies can become rooted in the communities and, if successful, can produce good-quality, well-paid and long-term employment. So, would the Cabinet Secretary agree with me that support to small businesses, through the extension of the small business rate relief scheme, and the launch of the growth and prosperity fund, could be key components in achieving this?

Yes, indeed, I would. And I’d say that, in the Member’s constituency, there have been a notable number of success stories in recent years—successes that have been driven in part by the availability of support from Welsh Government. To name but a few: Ashwood Designs, Rokel Engineering, Heighway Pinball Limited, and Elite Paper Solutions, demonstrate what can be done when the private sector works hand in hand with Welsh Government. I’m very pleased to say that we now have a record number of active enterprises headquartered here in Wales, and the latest figures show that Wales has the highest number of new businesses in more than a decade.

Now, the Welsh-Government-funded Business Wales service, which provides access to information, advice and support to both existing and start-up small and medium-sized enterprises throughout Wales, can be accessed online, via telephone, or as a face-to-face service. And a new £5 million growth and prosperity fund aims to stimulate economic growth by providing capital support to projects, to SMEs delivering job creation or safeguarding jobs, and also levers in additional investment and forms part of our business confidence plan.

The Member also rightly raises the significance of the small business rate relief scheme, which is to be extended for 2017-18, and there will be a new permanent scheme for 2018 onwards. And, thanks to this scheme, we already provide approximately £98 million in relief to businesses in this current year. Around 70 per cent of premises qualify for relief, and around half of all eligible businesses pay no rates at all.

I have highlighted the problem whereby businesses in the Môn enterprise zone were failing to make bids for a reduction in their business rates. I made that point to his predecessor, and I was very grateful to her for acknowledging that there was a problem and for opening a new window for making an application for a reduction. However, it appears that the problem remains. So, what intention does the Cabinet Secretary have to ensure that small businesses can take advantage of what they had expected to be able to advantage of in moving to an enterprise zone, which includes a reduction in business rates?

Well, indeed they should take advantage of this scheme, and I will endeavour to raise it not just with the local authority and their economic development unit, but also with the chair of the enterprise zone, when I next meet with them.

Cabinet Secretary, you’ll be aware that the Federation of Small Businesses Wales is calling for the creation of a Wales small business administration, which they believe will provide a better solution to fostering growth in indigenous SMEs in Wales. Can you tell us what consideration the Welsh Government has given to that specific proposal?

Well, Business Wales has been incredibly successful in assisting SMEs across Wales, and does pretty much what the FSB proposes for their model. If I could just highlight the success of Business Wales, in the year to date, 3,638 individuals and businesses have been supported with business advice, and, as a result, Business Wales is on course to achieve its target of 5,000 new jobs for the year. In addition, Business Wales continues to see high levels of enquiry—something in the region of 18,000—which is driven by the refreshed service, including the Accelerated Growth Programme and the new businesses online support service. Now, that has delivered more than 8,000 new registered users.

Cabinet Secretary, the biggest support the Welsh Government could give to small businesses across Wales, particularly those operating on our high streets, would be to level the playing field. Large out-of-town developments and supermarkets have the advantage of ample free parking, whereas small businesses operating on our high streets do not have that luxury. What assistance can the Welsh Government offer to councils across Wales to enable them to offer some free parking in our town centres?

It is very much an issue for local authorities to consider, but also it’s something that business improvement districts can give great consideration to. And I think, where they have been operating, there’s been considerable success, demonstrated by an increase in many cases in footfall within town centres. So, it’s very much something that local authorities and, indeed, town councils can consider as part of the way of attracting more business to their locations.

A business in my constituency, AIC Steel Ltd, went into administration yesterday. With redundancy hanging over the heads of 120 workers, what assurances can the Cabinet Secretary give me, the workforce and trade unions that every avenue is being looked at to support the workers through this very difficult time?

Can I thank the Member for her question and say that my sympathies go to all those affected by this morning’s news? We are doing everything we can to support the entire steel industry in Wales, and we’ve previously engaged with this company. We’ve offered the company access to Welsh Government initiatives, including the apprenticeship scheme, which is run by Coleg Gwent, the knowledge transfer partnership and the Graduate Opportunities Wales scheme, as well as the Sell2Wales initiative. Despite several attempts by both my own officials and Newport City Council to meet to discuss possible avenues of support, I’m afraid to say that the company’s been reluctant to meet. Careers Wales and Jobcentre Plus are contacting the company to see what assistance can be offered. I will also be meeting with the general secretary of Unite the Union tomorrow to discuss this matter, and I’ll be contacting the administrators to urge them to liaise with the trade unions.

Questions now from the party spokespeople, and first of all this week, UKIP spokesperson, David Rowlands.

Diolch, Lywydd. Will the Cabinet Secretary update us on the latest position with regard to the Circuit of Wales project?

Yes. Discussions are ongoing between the Circuit of Wales and my officials.

Okay. I understand that a petition has been handed to the Secretary from local constituents demanding some movement by the Government. Can the Cabinet Secretary comment on this?

Yes. We’ve received the petition from the Petitions Committee, which my officials have viewed, and we have responded to the Chair of the Petitions Committee, as requested.

Given that his hugely exciting project was first promulgated some eight years ago, does the Cabinet Secretary not agree with me that constituents across the whole of the Heads of the Valleys region are fully justified in venting their frustration, given that far from the construction actually commencing, a final decision on the go-ahead for this project has still yet to made?

I very much hope that the developers are able to live up to their promise of being able to deliver this project with the necessary private sector funding. As I say, discussions are ongoing with my officials. When I discussed the matter in the summer with the developers, they were confident of being able to reach the criteria that was set and we await a formal submission from them, which we can then consider.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Adam Price.

The programme for government has a commitment to develop a new not-for-profit rail franchise for Wales. I’m not only the one, I think, that’s tried and failed so far to understand what this actually means. The policy director of Arriva Wales, speaking to the Welsh Affairs Select Committee recently, said,

‘I do not feel I have ever seen an explanation of what this concept was’.

There are four for-profit companies at the moment preparing to bid for the Wales rail franchise when the current term comes to an end. Are they wasting their time, and is it the Government’s intention to use Transport for Wales, which is currently about five people in Treforest, to bid as part of the franchise competition?

Transport for Wales itself is a not-for-profit organisation, which will be in charge of all elements of the franchise, including all concessions. Just as with any charity or, indeed, organisation, such as Transport for London, they will be able to manage the franchise in such a way that ensures that there can be a split between the actual delivery partner and the other concessions such as refreshments and ticketing to ensure that, where it is possible, we’re able to have not-for-profit organisations operating those concessions, but where we could also have capped profits, so that that prevents leakage with the delivery partner.

It seems to me, Llywydd, a bit like the tax cut that we were offered the other day. This is a not-for-profit operator in name only. One of the other commitments in the programme is to create a Wales development bank, which was born out of dissatisfaction with the way in which Finance Wales was being run. We now know that Finance Wales is bidding to deliver the new Wales development bank. One of those criticisms by the access to finance review group was that Finance Wales were managing funds wholly outside of Wales, diverting their attention from their primary purpose and effectively operating as a quasi-private company. Can I ask the Cabinet Secretary if he is aware that Finance Wales is currently bidding to run the Northern Powerhouse investment fund? Isn’t this completely inconsistent with the recommendations in terms of the development bank that it’s bidding now to run as well? Would he reconvene the access to finance task group so that they can review the business plan that Finance Wales are putting forward so that we can see that it is consistent with the recommendations that were actually supported by a resolution of this Assembly?

First, just going back to Transport for Wales, Transport for Wales reflects a model that is Transport for London, which I’m sure you would not argue is anything other than a not-for-profit organisation.

In terms of Finance Wales, the member criticises Finance Wales, but if we actually look at the figures for Finance Wales for the most recent period available, we’ll see that last year was a record year in which they invested £45 million in Welsh businesses. This year, they’re already indicating they will surpass this record, having invested more than £17 million to the end of July, compared against just over £13 million last year. This reflects year-to-date performance exceeding targets by 28 per cent.

In terms of performance on job creation, the year-to-date performance shows that it’s up 153 per cent on last year and they’re set to exceed their target of 3,186 jobs. This represents a record jobs performance for Finance Wales.

I would gently say to the Cabinet Secretary that it would be helpful if he answered the questions that were actually put to him and not simply read out his notes. I take it from his answer that he wasn’t aware that Finance Wales is breaking the spirit of the recommendations of his own Government’s access to finance review by continually bidding to run funds outside of Wales.

He will know that we’re in challenging economic times—[Interruption.] I’d give way to the Cabinet Secretary, if I were allowed to under Standing Orders. He’ll know that we are in very challenging economic times. Isn’t it time for the Welsh Government to put its foot on the accelerator rather than the break? We heard about the delay with the Circuit of Wales. The Government apparently is weighing up whether it wants to support the Egin project in Carmarthen. Two and a half years into the 2014-20 structural funds programme, we haven’t seen a single pound of capital investment on the ground in Carmarthenshire. The same is true in most parts of Wales, because the Welsh European Funding Office is still grinding with the same bureaucratic inertia as before. There’s been talk of a steel innovation centre—badly needed as a result of the news that we’ve heard from Newport. But where is it? Now we hear the transatlantic connector that was promised as part of the bid for the Swansea city region may be at risk as well. Macro caution, micro complacency, delaying big decisions and making a mess of the small ones. Doesn’t Wales deserve better?

We were waiting for the question. It was short in the end, but with a long introduction. The Member, this week, introduced his party’s strategy for investment and infrastructure with the national infrastructure commission. I welcome the paper, but the one glaring, obvious error in it is that he’s not been able to identify where, within the Government’s revenue budget, £700 million will be able to be found. Where will that come from? Health? Education? That’s one glaringly obvious mistake. You say, ‘Be ambitious’—there’s a difference between being realistic and delusional. Being able to just magic out of the air £700 million is very difficult.

The panic that we’ve seen since Brexit on the Member’s benches has been quite stark. They’ve been wanting to sign up to every project that passes over their desk—every project—billions of pounds of pledges. [Interruption.] Ambition? There we are; we call it delusion, because you cannot account for a single penny of what you’d like to borrow. Not a single penny. When asked where you’d find £700 million, you could not answer the question. You could not answer the question of where you would pay the debt from. Panic buying with no answer for how you would afford these—you call them ambitious—projects is not a responsible course for any Government to take.

When you attack us on things like inward investment or business support, your solution is always to just rehash a programme from the past, whether it be the WDA or—what was it that you said in regard to Brexit? It was a Marshall plan for the twenty-first century, designed not with any substance, but purely to identify an opportunity to create a headline.

When you actually look at the record of this Welsh Government, you will see that we have a record number of people employed in Wales. We have the largest percentage increase in private-sector employment compared to the other 12 countries and regions. Since devolution, the number of people in employment has increased more quickly in Wales than the UK. Since devolution, Wales has had the highest increase in GVA per head compared to the 12 UK regions. Yes, there is more to do, but it would not be achieved, and ambitions would not be served, by borrowing what you cannot afford to repay.

Cabinet Secretary, Wales has the oldest operating trains in the UK with some approaching 40 years of age and their ability to offer an efficient service for the modern day is quickly waning. I heard your answer to Leanne Wood earlier today. Can I ask, Cabinet Secretary, how will the Welsh Government ensure that the next operator in Wales will deliver an improved and modernised service?

We’re taking a different approach to the franchise that will be operated from 2018 onwards, where we set the outcomes and then the bidders come to us with proposals to meet them. We recognise that the current franchise is not fit for purpose. The rolling stock is insufficient and is too old. What the consultation that we carried out shows us is that passengers feel that the trains are ageing, the trains do not have sufficient services and stations are not adequate. In terms of accessibility, there were also questions over whether limited mobility can be fully and properly catered for. So, in order to make sure that we get the best possible outcomes, we’ve ensured that there’s been proper analysis of the consultation responses—more than 190 of them—and then the outcomes are set against those desires of the public.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for your detailed answer there. By 2020, all stations and trains must be fully accessible. At present, just 53 per cent of stations in Wales cater for full accessibility. As Arriva Trains’ contract is coming to an end in 2018, there’s no legal obligation for them to deliver these improvements. So, my question is: is Wales on track to deliver these improvements and to deliver these important legislative demands, to ensure that disabled people across Wales have full and accessible access to the rail network?

Where we’re able to invest in stations, we have done. The Member will be aware of cases right across the country where we’ve been able to use our resources to enhance the experience of passengers. There are also responsibilities for Network Rail in this regard. Historically, Wales has not received the share of Network Rail funding that we should expect. My hope, in the future, is that we will see the required resources being invested, not just in the lines but also in the stations. The new rail operator, the delivery partner, will also be expected to invest in the infrastructure, not just in terms of the rolling stock, but, where they are responsible for it, those elements of the service provision at stations.

Cabinet Secretary, I heard your response to the Plaid spokesperson with regard to the not-for-profit rail franchise. The Wales Audit Office has raised concerns that your Government must learn lessons from past franchises and must manage efficiently and effectively the risks in procuring what is a significant investment for Wales. So, with that, are you fully confident at this stage that you are in the best place to offer overall responsibility for procuring the next franchise? Can you confirm whether Wales’s franchise will be for a wholly not-for-profit provider? Finally, do you believe that you’ve got enough resource and skill within the Welsh Government civil service to deliver the Wales franchise?

Yes. I’d like to thank the Member for the question about, in particular, the WAO’s report, which was hugely helpful in appreciating and understanding what needs to be learnt for the next franchise. In terms of human resources, I’m confident that we have the expertise within Transport for Wales. There are many lessons that we need to learn, and the Wales Audit Office’s report actually confirms what was being said by many of the respondents during the consultation period.

In terms of the confidence that I have for the next franchise, there are talks that still need to be had with the UK Government on cross-border journeys and insofar as any alterations to timetables are concerned, but I do have confidence that the schedule will be met, and, in ensuring that there are benchmarks in place for the commencement of the next franchise, I expect it to provide a greater level of service than passengers currently experience.

Yes. We will continue to support economic and infrastructure development across Wales, as set out in ‘Taking Wales Forward’.

I thought that you’d turned into the First Minister there with your very brief answer of ‘yes’, Cabinet Secretary. [Laughter.]

Thank you for that statement, Cabinet Secretary. One thing I’d like to point out is the need for a Dinas Powys bypass. In fairness to the Welsh Government, they have two large infrastructure projects on the drawing board at the moment in Vale of Glamorgan—one is the improvement to the Five Mile Lane and the other is the access road into the Aston Martin development site at St Athan. But, for many people in the eastern part of the Vale of Glamorgan and, indeed, Cardiff, the big bottleneck both economically and socially for transport issues is through the village of Dinas Powys.

There have been various suggestions and proposals put forward from the council to the Welsh Government over the years, but nothing has quite moved on this particular proposal. Have you, in the short time that you’ve been Cabinet Secretary, been able to familiarise yourself with the proposals around Dinas Powys and the transport issues around this village in the Vale of Glamorgan? If you haven’t, could you confirm that you will work with your officials to engage with the local community and, indeed, the council to see whether these proposals can be taken forward?

Yes, I am aware of the problem in this particular area, and I’ve asked officials to liaise more closely with the local authority in an attempt to identify a solution that can be fully funded. We do have a very ambitious programme of infrastructure upgrades across Wales, but I do recognise that Dinas Powys is a unique issue that needs to be resolved. If there’s any part that I can play in facilitating a solution, I will happily do so.

Cabinet Secretary, infrastructure projects in South Wales Central, and across Wales, are a unique opportunity to actually use local industries and local businesses, particularly local steel infrastructure projects. Will you ensure that procurement contracts that you put in place for these developments actually try to focus on using British steel, and particularly Welsh steel?

Indeed I will. Actually, our transport contract documents state that the contractor must ensure that materials used by them and their subcontractors comply with the requirements of responsible sourcing of construction products, and it explicitly states that there is an expectation from the Welsh Government that the contractor will not use steel dumped from overseas markets on any project. Grant funding and investment in projects such as twenty-first century schools, as I outlined at last week’s all-party group meeting, are all now used as levers to require recipients of Welsh Government funding to evidence just how supply chain contracts are being opened up for local steel suppliers. The work stream of the steel taskforce has progressed a series of initiatives on procurement as part of its co-ordinated package of support for the Welsh and UK steel industry, and it’s progressing very well indeed.

Will the Cabinet Secretary consider the following: the Lisvane land deal, up to £40 million lost; land sold in Rhoose, £7.25 million lost; two shops in Pontypridd, £1 million lost; your Government being humiliated and fined over its dodgy procurement procedure, £1.52 million lost? Over £50 million lost, and many are saying that this is the most incompetent Welsh Government in history. So, what are businesses in South Wales Central to make of this staggering loss of money—staggering?

The Member identifies what he calls a ‘dodgy’ deal and a ‘staggering loss’, but you can’t consider the loss without also considering the purchase price, and the Minister who was responsible at the time for the purchase was somebody who sat on your benches.

Yes. ‘Taking Wales Forward’ sets out how we will deliver a more prosperous and secure Wales, underpinned by more and better jobs.

Thank you. Referring to the Welsh economy, academics at Cardiff Business School reported two weeks ago that Welsh output or gross value added is most sensitive to changes in higher rate tax, any cut in which will always raise tax receipts and any rise will always, quote, ‘reduce tax revenue’. Given that Wales has had the lowest prosperity levels per head amongst the 12 UK nations and regions since 1998, how will you be working with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government to ensure that devolved tax levers coming this way will drive economic prosperity levels in Wales and therefore maximise tax revenues to fund key public services?

Well, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government and I will be working very closely to ensure that the levers available to us in terms of tax devolution are used primarily to grow the economy and to grow opportunities to create wealth in all parts of Wales. I don’t think GVA is necessarily the best or only measure of prosperity, and I think that view is shared by the chief economist and chief statistician. What we do know is that employment figures are produced on the most regular basis and, again, we have a very proud story to tell in terms of increases in employment and driving down unemployment. That said, we do need to address GVA, I accept that, and we will do that through a number of means, including increasing productivity, which is why I and the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government will utilise available resources to make sure that R&D and research that will contribute to improving productivity is rolled out wherever and whenever possible.

In 2015, more than one in four adults in employment in Wales were paid less than the living wage, and the Bevan Foundation have identified that nearly half of part-time workers, predominantly women, were also paid below the living wage. What steps will the Welsh Government take to encourage the living wage across the Welsh economy?

I think it’s essential that we see the living wage—and that’s the proper living wage—rolled out right across the economy. As a Government, we’re taking action to promote the living wage in the private sector. Material is being produced on the benefits of adopting the living wage, and that’s shared with businesses, using existing business support mechanisms, and we’ll continue to work with the private sector on this agenda. Presiding Officer, we recognise the role as well that procurement can play in supporting the wider adoption of the living wage, and we’ve recently been consulting on the development of a code of practice on ethical employment within the supply chain, which explores how contracting authorities can consider fair work packages, including the living wage, as part of procurement.

In his non-answer to the question from Adam Price earlier on, the Cabinet Secretary made great play of the fact that more people are in work today in Wales than ever before, which isn’t surprising as the population has gone up. But he said nothing about what the people in work are actually earning. Fifteen years ago, Wales was second from bottom in the league tables of the nations and English regions. Today, it is bottom; it’s been overtaken by Northern Ireland. Scotland was just ahead of Wales 15 years ago; it’s now drawn even further ahead. The south-west of England was just ahead of Wales 15 years ago, and has drawn even further ahead. Isn’t the record of this Labour Government one of unrelieved failure?

I think it requires a brass neck to ask about levels of income when you actually take an opportunity in a different place to vote against national minimum wage. And the Member may be able to confirm whether or not—[Interruption.] Well, does the Member support a national minimum wage? Did he, when the national minimum wage was voted upon in the UK Government, back it or oppose it? It’s a very simple question. [Interruption.] Even if he had been—

I’d been liberated by the electorate by then.

There’s a question there: did you support the national minimum wage? Did your party support the national minimum wage? Because we all know the answer is that UKIP did not and do not support efforts to raise the living standards of lowest income families. The fact is that it was the Labour movement that introduced the national minimum wage. It’s the Labour movement that’s rolling out the living wage across the economy. And in terms of the economy here in Wales, I’ve already said that since devolution Wales has had the fifth highest increase in GVA per head compared to the 12 UK countries and English regions. And in terms of GVA again, people’s material living standards are determined by their wealth, and in this regard Wales is performing much better on measures of wealth.

Our economic development priorities for all parts of Wales are set out in ‘Taking Wales Forward’.

Thank you for that response. Ensuring that our rural communities are technologically connected is crucially important for all sectors of our economy. Given that a report was published today that highlights the fact that mobile network for towns and villages in Mid and West Wales is poor, has the Government given any comment on the idea of giving new guidance to local authorities that would enable them to relax their planning rules and regulations so that we can build taller masts—as has been agreed in England—up to 25m, so that we can improve the signal in those areas?

I’d like to thank the Member for her question. Of course, mobile connectivity is a non-devolved area. Where we have been able to directly intervene through Superfast Cymru, we have made great strides. Superfast Cymru will see Wales become the most connected nation in western Europe, and in parts of mid Wales, such as Powys, 63 per cent of properties are now able to access it. We’ll be working through to 2017 to ensure that the remaining 37 per cent of premises are able to access fast and reliable broadband.

It’s also worth pointing out that properties in mid Wales are achieving far higher average broadband speeds than across Wales as an average. In parts of Ceredigion, for example, the average speed is above 65 Mbps.

As I mentioned, mobile connectivity is non-devolved, but we are continuing our engagement with the mobile network operators to identify what can be done to expand coverage throughout rural parts of Wales, and that includes pressing Ofcom through meetings, and indeed through consultation responses, to use its regulatory powers to improve mobile coverage across Wales, including calling for geographic coverage obligations to be included in future auctions of spectrum, not just coverage obligations that concern the number of individuals who are able to access mobile networks.

One of the areas that should certainly be a Government priority area is your enterprise zones. In Pembrokeshire, around the Cleddau, you have an enterprise zone where you have to pay a toll to go from one part of the enterprise zone to another, and then pay another toll to come back. I’m talking, of course, about the tolls on the Cleddau bridge—the bridge that spans the two parts of the Haven Waterway enterprise zone. Do you still intend as a Government to turn that bridge into a trunk road? If you do intend, as was your previous intention, to proceed with that, how, therefore, will you abolish those tolls?

I’m intuitively opposed to a tax on travel by taxing bridge use, which may actually be raised shortly in a future question from Mark Reckless. In terms of the particular bridge that the Member mentions in the enterprise zone, I’ve not yet investigated trunking that particular route, but it is something that I would be keen to give consideration to if it can, in turn, lead to a growth in the local economy.

Cabinet Secretary, would you please outline to us the chain of command in terms of decisions and sign-offs that applies in relation to the use of public money in driving forward economic development? I’d be interested to understand clearly from you your view on who deploys it, obviously from Welsh Government on down through the chain of command, who signs off and conducts the due diligence and who is responsible for then monitoring the outcomes of said due diligence.

Ultimately, I am responsible for signing off decisions and I’m responsible for ensuring that due diligence has been carried out by my officials and by my heads of sector teams. If the Member has any specific concerns regarding decisions that I or any of my predecessors have taken, I’d very much welcome any notice of that.

‘Taking Wales Forward’ sets out how we will deliver a prosperous and secure Wales that supports business and enables the economic conditions necessary to create wealth and employment opportunities across Wales.

Thank you for the reply, Minister. Creating a highly skilled workforce is vital if we are to meet the needs of a growing economy. How will the Cabinet Secretary ensure that the 100,000 apprenticeships pledge in the programme for government will deliver the skills required by the businesses to make them grow, thereby improving employment opportunities in Wales?

The all-age apprenticeship programme has been commenced. We are confident, based on our record—and it’s a proud record—of being able to deliver at least 100,000 all-age apprenticeships. I say we’re proud of the record, because we have a record completion rate for apprenticeships in Wales. Completion rates now stand at well above 80 per cent. That fares incredibly well compared to England, which has a completion rate of something in the region of 72 to 74 per cent. We’ve got the record of delivery, we’ve got the training providers, we’ve got the employers who wish to take full advantage of the all-age apprenticeship scheme, but that, in itself, will form part of a very unique, novel and, we think, one of the best employability schemes in Europe.

We have redesigned the package of support that we offer, not just to employers, but also to individuals who are either outside of the marketplace or who require additional skills to rise up through their employers’ ranks. That employability programme will be launched, we anticipate, in 2018. As I say, it will bring together all strands of Government activity with regard to employability.

My officials have been in regular discussions with the garden team. I intend to meet the chair in the next few weeks to discuss the report I commissioned on future commercial opportunities for the garden. The report will be published once the chair and trustees have seen it.

May I, for once, share some positive news with the Cabinet Secretary? The number of visitors over the past year is up by 5 per cent, the number of family visits is up by a third, the sale of memberships is up by 41 per cent, and there has been a surplus for the garden over the past two financial years. May I ask the Cabinet Secretary to add to this positive news by confirming the long-term commitment of the Welsh Government to the gardens, which, after all, are a national institution?

Well, I very much welcome the positive news from the garden. It’s great to hear that visitor figures and membership have increased. Of course, the garden has taken advantage of Welsh Government schemes such as the Year of Adventure and also the funding that we provide annually to ensure that more people are attracted to the garden, not just once, but on a repeated basis. That’s why I think membership numbers are particularly pleasing. All partners—all partners—including Welsh Government and Carmarthen county council, agree that the garden is a hugely valuable asset to Carmarthenshire’s tourism offer. But reducing budgets mean that an open-ended commitment to future funding is not sustainable, and so there is a need, and I’m glad to see that the garden is responding to this, to continue that drive for a greater commercial success.

I understand that the UK Government intend to go out to consultation later this year on tolling arrangements.

They are reverting from the private sector to the public sector. My own understanding was the fourth quarter, and I was hoping to have an update on that—the fourth quarter of next year. The Treasury has said that, despite the bridge then being paid for, it plans to continue to have a toll, partly, it says, to repay a debt that it purports to be owed on the bridge. Can the Cabinet Secretary say when that purported debt will be paid off and if he agrees with me that, at that point, the toll should be abolished?

Yes, I do. Subject to the consultation, the bridge reverts to public ownership in 2018, and once the debt has been repaid, all revenues will then go to the Exchequer—above the maintenance costs. That, to me, constitutes a tax on travel to Wales, and I would expect the tolls to be abolished.

Yes, the Historic Environment (Wales) Act 2016 has placed Wales at the forefront of the UK nations in the protection and management of the historic environment. We continue to work closely with a wide range of partners in building a heritage sector that has a sustainable future.

Our nation as a tourist destination is vital in promoting Wales to the world, and our heritage is our living history, something tangible from our past that our children can interact with. There are great historical assets in Caerphilly. We’ve got the largest concentric castle in Europe, a grade II listed ancient monument in Ruperra castle, which needs work, and Llancaiach Fawr, a Tudor manor house near Nelson that aims to attract 80,000 visitors by the year 2020. Preserving and restoring these iconic heritage sites will be crucial to boosting tourism and the local economy. My constituents are involved in local groups, organisations set up to save the historic environment, particularly Ruperra castle. How can they play an active role in strengthening the heritage sector in their communities?

Local groups are absolutely crucial in helping the historic environment remain a vibrant place that people visit, that people experience, that people can volunteer at and that people can acquire skills at. The voluntary group that has looked at Ruperra castle is particularly active, and I congratulate them on their work. In the Member’s constituency, we have the fastest growing visitor attraction in the Cadw estate—that’s Caerphilly castle—and increases in visitor figures have largely been driven by the Year of Adventure activities, including the Caerphilly Dragon, which I know many Members in this Chamber have visited.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary.

The next item is questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Well-being and Sport, and the first question is from John Griffiths.

We are committed to promoting healthy and active lifestyles to prevent ill health and encourage general well-being throughout life. The programme for government will build on progress to date with measures such as the public health Bill, the Healthy Child Wales Programme and a new Wales well-being bond.

Minister, thankfully, the rates of smoking in Wales have been driven down over a period of years, but, unfortunately, smoking still takes a terrible toll on health in Wales. I believe that public policy and the restrictions imposed on smoking have played a significant role, though, in driving down the prevalence of smoking. A survey this year by Action on Smoking and Health and YouGov showed strong public support for extending the smoking ban as it applies to public places in Wales. So, what plans does the Welsh Government have to build on the success of restricting smoking in public places in Wales?

I thank you for that question. You’re right to point out the success that we have had in recent years in terms of working towards our target of 16 per cent of people smoking by 2020. We’re currently at 19 per cent now, so I think we are certainly well on track to hit that target. Some of the real success we’ve had has been amongst children and young people. For example, in 1998, 29 per cent of 16-year-old girls were smoking once a week, but that’s now down to 9 per cent. The figures for boys would be 22 per cent and 7 per cent. I think it’s really positive that smoking is declining amongst young people, particularly, but also the number of young people who have never smoked is growing and I think that that is to be welcomed as well.

The restrictions that you mentioned certainly play an important role in that. We had, just last Saturday, the opportunity to celebrate the one-year anniversary of the regulations on no smoking in cars. I think that it’s fair to say that there has been a high level of compliance with that, and we are seeing a change in behaviour and a change of culture there. So, looking forward, we’ll be re-introducing the public health Bill, as it was at Stage 3, with the e-cigarette sections removed from it. That public health Bill does contain provisions to cover smoking in school grounds, hospital grounds and public playgrounds. It also provides that Welsh Ministers will be able to add additional spaces, using regulations, and that such regulations would be subject to consultation in future. So, there would be scope to extend that in the future, too.

The National Osteoporosis Society has claimed that more services to help diagnose this condition could save NHS Wales £4.5 million per year. They say that only half of the hospitals in Wales currently provide fracture liaison services for out-patients. Cabinet Secretary, what is the Welsh Government doing to improve the services that could help diagnose and prevent osteoporosis in Wales?

Well, I’m sure that the Cabinet Secretary has heard your comments there, and this would be something that the Cabinet Secretary would deal with. In terms of my responsibilities, I’m really keen to see fall prevention improved in Wales, and this would be particularly of importance to people who suffer from osteoporosis as well, in terms of ensuring that they don’t have a really debilitating fall, which could completely have a very, very bad effect on their personal outcomes, their well-being and so on. So, it’s that effect. We have our public health 1000 Lives Improvement programme, and that contains specific work on fall prevention, which I think is important for people particularly with osteoporosis.

Thank you for the question. The Welsh Government’s priorities are to provide the people of Pembrokeshire with health services that deliver the best possible outcomes for patients. We will, of course, be guided by the best and most up-to-date clinical evidence and advice to deliver high-quality care that the people of Pembrokeshire deserve.

I’m grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for that response. Skin Care Cymru has revealed that there is no consultant dermatologist in the entire Hywel Dda Local Health Board area. Whilst there is an issue with recruiting and retaining dermatologists across the UK, the fact that there is not one actually in the entire health board area is extremely worrying. What specific support is the Welsh Government giving Hywel Dda health board to recruit a consultant dermatologist, so that people living with skin conditions in Pembrokeshire can have the vital services that they deserve?

Thank you for the question. Dermatology is a particular challenge across the UK, as you recognise. Recently, there was a retirement from this particular consultant post within the Hywel Dda area. The challenge is how they work with other parts of the service as well, in particular, the growing partnership with Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board, which we are encouraging to understand how consultants work between different areas and across health board boundaries. I’m interested in people having access to a service. Actually, teledermatology is an important part of this as well. So, it’s not just about the consultant level, but it’s also about access at a primary care level as well. We are continuing to support both Hywel Dda and their partners in actually trying to understand what posts they need, at what level, including consultants, and where and how they can be best recruited to make sure that the right service is in the right place at the right time. But I would expect that, in the future, there will be dermatology consultants again within Pembrokeshire, within Hywel Dda, working within what you recognise is a very challenging recruitment market in this particular speciality.

Cabinet Secretary, as you know, the parents of Pembrokeshire have lost the neonatal services at Withybush hospital, supposedly to have a better service provided at Glangwili, but the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health says that neonatal services in Wales are overstretched and under incredible pressure, putting the safety of the sickest babies at risk, and they say that only two out of the 10 neonatal units have enough nurses to staff all their cots. What assurance can you give to the parents of Pembrokeshire, therefore, that this move from Pembrokeshire to Carmarthenshire, and from one hospital to another, is actually going to result in the long term in a better staffing ratio and a better service?

I thank the Member for the question. I appreciate that he has a particular perspective on this, but services have not been lost; they’ve been moved, and they’ve been improved. You quote the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, and we take seriously what they say. We recognise there is real pressure across the UK and in Wales as well. That in particular makes it even more important that the right model of care is provided, and that we don’t try and staff and run models that are unsustainable and don’t provide the right quality of care for people when they need them, because we’re talking about a small number of really sick children who need not just high-quality but very specialist care.

What the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health have said in their review is that the move of the specialist service to Glangwili has improved outcomes and improved compliance with national standards. That’s why we’re moving ahead with the business case that I’m expecting from the health board about the next stage of work in Glangwili to further improve the service. I think that people should take confidence from that. Also, I look forward to having a report back from the royal college’s review team that were recently in Glangwili to look again at the service and give us more reassurance about the quality of service and outcomes that Pembrokeshire parents are receiving. Of course, I met Pembrokeshire mothers when I recently visited Glangwili, to understand directly from them the quality of care that they’re receiving at a really important and difficult time in life, not just for them as a parent, but obviously for their child as well. So, I’ve been impressed by the professionalism and the quality of care that Pembrokeshire parents are receiving in Glangwili.

I now call on the party spokespeople to ask questions of the Cabinet Secretary. First of all, Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Thank you, Llywydd. I’m sure the Cabinet Secretary would join with me in condemning the rhetoric of the UK Conservative Government over the past few days and the disrespect that’s been shown towards staff from outwith these isles who make such a valuable contribution to our NHS. I would want to distance myself from virtually everything that Jeremy Hunt has said. But, coming to my question, he has announced this week that he wants to see more training places in medical schools in England. Is that something that the Cabinet Secretary wants to see happening in Wales?

Thank you for the question. I share your concern at the comments that have been made at the Conservative Party conference by Jeremy Hunt. Members across this Chamber will want to see opportunities for a career in medical training and medical practice for more of our young people within Wales and across the UK, but there’s a real difference between that and saying that foreign doctors are no longer welcome, or they’re only here as an interim measure. In fact, I’ve already written to Jeremy Hunt expressing my concern at the rhetoric that he has been displaying this week and the significant damage it could do, not just to the NHS in England, but right across the NHS family in all four nations. So, I’ve been very clear about my view, it’s on the record, and we will have no part in this. We certainly will not support the path that the Conservatives are taking.

In terms of the future for Welsh and UK-domiciled students and their ability to undertake medical training within this country, I’ve already indicated that we’re looking at our current places and how to encourage more Welsh students to undertake medical training at their place of choice. That will, of course, include work here within Wales and we’re actually looking at the number of medical training places that we have. We want to make sure that we build on the excellence we’ve got from both Cardiff and Swansea, with both the undergraduate and postgraduate entry courses that are run, and I want to make sure we maintain that quality, but also that we have a real springboard for more careers in medical education and training, both here in Wales and across the UK.

I look forward to an increase in places, including of course in Bangor and other parts of Wales. I’d welcome any moves from Welsh Government—and I will continue to press Government and offer my co-operation—on the issue of increasing medical training places.

The Cabinet Secretary has, on numerous occasions, said that there are a record number of consultants and doctors in Wales. We’ve delved into these statistics a bit further. Out of the 65 hospital specialities with data on StatsWales, 32 of them have seen a decline in numbers over the past year, 13 have seen no change, and 20 have seen slight rises. One of those, vascular surgery, is up simply because it now counts as a separate specialism rather than being listed as general surgery. So, it remains a fact that more specialisms have seen a decline in numbers than have seen a rise in numbers. Are you happy with that state of affairs?

Well, it is a fact, not an opinion, that consultant numbers have risen significantly over the last decade. Our challenge always is: in what numbers do we still face a challenge and what can we ourselves do about that? Because, in answer to the first question, which I think was from Paul Davies, we recognise there are some specialties where there are real challenges right across the UK family. And, actually, some of that is international challenge as well. So, we do take the view about the overall numbers, but then look at those areas of specialism. And that’s why, in the recruitment campaign you’ll have heard us discuss and talk about, we want to advertise Wales as a great place to work as well to live, and for people to undertake their training here too.

So, there’s no complacency or any lack of acknowledgement that, in some specialities, we have very real challenges, and getting the model of healthcare right is part of what we need to do to encourage people to come and work here. Because, when people are looking for the next stage in their career—where to live, where to raise a family—they’re actually also thinking about, ‘What will be the quality of the workplace, what will be the model of care I’m going into? Is it sustainable? Will it provide me with the opportunities that I want to undertake great patient care?’, but also other parts of their life too. So, it’s that whole picture we’re looking at, as we do move forward to try and understand how do we recruit the medical workforce of today and the future that we want, and the future of healthcare here in Wales.

You have stated as fact, again, as the record will show, that there has been an increase in doctor numbers in Wales. One of the further facts that we found interesting is that one particular speciality has seen an extra 207 doctors in the past year. That particular speciality, although listed as a hospital speciality, is in fact ‘general practice (doctors in training)’.

Now, we asked for clarification on what that means, and it does in fact refer to trainee doctors in general practice, not specialist consultants working in hospitals. And the reason for such a large increase was down to the fact that, previously, GPs in training who rotated into a GP surgery would be employed by the surgery, and therefore leave the NHS Wales payroll, and so wouldn’t appear on StatsWales figures. Now, NHS Wales Shared Services Partnership have become the lead employer for GPs in training. So, they do appear in the figures. This is the reason why the numbers have gone up. Without that change in the way stats on the workforce are recorded, the figures would actually have shown a decline of 84 hospital doctors. In fact, six of the seven health boards in Wales have shown a decline in the number of hospital doctors they employ. We also know that there has been a fall in the head count of GPs, and it would be even worse if you published the full-time equivalent numbers. Does the Cabinet Secretary now accept that it is misleading of your party to claim that we have a record number of consultants and doctors?

No, I don’t. I don’t accept the way in which you’ve presented the figures. We’re confident there are more GPs now working within NHS Wales, we’re confident there are more consultants working within NHS Wales as well. You highlight the shared services partnership, and actually it’s a real positive that shared services are now the host employer for doctors in training in general practice. It’s something that the British Medical Association and the Royal College of General Practitioners have been very supportive of, because it allows those doctors to actually have some stability in their employment contract relationship, and it means, for example, getting a mortgage is much easier, having had a stable employer there as well. So, we’re doing a good thing there for GP doctors in training. And, on the only figures that I’ve seen myself, we have more GPs in head-count terms, and we have more consultants in head-count terms as well.

The challenge always is what more do we need to do, what timescale can we do that within, and how do we actually deal with our challenges in a way that we’re not compromising the service, we’re actually attracting people to come here, to train, to live, and to work. That’s our ambition, and that’s where we expect to make further progress on this autumn and beyond.

Welsh Conservatives spokesperson, Angela Burns.

Diolch, Lywydd. Cabinet Secretary, between 2009 and 2014, NHS expenditure on mental health ranged from 11.4 per cent to 11.9 per cent of the total NHS spend. Now, given that mental health budget lines are a catch-all for everything from child and adolescent mental health services to dementia, psychotic illnesses, perinatal services, depression and anxiety, do you believe that 12 per cent of the entire NHS budget being spent on mental health, whilst 88 per cent is being spent on physical health, is a correct balance?

Mental health spend is actually the largest individual block of spending that we have within the national health service. And you’ll have heard both myself and the previous Minister indicate the reviews that we’ve done on, for example, the ring-fence, to make sure that that’s real, to make sure more money is being spent. And our challenge isn’t to simply say, ‘Let’s look at the money’. Our challenge always is: are we getting the right outcomes, are we getting enough people seen who have real needs, and how do we do that? And, often, it’s more than just health spend as well, because a lot of this is about more general well-being. For example, social prescribing won’t come down as spend in mental health terms, but, actually, it certainly is. In preventative terms, it often is part of the picture. So, I’m committed to continuing to have mental health as a very real priority for what we do in budgetary terms, but also in service delivery and outcome terms as well. So, I look forward to the questions on the challenges that we still have—and I acknowledge we do as well—as we continue to try and reduce waiting times, but also to see a real and objective measure for outcomes rolled across the NHS, and I’m confident we will do within this term.

That was a nice slide away from my question, actually, Cabinet Secretary, because I asked about the 12 per cent spend as a percentage, and you immediately replied by saying that the services for mental health are the biggest line. But that’s exactly my point. We have cardiac lines, we have diabetes lines within the health budget, but we’ve put everything into mental health. So, yes, you can say 12 per cent for mental health is great, but the problem is mental health is covering a huge variety of different conditions, with different comorbidities. Now, I’ve been reviewing the Pricewaterhouse Coopers report into mental health ring-fencing arrangements, and they are firmly of the view that a ring-fence based, and I’m quoting this:

‘A ring-fence based on historic patterns of expenditure has little continued relevance in the current operating environment.’

So, do you agree with that conclusion, and, if so, how will you move away from the ring-fence model?

We’ve had this review in the past, and I’m happy to look again at the best way to protect mental health spending to make sure that it is there as a real factor in the minds of people planning and delivering our service. But the budget lines collected within mental health are not the only indicator, as I did indicate in my answer. There’s more to it than just simply saying it’s only 12 per cent on mental health and everything else is physical health. And, of course, the ring-fence isn’t the only indicator of all the money that’s spent. We actually spend more than the ring-fenced amount of money on mental health services. I come back again to my interest in saying, ‘Let’s have a line, in percentage terms, on what we should spend in mental health terms and what we should spend elsewhere’—the challenge should always be: are we getting proper value from the money that we spend, are we delivering against the real needs that our population has, and can we further improve that, bearing in mind that we have a finite resource available to us? That’s why I refer to the work we’re doing on outcomes and the work we’ve done with the third sector alliance, where they have difficult questions for us as well about waiting times, and about outcomes as well, but there’s real development. There is a programme here that is not just about how we manage a diminishing resource and diminishing outcomes, but how we set our sights on what we can do to further improve what we are able to deliver in all areas of mental health spending, but also the whole service as a holistic service for the whole person.

First Minister—I keep calling you First Minister; this must be an indication. Cabinet Secretary, you said again just then about delivering what the people of Wales need. And, frankly, we don’t deliver what the people of Wales need on health, on mental health. How many of us here have always talked about child and adolescent mental health services? We know that there are an awful lot of problems in the whole mental health arena. We don’t have enough of the specialists, and we don’t spend enough money on getting the services to people. And it is important, because one in four of us will suffer some kind of mental health episode in our life, and that’s a staggeringly high number. So, in physical health, there is much recognition by your Government of comorbidity, but the same is just not—there’s not the same sort of view within mental health.

So, what I’d like to know, Cabinet Secretary is: in your soon to be announced mental health plan, how much can we expect in terms of capacity and demand, and an end to silo working? Because I think we sometimes forget, and I have had constituents who can reaffirm this to me again and again, that a person with dementia can also have cancer, a person with depression can have a physical condition, a child in a wheelchair can have eating disorders, but we tend to only pick the physical element to treat first and leave the mental health issue second. I would like to see an end to this silo working, so that we can get to people, the one in four of us who will have some kind of mental health condition at some point in our life, and get those services to us, and I fear that at the moment we’re simply not going down the right track.

There’s always more that we can do to objectively recognise what we do well and what we don’t do as well and need to improve on. But I think it’s rather unfair to suggest that the national health service is only interested in treating people’s physical conditions or the health commissioning separately. What we do need to do is see the whole person and treat the whole person and understand, in many instances, the risks they’re prepared to take legitimately for themselves—this isn’t about capacity, but saying they’re entitled to make a choice about what they want to do and the sort of treatments that they want to engage with.

For example, in dementia care, we know that, with lots of people who have dementia, there are challenges about understanding their physical health and making sure that they’re not avoided and, actually, that the person who has charge and responsibility for their care sees that whole person, understands their physical needs and their mental health needs as well. When you look at the work that is being done with stakeholders that will lead into the next delivery plan, which I’ll be proud to launch on 10 October on World Mental Health Day, you’ll see that there is a great recognition of people’s physical health and mental health and wellbeing being inextricably linked and tied up.

We see that in a range of things that we already do within Government. For example, Healthy Working Wales. I’ve been very interested to present the awards, not just because I like turning up and having my picture taken, but actually you hear different stories from different employers—small, medium and large employers—and there’s a real feeling that, in the work they’re doing with us, they’re actually recognising the mental health challenges and the well-being challenges for their workforce and understanding what they need to do to improve that. So, it is something that I’m seeing more and more and I expect to see it more consistently in the work we do and in the programmes that we fund. So, it isn’t just about looking in the one budget line to see where mental health is—it is much broader than that, and I expect that we will see that progressively through the national health service.

UKIP spokesperson, Caroline Jones.

Diolch, Lywydd. Cabinet Secretary, with the number of people aged 65 and over projected to increase by 44 per cent in the coming decades, we must ensure that our social care sector can cope with the inevitable increase in demand for social care. Unfortunately, we have seen massive cuts in social care budgets and we are simply not training enough social care workers, or the ones that we already have feel undervalued, many of them. Social care workers are overworked and, in many instances, are not given enough time to properly care for the people that they have to care for. What is the Welsh Government doing to ensure that social services are adequately funded and ensure that we have sufficient staff to allow our dedicated social care workers time to care?

Thank you for the question. I’m actually pleased when social care gets mentioned in these questions. It’s very easy to simply default to simply talking about the health service and doctors in particular in this set of questions. I don’t share your suggestion that social care has had massive cuts in Wales. Actually, we’ve seen health and social care together. Massive cuts have taken place within England and, if you look at what’s happened here in Wales, we’re in a much, much better position—not just in terms of the funding, because funding is, I think, 7 per cent per head higher on health and social care in Wales than in England, but in the way in which we see the whole service: the way we fund it, and how we look to organise it. That’s why the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 is such an important indicator of the move forward. We see health and social care needing to work more progressively together—not because there is more need and more demand coming through, but actually we think people get a better service with better outcomes.

How do those people collaborate and work together? That’s why the Minister will be setting out, progressively, throughout the rest of this term, how we’ll implement the social services and well-being Act, the areas of mandated working together, and the areas where we encourage people to work together as well. If you just want to think about the workforce as well, it’s right to say that this is a highly pressured profession. It is not an easy job and social workers are often held up as the bad people when something goes wrong. Actually, we need more people to value the profession and recognise what they can do in supporting families to still be together as a family, to make choices together, and to help make people get out of very difficult parts of their lives.

I’m delighted to say that the British Association of Social Workers have recognised that, in Wales, it is a much better environment to work than other parts of the UK. That’s the profession itself talking about the reality of working here. It doesn’t mean that it’s easy in Wales, it doesn’t mean to say that there isn’t pressure, but we definitely have a better service and a better system and a better response than you’ll find over the border. Our challenge is how we continue to improve, bearing in mind the unavoidable reality that we will have less money to work with each and every year within this Assembly term.

Thank you for your answer, Cabinet Secretary. The Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Act 2016 will introduce massive changes to the social care sector. The entire social care workforce will now have mandatory training standards. There are currently many working in the domiciliary care sector who are likely to require significant training in order to meet the new training standards. We also have a shortage of social care workers, particularly in domiciliary care. What workforce planning is the Welsh Government undertaking to ensure we have sufficient training places available to meet demand and that we are recruiting and retaining staff in sufficient numbers to meet the future needs of the sector?

I’m delighted to hear you mention the regulation and inspection Bill, now the Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Act 2016, that the Minister is taking forward, and, indeed, the work that she is taking forward on understanding the future needs of the workforce. There’s a range of actions in place and I’m sure you’ll be delighted to hear further updates from the Minister in due course. If you want to understand the detail, I’m sure she’d be happy to meet you.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Without the more than a third of a million unpaid carers, our social care sector would be massively overloaded. It is estimated that unpaid carers save the health and social care sector over £8 billion a year. Research by the Carers Trust found that 30 per cent of carers don’t take any breaks and that 65 per cent of carers spend what little breaks they have doing household chores. Carers need regular breaks if they are to remain healthy and able to continue providing care. Without respite, carers’ health and well-being is put at risk and there is an increased likelihood that those they care for will have to be admitted to hospital or residential care. Carers Trust are calling for a carer well-being fund to be established in Wales to provide breaks for carers. Will the Welsh Government consider establishing such a fund? After all, it is a small price to pay considering the savings that Wales’s 370,000 carers deliver to our NHS and social services each year.

I’m sure that Members across the Chamber will recognise the significant value that carers provide, not just simply in financial terms, but also in terms of the ability to be cared for by a loved one or by someone they know. Many of us in this room will, of course, have had experience of being carers for friends and/or family members. Members will also, I hope, know that the Minister is the lead Minister for carers and, indeed, as she’s taking forward the social services and well-being Act, and the carers strategy within it, there is an understanding of the fact that carers now, for the first time, have the ability and the statutory right to have their own needs assessed by public services as well. That’s a real step forward.

So, I expect that carers in Wales—I certainly hope that they will see and recognise that we’re taking positive steps forward. I know that Carers Wales have contact with the Minister and I’m sure that any proposals they have will be considered seriously by the Minister and me as we look to understand how we can further improve the provision for carers, for their ability to have respite breaks as well, but also to understand that you need to see the carer and the person they care for individually and understand what they mean together, to and for each other. But, again, if you wish to have a more detailed discussion on this, I’m sure the Minister would be very happy to make time to have that conversation with you.

Thank you for the question. As I made clear in my statement to the Assembly on 20 September, we will be launching a national and international recruitment campaign on 20 October to market Wales and NHS Wales as an attractive place for doctors to train, work and live.

Doctor shortages affect all areas throughout the country, as we’ve already heard, but, in the Rhondda, we’ve got a particularly acute problem, which has led to Cwm Taf university health board setting up a website specifically to attract doctors to our area. Even though you are still in denial as to what the statistics say, as we saw just now in your answer to my colleague, Rhun ap Iorwerth, the number of hospital doctors employed by Cwm Taf declined by 44 between 2014 and 2015, which is, of course, the last date when we have figures available. This is a staggering loss for just one year. The number of hospital doctors employed by Cwm Taf is now lower than it was in 2009. You’ve said previously that this is a record number of doctors. Is this what a record number of doctors looks like in the Rhondda? Do you now regret making that statement to me earlier on this summer, or are you still in denial?

This isn’t a question of being in denial, and there’s a challenge for us about how we talk about health and social care in a grown-up manner in this Chamber, and how we understand what we need to do to improve outcomes for people receiving care and improve—not just increase the number—the way that the workforce is organised.

I’m really pleased to recognise initiatives that doctors in the Rhondda are taking. I think that the Rhondda Docs website is an excellent initiative for Rhondda doctors, and it’s a positive message about what it means to live and work in the Rhondda and what they’re actually doing. For example, their most recent recruits talk about what they’re doing and they talk about where they save time, both for patients and for doctors.

I really do think that there’s a balance here between saying, ‘How do we hold the Government and the health board to account? How do we ask difficult and awkward questions as part of what we do?’ and, at the same time, ensuring that we don’t simply say, ‘Everything is awful and nothing is changing’. I’m actually positive about where we are, because we’re recognising the challenges that we have. We’re recognise the picture that we face and we recognise the areas where there’s a real challenge in changing the areas in which the service is organised from primary to secondary care, within primary and specialist care, and what we need to do to have the best possible chance of attracting people to come to Wales to train, to work and to live.

I’m looking forward to the next stage of our campaign. I look forward to coming back to this Chamber in years to come to look at what we’ve actually managed to achieve and to say honestly where we’ve been successful working with our partners, and, equally, to recognise what more we still need to do. Every year, we’ll know what we need to do in what is a remarkably difficult recruitment market and a remarkably difficult position across the UK, bearing in mind the picture of public services and the rhetoric of the UK Government that will affect us, too, when it affects other people who ask, ‘Do I want to come and work within a healthcare system where the message of the UK Government is that you’re only welcome for a certain period of time?’ We will still be reliant on international recruitment as well as doing more of what we could and should do to make sure that people within Wales and the UK have a real career and a real stake in medical education, training, living and working as doctors in our country.

As well as timely access to a GP, I’m sure that the Cabinet Secretary will agree that fair access is also vital. Is he aware of a pilot programme operating in England where patients are actively encouraged to pay to jump the queue for an NHS GP appointment? Would he agree with me that that kind of practice has no place in the NHS here in Wales?

I thank the Member for the question and for highlighting the issue. I understand that the company is called Doctaly and it’s operating around the London area, but they’re looking to expand. I absolutely share your sentiment—I don’t think that this has any place in the health service here in Wales. It would not be something that we would fund or encourage here in Wales. We believe in a public service ethos for our health service here in Wales. We are supporting core values and principles for staff across the piece, and there is no way that I would encourage or support such measures to take place here in Wales. Our challenge is how we improve the service for the whole population, not how we give an advantage to people with money to take further advantage of a system that is here to serve all of us.

Cabinet Secretary, the old primary care model is not so attractive to many young doctors, particularly the high capital cost, for instance, that they have to commit to in a partnership. Also, many young GPs want to carry through to a level of specialism and, again, unless there are larger practices, this can be very difficult. It seems to me that these two areas are rich in opportunity to develop here in Wales and make it particularly attractive to GPs.

I think that those are completely fair and reasonable points to make. We recognise that the older model may work for some people, but there are different doctors with different priorities—a change in the workforce and a change in what people want to do. For example, it isn’t just that there are more women who are doctors—actually, men who are doctors want to spend more time with their families as well. So, you see people who think that it’s important that they’re around as their child is growing up, and that that, actually, perhaps, if you go back 50 years, might not have been the priority. So, understanding how and why we change the model really matters.

It’s not simply about cutting our cloth against the money. It’s actually about saying, ‘How do we improve outcomes for people to make sure that it’s a more attractive place for people to live and work in the country?’ I’ve said before in this Chamber, and have had some criticism from some Members, that the future of primary care will almost certainly be a smaller number of organisations—amalgamations and/or federations—where there should be more potential to still provide a local service with doctors who people know and trust, but that will provide different services to shift more care into the primary sector.

A really exciting and positive step forward, I believe, is the federation that’s taking place within one cluster in Bridgend, where doctors have come together. They’ve formed their own not-for-profit model to understand how they can run and manage their service in a more holistic way. That should make it easier for new doctors to come in, not having to buy into a property, and to understand what those partnerships will look like in the future. There are questions for us about how we use capital funding to renovate the primary care estate and what that then means for the people working in that service and providing and delivering what I hope will be an expanded and more diverse service that still meets the needs of people in every community up and down the country.

Yes. Our ‘Informed Health and Care’ strategy for Wales is our long-term vision for implementing new ways of delivering care by exploiting digital technologies, including telemedicine, to improve patients’ health and well-being.

Thank you. I have a question about the need for broadband providers to ensure that those who require a high standard of broadband connectivity for telemedicine needs actually receive it. I know of a community on Ynys Môn—a whole community—that are without superfast broadband. Within that community there is a family where the husband has had a diagnosis of spinocerebellar ataxia 6, which is a very rare disease as I understand it, with only about 18 people in the whole of the United Kingdom suffering with it, and which impacts his ability to speak. He’s waiting for a communication device that will help him to put words together, but you have to have good connectivity or access to the broadband service in order to be able to use it. The whole community requires broadband. I’m doing what I can to put pressure on Openreach, but what pressure can the Cabinet Secretary for health, perhaps in collaboration with the Minister for Skills and Science, bring to bear on Openreach in order to ensure that they look again at the issue given that an individual’s health is at risk?

I thank you for the question and the particular point that you raised. We recognise there’s great potential in telehealth for the future and we think it’s a good way of providing specialist services to people to make sure people get care closer to home. Often, you don’t need to travel, and that’s a big part of the advantage, and we’ve seen it in the mid Wales collaborative. On the particular point that you make, I am actually meeting the Minister for Skills and Science later today and we have a range of subjects to discuss, and broadband access will be one of them. This is something where we’ve got lots to be proud of in the way in which we’re actually rolling out broadband access right across Wales, in different communities, but understanding those areas where it’s more difficult to access is a key part of what we want to do to make sure that healthcare remains properly equitable and accessible based on need, not geographic accidents. So, these are matters that we’re keen to have a discussion about to understand what we can do to positively move things forward. If you’d like to write to me with the details of the petition, I’ll happily look at it and have that conversation with you afterwards.

Cabinet Secretary, telemedicine is an important aspect of modern healthcare, which helps to get the right treatment and the diagnosis to the right people at the right time, in the right place, but it can also, as you said, help minimise the need for patients to physically attend their GP surgeries in a remote area, or even to wash up into A&E as a last back-stop. So, could I ask him, on that theme: would he join me in welcoming the launch, only yesterday, and the new roll-out of the non-emergency 111 service in Bridgend and Neath, and agree with me that this also is part of helping the public to access the most appropriate level of care for their needs in the right time frame, and that this service should also reduce that pressure on GPs and on A&E?

Yes, I’m very happy to recognise that, and I’m glad that someone has noted the launch of the 111 service. It’s been developed on the back of what worked and what didn’t work in England as well by a project group here in Wales. I’m really pleased to recognise the real buy-in from the ambulance service trust, from secondary care, but also from GPs and primary care health professionals as well. So, we’ve got buy-in into the model that we’re running and I do think it will mean that people can get care and advice on the phone or online and make that much easier for them to access. So, I do also agree that it should mean that GPs’ time will be freed up, and it should also mean, I hope, that fewer people will arrive at A&E inappropriately when their care needs can be dealt with elsewhere. The initial roll-out is in the Abertawe Bro Morgannwg area; it’s in Bridgend and Neath, as you know, and it should then roll out to the Swansea area afterwards. So, I’m really positive about this development and I look forward to updating Members in the new year about the results and the feedback from this initial pilot, and I really think this is going to be something we can actually be really proud of and it will make a real and positive difference to communities and constituencies right across the country.

Cabinet Secretary, recent reviews of the literature have confirmed that telepsychiatry is as effective as in-person psychiatric consultations for diagnostic assessment, is at least as good for the treatment of disorders such as depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, and may be better than in-person treatment for some groups of patients, notably children, veterans and those with agoraphobia. Has any of your 12 per cent mental health investment been used in this way?

When I look at developments for telemedicine and telehealth, I don’t simply divide it up in terms of those particular budget lines. We look at what we can do and what infrastructure we need to make sure that people can access that service. For example, in eye care, you have a particular need for cameras, whereas if you’re talking about the access to talking therapies, then it’s a different sort of influence you need, which isn’t just about the talking therapy itself. But I’m keen to understand what we can do, how quickly we can do it and how consistently we can do it to roll out effective practice. So, I’m particularly interested in this area and in others in taking telemedicine forward here in Wales.

Thank you for the question. The Welsh Government continues to work with the Aneurin Bevan university health board and other partners to provide the people of Torfaen with high-quality health services that deliver the best possible outcomes for the people of Torfaen.

I’m grateful to you, Cabinet Secretary, for meeting with me on numerous occasions since your appointment to discuss the specialist critical care centre planned for Cwmbran. However, the fact remains that the business case for the hospital has been in with Welsh Government now for a year, and you are now the fourth Minister charged with making a decision on what is a crucial development, not just for my constituents in Torfaen, but for the whole of Gwent. Indeed, as you know, the development is a fundamental part of the south Wales plan. When I asked you about this in health committee recently, you indicated that you expected to receive advice and to update Members by half term recess, yet yesterday the First Minister said that a decision was expected by the end of this year. My constituents now have been promised a new hospital for more than a decade. When can we expect a final decision on this?

I thank the Member for the question, and I do recognise that she has persistently and consistently raised this issue in this Chamber for more than one term, as well as in the meetings that I have been happy to have with you and a range of other Gwent constituency members who have taken up the issue with you. I said in health committee that I recognise there is a need for certainty, that I recognised the time that it has taken to get to this point and that I am the fourth health Minister who has had this issue presented to them to try and make some sort of decision. I am keen to provide certainty and I have stuck to the timetable that I indicated in committee: within this half of this term, I expect to receive advice to allow me to make a decision. I recognise this isn’t just a Gwent issue, but it is part of the south Wales programme. So, I have to understand what impact this will have, not just on localised healthcare for constituents living in Gwent, but what impact it will have upon the broader range of services that we need to have right across south Wales, to make sure that our healthcare services are fit for the future. I recognise the impact locally, regionally and nationally. I’m determined to stick to that timescale and to give you and other Members the confidence that this has not been hit into the long grass. This is something that is very much at the forefront of my mind, and I expect to keep to the timescale that I’ve indicated to you in committee that, by the end of this month, I should have advice and I shall make a decision.

A report last year by leading Welsh mental health and wellbeing charity Gofal found that 59 per cent of respondents judged access to statutory alcohol services in Torfaen as average, poor or very poor. Does the Cabinet Secretary share my concern at these results, and will he agree that we need to review these treatment services to see what can be done to improve them in Torfaen and South Wales East?

It’s important to understand the views of people who use a service, both in terms of what works and what doesn’t work as well; it’s an important part of service improvement. So, we do need to listen to the voice of the service user to understand what doesn’t work. You grouped together those people who found that the service was average, as well as less than average too. So, I wouldn’t quite think that the initial percentage figure is a fair reflection of the quality of the service, but I would expect the health board and their partners—because much of this delivery takes place with third sector partners—to look critically at the voice of the user and understand what they will need to do to work with the user to understand how they can improve the service.

The Welsh Government is committed to improving the provision of the neuroendocrine tumour services in Wales. The Welsh Health Specialised Services Committee has carried out a thorough review of south Wales services and is now working to implement improvements.

Cabinet Secretary, I’ve been contacted by constituents who are concerned about delays in neuroendocrine tumour referrals. What assurances can you give that such referrals take place within the timeframes and guidelines recommended by the Welsh Health Specialised Services Committee?

Thank you for the question. In north Wales, people access a specialist service in Liverpool and there isn’t a particular issue about access. The challenge here in south Wales is how—. There is the ability, for people who wish to, to access services in England while we’re working on a model here. It is a specialist service and it’s a relatively rare indication. The challenge has been working through the previous recommendations. We had a stakeholder meeting in September—literally three weeks ago. That’s been carried forward and I expect that the Welsh Health Specialised Services Committee’s management board will then make a choice about the future delivery of the service model.

I recognise that the pace has not be as quick as both people in the service and patients would want it to be, but there is a recognition that a choice needs to be made and then people need to get on with delivering that model for the future. At this point in time, I think people are travelling further than they perhaps could do or should do. Having a properly specialist service organised in this manner should actually mean that we can improve outcomes for people as well as access.

Cabinet Secretary, there have been various tensions in the system, obviously, depending on where you live in Wales, as to exactly when you might be seen. There are some examples of excellent practice and then in other areas, there are delays in actually progressing through to the treatment path and cancer services. We have put forward, on several occasions—and it has been proven in practice in other parts of the United Kingdom—that if a senior oncologist was put in post to have a national overview to drive improvements in cancer services, this could act as a beneficial improvement in waiting times and in the general delivery of cancer services across Wales.

What would your view be of putting an individual in place with the necessary clinical background to help assist you in your role, and your officials, in driving forward improvement on cancer waiting times, so that the postcode lottery is, as best as it can be, taken out of the system?

On the particular part of neuroendocrine tumours, we do have a path forward where there is clinical leadership and a recognition of what we need to do. We’re awaiting the outcome from the Welsh Health Specialised Services Committee. I think you’re asking a much broader question about cancer services in general. Of course, I indicated yesterday—I’m not sure if you were back at the time—that the cancer delivery plan is being refreshed. It’ll be launched before the end of the calendar year and that does provide both service leadership and clinical leadership. And importantly, the third sector is involved in that too.

The challenge is whether we have a national clinical lead indicated, and whether that will really drive improvement. But I think that, given the work that has been done on that refresh and given the—. In the clinical community in Wales in cancer services, there’s actually a real unity of purpose that I think the delivery plan process has helped us to deliver. So, I don’t think it’s about a national clinical lead for this area or having a particular oncologist appointed. It’s really about saying: when we get that plan, how do we deliver it at pace and at consistency, and what reforms do we need to make about the way we deliver those services, both in primary care, with primary care oncology support, as well as what we need to do in secondary care and over the whole pathway? So, there’s lots for us to go at and I’m optimistic that we can do that over the course of this term and have not just better access, but better outcomes for people here in Wales as well.

Increasing levels of physical activity is a priority for the Welsh Government. We are addressing this through legislation, policies and a range of interventions. We are committed to developing a cross-cutting healthy and active strategy, setting out how we will maximise the impact of all that we are doing.

Thank you for that answer, Minister. Of course, as I’ve mentioned already in the committee, being fit means a reduction in your blood pressure of about 30 per cent, a reduction in blood sugar levels of about 30 per cent, a reduction in your cholesterol level of about 30 per cent and weight loss of about 30 per cent as well. Now, there is no tablet on the face of the earth that can compete with those figures. So, could you emphasise how easy it is in terms of fitness? A lot of people—what stops them is thinking, ‘Oh, I have to buy some expensive gym membership somewhere and I have to buy the specialist equipment and clothes and so forth’. It’s about walking 10,000 steps a day. Could you emphasise how easy it is, essentially, to be fit? Thank you.

Thank you very much for that question. I think our active travel Act is a prime example of how we’re trying to take forward that particular part of the agenda in terms of trying to make Wales a really easy and accessible place—for walking and cycling to be the No. 1 choice of transport for shorter journeys. I met with our active travel board just this morning. I’ve been really enthused by the depth of experience, knowledge and expertise that we have on our board, and their absolute commitment to helping Welsh Government drive forward not only our active travel Act, but also our active travel plan, which is cross cutting, right across Government. For example, there are actions within that for the education Minister and actions for planning and so on, as well. So, I’ll be writing shortly to my colleagues, highlighting what’s within the plan that sits under each of those departments, because I do think it’s really important that the active travel Act, particularly, is driven forward in a cross-cutting, cross-Government way.

Finally, question 8, Huw Irranca-Davies.

Diolch, Lywydd. Cabinet Secretary, I know that you’re aware that, on the ground, in Llanharan and Pencoed, there are growing calls, particularly—

You need to ask the question.

Oh, my apologies. Will the Minister—[Laughter.]

Thank you for the question. Abertawe Bro Morgannwg and Cwm Taf university health boards are working together on primary care services in Pencoed and Llanharan. They’re putting in place a joint working party to look at new ways to better meet local need.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary. It’s the second time I’ve done that; I’ll try not to do it again. It’s great to hear about the work going on on the ground, and much of that has been pushed by local residents and also the leadership of local individuals like councillors Geraint Hopkins, Roger Turner and others. But could I ask him to keep a particular eye on this, because the population of Llanharan is growing and growing? There are also needs within the Pencoed area as well. But clearly what is needed is something that is modern, that provides not only GP services, but that wider service of the allied health professionals as well, that does exactly what the Welsh Government is trying to do, which is to keep people closer to their homes, healthy and fit, and not to have them washing up into A&E because their fitness and their health suffers. So, please keep a close eye on this. It’s great to hear of the work that’s going on, but, please, anything he can do to encourage it will be gratefully received.

Thank you. I recognise there is planned population growth within the particular area and there are challenges about the current service model that’s being delivered and also the estate, as well. You are right; there was an indication in previous questions that the way in which we use the primary care estate will be important for the model that we provide—for GPs, but also for the public and what they can expect to receive in that. I recognise what you say about the two local members, and I’m glad you haven’t tried to sing in the way that Geraint does often—although he’s got a great voice. But I do think that it’s important to keep an eye on what’s happening, and I’ve had conversations with the chairs of both health boards involved. It’s a border issue, because the communities we’re talking about straddle that unseen border. So, I expect to be kept properly appraised of what is happening and I look forward to working with both yourself and other stakeholders to deliver a better future for primary care in this particular part of Wales.

Thank you to the Cabinet Secretary.

I’ve accepted an urgent question under Standing Order 12.66 and I call on Darren Millar to ask the urgent question.

Yes. The Welsh Government was made aware of this situation by Betsi Cadwaladr university health board last week. I’ve been assured that the health board has taken action to ensure patient safety, and an investigation into the allegations has begun.

Thank you for that answer, Cabinet Secretary. This was obviously very concerning news when it came to light yesterday in north Wales, particularly given the fact that the dust has yet to settle on the Tawel Fan scandal, which, of course, rocked the people of north Wales just last year. I, like you, welcome the action that has been taken by the health board to date, over the past few days. It is, of course, essential now that they minimise the disruption to those vulnerable patients who are still in the care of that particular unit and keep people’s loved ones informed.

Can I ask you, though, Cabinet Secretary, what assurances can you provide the people of north Wales that there isn’t a more general problem with mental health services across the region? This is just the latest of a number of reports and concerns that are being raised over the quality of care and, indeed, the environment in which people are cared for in various units across north Wales. Can you tell us as well whether the bed capacity in north Wales, in your opinion, is fit to meet the needs of the population there? Can you also tell us, given that the health board is in special measures, and that it’s in special measures partly because of the problems within the mental health services in that region, when on earth are we going to see a mental health strategy in north Wales so that we can get the sort of security around the future of the services in that region, and we can be holding the health board, and indeed you as a Cabinet Secretary to account for delivery against that strategy? The current situation is not acceptable. It’s important that people have these assurances. At the moment, I’m afraid, there are big question marks over those services in the region.

I don’t think it is helpful to refer back to the particular events at Tawel Fan as a catch-all to try and beat the service across the piece in north Wales. There is a serious allegation that has been made about patient care, and I’m pleased, actually, that that member of staff felt able to raise that issue. The health board acted properly and appropriately. I think that’s an indication of what should have happened in the past, and didn’t in certain areas. That, I think, does show some progress and recognition of what needs to change.

The health board is in special measures, as everyone knows from the updates I have openly given in this Chamber and in writing. Mental health services in north Wales do need to improve significantly. It’s the scale of the challenge that is a significant part of the reason why I announced previously that the health board would be in special measures for a two-year period. We are part way through that. I don’t expect the service to be perfect now, I really don’t. It wouldn’t be realistic. The challenge is how they make progress from now. So, they do have a new and experienced director of mental health services. I’ve met him, and I’m impressed with his commitment and the message that he has given about needing to review and reform the service. So, that is something about having a proper strategy with buy-in from the public and from the staff, and that will mean some change.

But the particular issue that you raise in the question, perhaps, doesn’t really go back to that wider strategy. The strategy is important. The delivery will be important. We’ll have external reassurance, and there’ll be regular reports from me about those reassurance meetings. We have the Wales Audit Office, Health Inspectorate Wales and the chief exec of NHS Wales to review progress against special measures. I expect to see progress, and if progress isn’t being made, I expect to be advised properly about where that progress has not taken place. I will have an eye on mental health services across north Wales. I will pay particular attention and time to it, as I have done on each visit to north Wales. So, this is a serious issue. It needs to be dealt with seriously, and I expect to be open and honest with Members in this Chamber and beyond about what progress has been made and what is still yet to come.

You tell us clearly that you don’t expect the service to be perfect, but surely we should expect the service to be better. Yet, here we are again facing what could be another serious scandal of poor patient care in north Wales. Only this time, of course, the sanction of special measures has already been used. So, it’s difficult to see, if our worst fears are realised, where the Government can go on this one, really.

Doctors and nurses who misbehave can clearly be struck off, they can lose their livelihoods, they can even go to prison, yet we are seeing these scandals time and time again. Often, of course, when the investigation occurs, they highlight management failings. Now, is it time, do you think, Cabinet Secretary, to have NHS management under professional regulation, with managers able to be struck off if their decisions or their failures lead to patients coming to harm?

Part of the challenge in dealing with a particular issue is that I think we’ve got a responsibility not to speak as if those fears are facts. The action that has been taken has been entirely appropriate in that they suspended staff as a neutral act to allow an investigation to take place. There will be an external person from outside Betsi Cadwaladr undertaking that investigation, and that is important too, both for the staff and the families that might be concerned, but also the broader public as well, to understand that this will not be an internal investigation for the health board investigating itself. There’s a point there about the level of reassurance. I think that that should give other people confidence that the managers in this instance are doing the right thing. Rather than thinking about different ways to have different sanctions for managers, I think we’ve got plenty of potential sanctions for managers already about the accountability that they do not have within the system. Our challenge is: how do we make sure that they are held properly accountable and what measures do we have in place? Because, the ultimate sanction is that someone loses their job. You know, that’s such a high-measure sanction to take, and how many times will that improve the service? I’m always interested—. What do we do to understand our problems and challenges in the service? Who is responsible for that, how are they held accountable, and what do we then need to do to improve?

You will have seen that, in north Wales, there is a new management team in the mental health service because we recognised that that needed to take place. We’ve put expertise into the health board, with the senior nursing staff who have gone there over a period of time, and I’m pleased to see that they have recruited an experienced mental health director who is now taking responsibility for delivering a different strategy and an improved strategy, recognising that significant improvement does still need to take place. Though, at this point in time, I would not try and tell you that everything is perfect, and it’s only fair that I do recognise that that’s where we are, rather than tell everyone that things are well, things are perfect, and there is no change needed. We recognise change is needed. There are more difficult choices to be made in Betsi Cadwaladr to make sure that we don’t return to this position in the future, and people receive the services they’re entitled to expect.

Cabinet Secretary, I don’t know the details of what’s happened in this ward, but as you know, I’m a longstanding advocate of the need to extend the Nurse Staffing Levels (Wales) Act 2016 to adult mental wards. I have made the point previously in the Chamber that the patients on those wards are probably the most voiceless that we will see in the NHS. When this investigation has been completed, will you undertake to share the findings with Assembly Members? And will you in particular look at whether this can give further impetus to the need to extend the safe staffing levels legislation to adult mental health wards in Wales?

Thank you for the question. The report on the investigation won’t be for me, it will be for the health board, but I would expect they will make sure that Assembly Members are briefed. In fact, Assembly Members were briefed on this particular issue, and, again, it is to the credit of the health board—they were proactive in telling people about the problem, rather than waiting for it to leak out. So, the POVA—protection of vulnerable adults—investigation has started as well. So, as I say, they’re doing the right thing. In understanding what comes out in the report, I would expect Assembly Members to be briefed again as well, and I would expect that the learning from that would be provided to public representatives by the health board.

On your point about the nurse staffing levels Act, I’ve indicated that the Act will be rolled out in an evidence-based way. So, we understand—evidence now for when it will be rolled out in the initial stage, and in any further roll-out there has to be evidence about the impact of doing so, about where we are now and where we need to go. I’m really pleased I’ve had a very constructive couple of conversations already with the Royal College of Nursing about this point. They obviously want to see the Act further rolled out and not just in adult services, but in children’s services, too. I’ve been really clear, where there’s evidence that there’s a real gain to be made by the patient on rolling out the nurse staffing Act, then we’ll take that up and we’ll work in a way to understand how we need to plan the workforce to deliver that. But I’m certainly open to—we’ve got a commitment to roll the Act out in those areas where the evidence tells us it is the right thing to do. So, I’m happy to restate that commitment today.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.

The next item on the agenda is the Plaid Cymru debate on the rural economy. I call on Simon Thomas to move the motion.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I move the motion in the name of Plaid Cymru and say how appropriate it is, I think, at this time that we discuss the importance of the rural development plan as part of the way in which the Government is dealing with rural communities and how important it is to deal properly and appropriately, as we leave the European Union, with the way in which the rural development plan works. We have discussed quite a lot in this Senedd the assistance that farmers get, but it’s important to remember that the other part of this support that comes from the EU is that which is broader under the rural development plan for making the agricultural industry more competitive, to ensure that there are sustainable and developmental resources, which are against climate change, and also to develop an economy that is balanced in rural areas.

This money is very valuable to Wales. It’s nearly £1 billion for a three-year plan from 2014 to 2020, and about half of that money is coming from the Welsh Government itself. I think that the best way that we can discuss how important this scheme is just to describe what I did on Monday in visiting the Blaencwm farm, Cynllwyd. I was welcomed by the Jones family there. It’s a mixed farm, about 5 miles from Llanuwchllyn—a sheep farm and a farm where there is a variety and a number of new enterprises that have been developed by the family over the last few years. They have a timber industry and over the last few years they have put biomass heaters there in order to use the wood chippings to heat the homes and to dry out the timber in the first place. They’ve used Glastir, the efficiency grant, to have a new storeroom for slurry, and a shed that goes alongside that in order to extend the number of calves that they can keep. In the wake of that, of course, the slurry is stored better and is distributed better on the land as well. In terms of improving the landscape, the grass and the hedges, there are all kinds of things coming together, from the traditional farming methods, if you like—it’s an upland family farm, which has been in the same family for 10 generations, by the way—to the most new and traditional methods to sustain the habitat for biodiversity and preventing climate change.

Now, in that context, I think it is important that farmers such as the Joneses in Blaencwm have an assurance about what’s happening with the rural development plan. Until now, the Government has only drawn down about £30 million of the money, which, as I said, is up to about £1 billion over six years. So, in two years of a six-year plan, only about 10 per cent—a little bit more, perhaps, if you include the money from the Government as well, but it can’t be more than 10 per cent of the money that has been spent. With the decision to withdraw from the European Union, we need to ask what the Government is going to do now to ensure that that money is spent and used in the most appropriate way in the years to come.

The Government has already said that it wishes to keep to any plan that has been formally approved by January 2017. But since they’ve said that, the Westminster Government has said that the money that it expects to be available for the environmental and agricultural funds will be in place until Brexit happens in 2019-20. So, I hope today that the Cabinet Secretary will be able to confirm that the Government wants to continue with the rural development plan in its present form until at least the time when we withdraw from the European Union.

There are two other elements to the motion that we have today. The first one underlines how important the membership of the single market is in terms of the current situation. Without anyone having made a better offer in terms of our relationship with the rest of the European Union, which doesn’t include quotas or any tariffs on Welsh agricultural produce, Plaid Cymru is still of the opinion that membership of the single market is vital. That opinion has been endorsed by the consultation that we undertook over the summer with the agricultural industry and the broader industry, the environment bodies as well, which feel that two things should continue: agricultural legislation and also the ability to be a part of a system without quotas and tariffs under the single market. In the absence of any other proposal by the Westminster Government or the Welsh Government in terms of the relationship with the EU that continues with those characteristics, Plaid Cymru believes that membership of the market is vital at present.

The final part of the motion is to do with the movement of people. We’re in the situation that Plaid Cymru, the national party, as people call us—or people call us the ‘narrow nationalists’ sometimes too—is the only party that believes in the movement of people across borders and believes that borders shouldn’t prevent people from contributing to the economy in different areas. It’s true to say that the evidence, for example from the Wales Governance Centre, shows that there wasn’t a real effect in terms of the people from outside the UK in terms of the agricultural sector within Wales. That is something to remember. We’re in a situation now where the Home Secretary wants to list the foreigners who work for companies. I wouldn’t have thought that the Conservative Party, which used to believe in the free market, would enforce this on companies, but that’s the sad situation we’re in. And unfortunately, the Labour Party is going along with that disgusting attitude towards outsiders or people from outside the current country.

I’m pleased to say that the SNP, the Green Party and Plaid Cymru have signed an agreement to fight against that disgusting attitude towards people from outside the UK. We still believe that it’s vital for the agricultural sector to foster the seasonal workers and the worker who contribute so much to our food production sector.

I have selected the two amendments to the motion. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs to formally move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt.

Formally.

Thank you. I call on Paul Davies to move amendment 2, tabled in his name. Paul.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I move amendment 2 in my name. I am pleased to participate in this important debate and to highlight the importance of funding from the rural development programme for our rural communities. Of course, we on this side of the Chamber agree with the first point of the motion, which calls on Welsh Government to give us clarity on funding for rural development plan projects post January 2017, and to provide a more proactive approach to the current programme. The Welsh Government must ensure that schemes and grants provided through the rural development plan are accessible to rural businesses, and that farmers also can take part easily in these schemes.

Welsh Government have made it clear that they are eager to support projects that will lead to transformational change in the way in which farms are run, rather than supporting projects that would only produce minimal improvements. But, the figures show that, under the first bidding round for the sustainable production grant scheme, out of 271 that expressed an interest, only 12 were asked to submit full bids and applications. Perhaps, in responding to this debate, the Cabinet Secretary can explain that if the Welsh Government are really looking for transformational change, why only 12 out of 271 that expressed an interest have been accepted to submit full applications. It’s essential that the Cabinet Secretary confirms that there won’t be any changes to the single payment in Wales, or any changes to payments under the rural development programme, until 2020, especially as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given a guarantee now that European Union funding will be guaranteed until 2020.

This second point of the motion refers to the single market and the position of farmers in Wales after Brexit. Members will be aware that I voted to remain in the European Union, so, obviously, I wanted to remain in the single market, as it is essential to our economy and especially the economy of rural areas. But, we must now respect the wish of the people of Britain and the people of Wales who voted to leave the European Union. So, it is vital that the UK Government, together with the devolved administrations, discusses the very best deal with the European Union, to gain access to the single market.

The farming unions have launched their own consultations and Brexit surveys over the summer. I hope that Welsh Government is playing its role in engaging fully with the farming unions, and farmers themselves, in discussing agricultural policies. I accept that the Cabinet Secretary said recently, and I quote, that

‘a great deal of work…has taken place over the summer with the farming sector, looking at what we will do post Brexit’.

I hope that that is true. However, I am disappointed that the Cabinet Secretary has had very little engagement with the United Kingdom Government since the referendum. In response to my written question recently, the Cabinet Secretary has made it quite clear that, since the vote, she has met with the Secretary of State at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs only once, and that was at the Royal Welsh Show. I think that this shows a lack of interest, and a lack of priority, from Welsh Government regarding our rural communities. Considering the importance of agriculture to Wales and the massive difference the results of the EU referendum could have on Welsh farmers, I am concerned that the Cabinet Secretary hasn’t done more to engage with the United Kingdom Government.

I yield to Mark Reckless.

Surely if the Cabinet Secretary hasn’t met the Secretary of State for DEFRA or other UK Ministers sufficiently for the Member’s liking, is that not a matter that has two sides to it, and should there not be some responsibility taken by Ministers in London for not reaching out sufficiently to Welsh Ministers?

Of course, the responsibility lies on both sides. But the point I’m making is that she has only met the Minister of State once, and they have a responsibility, as a Welsh Government, to actually engage with the UK Government on this issue.

Mae trydydd pwynt y cynnig yma yn cydnabod pwysigrwydd gweithwyr mudol i’r economi wledig. Mae’n amlwg bod yn rhaid i farchnadoedd llafur a chynllunio’r gweithlu gael eu hystyried yn ofalus wrth gynllunio ar gyfer gadael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd. Mae mewnfudwyr o’r Undeb Ewropeaidd yn gwneud cyfraniad enfawr a phwysig, nid yn unig i’r diwydiant amaethyddol yng Nghymru, ond i ddiwydiannau a sectorau gwledig eraill hefyd. Yn ôl CLA Cymru, yn 2015, roedd mwy na 30,000 o bobl a oedd yn wreiddiol o’r tu allan i’r Deyrnas Unedig yn cael eu cyflogi mewn amaethyddiaeth, ac roedd un o bob pedwar o weithwyr yn y sector twristiaeth a lletygarwch yn dod yn wreiddiol o du allan i’r Deyrnas Unedig. Ac fel Aelod Cynulliad sy’n cynrychioli etholaeth sydd yn dibynnu’n drwm ar amaethyddiaeth a thwristiaeth, rwy’n derbyn yn llwyr y gallai newidiadau i bolisïau llafur mudo gael effaith negyddol enfawr ar economïau lleol yn fy ardal i, a dyna pam mae’n rhaid i Lywodraeth Cymru sicrhau bod ffermio yng Nghymru a busnesau gwledig wrth wraidd unrhyw drafodaethau ynghylch Brexit, a dyma pam mae’n rhaid i Lywodraeth Cymru fod yn gwneud llawer mwy i ymgysylltu â Llywodraeth y Deyrnas Unedig ar y materion hyn.

Felly, wrth gau, Ddirprwy Lywydd, rwyf am unwaith eto ailadrodd pa mor bwysig yw hi i Lywodraeth Cymru weithio’n fwy rhagweithiol i gefnogi cymunedau gwledig a’r diwydiant ffermio yng Nghymru. Mae’n hanfodol bod Llywodraeth Cymru yn camu fyny at y marc ac yn gweithredu ei chynlluniau ar gyfer y rhaglen datblygu gwledig yn effeithiol ac yn effeithlon, fel bod ein cymunedau gwledig yn cael eu cefnogi yn llawn. Ac, felly, rwy’n annog Aelodau i gefnogi ein gwelliant. Diolch.

We’re grateful to Simon Thomas for introducing this important debate today. It’s a pity it’s only 30 minutes. One of the reasons why we objected yesterday to yet another debate on the Government’s legislative programme for five years was that it took up valuable time that could be better spent talking about individual topics such as those that we are discussing today. Nonetheless, we’re grateful to Plaid Cymru for introducing this debate, because the rural economy is vitally important, of course, to Simon, who is a representative of Mid and West Wales, as am I, and we have the health and prosperity of our constituents at the forefront of our minds.

But, unfortunately, unlike Plaid Cymru, I see leaving the EU as an opportunity rather than taking the pessimistic view that Plaid Cymru does. But, I’m grateful also to them for affirming today that they’re against immigration controls. That is a principal reason why, of course, we are leaving the EU—you can’t just see a Wales or an individual sector like agriculture in isolation from everything else. The background reality is that there will be controls on migration, and we have now to take advantage of the opportunities that the freedom to take our decisions gives us. It’s up to our Government, whether it be in Cardiff or at Westminster, to take those decisions. Of course, I’ve said previously many times that every single penny of taxpayers’ money that comes out of British taxpayers’ pockets, which the EU spends on its priorities in Wales, should be protected overall, and we can spend that money and that budget in the ways that we think best suit our priorities. And there is a Brexit dividend as well, in as much as we have a massive net contribution that we pay—so much of our contribution to the EU is spent on other farmers in other parts of the EU, which should be spent on farmers and rural industries in this country.

So, there’s no reason to think that the current budgets, which are being spent in total, will be cut. In fact, there’s every opportunity to increase them, and indeed to make sure that the money that is currently being spent is better spent. In addition to things like the basic payment scheme, which is the foundation of farm incomes, the various individual projects, like the rural development plan and the projects that are within it, may be maintained, may be enhanced, may be cut. But it’s our decision and not that of unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. Ministers here, and perhaps in Westminster, will be responsible and accountable to us, and I think that that, in terms of democracy, is a significant advance—

Will the Member give way?

Yes, sure.

Just on that point, and I agree that it has to be our decision, obviously; would he therefore reject any moves by the Westminster Government also to hold back either resources or powers without devolving them fully to this place?

Yes, I certainly would. I agree with the Member on that point. I see the opportunity here to enhance devolution. In particular, because agriculture is a devolved matter, it now gives us an opportunity as an Assembly to have a real influence upon the policy that is going to affect farmers on a day-to-day basis in their working lives. I think that’s a massive advance.

There will be particular problems if we don’t secure a trade deal with the EU. We know that in beef and lamb, almost all our exports go to the EU, and therefore it is vitally important that we use all our negotiating power to secure free access to the single market. But that is not the same thing as membership of the single market. It’s not necessary to be part of a political union with a trading partner in order to carry out that trade. Actually, our biggest trading partner is not any individual member state of the EU, but the United States, and the second biggest partner in exports from Wales to the rest of the world is the United Arab Emirates. Individual member states of the EU are dotted around in the next 10 or 12 member states in the list.

So, we have to see this in a global context as well. The European Union is sclerotic and declining, relative to the rest of the world. Exports from Wales to the EU have fallen by 11 per cent and that’s because the EU economy is not succeeding because of the eurozone and all the other crises that afflict it, but the rest of the world is expanding. So, the world is our oyster. This is our great opportunity. We can enter into free-trade agreements with the rest of the world, which are currently stymied within this structure of the EU, like trade agreements with the United States—the trade agreement with Canada is not yet fully implemented—and countries like India and China. The EU has no trade agreements with them and yet these are the great growth engines of the world.

Unfortunately, I realise that time is very limited and I can’t make all the points that I would wish to, but I do implore Members opposite to see this as an opportunity, not as a challenge—not something to be feared, but something to be welcomed.

Thank you. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs, Lesley Griffiths.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I’m pleased to respond to this debate on behalf of the Government. As a Government, we’ve been absolutely clear about our commitment to provide support to deliver successful and sustainable rural communities. Our rural development programme supports a broad range of individuals, businesses, organisations and communities, including farming families and farm businesses. It boosts our rural economy, by providing avenues of funding for, amongst other things, better access to childcare, tourism, community energy creation and better land management.

To date, the total funding committed to the programme stands at around £530 million. That is over half of the funding in a little over two years for what is a seven-year programme. The majority of that significant investment goes to farmers and foresters and, of course, there is a time lag and the spend will catch up with the commitment in due course. At least 15 different schemes have opened with funding awarded, including the sustainable production grant, the food business investment grant and the rural community development fund.

We co-finance the programme with the European Union and so fully expect the UK Government to provide an unconditional guarantee to fund all projects contracted under the programme for their lifetime, and therefore we welcome Monday’s guarantee from the UK Treasury. However, this still falls short of a guarantee that all EU funding will be secured.

Of course, until the UK exits the EU, the funding continues, as do our obligations. All existing rural development programme contracts will be honoured. Like Simon Thomas, who opened this debate, I’ve visited many farms and have seen for myself the benefits that the RDP funding brings. As a responsible Government, it was pertinent to put the 2017 Glastir advance window on hold, until we have clear undertakings from the UK Government on funding. [Interruption.] No, I haven’t got time, sorry. Following a previous announcement from the UK Treasury in August, we recommenced negotiations with applicants straightaway and expect to approve contracts in the normal run of business.

Turning to point 2 of the motion, we accept Plaid Cymru’s point and so there is no logical basis to accept the Conservative amendment. In my many discussions with the agriculture, food and fisheries sectors since 23 June, this is the one issue that comes up time and time again: access to the single market, to 500 million people, tariff free is crucial. A point made clear also by the First Minister and my Cabinet colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure. Full and unfettered access to the EU single market is a fundamental priority and a red line.

The EU taken as a whole is the UK’s major trading partner. Wales exports significant amounts of its produce. In 2015, the food and drink exported directly from Wales was worth over £264 million—over 90 per cent was exported to the EU. Red meat exports are worth well over £200 million a year and seafood exports are worth £29.2 million, with 80 per cent exported to the EU.

This week, the Prime Minister has indicated she will trigger article 50 by the end of March 2017. The issue of free movement of people is something that will need to be examined and discussed as part of the negotiations of that exit. However, I know that the importance of migrant workers to the rural economy and wider is unquestionable. Free movement of labour has supported industries and services such as agriculture and food processing that are reliant on a level of movement within the EU. Since 2005, the percentage of immigrant workers in the Welsh labour force has doubled. It is important to acknowledge their value and respect their contribution to our Welsh economy, and reject discrimination, inequity and prejudice, which are often aimed at these workers.

Picking up Paul Davies’s point, tomorrow, I will again be meeting with George Eustice, the UK Government’s Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in London. Unfortunately, the DEFRA Secretary of State was not available, again. At the weekend, I’ll be heading to Luxembourg for an EU Agriculture and Fisheries Council, and, again, meeting my ministerial counterparts, where further discussion on Brexit and other matters with the Ministers I will discuss.

Dialogue is two way, Paul Davies—you should bear that in mind. My officials have engaged weekly with DEFRA officials, and it’s really important that those officials in DEFRA respect devolution. It is also very crucial that we build a common understanding across the four administrations and that we have a shared position with respect to the key opportunities, the challenges, the risks and the threats posed as a result of the vote to leave the EU. But I’ve made it very clear to my ministerial counterparts that agriculture has been devolved to this place for 17 years and we expect full repatriation of the legislation, policies and powers to this place when the time comes.

Thank you. I call on Simon Thomas to reply to the debate.

I’m grateful to all Members who took part in the debate. Clearly, this will be an ongoing conversation that we need to have, but I think three clear themes have emerged.

First of all, we must ensure that there is no holding back of the powers or resources in London when we move away from the European Union. It was very disappointing to me that Andrew R.T. Davies, when he managed to have his breakfast, came up with this strange idea that structural funds should be administered directly from London into Wales. That principle—yielding it on the economy—means that we could yield it also in agriculture. Structural funds have also been devolved for the last 17 years, and the history of direct London intervention in the Welsh economy, with garden festivals and overnight inward-investment projects that never actually bore fruit, is extremely bad as well, so we need to fight for that principle.

The second principle I think that Plaid Cymru is interested in is that, in the current situation, continuing membership of the single market is the best way forward, certainly for our agricultural sector. There is a difference between membership of the single market and of the political union. It is curious that those who argued, for 20 years and more, that the single market and the customs union had become too political now want to give up that central part of free-market trading relationships when we have given up on the political union, and I think we need to bear that in mind.

The third point is about how we ensure that farmers get access to these funds now, and I think we need to see more from the Government, now that we have certainty of the funding for the foreseeable future. [Interruption.] I don’t have time, no. Now that we have the certainty of funding for the foreseeable future, I want to see the Government move on much more quickly with the current Glastir and rural development programme schemes so that farmers are able to make the best use of them. I know that there are good projects out there—let’s make sure that we share that best practice.

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

We move on to item 4, which is the Plaid Cymru debate on the high street and town centres. I call on Sian Gwenllian to move the motion—Sian.

Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I move the motion in the name of Plaid Cymru. Plaid Cymru wants to regain pride in our towns and to tackle the decline that many of them have faced and are facing. These days, a number of our town centres are half empty and are full of shops with boarded-up windows. In such an environment, it’s not surprising that many people choose to go to out-of-town retail parks, shop online, or jump in the car to go elsewhere.

The Welsh Government has a role to play in bringing back pride to our town centres. We want them to be attractive areas where people choose to spend their free time to shop and socialise.

Successful town centres have many activities to offer in order to attract visitors. We must ensure that towns are able to offer a variety of cultural activities and local services too, side by side with the shops, in order to increase the number of visitors.

The figures for the number of visitors give a clear picture of the situation of some of our towns throughout Wales. Since 2012, there’s been a substantial decrease in some towns, such as Abergavenny—39 per cent fewer people visit the town centre there; in Mold, 28 per cent fewer; in Aberystwyth, 18 per cent fewer people. Of course, this leads to the closure of shops and local services and assets disappear. Perhaps this is part of the continuous decline because of the increase in vacant shops. Recent figures from the Local Data Company show that Wales has the highest national vacant shop rate in the whole of the UK—Wales, 15 per cent; Scotland, 12 per cent; England, 11 per cent. Newport, for example, is one of those towns or cities that perform worst in the whole of Britain, with the percentage of empty shops at 25 per cent. In Bangor, in my constituency, the rate is 21.8 per cent of vacant shops—

Will the Member give way?

[Yn parhau.]—yn y Rhyl, mae 21.6 y cant o siopau’n wag.

I’m grateful. I was a little surprised by reference to continuous declines and then citing Abergavenny and saying it was down 39 per cent. I’ve found Abergavenny has been thriving as a town and there’s much positive commercial there, and then in Newport, Friar’s Walk and the development there, I think, has led to more people coming back into the town centre. I just wonder if the statistics the Member cites are overly negative, at least for that town and that city.

I am quoting from official statistics. Although, perhaps, there are periods of time in Abergavenny—at the time of the food festival it does appear to be very busy there, but, when you take the whole year into account, facts and statistics demonstrate a different picture, unfortunately. I’m sorry to be negative, but that is the situation, but our motion offers a way of improving that.

Evidence shows that destinations outwith towns that offer free car parking gain at the expense of town centres and a number of councils throughout Wales do offer free parking—for periods over Christmas, for example—in an effort to attract people to spend in our town centres. But we know about the financial pressures on councils at the moment, and so what our motion calls for is the establishment of a new fund to enable local authorities and community groups to offer free car parking in towns throughout Wales. Such a fund would enable local authorities to bid for a grant to compensate them, in a way, for any lost parking fees, and to offer free car parking for a few hours in order to support towns that are truly in need of that. We would need specific criteria for this fund in order to ensure that the towns needing that assistance actually receive it. Of course, this would be part of a broader strategy.

The free parking offered has to be part of a strategy offering things such as business rates, which are a vital part of any regeneration scheme. Considering the business rates, I was extremely disappointed to see the Government stepping back from the pledge to improve the rating system for small businesses in Wales. Extending the current system doesn’t equate to a further discount in those business rates. Our policy is to increase rate relief so that over 7,000 small and medium-sized businesses would be released from paying any rates at all, and 20,000 other businesses would also receive some relief.

Also, as part of a regeneration strategy, business improvement areas can be very successful—business improvement areas being led by the local business community and then they invest in turn in developments and plans based on local priorities. The Bangor BID and Hwb Caernarfon, for example, are business improvement areas and they’ve seen businesses paying a levy of 1.5 per cent of the rateable value, and that funding then has been used to invest in and improve the area.

Will the Member give way?

Yes.

I’m glad you mentioned business improvement districts. In the case of Abergavenny, which was mentioned earlier, the local businesses there actually voted against having a business improvement district, so do you accept that they’re not the be-all and end-all across Wales for improving trade in towns?

It is up to them locally—it’s their option—but I know that in my area the districts have led to success and have been welcomed by local businesses. What those local businesses were telling me time after time was that parking charges militate against the improvements they’re trying to make, and so this is one way of addressing that. In Caernarfon, for example, there are 347 businesses within the improvement district called Hwb Caernarfon, and they raise over £400,000 to invest in improvements in the town in order to improve the economic projections and forecasts for the area. So, the idea here is to support these small businesses, and this fund would contribute to improving our town centres, something that we are all supportive of, I’m certain.

Thank you very much. I have selected the amendments to the motion and I call on—. Sorry, I’ve selected three amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call on Russell George to move amendments 1 and 3 tabled in the name of Paul Davies.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I’m pleased to take part in this debate today. I’ll enjoy taking part in it because it’s an issue that I feel passionate about. The Welsh Conservatives have very often brought forward debates on this issue, and it’s welcome that we’ve got another one today; let’s keep having them until the issue is resolved. I look forward to the day when we don’t have debates on regenerating our high streets because the Government and we as politicians have addressed the issues. But I do move the amendments in the name of Paul Davies.

I should say in regard to our own amendments that we very much support Plaid’s motion today, and we support the principle of free parking. I’m a big advocate of free parking, especially of one- or two-hour free parking in town centres; I think that’s absolutely crucial. That’s been a policy of the Welsh Conservatives for some time. We seek to amend the motion today by broadening the issue out in a wider context, but I should point out that we very much do support Plaid’s position on that.

Our second amendment aims to encourage services to be located in town centres. I think this is a matter not just for one Minister but all Cabinet Secretaries, especially the Cabinet Secretary for health and well-being. I did a visit in my constituency on Friday to the Dudley Taylor Pharmacies, and met with the manager, Dylan Jones, and also with Russell Goodway, from Community Pharmacy Wales. What I noticed when I went into that shop in Llanidloes was that it went back a very long way. Fortunately, I’m quite a well person and I don’t need to go into pharmacies very often, but it just went back. As I got to the back, there were all these staff bustling around as well, and I said, ‘How many staff are here?’—’Eleven staff.’ And it was clear that that business was the anchor business in that particular street. What occurred to me, as we had discussion about the pharmacy supporting the health of the town, was, in fact, that pharmacy was supporting the health of the high street. There was no suggestion that there was any threat to that pharmacy moving, but what did occur to me was that, if that pharmacy was present on other streets in other towns across Wales, and not just the pharmacy, but also opticians and doctors’ surgeries located in the town centre—. I was going to say banks as well, but, unfortunately, Llanidloes is a good example of where they had four banks some years ago, and now it’s got one bank that is part-time, so it’s difficult to encourage banks into our town centres; it’s a job just to keep them there.

But I think it is deeply regrettable that shop vacancy rates on the high street continue to rise, and consistently higher than the UK averages as well, brought about by low footfall to our town centres. Very often, this is due to buildings being left in disrepair. Another example is another town in my constituency, Newtown, where the Ladywell shopping centre, the big unit there, is empty. The Co-op was there a few years ago, and the fact that it has pulled out of there and gone is now, of course, impacting on all the smaller units that are around that premises as well.

I, where I can, like to use local shops. Occasionally, I will shop in Tesco when the other smaller shops are—[Interruption.] It’s not a bad thing to shop in Tesco; I’m not suggesting that. But when town centre shops are closed, then I’ll go into Tesco. It wasn’t that long ago, I was in Tesco—and many of you who do your shopping will know that it’s a good place to hold your constituency surgeries—and I had somebody charging towards me with frustration. I thought, ‘They’re going to say something to me, now’, and basically, the short version was, ‘What are you doing about all these shops closing?’ They had a massive basket of produce, overflowing, and all I did was look down, look back up at them and I think they understood what I was saying.

But the issue there is to say that we recognise that the high street is changing due to the internet and due to out-of-town shopping centres; we’ve got to recognise that it’s happening and address that by encouraging other services to come in and use town centre facilities.

I had a meeting this morning—it was a breakfast meeting, not a Brexit meeting; a breakfast meeting. Our committee had—[Interruption.] I’ll be in trouble now. It was—[Interruption.] I was just telling the Chamber I had a breakfast meeting this morning. [Laughter.] At this breakfast meeting this morning of the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee, we spoke to small businesses—[Laughter.] How am I going to carry on, now? We spoke to small businesses about their concerns—

You’re out of time, as well. So, can you now come to a very quick conclusion, please?

I will wind up by saying that their biggest issue was the impact that business rates were having on their small businesses, and their frustration, and our frustration, that a manifesto commitment of tax cuts for 70,000 businesses isn’t actually a tax cut; it’s just a continuation of what was there before. Thank you for allowing me extra time, Deputy Presiding Officer.

Okay. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children to formally move amendment 2 tabled in the name of Jane Hutt.

Formally.

Thank you. Lee Waters.

Diolch, Ddirprwy Lywydd. I think there’s some common ground with the motion that Plaid Cymru have put down. There is no doubt that the face of retail has changed dramatically over the last 20 years and we don’t want town centres just to be a place of shops. We want them to be more than that; we want them to be hubs of the community. On that, I think we can all agree.

What I found depressing from Sian Gwenllian’s speech was the focus on car parking as the main answer to that. I find that depressing for two reasons: one is double standards, but also the fact that it’s a false premise. First, on the double standards, in Carmarthenshire, Plaid Cymru campaigned heavily for free car parking ahead of taking control of the local authority. We heard about it ad nauseam, week after week, and as soon as they took over control of the council, not only did they not deliver free car parking as they promised they would, but they made the situation worse. They’re now expanding the out-of-town Parc Trostre retail park, at a time when they’re claiming to show sympathy for the town centre.

They’ve set up a taskforce that doesn’t meet and the local business improvement district claims not to be supported by the council. And so, the words we had about delivering free car parking, which you’ve heard repeated again this afternoon—when they get the chance to put them into practice, they did not deliver on them.

The other point that I think is hypocritical: yesterday, we sat through Leanne Wood chastising the Government for not emphasising enough its target for tackling climate change, lamenting the fact that we didn’t talk enough about the 2020 target and emphasising the importance and the urgency of tackling climate change. Today, a day after, we have a stress on a policy that would make climate change worse; it would increase car dependency. So, there’s a profound contradiction in support here, on the one hand saying we need to think differently and do differently, and, a day after, saying we should put all our eggs in the basket of increasing car traffic, despite the fact that, given the chance—[Interruption.] No, let me proceed. Despite the fact that, when given the chance to put this policy into practice, they’ve done nothing.

On the second—[Interruption.] Let me just make some progress. The second reason I find this depressing is that this rests on a false premise—there is no such thing as free car parking. The money has to come from somewhere, and it currently comes from other services—from social services and from education. The cost of providing a so-called free car parking space, according to the Department for Transport, is between £300 and £500 a year for one space. It’s not free; it’s paid for. In Carmarthenshire—I looked at their budget for 2016-17, and that shows a revenue expenditure allocation of £1.9 million for car parks, alongside an income of almost £3.2 million a year for car parks. In one year. So, forgoing that income and meeting the cost of car parking would, potentially, amount to some £5 million in Carmarthenshire alone. And it’ll create more demand. We can only look at hospital car parking, since we’ve introduced free car parking there. The car parks are rammed, and in almost every car park we have demand for extra car parking space, at a cost of between £300 and £500 a year.

So, not only are you not sticking to your words on tackling climate change, not only are you not doing what you said you’d do in Carmarthenshire, but you’re taking money away from vital services to subsidise car owners, and also creating more demand for that.

Bear in mind that a quarter of all households don’t have a car. Now, the evidence on car parking regenerating town centres is, at best, weak. It’s based on shopkeepers thinking that most of their customers come by car, which is not true. The most recent survey in Bristol town centre showed that just a fifth of shoppers travelled by car. Retailers tend to overestimate the importance of car-borne trade by almost 100 per cent. Shoppers, when they’re asked, would much rather see a better pedestrian environment, wider pavements and pedestrianisation rather than free car parking. In fact, Living Streets, in their report ‘The pedestrian pound’, showed that making places better for walking could boost trade by 40 per cent—

Would you take an intervention?

I’ll take one from Caroline, yes.

Thank you very much—

UKIP, but not Plaid.

Sorry?

They were in my eyeline.

Anyway, I was going to say, as a former business owner, I can assure you that the car parking—that customers came and told me it was essential to them, because they could go somewhere else where there was parking out of town, and that it did make a significant impact, especially when you’ve got traffic wardens chasing you for being two minutes over your time. So, it does have a significant impact.

Well, again, this is policy making by anecdote, and the evidence doesn’t bear that out.

Now, Sian Gwenllian said that we need to level the playing field with out-of-town developments. So, let’s do that; let’s think outside the box. Rather than saying, ‘Let’s increase the subsidy for in-town car parking’, let’s put the burden on the multinational companies that have been developing out-of-town sites for the last 20 years and the tax-free car parking that they have. So, we’re robbing scarce public resources to pay for car parking. Let’s all come together and think outside the box. We have the powers to do it. Let’s encourage the Welsh Government to look at how it can increase a tariff on out-of-town shopping centres. That, Simon Thomas, would tackle climate change, which Plaid Cymru were telling us just yesterday they want to do. So, let’s look at using those powers—

Right. Are you coming to a conclusion?

I am. I did take an intervention, Deputy Presiding Officer.

Yes, well, I’ve allowed for that as well.

I’m grateful for your lenience.

I’ve allowed for your intervention. Just come to a conclusion, please.

If I can just finish my sentence, I will. [Assembly Members: ‘Oh.’] Let’s think imaginatively and let’s put the burden on corporate companies, not on scarce and hard-pushed taxpayers.

The state of many of our high streets is a sad sight to see. Diverse and distinctive high streets that once bustled with activity have given way to gambling establishments, chain pubs, fast food or charity shops, or, otherwise, are standing empty. In some cases, you can almost see the tumbleweed rolling down the middle of the high street. The lifeblood of the high street is footfall and convenience. Pedestrianisation of high streets sounds like a nice idea, but it drives passing trade off the high street. People have busy lives and don’t have the time to pay and display and then keep an eye on the time in case they overrun and get a fine.

To compound matters, local authorities continue to allow supermarkets to be built just off the high street, sometimes adjacent to new off-high-street car parks, sucking the regular custom away from the high streets. Who can blame customers, though, for going to the supermarket, which won’t make them pay for parking or fine them if they take a bit too much time spending money in their store? A combination of pedestrianisation, car park charges and supermarkets has effectively starved local high streets of customers.

Will you give way?

No. Against this backdrop, business rates are hammering the final nail into the coffin of our high streets. Calculated by crude means, based on nominal value, high street shops are penalised for their location. Shopkeepers may be paying their business rates, but too often this will be at the cost of falling behind with their rent or not recruiting staff.

Local authorities and the Welsh Government have it within their gift to help the high street. They must stop bleeding shopkeepers dry through business rates. They must provide the funds and impetus to provide free car parking adjacent to the high street, and short-term parking on the high streets themselves. Local authorities must stop penalising shoppers for wanting to spend money on the high street. Shopkeepers are already battling fierce competition from the internet and big supermarkets. They need all the help they can get from local authorities and Government to survive.

I support this motion. Our high streets were once the hubs of our communities, and need to be once again. Thank you.

God, these Labour AMs. Encourage the Government.

Just get on with it, please.

Put pressure on the Government. It’s your Government. You have group meetings with them, surely. God.

Anyway, empty units: clearly a problem in towns. It’s also a problem in this capital city. If you go down high streets, there’s empty unit after empty unit. It’s a huge problem. We need a strategy; we need local economic development zones, for example, and help with marketing; we need upgraded shop fronts, upgraded buildings, and free parking as well, as the motion states. Maybe help with public transport as well. Reducing business rates would be good, and really dealing with extortionate rents that local businesspeople simply cannot afford. These kinds of initiatives are totally, totally affordable, unless you have a Government that wastes £1 million on selling two units that they could have used as business incubator centres for that particular town, and they didn’t. They threw away £1 million. They threw away £40 million, as we said earlier, with the Lisvane land deal, and another £7.25 million in Rhoose. When you add all these figures up, a lot of this money could be used to regenerate our town centres economically. But we haven’t got a Government that is able to do that. Wales deserves a lot better.

Thank you. I call the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children, Carl Sargeant.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I’m grateful for the opportunity to respond to this debate today. Our town and city centres face complex challenges that we recognise—the difficulties they face remaining relevant and competitive, as many Members have alluded to today. The circumstances in which they operate are continually changing, and they face challenges from both economic circumstances and the wide range of choice available to consumers, including online shopping, as Members also mentioned.

The Welsh Government is supporting local authorities and others in their efforts to adapt, to evolve and to meet the challenges that they face. Across our policies and programmes, we have supported our towns and cities to diversify and become places to live, to shop, to work and to socialise. Through Vibrant and Viable Places, the Welsh Government has invested £110 million in 11 towns and city areas, creating jobs, supporting people into work, and leveraging £300 million in additional investment. The programme has also been instrumental in delivering new housing. A recent success story is the rise in business improvement districts: there are now 12 established BIDs in Wales, and we’ve also supported 20 town-centre partnerships. As this shows, the Welsh Government does recognise the importance of vibrant and diverse high streets that support local enterprise.

Whilst there is a mixed picture in different areas, we recognise the current national position with regard to vacancy rates, and that some areas have lost their community spaces or services as a result of low footfall. I did listen to the comments by Mark Reckless earlier on regarding two particular areas. I do agree with him, actually; there are some vibrant communities, particularly in Abergavenny, in the constituency of Nick Ramsay, and that’s something that we should celebrate. We should congratulate the town centres and the people who use those town centres on the way they’ve adapted the opportunities there. It has been a very difficult few years for some areas to get back onto their feet, following the economic turndown and the ongoing challenges they face. We have a £20 million town centre loan scheme, for example, aimed at bringing empty premises back into use and giving community assets a new lease of life.

The point in the motion on car parking charges is an interesting idea. Last year, a report commissioned by the Welsh Government assessed the impact of car parking charges in relation to footfall. The full report is available on the website, and the picture is complex. As our Member makes clear, we would welcome further exploration of it by the Assembly and its committees. We cannot, however, Deputy Presiding Officer, accept any attempt to commit Government to particular items of expenditure ahead of any budget process, as Members will be aware.

At the same time, we cannot support the Conservative amendment’s attempt to remove the idea from the motion. We’re not opposed to the broader strategic approach to the problem facing the high street, as outlined in the Tory amendment. A whole-Government approach to regeneration is a fundamental part of our current framework. Sadly, the effect of amendment 1 is to delete all reference to car parking, and therefore we cannot support it today. This Government has consistently shown that we recognise the importance of high-street businesses, and I’m happy to support amendment 3.

Finally, I’d like to emphasise that the future of our town centres and city centres is an important one to this Government. The contribution from Lee Waters in regard to the opportunities of business rates is something that I’m sure the Cabinet Secretary will take very seriously in terms of the opportunities to explore how we can share the benefits of all types of shopping to create resilient communities and resilient shopping centres. I’m grateful to the Member—

Will the Minister give way?

I will do.

Just on that point, and trying to look for common ground between ourselves on this matter, the fact is that out-of-town parking developments don’t pay business rates on their huge free parking. We have to restore some of that balance in order to revive our town centres. Yes, short-term free parking in town centres can be part of that, but we also need to address those out-of-town parking stores. So, if he looks at business rates, surely we should be charging them for the massive free parking they have.

I think it is common ground, and that’s exactly what Lee did say, I think. Your point is well made and reiterated by the Member. Can I say that I’m not opposed to the collective responsibility of trying to rebuild our communities and our town centres? All of these things should feed into the consideration by the Minister responsible for business rates over the next few weeks.

I’m grateful for the opportunity to respond to colleagues in the debate today. I will pick up the points that Mr McEvoy raised in this. It was a very angry contribution this afternoon. I may just point him to the point when he was deputy leader of the council here in Cardiff: he never referred to or did any of those things in that particular role in his duties. But I’m very happy to continue the debate with Members across the Chamber.

Thank you. I call on Sian Gwenllian to reply to the debate. Sian.

Thank you very much, and thank you for a lively discussion this afternoon. The Conservatives have conveyed their support for the motion, but I won’t accept amendment 1 because it does broaden the area of work too broadly, and, unfortunately, the current Government loses focus too often, and I wouldn’t want them to do that on this issue.

You mentioned high-street pharmacies, and, yes, I agree that those are important, and it’s important to have other services on the high street along with shops. I recognise that our town centres are changing, of course, and we have to look all the time for new ways of helping and regenerating town centres. The solution is complex, therefore we are proposing quite a simple scheme of creating a fund—not with millions of pounds in it, but a small fund that would allow local councils to make applications for funding in order to experiment with this idea. Fine, if it doesn’t work after a few years, then we can get rid of the idea. This Government isn’t very good at getting rid of schemes that don’t work, but I would suggest that, in this case, we have to try, and if it doesn’t work, then, well, there we go—we’ve tried it.

As regards the point—[Interruption.] I don’t have much time. On the point about climate change and using cars, and encouraging car use, I do agree with you. I sympathise with that view, but in the area where I live, the car is a vital part of day-to-day life. You try to catch a public bus or go by bike from Deiniolen, Nebo or Nantlle down to the town centres—it’s nearly impossible. There is one bus a day, and have you seen the hills in my area? It’s fine for a fit person to ride a bike, but we are talking about many people who are not in that position. So, I do agree, but to be realistic, the car is part of our rural life, certainly.

I also agree about the need to pressure that supermarkets to contribute, perhaps, in terms of this problem. I would be very pleased if the Welsh Government were to put pressure on Tesco, Morrisons and these other big companies to look seriously at how they can help to enliven our town centres.

This is part of a package of measures—a small part of it. We need a lot of other things to happen as well. This would have a relatively small cost, as a pilot scheme, and if it doesn’t work, then we wouldn’t carry on with it. But what about trying it out? We need fresh ideas in this place, and this is one of them. So, let us try it, please.

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

We now move on to the next item on our agenda, which is the Welsh Conservative debate on the right to buy, and I call on David Melding to move the motion—David.

Deputy Presiding Officer, may I move the motion in the name of Paul Davies? Deputy Presiding Officer, if policies are measured by their take-up, then the right to buy has been one of the most outstanding, successfully delivered policies in, really, I think, the history of British and Welsh politics. [Interruption.] Since 1980, 130,000 families have taken the opportunity to buy their own homes in Wales.

Sadly—and I think we heard immediate indication of this by the mutter from the front bench—the Labour Party has always had a problem with the popularity of right to buy amongst, traditionally, their own supporters, it has to be said, or many of them. I fear that this ideological antipathy is what’s driving current policy choices in the Welsh Government. I think this needs to be addressed and scrutinised very, very effectively.

In the fourth Assembly, Labour halved the discount on right to buy from £16,000 to £8,000. It went up in England to account for rising house prices to, in some places, £75,000. So, there’s a big, big policy shift now in devolution, of course, and we’ve got to live with that. But it is something that’s got to be clearly justified. It did mark, I think, the first real move in force against this very, very popular policy. And now the Welsh Government intends to abolish the right to buy altogether. A very, very sad rejection of one of the most popular policies ever, as I said, in the history of Welsh and British politics.

What I find most reprehensible about all this is that I think it’s done in part to deflect attention from the real challenge, and that, of course, is to build more houses. That is what really should be the central focus, not an ideological distaste for a particularly popular policy that was introduced by a different political party. You should have a wider and more expansive vision by really focusing on what we need, and that’s to build more houses.

It’s not even as if the Labour Party has a great record in terms of affordable homes and their provision. We are way behind the trend and the numbers that were built in the 1990s and, as I will discuss a little later, we’re even seeing that in what at first appeared to be some improvements in the targets for affordable homes. The Welsh Government under Labour, consistently in the era of devolution, has performed very badly in this sector, despite the talk we sometimes hear from Ministers.

Let me turn, then, to housing need. There is, I believe, a very wide consensus that the housing crisis is caused by a lack of supply. Simply, we do not build enough homes. This has led to high prices in the private sector and long waiting lists for social housing. The average house price in Wales is now over six times the average income—a historical high. And 8,000 families in Wales have been on an affordable housing waiting list since before the 2011 election, and a further 2,000 have been on the waiting list since the 2007 elections. This is not a good record, as I have said. This unmet need obviously blights severely the lives of many, many families in Wales, but is also a lost opportunity for the Welsh economy. House building—you know, if Keynes was here, he would say that it is the macro-economic factor from heaven, really, because you can have such a wonderful multiplier when the state backs, through various policies, house building. It is something I think that we need to do. It employs local labour, often local firms, and it is a huge boost to the economy as well as, obviously, to the social circumstances of people. I will give way to Jenny Rathbone.

I just wonder whether you could explain to us why George Osborne wasn’t mindful of this absolutely correct analysis that housing could’ve boosted the economy instead of shoving it all into the banks who then kept it to themselves.

The Conservative Government, and the coalition Government before it, has consistently emphasised that we need to build more houses. We are committed to building—the UK Government, that is, for England—400,000 more affordable houses, which is why I think the Welsh Government finally came forward with their target. Anyway, I just do believe we need more house building, and it’s perhaps for another time to dissect the record of another Government, but here the Government’s record is a poor one.

I’d also say, just in passing, that house repair is often overlooked as a sector. Encouraging more effective policies there and repairing many of the 23,000 empty properties in Wales—that’s over three years-worth of current house building, on the trends we’re on at the moment. A vast number of homes are left empty, many of them because they’re not fit for habitation.

I want to turn now to the actual house building figures, because I think this is an important area that requires detailed scrutiny. In September 2015, the Welsh Government sponsored a report by the late Alan Holmans, and it stated, and I quote, that,

‘if future need and demand for housing in Wales is to be met, there needs to be a return to rates of house building not seen for almost 20 years, and an increase in the rate of growth of affordable housing’.

I commend the Government for commissioning this report. It is an excellent study, and I do urge Members to get a copy from the library and to read it thoroughly.

This would mean, the report stated, an increase from 8,700 new homes a year to 12,000 new homes a year. I don’t criticise the Government if it wants to review the target, but the 8,700 homes target was set 10 years ago or so. It may have been done with due diligence then, but we now know there is a higher need and that we must meet it. So, to change the target wouldn’t be something that I would condemn—I would welcome it if you now accepted a target nearer 12,000, or even more.

We know that, recently, the Welsh Government have committed to an additional—that’s their word—20,000 affordable homes by 2021. However, the First Minister later said in an answer to me that this would leave the annual house building target unchanged at 8,700 homes a year. I’m still mystified by how those two statements run in parallel, as they seem to flatly contradict each other.

Having examined the data, I think that what has actually happened is this: the previous target for affordable homes in the social sector was 3,500. This has now been increased to 4,000 so that we get 20,000 over five years, or an additional 2,500 affordable homes by 2021, not the 20,000 additional homes claimed by the Welsh Government. The figures have been inflated. This implies that the annual house building target has now been increased to 9,200. I welcome any clarification the Minister can make here, but I think that that has to be the logical inference that one must draw. This figure is more than the First Minister thought, but it’s a lot less than the 12,000 needed in Professor Holmans’s projection. Others have argued that the target of 12,000 itself should be exceeded because we need to meet pent-up demand in the system. The Federation of Master Builders has called for a target of 14,000, and that’s something that we endorse as the level that we need to get to by 2020.

The truth is that, however we look at it, we need to build more homes. We can help that process by streamlining the planning system and making it more user-friendly. Now, I think in England they are making great advances here, whereas we are seeing a rather slow approach here to streamlining the system. We need to release more land for building, including an audit, I would say, of land in public possession. And we need to use right-to-buy receipts to provide new social housing. I would say that that was one of the weaknesses at times of the previous policy—I’m quite prepared to concede that. We need to use those receipts for more housing, such is the need for housing. And, in that case, to reuse it for social housing.

Can I finally, Deputy Presiding Officer, refer to the amendments, all made by Plaid Cymru? We reject amendment 1, as it deletes most of our motion. I’m sure that’s not a great surprise to you. We accept amendment 2 and, indeed, its contents I warmly endorse, and that’s why I am so proud to commend the UK Government in strengthening the economy and ensuring that that provides a basis for the sound expansion of the housing sector. We accept amendment 3. There’s no hierarchy here; for many people, social housing is the best option. I’ll simply state that and move on. And we accept amendment 4. This probably only needs a technical solution, but it may need a legislative one to meet the counting anomalies that the Office for National Statistics now seem to have left us with, but we do need to move quickly to clarify the situation. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer.

Thank you. I have selected the four amendments to the motion, and I call on Bethan Jenkins to move amendments 1 to 4, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Bethan.

Thank you, and I move the amendments. Home ownership is something many people do aspire to and it is something that is increasingly beyond the reach of many people, through a combination of low wages, insecure employment and a refusal by successive Governments to recognise that house price inflation is just as bad as conventional inflation. But, creating wider home ownership must not be done at the expense of social housing and the safety net that a civilised society should offer.

Beginning with our final amendment, Plaid Cymru is concerned about the decision of the ONS to reclassify housing association debt as public sector debt. Reclassifying housing associations as public non-financial corporations has the potential to limit their ability to encourage investment from a variety of private sources. If housing associations are considered to be public sector bodies, it opens the door for the UK Treasury to place borrowing limits upon them, as they already do with local authorities. This could jeopardise the ability of Welsh housing associations to build new homes and upgrade the quality of existing homes. So, I hope to hear what the Welsh Government has to say on the steps that they will be taking in this regard.

Turning now to the main issue being debated here, it’s quite clear that the right to buy has had an adverse effect on the availability of social housing, hence our extensive amendments to the motion. The right to buy has always made little financial sense, it has instead proved to be a subsidy for the better off and those in the right place at the right time, while reducing the overall social housing stock. The large discounts of between 33 per cent and 50 per cent for residents effectively meant a subsidy for home ownership. This means that for every four homes sold, there have only been two or three homes to replace them. Furthermore, as many lenders refuse mortgages above the sixth floor, tenants in the high rises have been unable to buy, meaning that those who took advantage of the policy were generally those residents of small, low-rise council estates located in areas that subsequently boomed. And we know that many of the high-rise flats that people did not buy have now been knocked to the ground—many in my home town, in Merthyr, in the Gurnos, and also in Hirwaun, close by.

Even ‘The Daily Telegraph’ has conceded that the law was exploited, and many homes were bought by elderly people who were lent the money by their sons and daughters, knowing that they would have large inheritances in a few years’ time. As a result, those homes that were not sold were generally in less-desirable areas, where long-term unemployment followed Tory deindustrialisation. It meant that people became isolated and concentrated in less-desirable estates that gradually became ghettos, and people felt forgotten. Some of those areas did boom—inner-city areas near universities especially eventually had housing stock bought by buy-to-let landlords who converted many properties into houses in multiple occupation to maximise rent. So, while there have been initial boosts in terms of owner-occupiers self-funding improvements, in the long run, those areas have recreated poor housing conditions through an unregulated sector that has often enabled bad landlords to get rich quick.

It also made living in a council house more of a stigma. This is why we have tabled amendment 3, and it’s something in this portfolio I hope to do more work on, because I frankly don’t think that we can just note it and move on. There are still people who feel the stigma of living in a social housing setting that feel that because they can’t afford—[Interruption.] They do. They feel that because they can’t afford to get on the housing ladder that they’re somehow a second-class citizen compared to those who can actually afford it. I think we need a discussion here in this Chamber about the fact that, yes, people will aspire to home ownership, but it’s more for me about the quality of those homes for those people, not specifically about whether they own that house or not.

I think, in general terms, that this Chamber is in danger of becoming stuck in a time warp. Two weeks ago, we heard calls for bringing back grammar schools and now we have a defence of the right to buy. What next—bring back Bananarama? We should be looking to the future instead. [Laughter.] Well, some of you might like Bananarama; perhaps it was just before my time. We should be looking at more innovative solutions to our problems, rather than reaching for yesterday’s clichéd and outdated policies. If we really want to tackle our housing supply problems, then maybe we should look instead at building new eco-homes with the latest environmental technology for use across all housing tenures, and we should properly implement a programme to upgrade the quality of our existing homes to the latest environmental standards.

In looking at other options such as co-operative housing, I know that Canada does this well having been there recently myself, although I wasn’t trying to be on a busman’s holiday. But there are other countries that are doing things well that we can be learning from. While I take David Melding’s point with regard to the importance of empty homes, I think that’s a totally separate debate to the right to buy.

One of the other things I’m passionate about, and I’ll finish on, is that maybe we should be placing limits on the rights of buy-to-let and second-home owners to price our young people out of the housing market, and take most of their wages in artificially high rents. These are issues that I think are more important than bringing back the debate on the right to buy.

Welsh Labour’s intention to abolish the right to buy in Wales would deny the prospect of home ownership to tenants, and miss another opportunity to increase affordable housing supply and tackle the housing supply crisis created by a Labour Government in Wales since 1999.

During the first three Assembly terms, despite warnings, the Labour Welsh Government cut the number of new social homes by 71 per cent as waiting lists mushroomed. By 2009-10, the Welsh Government had by far the lowest proportional level of housing expenditure of any of the four UK nations, and the 2012 UK housing review said it was the Welsh Government itself that gave housing lower priority in its overall budgets.

National House Building Council figures show that although new UK home registrations rose 28 per cent in 2013, Wales was the only part of the UK to see a fall. New homes registered in Wales during 2014 lagged behind Scotland and all nine English regions. At just 6,170, Wales was the only nation in the UK to decrease new homes registered in 2015. There was a further 4 per cent slump in Wales in 2015-16 and a further 25 per cent fall during the first quarter of this financial year.

We heard Professor Holmans’s report for the Welsh Government estimating that Wales needs up to 12,000 new homes annually, including 5,000 in the social sector. Two 2015 reports completed for the house building industry in Wales found that current levels of housing delivery are only just over half of identified housing need across Wales. In September 2015, the Bevan Foundation said that in order to meet anticipated housing need, there needs to be 14,200 new homes created each year, including 5,100 non-market homes. They added that less than half of the requirement is being met, with the biggest shortfall in social housing. So much for social justice from Labour.

This parallels the Federation of Master Builders’ call for an annual house building target of at least 14,000 homes. Despite this, Labour’s annual target averages just 4,000 affordable homes during this Assembly term, and that inflated by adding intermediate rent and low-cost home ownership to social housing. The proposed scrapping of right to buy is a smokescreen and would not do anything to create more homes or increase the number of households with their own front door. As the Welsh Affairs Committee found, cross-party, the suspension of the right to buy would not, in itself, result in an increase in the supply of affordable housing.

By the time Conservatives left Government in 1997, right-to-buy sales in Wales were being replaced on an almost like-for-like basis. The social housing grant under—

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, please.

Although I tend to agree with you that it was a very popular initiative, as a direct impact of this policy significant amounts of needed social housing were removed from the sector. This, combined with the necessary instruments not being in place at local authority level, as a direct result of the initiatives that you talked about, has meant that there’s a legacy of waiting lists for council properties. So, do you recognise that there is, indeed, a place for social housing and council housing as part of that suitcase of offer, for those who are in need and on low incomes?

Absolutely. That’s the argument I’ve been putting here for over 13 years.

As the opening paragraph of the October 2014 ‘Homes for All’ manifesto states, ‘There is a housing crisis.’ This crisis has been caused by Labour’s failure to build new affordable homes, not the right to buy, which has been emasculated under Labour and seen sales dwindle from the thousands to just a few hundred each year. Instead, Welsh Conservatives proposed to reform the right to buy, investing the proceeds of council sales in new social housing, thereby increasing housing supply and helping to tackle Labour’s housing supply crisis. This reflects the re-invigorated right-to-buy policy in England, where the UK Government committed to reinvest, for the first time ever, the additional receipts from right-to-buy sales in new affordable rented housing across England as a whole. If a council were to fail to spend the receipts on new affordable rented housing within three years, it would be required to return the unspent money to Government with interest, providing a strong financial incentive for councils to get on with building more homes for local people.

Since 2010, more than twice as much council housing has been built in England than in all of the 13 years combined of the last Labour Government, when English waiting lists nearly doubled as the number of social homes for rent was cut by 421,000. As a council tenant told me,

‘The right to buy scheme offers us the opportunity to plan for a future without requiring state assistance…I urge you to do anything in your power to oppose the proposal to end the Right to Buy in Wales.’

Instead of traipsing out 30-year-old dogma, the Welsh Government should be helping people like this and using every available tool to tackle their housing supply crisis, which they have imposed on Wales.

I agree, absolutely, that we need to build more homes, but you have to recognise that it’s simply not prudent to encourage people to borrow more than two and a half times their combined income in order to buy a home. And, for probably half the population, that simply isn’t possible with the current price of homes. Yes, possibly, home prices could come down if we built more, but at the moment, it’s simply beyond the reach of most people. So, I think it is entirely prudent for us to—

Will you take an intervention?

I’ve only just started.

[Continues.]—entirely prudent for us to suspend the right to buy.

Mrs Thatcher’s right-to-buy initiative didn’t need to be an unmitigated disaster. If the money that people paid to buy their homes had been reinvested in building more homes, it could’ve introduced a choice and a diversity of approach to home management. I do recall the days when you never were allowed to hang out your washing and when you couldn’t paint your door anything other than the colour designated by the housing manager. So, we’ve definitely moved beyond that, but unfortunately, this right to buy was used as an asset-stripping operation by the Treasury, and local authorities were instead forced to use the right-to-buy receipts to pay off their debts. That is why they were not able to build more homes.

In addition to which, because the tenants were given a 50 per cent discount, it meant that the councils were never in a position to replace the homes they’d lost with new ones, because they were clearly going to cost at least half as much again. Even with lower discounts, less than half the right-to-buy properties have been replaced in the last four years according to the National Housing Federation.

Thank you very much for taking the intervention. It was just on your last point there that a 50 per cent discount means that the house is only worth half its original value. Inevitably, the value of a house on sale is going to be more than its building costs, so, while you may have a general point that a discount needn’t be too generous, to equate a building cost with the sale cost is just wrong, I’m sorry.

Well, that’s a complicated story. Obviously, the land costs have to be accounted for, but the point is, if the receipts aren’t sufficient to build another home, then you’re always going to be having a decreasing supply. In the current situation, where we’ve got 90,000 people waiting for a home, it would be reckless of us to not suspend the right to buy in the meantime.

So, although this was hailed as one of the most important social revolutions of the century, instead it has spawned fractured communities, boosted exploitative landlordism and created a severe lack of social housing that has made ‘Cathy Come Home’ a twenty-first century reality again.

Private rented accommodation is so much more expensive that it condemns many families who fall back into private rented accommodation to stop working and become dependent on housing benefit in order to pay the rent. And then, on top of that, families have to move year on year, never able to put down roots and establish a stake in communities. For children, the burden is even higher, moving school every year—or, even worse, in-year—they are bound to do less well academically than if they’d completed their education in one primary school and one secondary school. The alternative is children have to travel very long distances to remain in the same school, impacting on their well-being and more vehicles on the road.

So, after decades of right to buy, and a failure by successive Governments of all stripes—I agree, of all stripes—to address the acute housing shortage, Welsh Labour is absolutely taking the right decision to protect social housing, and I applaud this initiative. It was hailed as one of the most important social revolutions of the century. Instead, 30 years later, it’s fractured communities and made for an enormous amount of disconnect.

Overall, Wales has lost nearly half of its social housing stock—over 90,000 households on the council waiting list, and we can’t afford to lose any more. This disaster has been a slow burn. I agree that, in the 1980s and the 1990s, the numbers living in private rented accommodation were relatively stable, at around 10 per cent of the total, but it’s now almost 20 per cent, and, in the 20 to 39 age groups, it’s jumped to 50 per cent. So, generation rent is not about to disappear any time soon.

If you think that the right to buy has led to the nirvana of a property-owning democracy, think again. Over 40 per cent of those right-to-buy homes—the Tories applaud the ability of people to buy their own home—have actually fallen back into the hands of the private rented sector, where they continue to milk more and more public funds in housing benefit payments. Across the UK, housing benefit has ballooned from £7.5 billion in 1991 to £22 billion 20 years later. We really cannot afford to go on like that. A third of the private rented stock of 4.5 million nationally is part or wholly funded through housing benefit. So, this genius idea of a social revolution has led to an expanded private rented sector in large part subsidised by spiralling rates of housing benefit. It’s not sustainable, and it’s absolutely right that we suspend the right to buy whilst we build more homes.

It was Sir Anthony Eden, who, as Prime Minister in the mid-1950s, had the vision of creating a property-owning democracy in this country. Ever since, for successive Conservative Governments, widening home ownership has been a core principle. For too many of our people, home ownership was only a dream. They wanted to own their own home, but it was beyond their reach. Too many were denied the chance and the opportunity to buy the home in which they lived.

We support home ownership, because it encourages independence, self-reliance and aspiration. It gives people a stake in their communities. Between 1979 and 1997, the Conservative Government widened the opportunity for home ownership. The right to buy was a highly successful part of their programme—2014 marked 34 years of the right-to-buy scheme in England. During this time, over 1,800,000 home sales had been completed under this programme. In Wales, 130,000 families have had the opportunity to buy their own council houses. That’s 130,000 families taking the first step on the property ladder, owning a home that they can pass on to their next generation.

The Labour Party fought the right to buy tooth and nail. It was not part of their philosophy that council tenants should acquire the right and dignity of property ownership, and it still isn’t. Last week, in Liverpool, Mr Corbyn’s shadow housing Minister confirmed that they would suspend the right to buy. In doing so, they’re following the lead of Welsh Labour. The Welsh Government has been steadily undermining the right to buy in Wales. First, they cut the discount available by half, then they suspended the scheme altogether in Carmarthenshire. Now, they intend to abolish the right to buy altogether. The First Minister claimed that its abolition would

‘ensure social housing is available to those who need it, and who are unable to access accommodation through home ownership or the private rented sector.’

Will you take an intervention?

This dogma-driven decision has nothing to do with increasing the supply of social housing. Sorry, Joyce. It has everything to do with shifting the blame for Labour’s total failure, after 17 years in power, to increase the supply of social housing. Actually, Deputy Presiding Officer, in the Newport area they tried to build those houses in the academic, the university campus. Today—only today—they actually allowed, to build social houses, to demolish one iconic church in Newport and to put a few houses. That also needs to be looked at: where the houses are going to be built. That is another area that the Labour Party should be considering: to tell all the councils that listed buildings or iconic buildings should not be disturbed.

The social housing crisis in Wales is a result of Welsh Labour missing building targets. In 2007, when I came here, there was a big project—a big target that you actually put in this Chamber: 25,000 houses, and you never achieved more than—[Interruption.] You never achieved more than 6,000. And, then, in the end, you said that it was only piloted. God help you.

Since 2004, successive Welsh Governments have been warned of an impending crisis unless they stepped up this house building. The previous Government was told by its own housing review that it would have to build at least 14,000 homes per annum until 2026 in order to meet housing demand, as David Melding has already mentioned. The Home Builders Federation states that poor planning and higher costs associated with building homes in Wales have compromised investment. That is another disaster of Labour’s attitude. They say that the more attractive planning and development environment in England means that the volume of permissions has increased by 49 per cent, while it is decreasing in Wales.

There are around 23,000 empty homes in Wales. Some are in need of renovation, yet the previous Welsh Government made only 7,500 empty homes available to re-join the housing stock. Deputy Presiding Officer, we need a new approach for housing in Wales: not one based on the failed left-wing socialist dogma of the 1970s, but one that meets—[Interruption.] One that meets the needs and aspirations of our people—[Interruption.]

Thank you.

[Continues.]—an approach to encourage home ownership.

Thank you. Have you finished?

One that does not take away the ladder of opportunity and kills the hopes and dreams of many families in Wales. I support the motion.

Thank you. Gareth Bennett.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. We in UKIP Wales also note the Welsh Government’s intention to revoke right to buy here in Wales. We also see right to buy as a valuable opportunity for home ownership, and of course we support more house building, if, of course, the houses can be built in the right places. However, although we support the Conservative proposal, we do have several suggestions of our own—[Interruption.] Yes, we do; a few. We do have several suggestions of our own as to how the housing situation could be improved in Wales.

Firstly, we need to address the problem of how to replenish the council housing stock. The problem with the Housing Act 1980 was that it forbade councils from using any of the revenues from council house sales on building new houses. This was the rather disastrous element of the Conservatives’ policy, which would now need to be addressed were right to buy to continue in Wales. Our proposal would be to allow right to buy in Wales, but to ring fence the revenues from council house sales so that 100 per cent of these funds could be ploughed back into building new council houses.

As well as trying to maximise the supply of housing, we also need to take action to control demand for housing. [Interruption.] I don’t have time, Mark, I’m sorry. Thank you. As a nation, the UK misses its targets of building 200,000 homes year after year, while at the same time net migration runs at more than 300,000. Therefore, we need to recognise that mass immigration is a factor in the housing shortage, and we therefore support immigration controls. Hence our campaign for Brexit, which some Members may recall.

The left-wing parties may begin howling at this point that we need migrant workers. [Interruption.] The left-wingers may howl at this point that we need migrant workers, and indeed one of the areas where we have a skills shortage is in the construction industry. The simple answer to this is to guide more Welsh school and college students into apprenticeships in the construction industry. Hence our support for university technical colleges, UTCs, on the Baker Dearing model, as they have in England. These have even been supported by an ex Labour council leader here in south Wales, Jeff Jones, formerly of Bridgend council, who has supported bringing in UTCs in Wales. So, why not?

Finally, on Bethan Jenkins’s point regarding Bananarama, many of us at school did like Bananarama quite a lot, although I confess I can now no longer remember any of their songs.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate this afternoon, and in particular the way David Melding opened the debate, because, obviously, mapping it out, there were two parts to this debate. The first part is obviously the ideological argument, and I appreciate the position that the Government has taken around the right to buy, but it is a fact that it has been most probably one of the biggest social empowerment vehicles that any Government has brought forward. Without a shadow of a doubt, the ability for someone to have a stake in society and own their own property—you cannot empower anyone more than that. I speak as a son of someone who actually benefitted from being able to buy their own home and farm and then progressed to owning their own business—I’ll take the intervention in a minute, Jenny, but let me progress a little, after only 40 seconds. The ability to have that stake in society is something that it is really regrettable that the Government here are actually going to legislate to take away as a right. As Jenny in her contribution talked about, she said it was a suspension. It’s not a suspension. You’re going to actually pass a law to forbid it in this part of the United Kingdom. I think that is a really retrograde step, and really does not do any favours at all to empowering people to move on in life and actually get that stake in society. I will take the intervention.

Do you recognise that, for many people, owning their own home is simply not possible, because they don’t earn enough? Therefore, social housing is a much better option—more stable, more secure than private rented.

I take the point that there is not one silver bullet to solve the housing crisis that we face, just like actually passing legislation to stop the right to buy is not going to be a silver bullet to stop the housing crisis that we face, in that we’re just not building enough houses. And, if you do not build enough houses, you create pent-up demand for that, the house price goes up, and ultimately you are excluding more and more people from that market. Of course, social housing is an important part of the balance that we can use, amongst many of the other tools that are available. That’s why the second part of this motion, as introduced by David, was touching on the need for the Government to actually have a coherent policy about how we are going to get new starts and completions up here in Wales. We were the only part of the United Kingdom where actually house building went backwards last year. New starts actually went backwards. Now, unless the Government can actually stimulate that demand through the planning system and assist house builders, local authorities and, indeed, local communities to work to develop these proposals, then your legislation is just going to fail and create a wider social chasm between the people who have already got their stake in society by owning their own homes and those who are unable to actually get on the housing ladder.

I well remember, when this first announcement was made last year by the Government here, that they would legislate if they were successful in the May election, and the lady from Swansea who did the BBC clip, in her own house that she bought in the 1980s, sitting in her living room and her saying, ‘Who would’ve thought that we would’ve actually owned our own home?’ She said, with great pride, that she now owned her own home. The first thing they did was change the windows in that house. The next thing they did was install central heating. The next thing they did was upgrade the living room. It’s about that sense of being, that sense of purpose, and we make no apologies as Welsh Conservatives about standing full square behind the right to buy being continued in Wales, as it is in other parts of the United Kingdom.

Instead of the Government using its legislative powers to outlaw this practice—. I will take the point that has been made by Jenny and other Labour Members here today that, in some areas, there might be a need to suspend; there might be a need to bring other tools to the table. But to actually outlaw a principle that has been so socially empowering over the last 30 or 35 years is such a retrograde step and really does show the divide now that is opening up. [Interruption.] I welcome that divide, because we will be championing the continuation—I will take the intervention in a minute—of the right to buy here in Wales. I’ll take the intervention.

Do you know what the data—statistics—are around house repossessions for those that have used the right to buy?

There is an issue around house repossessions. There’s an issue about the ability for people to access the housing market more generally. But you can’t use just that piece of data to actually bring a piece of legislation to this Assembly to outlaw a practice that has been so socially empowering. Far better for the Minister to use his time and his resources and the Government’s time to develop a strategy that will see genuine new starts increasing here in Wales, and completing in Wales, so that there’s actually more stock for people to buy and to actually have access to that property market.

By constraining the supply, you’re pushing the demand up and, ultimately, the price of property is going up. Therefore, the disparity between the wage that someone’s taking home and the ability to get the mortgage to access that house is getting wider and wider here in Wales. That is not a situation that is sustainable. To date, successive Labour Governments have not tackled that. You’re at the beginning of your time, Cabinet Secretary; use this debate to map out how you’re going to do it, but I would urge you and ask you to reconsider the use of legislation to outlaw the one socially empowering tool that has generally transformed so many lives here in Wales and, indeed, across the United Kingdom.

Thank you very much. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children—Carl Sargeant.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I welcome today’s debate—the third on housing, I think, in as many weeks. A safe, secure and affordable home is a basic need. It’s crucial to people’s health, well-being and ability to realise their full potential. Housing is a priority for this Government. I’m deeply committed to ensuring we do all we can to help people meet their housing needs and make the real difference that many people have talked about in the Chamber today.

The housing market doesn’t work for everyone, but at the heart of today’s debate, I believe, is fairness—the need to ensure that those who cannot take full advantage of the market can have a stable, affordable home.

Our role as Government is to ensure the housing system works, intervening where necessary to make it work better, particularly for those who are disadvantaged. This is fundamental to our goal of promoting prosperity and social justice. Social housing plays a vital role, and protecting it is one of the best ways in which housing policy can be used to tackle poverty and promote community well-being. Access to decent, low-cost housing increases disposable income and prevents material deprivation. It’s the springboard to employment. Those are not my words, but those of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Social housing provides a solid foundation for people’s lives and thus contributes to health, education and the economic goals, and we mustn’t ever forget it or lose it.

As a result of the policy introduced by the Conservative Government in 1981, we have lost a staggering amount of social housing, more than 138,000 homes—nearly half of our entire social housing stock. Decisive action is required to enable social housing to be made available for those who need it most, and this is what we are doing by way of a Bill to end the right to buy. We will be introducing a Bill. I’m very pleased that the Plaid Cymru benches will be supportive of that proposal as we take it through the Chamber. It’s clear that the opposition parties opposite me aren’t able to support that principle.

At a time when there’s increasing demand for housing, we’re still seeing homes being lost in our housing stock. This means some people, including vulnerable people, have to wait longer for a home or have to rent from the private rented sector. I listened to the contributions made by some of the opposition Members around the right to buy and the ability to retain stock. The facts of the matter are: in England—which they promote—they are selling seven social housing homes and building one replacement. How do the maths stack up?

I will take an intervention from the Member.

I’m grateful to you for taking an intervention, Cabinet Secretary. You said that the stock had been lost. As David, who introduced the debate, said, that was a flaw of the scheme that came in—that the money was not used to replace it. Why do you, therefore, acknowledging that there was that deficit in the original scheme, not just make the scheme more adaptable to what is required in the twenty-first century and actually allow receipts to be used to build more homes, rather than outlawing the scheme—using the law to outlaw something like this?

We’ve got a raft of schemes. The 20,000 model, which I’ll come onto in a second—. I know that David tries to pretend that he doesn’t understand the figures, but I know that the Member is good at this. I will explain them in more detail.

Let me tell you one fundamental fact about the right to buy and what’s actually happened in this sector: the fact is that, as years have passed, the true impact of the right to buy has been seen. Research reveals that a significant proportion of homes sold under the right to buy—more than 40 per cent of those have ended up in the private rented sector, pushing the very rents that the Member suggested were inflating. That’s the very reason why these are unaffordable properties. We must prevent the sale of more social housing and protect social housing stock. [Interruption.] The Member keeps shouting, but these facts are speaking for themselves.

Let’s go to the numbers, which David and his colleagues wish to challenge. I’m grateful for the opportunity to demonstrate our reasoning. The commissioned report that the Member alludes to—again, a very good document—is the Public Policy Institute for Wales’s report, ‘Future Need and Demand for Housing in Wales’, from September 2015. They projected an additional total need of 174,000 homes in the period 2011-31. This would equate to 8,700 per year, of which 5,200—around 60 per cent—will be needed in the market sector, and around 3,500—40 per cent a year—in the social sector, amounting to an additional 70,000 social rented homes over the next 20-year period.

We are clear that our target from last year, which will be—. When the stats are released, I’m confident that we will have made our 10,000 social housing stock in the last term of this Government. The ambitious target of 20,000 now is something that will be contributed by many opportunities and schemes that we’re promoting, but also with the market. Lesley Griffiths and I this morning met the private house builders to talk about planning issues and other aspects of development.

But, let me also remind the Chamber that the majority of the benches opposite, when I was planning Minister, all wrote to me about social housing schemes that they wanted to stop in their communities, so don’t be telling me that we need more houses. You tell me one minute that you want more houses, but you don’t want them near you. [Interruption.]

Let me tell you: we will be legislating on the right to buy in this Chamber—[Interruption.]

Can we just listen to the Minister, please?

[Continues.]—with the support of Plaid Cymru, and we will be the ones who champion house building here in Wales.

Thank you.

Until you’re quiet, I’m not going to call your person to respond to the debate. So, if you can be quiet, I will call Suzy Davies to respond to the debate—Suzy Davies.

I’m very grateful to you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Thank you to everybody who’s taken part in the debate today. This debate was about supply—much-needed affordable housing supply. I acknowledge and, of course, appreciate that there are different views on this, some based on ideology and some based on experience, but none of the contributions I’ve heard from the other parties today explain why the Welsh Government has not met its housing targets to build enough new homes, including affordable homes, and why scrapping the right to buy will actually resolve that problem. There seems to be no grasp that, if supply and demand were in better balance, with a more stable flow through the system in Wales, then we wouldn’t be facing the kind of local development plans where we’re talking about big mini-villages turning up on the edge of existing communities, or big, big rushes towards big social housing supply instead of mixed housing supply. I don’t hear anything about what happens with the skills gap that we face every time there are peaks in housing demand and troughs in housing demand. We wouldn’t be facing to such a degree the mismatch between people’s housing and their changing housing needs over a lifetime—nor indeed that there would be less upward pressure on house prices within the private sector.

The right to buy now helps local government and RSLs provide the right homes in the right places at different times in people’s lives. And when the discount is realistic, which it hasn’t been in Wales—nor in England, actually, during the period of Labour Government—then some stock can be released into the private sector as part of that ownership and rental mix, but then you recover equity to build the new stock, which we could be building to respond more readily to the peaks and troughs of population.

Whether you need social housing—and I mean social housing, now—all your life or not, you may well need the freedom to move through from your first small property, maybe into a larger family home and perhaps into another property more suitable for the needs arising from age or disability. It’s not just the numbers that David Melding was speaking of, but it’s the mix of housing that needs to change, and that mix of housing is not being supplied at the moment. What social housing should not be is a trap that keeps families in homes too small for them or older people in properties that become too much for them. And that’s what happens when nobody builds new social housing. Andrew R.T. Davies is right: by scrapping this option, it limits people’s options to design their own lives. It is not about social housing or private housing; it is about both and allowing people to make the transition between the two if they want to.

Now, David Melding said that there are over 8,000 people on a waiting list for social housing for several years, and I don’t think the Welsh Government should be proud of that. There’s no social justice there. I don’t know much about Keynes, David, but I do know about developers, having worked with them through the housing booms and a property-based recession for several years.

Would the Member give way?

I’m a bit short on time, so if you could keep it quick. Thanks.

On that point about the number of people waiting for social housing, does that not inform the Member that there is a real problem about people accessing properties within the private sector, and what they want are secure tenancies within social housing sector?

What it informs me of is that the Welsh Government hasn’t made it easy for anyone to build social housing during that time.

Developers like building big housing estates, except when there are downturns in the economy and they are left with a lot of risk. What they like, and especially the smaller sort of developers that we have here in Wales, is the steady work—the sell and build again process that you have in the right-to-buy process, as we’re talking about in the twenty-first century. It’s actually providing certainty to smaller developers.

Bethan Jenkins, you were right; home ownership is desired by many, so why cut off one route that helps them to achieve that? Twenty-first century right to buy is about helping people to buy their own homes, that’s true, but it is not at the expense of social housing. It releases equity to build that new social housing. Your question would be for the councils: why aren’t they using it for that? You cannot use the mistakes of the 1980s to argue against the right to buy now. It’s just not replicated; those mistakes don’t exist in 2016, and I really have to ask who is actually in the time warp on this one.

Mark Isherwood made the point that missing house targets does nothing to alleviate waiting lists. Those waiting lists could be reduced if some individuals leave the social housing sector and move into the private sector, and then councils can build homes for those where there is actually—. It reduces the demand, as well as providing new stock.

Jenny Rathbone, I think you made the point for us a little bit: the right to buy now is not the right to buy of the 1980s; the receipts are effectively old for new—or new for old, I should say. It’s an instruction to councils to use that equity to get building. But, I would agree that the rate of discount must be appropriate to the local market, as it is in England now. What it cannot be is so low that it kills off demand for that.

Mohammad Asghar and Gareth Bennett both referred to the point that the location of new houses is an important consideration. It is. Bethan Jenkins, you talked about the old problems with ghettos, and nobody wants to see that again, but I’m sure you’re pleased that the Customs House has been used as a location for social housing, and that our heritage can sit side by side and are not mutually exclusive, which is obviously the experience that Mohammad Asghar has had in Newport. [Interruption.] Yes, certainly.

Just to finish, Cabinet Secretary, yes, we need secure and affordable homes—can you just build some, then? Thank you.

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

We move on to our next item on the agenda, which is the United Kingdom Independence Party debate on HS2 and the rail network in Wales, and I call on David Rowlands to move the motion. David.

Thank you, madam Deputy Presiding Officer. I move this motion in the name of Neil Hamilton.

We move the motion that HS2 is abandoned and the resulting savings used to upgrade the existing network throughout the whole of the UK, including those in Wales. We argue that it is not too late to end this potentially disastrous project as although £2 billion has already been spent, not one spade of turf has yet been cut.

HS2 is a mode of transport designed to take pampered businessmen from London to a few cities in the north at a cost of many billions of pounds of British taxpayers’ money—£55 billion according to the latest estimate, but rising rapidly. In addition, the human and environmental cost is immeasurable in that this project calls for the destruction of at least 58 farms and many thousands of family homes. In fact, the proposed change to the route near Sheffield will call for destruction of a whole housing estate, which is, at this very moment, in the course of construction. All very ironic given that we are in the midst of catastrophic housing shortages, including in Sheffield itself, with 28,000 on its social housing waiting list.

The very fact that HS2 is designed to run at 240 mph rather than run, like the usual continental high-speed trains, at 190 mph is in itself damaging to the environment, in that it increases carbon emissions by over 20 per cent, whilst reducing the time between London and Birmingham by a mere three and a half minutes.

The National Audit Office has itself criticised the scheme, arguing that many of the cost-benefit arguments are already being eroded by delays and increased budgets. They also say that the timescales for completion are unrealistic, with 2026 for London to Birmingham, 2027 to Crewe and 2033 to Manchester and Leeds being almost impossible to achieve. Add to this the opinion of many rail transport academics that far from helping towns such as Nottingham, Stockport and Wakefield, it may even have a damaging effect on their economies as it actually adversely affects the connectivity to the larger conurbations of the region.

Richard Wellings of the Institute of Economic Affairs even questioned the veracity of the claims that it would transform the economy of the regions where HS2 would most directly connect. So, what chance of any part of Wales gaining significant economic benefits? There have been many facile arguments used to promote what can only be called a vanity project by this UK Government. And here are just a few of them: HS2 will create greater connectivity between the north and the south, thus generating huge economic benefits to the northern regions. But opponents argue that it will simply make it easier for the brightest and the best from cities such as Manchester, Leeds and Hull to commute to much higher-paid jobs in London, which would, of course, have the adverse effect of losing some of the region’s best talent with its resultant loss to the local economy.

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, of course, Lee.

With respect, David, yesterday afternoon your party boycotted the Assembly because you said we were having a futile debate. Thus far in this debate, all you’ve talked about is England. So, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. [Laughter.]

Well, Lee, I don’t know if you’ve noticed the plans for this railway line, but it actually runs in England, not in Wales. [Interruption.] I shall come to the point of how it will affect Wales if you’d just give me the time to get there. Thank you.

There are also many who argue that much better connectivity is best achieved by upgrading existing lines and building a number of new cross-country lines or even reopening old cross-country lines. These, together with an upgrading of rolling stock, would alleviate many of the existing passenger capacity problems—all at a fraction of the cost of HS2.

In his report of 2014, Sir Patrick McLoughlin argued that the train from London to Crewe was the busiest in Britain, resulting in chronic overcrowding. However, by the time the report was published, the problem had been solved simply by adding four more carriages to the existing trains. Experts argue that with a programme of platform extensions, carriages could be added to many of our other busiest train routes.

Proponents of the scheme argue that HS2 is not so much about speed as capacity—faster trains mean more trains. In fact, this was the thrust of Chris Grayling’s argument on the ‘Sunday Politics’ show as late as last Sunday. When pressed, however, about the delivery date and cost, he was more than evasive, giving a time for completion as some time in the next decade.

The argument about greater capacity is to counter arguments by technical experts that much of the land between London and the north of England is unsuitable for a high-speed track without considerable foundation strengthening work. Such work would again add billions to the construction costs. Without these foundation improvements, trains would have to limit speeds to around 150 mph over many parts of the line.

Those who oppose HS2 also argue that, in addition to those mentioned above, there are many other ways to augment rail capacity. One proposal is to do away with first-class carriages, which, on average, run at just 10 per cent capacity. Well, I hope that would be a solution that I anticipate would be much applauded by both the socialist parties of this Chamber. In addition, with suitable infrastructure improvements, capacity can be increased significantly simply by adding more carriages. Digital technologies allow for advanced signal capabilities, and together with on-board safety features, especially driver-to-control centre communications, will allow for more frequent trains, as distances between trains could be considerably reduced with no loss of safety. The improvements indicated above applied across the whole of the UK network, including Wales, of course, would be far cheaper and far more effective than a single high-cost speed connection between London and the north.

And now, can I turn to Wales’s connection? [Interruption.] Can I turn to Wales’s connection, or should I say ‘non-connection’ with this HS2 project? Plaid Cymru AMs claim that they secured £84 million extra for the Wales transport budget, due to the fact that the UK Government increased its transport budget for HS2, also claiming, by the way, that Labour only jumped on the bandwagon, if you’ll excuse the pun, very late in the day. As laudable as this achievement is, it is simply an indication of the acceptance by the UK Government that the HS2 project is not only not beneficial to the Welsh economy, but actually damaging to it.

Some commentators put this negative effect over the life of the railway at around £4 billion—a figure, they argue, which, together with the £1.4 billion adverse effect to the Northern Ireland economy, should be added to the overall cost of HS2. That is, of course, if this compensation figure is to be rightfully paid to the two devolved Governments.

Both Plaid Cymru and Labour have been seesawing on this project ever since it was first envisaged, with Plaid having the dichotomy of having their MPs voting against HS2. The fact of the matter is that both Plaid and Labour seem to be citing the consequential payment as being the reason for supporting this project. Just two points on that matter: consequential payments should, or even would, be made for any increase in the Government’s allocation for the transport budget, irrespective of where that increase was spent. So, if the Government chose to spend the HS2 budget increase to improve the rail network in general, we could still expect to get this consequential-payment payment—unless, of course, Plaid and Labour are classing this consequential payment as a compensatory payment. A compensatory payment would, of course, be in order, as many reports, including two by KPMG, one for HS2 Ltd itself and one for the BBC too, estimated that negative cost to the Wales economy to be in the region of £200 million per year.

As indicated above, there will be no direct connection between HS2 and Wales, not to the south, not to the middle and not to the north. Indeed, the city probably most influential to the north Wales economy, unless we discount Crewe here, is Liverpool itself. Liverpool itself will have no direct connection with HS2, and it is understood that Liverpool’s metro system stalled 40 years ago due to lack of funds, with 4.5 miles of tunnels that had no track or trains. Are our ambitious metro plans to be stalled in the same way through lack of UK Government funds, as HS2 costs spiral out of control, already having risen from £17 billion in 2013 to present estimates of £55 billion? Not only that, but any rail infrastructure improvements planned for Wales would have to compete for the skilled workforce and equipment that would inevitably be sucked into such a vast project as HS2. Let us remind ourselves that just a fraction of that £55 billion plus would not only allow electrification to Swansea, but even on to Carmarthen. It would also find electrification of the south Wales Valleys lines and allow for much improved infrastructure, including electrification for the line serving north Wales.

I finally put it to you that HS2 is not of benefit to the Welsh economy. It is indeed damaging to it. So, if you truly believe in a prosperous, productive Welsh economy in the twenty-first century, you cannot but support this motion.

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

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I’d like to move the amendments in the name of Paul Davies and, in doing so, raise my disappointment that UKIP have brought forward this motion today. There seems to be a failure to recognise the social and economic benefits that HS2 will bring to the people of mid and north Wales especially. The rejection of the scheme that will be the backbone, I think, to the UK rail network demonstrates the lack of ambition that you have in UKIP for the UK and, of course, Wales too.

Also, I am aware that some members of the UKIP group here do support the scheme, at least before they joined UKIP—. I note here a quote from Mark Reckless: ‘proud to vote for HS2’ and making the ‘positive case’ for the initiative, adding the estimates were ‘extremely conservative’. Of course, Mark Reckless also went on to produce a blog post actually detailing his support, but I appreciate that UKIP do not whip their group, so I look forward to Mark Reckless rejecting the motion and supporting our amendments later on.

Now, of course, we’re told that HS2 will be open in 2026. HS2 will serve the key towns and cities throughout England, also, of course, running up to Scotland as well. But by providing—[Interruption.] Yes, I will.

For the record, I had seen scope for the HS2 to support the Rochester and Stroud economy at the time that it was promised to have a cross-London link to take direct trains from Ebbsfleet to Manchester and Birmingham. That was then taken out of the project, and I withdrew my support and agreed with my colleague that it would not benefit the Welsh economy.

Oh, okay. Well, I’ve got your blog post in front of me here, but it very much contradicts some of the points that your colleague, sat next to you, was making. Perhaps I’ll pass it on to David Rowlands a little later to read.

Now, where was I? Where was I? Right. Even the people who don’t use trains as well, of course, will benefit, especially in north Wales. There are benefits, of course, from job creation and apprenticeships, created at the HS2 hub at Crewe, and, of course, the better connections it will bring to north and mid Wales.

We recently had a debate in this Chamber on the opportunities and challenges of the cross-border collaboration and the necessity to improve connectivity between north Wales and the emerging powerhouse in north England. Perhaps UKIP Members weren’t present for the debate, but from my recollection there was widespread agreement in the Chamber that, through cementing north Wales as a crucial part of the existing new economic region, we have the potential of facilitating significant growth in mid Wales, and re-balancing the economy of Wales as well, importantly, I think, away from the over-reliance on Cardiff and south Wales.

Finally, of course, the other issue is: I think it’s important, of course, that the Welsh Government needs to engage effectively with the UK Government and other regional bodies as well when it comes to ensuring that services and timetabling issues are organised, to deliver the maximum benefit from HS2 to the people of north Wales. I very much hope that perhaps the Cabinet Secretary can comment on that in his contribution, but I urge Members to reject this motion today and to support our amendments.

If amendment 2 is agreed, amendment 3 will be deselected. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure to formally move amendment 2, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt.

Formally.

I call on Dai Lloyd to move amendment 3, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Well, thank you very much, Llywydd. I’m pleased to be able to contribute to this debate, although I am slightly confused, if truth be told, because it’s not often that I stand to speak on a subject that has nothing to do with us here in Wales. We are talking about an infrastructure project that is an England-only infrastructure project. That’s what HS2 is. Of course, if it’s agreed, we will all be paying for it, but we are not making the decision here. The decision will be taken at another place. So, I am rather confused, if I may say.

What I would say, though, is that if this HS2 project does proceed, then we in Wales should have the Barnett consequential that reflects that, because there are so many major projects, including rail projects, that have happened in England and we haven’t received that consequential funding through Barnett, such as the Jubilee line and Crossrail. Nothing has been passed down as Barnett consequentials of those schemes. If this project does proceed, then our hope in Plaid Cymru is that we would receive significant funding—significant in Welsh terms, certainly—as Barnett consequentials.

Fundamentally, someone once said that if you want to travel from London to Birmingham and arrive 20 minutes earlier, then catch an earlier train. You don’t need to spend millions of pounds on such a rail line. Having said that, we do need funding to invest in improving links here in Wales. I will take this opportunity to mention that because our role in this place is to talk about the impact of projects on Wales. It has become pertinently obvious that we need to improve links between north and south Wales. There are many projects in the pipeline. Of course, we’re also mentioning the need to electrify the main line to Swansea. That is currently under threat following the Brexit vote. There are a number of proposals to improve north-south and south-north road links as well as to improve rail links between north and south, and they need investment now. I would also want to see the line between Carmarthen and Aberystwyth reopened, for example, so that we can discuss projects that are likely to happen within the borders of Wales, because those are the issues that we should be discussing in this place and we should be doing that regularly.

People will always say, ‘Well, from where would you get that money?’ Well, if HS2 is to be built, as I’ve already said, then we would insist on Barnett consequentials, because that doesn’t always happen, not by a long shot. That’s why, this week, we launched NICW—our NICW, that is. Our national infrastructure commission for Wales, which will be a body that will allow borrowing on an extensive scale; borrowing when it is cheap to do so, as it is now; and will be an arm’s-length body to attract huge investment so that we can achieve some of the aspirations that we have. There are some £40 billion infrastructure projects in the pipeline here in Wales, and there’s no prospect of any of them seeing the light of day at the moment. We must think far more broadly and be far more innovative in our thinking in terms of how we deal with the need to improve our infrastructure.

In drawing my comments to a close, we’ve had a debate tabled by UKIP on grammar schools, which exist in England and not in Wales, and we are today discussing HS2, which is an England-only infrastructure project, not a Welsh project. What next? What will be the next topic chosen for a UKIP debate in this place? A debate on the Wiltshire RDP, perhaps? Who knows? Thank you.

Here, two weeks ago, UKIP joined the other parties in agreeing a Welsh Conservative motion moved by me, which recognised that the proposals contained within ‘A Growth Vision for the Economy of North Wales’ offer the basis for improving the economic performance of north Wales and called on the Welsh Government to work with the UK Government and the North Wales Economic Ambition Board to deliver upgrades to the north Wales line. It’s therefore somewhat puzzling that in calling today for the HS2 project to be scrapped and the capital savings used, quote, ‘to enhance the existing rail network, including…upgrading of the north Wales rail network’, they’re actually taking an inconsistent and entirely contradictory position.

The North Wales Economic Ambition Board’s report, ‘A Growth Vision for the Economy of North Wales’, supported by the leaders and chief executives of all six unitary authorities in the region, the North Wales Business Council, both universities and both FE college groups, calls for the devolution of powers by the Welsh Government over employment, taxes, skills and transport. The infrastructure plan to enable growth, detailed within it, includes the delivery of a detailed prospectus called ‘Growth Track 360’,

‘for rail service improvements and connectivity with HS2 at Crewe hub—including proposals to improve: Service frequency and speed improvements…; Network capacity improvements…; Rolling stock improvements…; Electrification of the network…; Improved stations at Deeside’.

UKIP voted for this two weeks ago. The ‘Growth Track 360’ prospectus itself was issued in May 2016 by the Mersey Dee Alliance, the Cheshire and Warrington Local Enterprise Partnership and the North Wales Economic Ambition Board, and called for substantial rail investment to enable growth in the cross-border economy of the north Wales and Mersey Dee region.

‘Growth Track 360’, referred to in the document, was launched to secure £1 billion of rail improvements to transform the north Wales and Cheshire regional economy and deliver 70,000 new jobs over 20 years. Its calls include, and I quote from it:

‘The electrification of the line from Crewe to North Wales so the region can be linked to HS2 and fast London trains can continue to Bangor and Holyhead’.

The critical investments it detailed include, quote,

‘Preparing for HS2...Electrification between Crewe and Holyhead: Total impact/contribution to the economy of £2.5bn; To allow Pendolinos to be extended from Crewe to the North Wales Coast, and potentially HS2 classic compatible services; To facilitate electric services to run between the North Wales Coast and Manchester/Manchester Airport to connect with Northern Powerhouse Rail’.

The service enhancements that it lists include

‘1 train per hour: Holyhead—Chester—Crewe—London Euston (direct HS2 connectivity)’.

Under ‘return for investment’ and what it defines as a ‘positive cost benefit ratio’, it states that preparing for HS2 will facilitate both the

‘Ability to extend Pendolinos and HS2 services beyond Crewe to Chester and North Wales’

and

‘Connectivity with Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and Northern Powerhouse.’

Additional capacity, with faster journey times, are intrinsic for commuters and freight transportation, and being able to link into HS2—and I’m quoting again from the ‘Growth Track 360’ document—means that north Wales can’t be dismissed by companies and people looking to relocate. The removal of obstacles created by the lack of rail infrastructure will reduce congestion, improve business logistics and attract investment and jobs.

In the interests, therefore, of both consistency and solidarity with north Wales, I urge UKIP to recognise, as they did two weeks ago, that the success of the growth vision for the economy of north Wales is predicated in significant part upon the HS2 project not being scrapped and therefore to return to the position they supported here just a fortnight ago. Thank you.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure, Ken Skates.

Thank you, Presiding Officer, and can I thank Members for their contributions today and welcome the opportunity to debate this very important issue? I do believe that we have before us a once-in-a-generation opportunity to develop a world-class transport infrastructure in Wales. Together with metro south and metro north-east, the new Wales and borders franchise, upgrades to the A55, the M4 relief road, the reshaping of our bus network and the platform that our Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013 gives us in achieving modal shift, I believe that we have a fantastic opportunity to create an international quality integrated transport system across Wales.

That integration is essential. It’s essential because a high-quality transport system is critical in providing access to jobs and services. It is, in turn, central to a high-performing economy, and our railway network has a pivotal role to play in that. Efficient long-distance travel links and the development of HS2, I believe, will bring significant benefits to mid and north Wales as part of an integrated rail network across the UK. And this position is shared entirely by the ‘Growth Track 360’ participants, including further education, local authorities, councils from England and, of course, the private sector.

I want to make sure that it is properly integrated, though, into the economy of north Wales. The huge potential of the region could be unlocked if the UK Government were to bring forward funding to electrify the north Wales coast main line from Holyhead and Llandudno to Warrington and Crewe, and develop a fully integrated hub at Crewe. Ultimately, this could enable trains travelling to and from north Wales to use a new high-speed infrastructure. The Welsh Government is very happy to work with the UK Government to ensure that the benefits of HS2 are maximised, but we are disappointed that the UK Government has so far not agreed to devolve funding for rail infrastructure and powers to direct Network Rail, as was recommended by the Commission on Devolution in Wales. I’ll continue to press the UK Government to begin negotiations around the full devolution settlement recommended by the commission.

While funding for rail infrastructure is not devolved, we have used our powers to invest in rail enhancements, including in the Cambrian line and between Saltney and Wrexham. The Welsh Government worked with the North Wales Economic Ambition Board, the Mersey Dee Alliance, and the Cheshire and Warrington Local Enterprise Partnership to develop the strategic outline business case for the electrification of the north Wales main line. It is essential for the UK Government to ensure that Wales receives its fair share of the funding available for enhancing the rail network so that our rail infrastructure here in Wales does not fall further behind that enjoyed in the rest of Great Britain.

The recent track record, though, is not positive. Data published by the Office of Rail and Road illustrate that, between 2011 and 2015, only around 1 per cent of the UK Government’s investment in rail infrastructure enhancements was spent within the Wales route area. I’m pressing for the UK Government to give a commitment that it will spend its fair share of investment on rail enhancements in Wales during the next funding period.

The settlement needs to recognise the historic underinvestment we have seen in Wales, and the fact that Network Rail Wales’s route extends into England. Now, I don’t wish to jump the gun, but I am now pressing the UK Government for confirmation that the scheme will be delivered immediately after electrification to Cardiff is completed in 2018. This, of course, is the scheme to extend to Swansea. It’s essential for the UK Government to confirm that Wales will not lose out following the UK’s exit from the European Union. Of key significance of funding for the delivery of the south Wales metro and electrification to Milford Haven and Holyhead, as is required by 2030, under the regulations covering the trans-European transport network, UK Government funding must be made available to deliver against these requirements. Wales needs it, and our economy needs it.

I call on David Rowlands to reply to the debate.

Yes, thank you. Thank you all for your contributions to this debate. I’ll deal with Russell George where he said that we fail to recognise the benefits. But most economic experts say there will be no benefits to the Welsh economy if HS2 is to be built. And then Mark Isherwood went on to talk about this fanciful document, where the UK Government will be making absolutely certain that they will electrify north Wales, even though this project may have cost many billions of pounds more. Dai Lloyd—well, I’m quite bemused, actually, Dai, because everybody else in this Chamber recognises that this project does impact on Wales in a very, very—either, as we argue, detrimental manner, or, as the other people who’ve spoken—[Interruption] Can I just answer this? Thank you. Others say that it will be of great benefit to it. But, do you know, during all the Brexit debates, we heard a raft of reservations voiced by Plaid with regard to the willingness of the UK Government to pay over the funds previously coming to Wales from Brussels? Yet, here, they’re utterly content to rely on the supposedly endless largess of that same institution to fund the Welsh economy by way of consequential payments. A very worst case, if I might say, of naked hypocrisy. [Interruption.] I was making the very point. Well—

Don’t tempt them.

Ken Skates—I’ll deal with what Ken had to say. Ken, I echo all of your desires to upgrade the transport system in Wales, and it is precisely this argument that we are putting today: that the funding of this HS2 project will massively impact on the ability of you yourself, using all your skills, which I’m sure you will, in receiving as much funding for the necessary upgrading that we really do need in Wales. And what we’re saying is that, if this project were abandoned, the £50 billion-odd, which will probably end up at £70 billion would be much, much better spent on upgrading the general network right throughout the United Kingdom, but very much so right throughout Wales as well.

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

We have now reached voting time. Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will proceed directly to voting time.

The first vote is on Plaid Cymru’s debate, and I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 10, no abstentions, 43 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed.

I call for a vote, therefore, on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 43, no abstentions, 10 against. Therefore, amendment 1 is agreed.

I call for a vote on amendment 2, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 16, no abstentions, 37 against. Therefore, amendment 2 is not agreed.

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

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 44, 10 abstentions and nobody against. Therefore the motion as amended is agreed.

The next vote is on the Plaid Cymru debate, and I call for the motion tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 16, no abstentions, 38 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed.

Amendment 1: if amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 39 against. Therefore, amendment 1 is not agreed.

I call for a vote on amendment 2, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 38, no abstentions, 16 against. Therefore, the amendment is agreed.

I call for a vote on amendment 3, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 54, no abstentions, and nobody against. Amendment 3 is therefore agreed.

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

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 54, no abstentions, nobody against. Therefore, the motion as amended is agreed.

We have a vote now on the Welsh Conservatives debate. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 16, no abstentions, 38 against. Therefore the motion is not agreed.

I now call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 38, no abstentions, 16 against. Therefore, amendment 1 is agreed.

I call for a vote now on amendment 2, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 53, one abstention, nobody against. Therefore, amendment 2 is agreed.

I call for a vote on amendment 3, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 48, six abstentions, nobody against. Therefore, amendment 3 is agreed.

I call now for a vote on amendment 4, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 48, six abstentions, no-one against. Therefore, amendment 4 is agreed.

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

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 48, six abstentions, no-one against. Therefore, the motion as amended is agreed.

The last vote is on the UKIP debate, and I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Neil Hamilton. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour six, no abstentions, 48 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed.

We move on to amendment 1. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will be deselected. I call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 10, no abstentions, against 44. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

Amendment 2. If amendment 2 is agreed, amendment 3 will be deselected. I call for a vote on amendment 2, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 38, no abstentions, 16 against. Therefore, the amendment is agreed.

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