National Assembly for Wales

I call the National Assembly to order.

The first item on our agenda this afternoon is questions to the First Minister, and the first question is from Nick Ramsay.

The national transport finance plan sets out the measures we are taking to ensure that the south-east is connected via an effective, affordable, reliable, modern and fully integrated public transport system.

Thank you, First Minister. The decision on the awarding of the new Wales and borders franchise is particularly important for public transport in south-east Wales and, indeed, for the south Wales metro—an issue I’ve raised in this Chamber with you a number of times. You mentioned at the end of your answer the importance of integration. Will you update us on the process of awarding the franchise, given that the metro map includes both bus and train routes? What are you doing to ensure that the independence of those two is ensured in the new franchise, so that we see the delivery of integrated ticketing, and so that the new franchise operates in harmony with local bus services and the train services?

The franchise itself is going well, but I wouldn’t expect, of course, the rail franchise to deal with the issue of bus services. But, of course, in April of next year, this institution will gain control of bus services, and then that provides us as a Government, and the Assembly as an institution, the opportunity to integrate bus and rail services given the fact that control will rest in the same place.

It’s been five years since the report ‘A Metro for Wales’ Capital City Region’ was published, which makes the case for a step change in our public transport system. Per kilometre, a rail line costs about the same as the same distance of motorway, yet it carries eight to 20 times more people. So, I’m keen to understand what work the Government has done to use the metro as a way of tackling modal shift and dealing with the congestion that we currently have on the M4 east of Cardiff.

The M4 east of Cardiff is affected by many factors. The metro will have some effect, but not as great an effect as for those communities that are to the west of Cardiff. Initially, of course, what the metro will do will be to upgrade and improve the existing railway lines, and then, of course, look to expand via light rail to new communities. But the next phases of the metro that include light rail are some years away, given the fact that we know that the initial work will focus on the heavy rail lines that already exist. But there are significant opportunities for modal shift via the metro in the years to come.

Last Thursday morning, the excellent leaders of RCT and Bridgend councils, Councillors Andrew Morgan and Huw David, gave evidence on the south Wales metro to the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee. They argued that the metro needs to connect across the northern Valleys and not just strengthen links to and from Cardiff. Would the First Minister agree and commit to ensuring that this happens?

Well, the first thing to emphasise is that the metro it not a greater Cardiff transport system. The fact that Transport for Wales will be based in Pontypridd is a sign of the commitment that we make to Valleys communities, but cross-valley links will be important. We understand that. They will be provided in the main, certainly in initial stages, by buses. We know there are many people who do look to commute across the Heads of the Valleys, and commute from one valley to the other. The railway lines that once connected those areas are long gone. That means, of course, that we need to look at how we can upgrade bus services in order to provide the connections that people need.

First Minister, in Llandudno on Saturday at the Welsh Labour conference, you announced three significant measures that will make a tangible difference to passengers on public transport. Every train on the Wales and borders franchise will be equipped with free Wi-Fi by September this year, a roll-out of free Wi-Fi to train stations across Wales, starting with 50 of the busiest stations in Wales over the next six months, and a 12-month pilot of free weekend travel on our long-distance TrawsCymru service. First Minister, isn’t this further evidence that the Welsh Labour Government is on the side of commuters, and what further actions can improve public transport for my constituents in Islwyn?

Can I thank the Member for Islwyn for reminding me of what I said on the weekend? And, yes, it is a sign of the commitment that we make to commuters—the fact that we are upgrading the metro, the fact that we’re committed to the north-east metro, the fact that we’re looking at upgrading trains when the franchise comes to us, the fact that we will look, once powers come to us next year, to upgrading our bus system. And, of course, we will do, as we said during the weekend, things that will make it easier and more comfortable for people to travel by rail and by bus in the future.

We are in ongoing discussions with Newsquest regarding its recent and planned redundancies. Officials have received information from the company on current staffing levels at the site, and will use this information to determine if the terms and conditions of their grant have been breached.

Thank you for that response. Will you, therefore, confirm that you will actually try and recoup very penny if the full terms and conditions have been breached, and will you reconsider the way that you support the local press? This is a National Union of Journalists campaign, as you know, in terms of Local News Matters. Wouldn’t it be more appropriate for the Welsh Government to establish an independent fund for independent news so that all companies could bid into that to support journalism through the medium of Welsh and English in Wales?

Well, the first thing I can say is that it’s right that we should pursue every penny if the grant terms and conditions have been breached. That much is true. Secondly, before looking at a fund, what we are going to establish is an independent forum for the media in order to consider the challenges over the ensuing years and to see in which way we can ensure that we have strong and robust local and national media in Wales.

First Minister, understandably, the staff who are at risk of redundancy in the Maesglas office at Newsquest are very worried. Along with the trade union, I’ve spoken to staff, who estimate there will be 10 fewer full-time equivalent roles at the end of the process, and that full-time, highly skilled jobs will be replaced by more administrative roles that will be part time. Newsquest say that they employ approximately 60 staff in Newport and centrally support the editorial and publishing teams across the organisation. Does the Welsh Government know how the figure of 60 staff equates to full-time roles in Newport, and what assurances has the Welsh Government received to ensure Newsquest is continuing to meet their obligations to their staff and the Government?

Well, we are aware of 14 planned redundancies. I can say, as I said last week, that we provided in 2015 £245,808 to Newsquest towards the creation of 50 jobs and the safeguarding of 15 jobs at Maesglas. That award was conditional on the jobs being in place until May 2020. The operation has exceeded that planned job creation target so far, but it’s important that the terms of the grant are met until May 2020. If they are not, we will claw the money back.

First Minister, I asked you the same question last week, on the same line regarding this sub-editing centre in Newport. When I asked this question, you confirmed that the grant, the money, in May 2015 was conditional on jobs being in place until May 2020—five years. So, it now appears that the staff at Newsquest in Newport were placed at risk of redundancies in November of last year. Can I ask the First Minister if the Welsh Government was aware of these redundancies last November, and, if so, what representations were made to the company at that time to remind them of the condition attached to the award of grant funding from this Assembly?

Well, as I said, the conditions of the grant have been met thus far, but the conditions have to be met until May 2020. If they are not, then we will seek to recoup the money. As far as officials are concerned, they have been in discussions for some time with Newsquest. As is customary in these situations, we look to see what help we can offer. But, let it be made very, very clear that, if the conditions of the grant are not met, then we will take action to recoup it.

I know that many of the journalists working at the sub-editing hub in Newport were from Cardiff, having already been made redundant by Trinity Mirror, which has also seen wave after wave of job losses. What more can the Welsh Government to do stop large private companies that run our local press titles decimating local news coverage still further? And does the First Minister know of any funding that is available for journalists who may wish, for example, to start up hyperlocal news websites?

Well, first of all, I can say that officials have provided the company with information on accessing the services of ReAct for redundant workers, and on the appropriate Careers Wales services. Business Wales is available in order to look at providing the kind of financial help that the Member for Cardiff North has mentioned. But there is no doubt that many of us fear that we will see a steady diminishing of both local news coverage and national news coverage across the whole of Wales, which is why the independent media forum has been set up. One of the objectives of that forum will be to look at ways of making sure that our people are properly informed and that they are not misled by reading papers that come from elsewhere.

Questions now from the party leaders. The leader of Plaid Cymru, Leanne Wood.

Diolch, Llywydd. Tomorrow, the UK Government will trigger article 50, beginning the process by which the UK, or at least some parts of the UK, will leave the European Union. You’ve previously said that you expected to be consulted prior to article 50 notification being made. Can you tell us what consultation has taken place and, also, what you expect to see in the article 50 letter?

Yes, we discussed this at length last week when I met the Prime Minister and met with David Davis. At that stage, it was unclear, on the part of the UK Government, whether it would be a short letter or a longer letter; a longer letter, in other words, outlining the entire case, or the entire position that the UK would take in the article 50 negotiations. But, it seems to me that what will happen is that a letter will simply be sent, explaining what the UK is planning to do. I don’t expect there to be anything in the letter that refers to devolution.

Thank you for your answer, First Minister. It doesn’t fill me with a great deal of confidence that you don’t know exactly what’s going to be in that letter. The think tank Demos yesterday set out that Wales could be hardest hit by the economic impact of Brexit, and we face, as you know, a high risk from any loss of exports, and that’s why continued participation in the single market is so important. We also face a high risk from any loss of EU funding. In terms of EU nationals, Demos describes the situation as low risk to Wales due to the relatively small numbers of people who are here. But we do know that those EU citizens who are here are important to our public services, in particular our NHS. Now, those Demos findings explain exactly why Plaid Cymru has prioritised the economy through all of this. What is your assessment now of a hard Brexit, where these risks could become a reality?

Well, I listened to the comments made by the leader of Plaid Cymru over the weekend, and they were identical to the comments, except for one issue, that I’ve made in the past. The only issue that is different is the terminology that’s used—she uses ‘membership’; we use ‘participation’. I don’t seek to say that there’s any difference between us in terms of what the outcome would be. But what is clear to me, first of all, is that, last week, the UK Governments itself didn’t know what exactly the article 50 letter would look like. I have to say that I advised the Prime Minister; I thought that the shorter the better would be the best for her. We’ll see what the letter actually looks like.

In terms of EU citizens, I have to say that there are still EU citizens in Wales who are concerned. Yesterday, I met with the Romanian ambassador. The Romanian community is quite small, but some of them are concerned that they’ll be deported, literally. It’s not a fear that is grounded in fact, but people saw what happened in the US and they have extrapolated that to the situation here. I have sought to, obviously, allay some of those fears. To my perspective, what is absolutely critical is that, as soon as possible, the issue of EU citizens living across the European Union, and UK citizens living in other countries of the EU, is resolved quickly in order to remove that uncertainty.

And, on the economy, she and I are in exactly the same place: access to the single market, no imposition of tariffs. The ability to have full and unfettered access to the single market is absolutely crucial for an economy such as ours, where 67 per cent of our exports go to the EU.

I thank you for that answer, First Minister. I’ve got no confidence in the UK Government’s ability to reflect our specific Welsh national interests, and there isn’t any information that you’ve given us this afternoon to give us any more confidence. Wales can’t afford to pay a high price for a hard Brexit, and we know that we’re going to have to defend our interests during the article 50 negotiations. But we also need to think about how we move the debate forward to deal with the powers that we need in order to mitigate those economic risks. We want to keep the value of our current EU funding in any replacement scheme, but Plaid Cymru believes that we need more power in Wales to decide exactly how that money is spent. We should be able to use replacement funding to make Wales more attractive to business, and Plaid Cymru wants to see Wales empowered so that we can adapt to the challenge of Brexit. We need tax powers, for example, much wider than those that are already on offer. I’ve set out my demands to the UK Government on this today—what Plaid Cymru sees as being in Wales’s best interests—but can you tell us what you intend to do, as a Welsh Government, to get our country into the position where it can survive an extreme Tory Brexit?

As I said, much of what she said is basically what I said the week before and in the weeks before that. We’re in no different a position in terms of that. Well, let me explain: first of all, I am not as optimistic—probably the wrong word, but as optimistic as she is that there will be any money post 2020. I’m not convinced there will be any money to replace structural funds. I’m becoming increasingly unconvinced that there’ll be any money to pay farming subsidies. More and more, we are hearing that the common agricultural policy is a problem. We heard it from Iain Duncan Smith. That means farming subsidies could well disappear—they could well disappear. That is my greatest fear. We know what that would mean for the economy of rural Wales.

As she will know, on many, many occasions, I have said that this process will only work if all four nations agree to the final settlement. I don’t believe it’s in any way possible to get a final settlement by March 2019, because it would have to be concluded by the autumn of next year, and that is a tall order. Of course, in order for the internal single market of the UK to survive, there need to be state aid rules within the UK; they have to be agreed by the four nations, not imposed by the UK Government; and there has to be an independent adjudication process to police those rules. I think it’s workable then. But, my greatest fear is that this is not well understood at Whitehall. On Thursday, we’ll see the White Paper on the so-called great repeal Bill. If it focuses solely on preserving the existing acquis of European law, that’s sensible. If, however, it strays into the territory of suggesting something like, ‘Well, EU powers should come back to Whitehall on a temporary basis and then there’ll be a discussion about where they go,’ that would not be acceptable, because I don’t believe that the ‘temporary’ would mean temporary. We will see on Thursday whether the UK Government is serious about working to ensure that the UK continues to work as a partnership.

Leader of the Welsh Conservatives, Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Yesterday, First Minister, we learned that four health boards in Wales have a chronic deficit position, and I think that’s a fair comment—a chronic deficit position. The Welsh Government have drawn a line in the sand and said that they will not be bailed out. The health Secretary did say that no services will be lost anywhere in Wales because of a lack of money. Can you confirm that is the case and that is Welsh Government policy?

Yes, it is. The health boards are being told—the four are being told—that they must keep within budget. They were told that at the very beginning. They must not harm services as a result of that. We will look again at their accounts in June, and if further action needs to be taken, if they are unable to deliver on that, then that action will be taken.

In fairness, Betsi is in special measures, run by the Welsh Government, but you can’t divorce the ability to put money into the health service from maintaining the services that people rely on, and my question to you was about the endorsement of the Cabinet Secretary’s point that no services would be lost because of money. When Abertawe Bro Morgannwg, one of the four health boards, is projected to have a worse deficit position next year—£52 million, as opposed to £39 million this year from a break-even position last year—the statement just doesn’t work, or it’s unbelievable, First Minister. How are you going to be able to maintain services when four of the six health boards have such a chronic deficit position and, ultimately, waiting times are constantly going up?

It’s four out of seven. First of all, waiting times are not going up. It’s four of seven, but he asked the question, ‘What will happen if they don’t come in within budget?’ We look very carefully at what they are doing. If they do not come in in budget without harming services, then we will have to look carefully at the governance of those boards, and we will not shy away from that in the same way as we did not shy away from dealing with Betsi Cadwaladr when that situation arose.

I deliberately used four out of six, because, obviously, Powys health board does not have a district general hospital within its area, and the high end of acute services is in the district general hospitals, and those seem to be the health boards that do clearly have a big deficit problem, as I’ve used Abertawe Bro Morgannwg with a projected deficit next year of £52 million. You talk about looking at governance arrangements, you talk about looking at the balance sheet next June, and I can hear from a sedentary position that I need to look across the border. The deficit position of the Welsh NHS is double—double—what the English NHS is facing. I don’t discount—[Interruption.] I do not discount the issues across the whole of the NHS in the United Kingdom, but it is not unreasonable—it is not unreasonable, people in those health board areas trying to reconcile the statement that there will be no loss of services and there will be no increase in waiting times, when you’ve got to put such downward pressure on the budgets without additional money going in. So, I do ask you again: what specific measures do you believe that you will be able to take, as you’ve identified June being a critical point, and governance arrangements, to address this shortfall? I accept the shortfall is across the United Kingdom; I’m not trying to make that political point. What I’m trying to make is the point that constituents and users of these services are not unreasonably concerned because, obviously, there is a huge issue about how these deficits will be brought back into control.

Well, other health boards are managing. Powys is a health board, and it buys in most of its services. In fact, one could argue that it’s more difficult for Powys, because so few services are actually provided in Powys because of its rurality, yet Powys manages. Again, the message that we have given to the health boards that are saying to us that they will not come in on budget is: ‘You must manage this. You must make sure that you cut in areas that are not providing services to the public. You do not look at services provided to the public in terms of looking to cut, and you come in within budget.’ That is what health boards are to do. It’s their responsibility, ultimately—that’s why we have health boards. And they will have to answer for their actions in a few months’ time when we look again at the financial situation.

On behalf of the leader of the UKIP group, Mark Reckless.

Diolch, Llywydd. My group leader asked me to pass on his apologies, as he is at a family funeral today. May I commend the First Minister on his Government’s 13 March response to the UK Government’s consultation paper on the future of the Severn tolls? It’s well argued, and faithfully reflects the unanimous view of this Assembly on my motion to support the abolition of tolls on the Severn bridge following their return to the public sector. One would, though, hope there would be a greater degree of engagement between the Welsh Government and the UK Government than merely filing a consultation response. The Silk commission proposed close co-ordination between the two Governments over the future of the Severn crossing. The St David’s Day agreement then said that the UK Government would work with the Welsh Government to determine the long-term future of the Severn crossings, and even the UK Government’s own road investment strategy says,

‘The Department for Transport, working with…the Welsh Assembly Government…will examine the future of the crossing in detail’.

Could the First Minister tell us how that engagement is going?

Well, officials are in discussions, but our preferred position is that we should take over the running of both the bridges—take control of the tolls. Before we do that we would have to have a robust understanding of what the condition and upkeep costs of those two bridges are. The figures we’ve had vary wildly. That would need to be nailed down—almost literally, I hope—but we’d need to understand what they are, and our view is we should control the tolls. I don’t understand the resistance of the UK Government in this. I don’t understand why they feel that a bridge that is, at the end of day, a bridge that is the main entrance to Wales should not be controlled from Wales.

I agree with the First Minister, and wish him, Ken Skates and his officials well in pushing that position. The UK Government, I believe, has three very serious legal risks if it seeks to continue tolling without our agreement, and any one of those could be fatal to any plan that it has. First, the Severn Bridges Act 1992 says that tolls should cease after a further fixed sum is raised, and that would be likely to happen by around the end of next year. Second, we have, under Schedule 5 to the Government of Wales Act 2006, it lists the devolved matters including matter 10.1,

‘the making, operation and enforcement of schemes for imposing charges in respect of the use…of…Welsh trunk roads’.

And it’s that, I believe, that’s led the UK Government to propose continued tolling only on the English half of the Severn bridge, because that supersedes their being the charging authority. And they would need to enforce that toll, potentially, at a plaza in Wales, which I submit runs counter to the Government of Wales Act. And thirdly, they have a further problem that the Transport Act 2000, which they’re now planning to use, says that,

‘A trunk road charging scheme may only be made in respect of a road if…the road is carried by a bridge, or passes through a tunnel’.

It doesn’t provide for them charging for part of a road carried by a bridge, and the use of the phrase ‘passes through a tunnel’ implies, by analogy, going from one side of the river to the other. So, for all those reasons, can the First Minister consider what more he or his Government might do to emphasise to the UK Government, at the very least, the legal risks they run if they do seek to impose charges in future without our agreement?

The Member has raised these issues before. We did look at them. It appears to us that, because of the nature of the legislation governing the Severn bridges, they are reserved. That does not mean, however, that the points that he’s already raised should not be investigated further. I’ll do that and I’ll write to him because they merit further investigation. Of course, the tolls on the old bridge are on the English side, and the tolls on the new bridge are on the Welsh side. We’d prefer it if there were no tolls at all on either side, and an agreement reached in terms of the maintenance of the bridges.

I thank the First Minister for his response. The legal position, at least the position that was sent to me in correspondence, has, however, changed. Initially, the focus was that the UK Government could do it because it was the charging authority, but actually the UK Government isn’t seeking to enforce on our side of the road, and it would need to enforce, and there are real difficulties in doing that in a later Act. There are three different arguments, any one of which would be fatal to the UK Government’s position. So, they’re looking to either use the current toll plaza despite the Government of Wales Act saying it’s our right to enforce on roads in Wales, or they’re looking at investing in a free-flow scheme—a lot of capital—without legal certainty that if someone goes through and doesn’t pay, they chase them for the debt, they have to go to court, and unless they can know with certainty that that court is going to say, ‘Yes, that is a valid charge’, then it’s incredibly difficult for them to invest in that scheme. The frustration that I have over this is that there’s this fixed sum of, I think, £75 million or so that the UK Government says, it would raise that and we’d just beat it, but it would raise that within a year or so of continued tolling. Then it says that the continued operation and maintenance cost is about £15 million a year, but much of that is actually the operation of the tolls itself. So, we’re perhaps looking at a sum of around half that. While it’s not our ideal scenario, would the First Minister consider that it might be better than nothing if tolling continued just for a further year, and if thereafter we were able to make a modest contribution of perhaps £2 million or £3 million to the tolling cost, does he think that would be a deal worth having in order to get rid of those tolls? And will he work with parties across the Chamber to try and agree that?

Well, as a matter of principle, we wouldn’t seek to contribute to anything that wasn’t devolved. If it’s not devolved, then it’s a matter for the appropriate UK Government department to deal with. It strikes me that he’s suggested a way forward, but the easier way, to my mind, is simply to have no tolls at all, and in an interim period to have electronic tolling, although there’s substantial investment that’s required in that. And, of course, the issue for us is that the faster the traffic goes through the Severn bridges, the faster it arrives at the Brynglas tunnels, adding to the congestion that already exists at those tunnels. That is a fact that we’re aware of, and obviously he will know the proposals that the Government have made in terms of that. To me, this is a simple issue that doesn’t need to be made complex. We need to have an understanding of what the condition of the two bridges actually is. We don’t know that. I’ve seen figures well beyond the figure that he has suggested in terms of maintenance and upkeep. That needs to be robust, first of all, and then we can have an understanding of what the liability is. What I’ve always said is that, for us as a Government, we would like to take the tolls over, but before we do that we need to understand what we’re taking on.

Yes. We’ve continued to protect social services with significant funding. An additional £55 million has been made available for social services in 2017-18, and that includes the £20 million a year for social care announced yesterday. We’ve also provided £60 million for the integrated care fund.

Well, thank you very much for that answer. I’m sure everyone will welcome the Chancellor’s £2 billion announcement for social care in England and, of course, that gives the Welsh Government the opportunity to use part of the not inconsiderable Barnett consequential for that to add to its own money that you’ve mentioned today. There is money now available for social care, which we would all be grateful for. What will you be saying then to Bridgend County Borough Council, which is taking £2.2 million of social care moneys out of next year’s budget?

I will say what I said earlier: what we need is a Labour Government in London that actually invests in people and provides the funding that we need to social care. I’m sure that is a phrase I will use many times over the course of the next few weeks.

Thank you, First Minister, for meeting with me last month to discuss my concerns about the impact that putting the family fund money in with the sustainable social services fund has had on disabled children and their families. Given that we now have this extra money available, and given your assurances to me in that meeting, and that these are some of our lowest income families who, in my experience, have to fight to get absolutely everything in their lives, will you now look at allocating some of this additional money to disabled children and their families?

My friend the Member for Torfaen has been passionate in her advocacy of this cause. She has asked me to see whether money might be made available. I will look at that for her, as she has raised it with me in the Chamber. As I’ve said, announcements have been made so far—not all of the consequential has been allocated. We have to take into account, of course, what will happen in the financial year beyond this one and the one beyond that. But I will look at that for her.

The efficiency of what you can achieve with social services funding depends, of course, on what happens within the NHS and vice versa. I believe that it’s the failure of Government to put firm and sustainable foundations in place for the NHS that is responsible for the overspend that has been announced over the past day or two. But does the First Minister agree with my concern that forcing the health boards to balance their books overnight would inevitably lead to more pressures on the social care sector?

We must bear in mind, of course, that the health boards have three years to consider their budgets. That’s why the law changed in this place, because they would then have to consider their budgets over the period of a year; now they have three years and it’s easier for them to balance their books in that regard. So, we do expect them, as they have been given that freedom, to ensure that they are responsible and can remain within their budgets.

First Minister, both Conservative and Labour Governments in Westminster, and successive Labour, Plaid and Liberal coalitions here in Wales, have failed to allow for sufficient funding for social care. As a result of—[Interruption.] As a result of decades of underfunding, we are approaching a crisis point in social care, and despite the fact that our population is ageing fast, neither you nor the Tories seem to have any plans to address chronic long-term shortages. Your Government has announced additional funding for social care, but this simply replaces lost funding. It does nothing to address future demand. First Minister, how does your Government plan to address the long-term funding shortfall and ensure that future social care needs are met?`

Well, if the Member looks at the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014, she will see the answer to that question. We are committed to investing in the system. We know that combined spending on health and social services per head in Wales in 2015-16 was 6 per cent higher than in England, and one of the reasons why money had to be found at short notice in England is because not enough money went into social care in England. We put in the investment.

On top of that, of course, it's important to remember the £60 million we’re investing through the intermediate care fund. What does that mean? Well, delayed transfers of care for February were 22 per cent down on the same period last year, and this month marks the third consecutive month during which the total has been below 400, which is an unprecedented achievement over the 12 years of recording these statistics.

Yes. We are working collaboratively across portfolios, including education, health, and children and communities, to improve the well-being of children and young people and to support them to develop emotional resilience.

First Minister, you will be aware of my recent short debate on the importance of ensuring that resilience in our children and young people is developed long before a young person needs specialist child and adolescent mental health services. The Together for Children and Young People programme includes very welcome work streams to promote universal resilience, including work in our schools and linked to the ongoing work the Government is doing on adverse childhood experiences. But, as you've highlighted, the Cabinet Secretary for health is responsible for the Together for Children and Young People programme, while the Cabinet Secretaries for education and children are responsible for the other two areas respectively, which does raise questions for me as to how this work is being taken forward in a joined-up way across Government. Will you personally look at this issue, First Minister, and commit to ensuring that the work to deliver on Together for Children and Young People is taken forward with urgency in a genuinely cross-cutting way across Government?

I can say that discussions have been held between the Cabinet Secretary for Education and the Cabinet Secretary for health on how education and CAMHS joint working can be improved. This is not the sole responsibility of one Minister; I understand that. We know that, in working on a cross-portfolio basis, then we can of course get the greatest impact and the best results. We do recognise that health and education are very much linked, and so officials have also been instructed to work together to consider different approaches to support the mental health and well-being of our children and young people.

First Minister, one thing that can be done is to develop more mindfulness practice in schools. The Cabinet Secretary for Education visited Ysgol Pen-y-Bryn in Colwyn Bay in my own constituency late last year, where she met some of the children and staff in the school that had been practising mindfulness, and they spoke passionately about the impact of mindfulness in their lives in helping them to be able to deal with what can be difficult situations, whether in school or at home in their family. So, I wonder what work the Welsh Government is doing to look at mindfulness and whether this can be something that can be introduced more widely into our education sector.

It is something that we’re considering actively, and something we discussed at length before the election last year. There is no greater advocate for mindfulness than the Cabinet Secretary for economy. I confess, when he raised it with me initially I wasn’t entirely sure what it was. I’m fully educated and informed now, I can promise you.

But, yes, I think it is hugely important that we consider new approaches to helping young people to deal with pressures that didn’t exist when I was that age. The pressures of social media—when you went home, that was it; you weren’t followed around the place online with the bullying that can sometimes lead to and the pressures to conform that can sometimes lead to. So, new approaches have to be used in order to deal with new problems.

The national transport finance plan, published in July 2015, sets out the investment in transport and infrastructure and services in all parts of Wales for 2015 to 2020.

First Minister, the national transport finance plan of the Welsh Government highlights only one project for Pembrokeshire in the next 12 months, and that is the proposal to turn the A477 from Pembroke Dock to Johnston into a trunk road. Now, the Swansea bay city region deal will, hopefully, have a positive impact on the west Wales economy and on the Pembrokeshire economy, so would you agree with me, First Minister, that, in light of these important economic developments, it’s now time for Governments to co-operate to turn the A40 into a dual carriageway in order to make the most of the impact of these proposals in west Wales?

First of all, it’s true to say that the project from Llanddewi Velfrey to Penblewin is crucially important. Secondly, of course, it is possible for the city deal to consider new projects in terms of transport—we can certainly consider that. And, thirdly, in taking over the franchise next year, it’ll be very important to ensure that the rail service is also improved in Pembrokeshire, and to link Pembrokeshire with the rest of Wales and the rest of the UK.

First Minister, ports are a very important part of transport in Pembrokeshire, and particularly the link between Wales and Ireland. With Brexit happening this week, I am concerned that we will see less transport in terms of goods carried between Britain and Ireland, and also in terms of passengers, with a lot of talk about developing more direct links between France and the Republic of Ireland in order to avoid Britain once we have left the European Union. That will undermine Pembroke Dock and Fishguard. So, what steps are you taking as a Government and jointly with the UK Government to ensure that we keep transport between the ports of Pembrokeshire?

I’ve raised this a number of times with the Government in Westminster. I’ve also raised it with the Irish Government, and I discussed it with the Taoiseach when he was here on 10 March. The concern that I have is that if it’s easier to go through Northern Ireland, that’s where goods will go. If there’s more paperwork that has to be filled in going through Holyhead, Pembroke Dock, and Fishguard, if there’s any kind of official border in Wales but nothing of that sort in Northern Ireland, then goods will go through Cairnryan, through Liverpool, and the ports that have links with Northern Ireland. Now, the Republic of Ireland understands this, of course. It’ll have an impact on Dublin and Rosslare, and it’s crucially important that the arrangements in terms of border crossing are the same between Wales and the Republic of Ireland as between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.

Yes. All health boards have received their full allocation of the £16 million for the new treatment fund that was due for this financial year. The Cabinet Secretary will provide an update about the new treatment fund before the summer recess.

I thank you for that answer. The new treatment fund certainly does demonstrate the Welsh Government's commitment to delivering on their 2016 election pledge and, as I understand it, that new treatment fund will help expedite access to new medicines that have been recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, NICE, and the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group, for a whole host of illnesses, no doubt helping countless individuals with life-threatening illnesses right here in Wales. I understand that it is extremely early days but could I request that we receive regular updates on progress within the access to the new treatment fund and any figures that could be attached to that?

Yes, I'm sure that could be done. I can say, though, since January 2015, new medicines recommended by NICE or the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group have been made available to patients across a range of conditions. So, for the first two months, the new treatment fund’s already made a palpable difference to the medicines available for the people of Wales.

Good afternoon, First Minister. Could you perhaps just give us an overview of what monitoring arrangements are in place to ensure that the funds that have gone to the health boards for this very worthy initiative are being spent on just this initiative?

Yes. There is full monitoring of that and we see the results of that through the 15 medicines that I have already mentioned that have been made available.

Well, this is a matter, ultimately, for Cardiff council, not for the Welsh Government, but I did meet with the leader of Cardiff council at the beginning of the month and one of the topics we discussed was the latest update on the Cardiff central bus station development.

Thanks. Yes, I understand it is a matter principally for the council but the bus station is an issue of growing concern to south Wales residents in general. There have long been fears that the new facility may be too small and now there are fears over the funding as well; there is also the little matter that we don't yet know if there will be coach bays at the new station—none of which really helps with the Welsh Government’s stated aim of encouraging integrated transport. As Cardiff central is such an important hub for the whole region, can the Welsh Government make any intervention here to ensure that passengers do end up with a first-class facility, rather than a botch job?

There was a time when Cardiff council were, some years ago, doubting whether there needed to be a bus station at all: ‘The bus stops will do.’ I’m glad that wasn’t the case. It is hugely important to have an interchange and a hub. The need to build a new station is clear to me. We know the scheme needs to be fit for purpose, it needs to be future proofed, it needs to be successfully integrated, in order to be suitable for our capital city. The project itself is being led by Rightacres. They hold monthly meetings with key stakeholders—that includes us as a Government. I understand the latest is that the planning application has been approved, but the start date has been delayed as discussions take place on what the station should look like. It is important, of course, that there is agreement that the station should be fit for purpose as the main interchange for our capital city.

The answer to that question is ‘many’. I've had many discussions already. We'll continue to hold those discussions and the Member will know that I’ve outlined what I think will be needed to continue with an internal single market within the UK itself: namely that there is a rules-based system, secondly, that those rules are agreed by all four Governments, and, thirdly, that there is an independent adjudicator—a trade court, if you like—that will police those rules. If all those requirements are satisfied, then I believe the single market can be robust.

Thank you. Other people have already referred to the Demos report that came out yesterday that suggested—as we already knew—that the effect of leaving the EU will be more significant on Wales than any other part of the United Kingdom. We've seen by the recent actions of Theresa May that the Tories are a party of broken promises. David Davis, the Brexit Minister, has said that he wants to see the exact same benefits that we currently have with the single market and customs union maintained after we leave the EU. How realistic does the First Minister think that is in light of the fact that the Prime Minister of Malta has said that, of necessity, our relationship needs to be inferior to that which we currently enjoy?

Well, it’s possible to do it via, for example, remaining in the European Economic Area. The UK Government have indicated that they don’t want the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and that they don’t want to pay into a budget pot, but if you want to be a member of a club, you have to pay a membership fee, if I can put it that way. I can’t see there being any other model. I don’t think the UK will be offered a model that is unique to the UK. Why would the European Union want to do that? So, my urging on the UK Government has been not to think of a hard Brexit or a soft Brexit but a sensible Brexit. I just don’t believe that there is a majority of people in this country who want to see a Brexit that is so hard that tariffs will be imposed, that there will be unnecessary restrictions in terms of movement in and out of the UK, and that there will be a hard border between Northern Ireland and the republic. Yes, there was a vote last year and people want to leave. What we don’t know is what they believe the terms would be. That’s the difficulty. But to my mind, it’s perfectly possible to leave the EU and yet still have full and unfettered access to the single market.

We provide a core grant to Chwarae Teg to maximise the contribution women make to the economy and to support the vision of a Wales where women achieve and prosper.

First Minister, I think we all remember with deep affection Dame Rosemary Butler, our former Presiding Officer, and her programme to promote women in public life concentrated on mentorship schemes. I think this is a principle that could be generally applied, because it’s raising that expectation and the ambition of women who already have the talents to perform outstandingly in the workplace.

I think that’s absolutely true. Chwarae Teg is part of that plan. It has a three-year strategic plan to promote equality. There are other tools at our disposal as well. For example, ‘Talented Women for a Successful Wales’ was commissioned by the chief scientific adviser with the aim of obtaining up-to-date data and current thinking on dealing with the long-term problems of insufficient numbers of women studying science and entering and thriving in science careers. I know the Minister, Julie James, accepted the recommendations in a statement back in January. They are two examples, amongst many, of the work that is being done to achieve true equality in our society.

The decision on the inpatient perinatal mental health unit is a matter for the health boards and the Welsh Health Specialised Services Committee. But since 2016, the Welsh Government is investing an additional £1.5 million a year for all LHBs to provide community-based specialist perinatal mental health services.

I thank the First Minister for that answer. I hope he has the opportunity to hear the experiences of mothers in Wales who’ve had the courage to speak out on their individual experiences, like Charlotte Harding from Cardiff, whose husband took two years off work to care for her and their two boys after developing postpartum psychosis. I’ve applied the Welsh Government’s own criteria to the current situation in this country, based on the information I’ve obtained from LHBs, and they’re failing the Government’s own criteria. We know that it’s going to cost more to send Welsh mothers to inpatient centres in England than it would have to keep these facilities open in Wales and we know that community provision is patchy. But politics aside, can I plead with the First Minister to put, as a matter of urgency, this issue at the top of his agenda so that mothers in Wales do not face the choice of being separated from their newborn babies or separated from their families or, even worse, not having the mental health facilities that they deserve in their own country?

Can I just explain the situation? In the last three years, fewer than five women have been admitted to an inpatient unit in Wales. That’s the issue. The problem then, of course, is that you cannot run a specialist unit on those numbers. It can’t be done. No accrediting body will allow you to run a specialist unit on that basis. It can’t be a specialist unit with those numbers. I agree with him about the seriousness of the condition. I agree with him about not separating mothers from babies, which is why we put the extra funding into community-based perinatal mental health services to ensure that people don’t have to be inpatients. So, rather than focusing on the hospital, it is focusing on the individual, making sure they have support in the community, rather than trying to keep a service going that clearly wasn’t being particularly well used—and, as a result of that, there was a problem in terms of it continuing to be a specialist unit.

Thank you, First Minister.

I have accepted two urgent questions under Standing Order 12.66. I call on Simon Thomas to ask the first urgent question.

Thank you for the question. The position in these four health boards is unacceptable. We have made it clear that we expect them to take action to significantly improve their financial position.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for that statement, which didn’t actually say what he was going to do about it, however, which I hope he will now tell us. First of all, can he just clarify the situation? Because I think there could be some confusion, following the leader of the Conservative party’s questions earlier on, that though the health boards have not been bailed out, his department has been bailed out to the tune of a similar amount of money. The supplementary budget that we passed a couple of weeks ago actually gives his department this money, not the health boards themselves, and therefore there has been a bail-out, in effect. And so, if there hasn’t been any consequences for the health boards, we must ask ourselves, ‘How can we achieve better financial planning going forward?’ The First Minister mentioned the NHS finance Act, which was passed three years ago by this Assembly. When that Act was passed, the then Minister said and promised that we would get better financial planning, and went on to promise that it should result in better decision making and optimal solutions by local health boards. I don’t think we can say we’ve had better financial planning or optimal solutions from health boards since the passing of that Act. Can he confirm that there’s still a financial duty on health boards to not exceed the aggregate in each financial year, even taking a three-year planning model, and what consequences can there be for health boards in not meeting proper financial planning under the NHS finance Act? And isn’t it time at least to consider not paying the allowances and payments to members of the health boards if they cannot bring themselves into line?

I thank the Member for the follow-up comments and questions. I think looking at these four particular organisations, and then trying to say there’s a judgment on the whole system just on the basis of these four, is not taking a whole-system approach. Actually, when you look at the six out of 10 organisations that are in balance, that is partly as a consequence of the new regime that we have. What I’ve been very clear about is that we’re not going to cover over the fact that these four health boards are not going to live within their means within this year, and there’s got to be an exercise in financial discipline and clarity about that. And that goes into your point about accountability. I don’t think the somewhat cheap shot about saying you should take allowances away from board members is a particularly helpful way forward for a real and serious challenge that we have. I expect the service and the system to take seriously the financial challenges that we face. Every single country within the United Kingdom faces a real and serious challenge about funding the health service. We know the consequences of continued austerity and what that does for our public services. We know that putting extra money in the budget that this Assembly has passed into the NHS comes at a real cost to other parts of public funding. That is why I have been very clear over an extended period of time that the health service has a real responsibility to live within its means. That’s why I’ve been very clear that we expect a significant improvement in financial planning and management that will not compromise patient care.

Cabinet Secretary, people talk about this in tones of shock and horror as if it’s a surprise, but it’s certainly not a surprise to me when looking at some of the integrated medium term plans. Could you please confirm which of the health boards’ IMTPs showed a deficit from the beginning of this funding round? Could you also confirm to me where you see the health boards could review their spending? Because for all the tough talk from everyone, I assume and hope that doctors and nurses, porters and community health workers will still get paid over the next few months. Thirdly, Cabinet Secretary, do you accept that a number of these health boards have already instigated ambitious savings programmes? Now, these will obviously take time to kick in. Do you think you are giving health boards sufficient time for this to improve? Fourthly, do you welcome the improvement in services that we have seen as a consequence? Many of the health boards’ performance indicators have slowly risen. I know that in Hywel Dda health board it’s the best in Wales in cancer and four-hour A&E delivery times. And would you agree that we wouldn’t want to see reversals in service delivery? Do you accept that we should have a rural uplift for some of the rural health boards, as discussed and promoted by many organisations, not just the health boards themselves? Finally, Cabinet Secretary, could you tell me where Wales is in terms of spending on healthcare as a percentage of gross domestic product? My understanding is that only three countries in Europe spend less than us, and is that not the real problem? We’re just simply not spending enough on healthcare to ensure that boards do not go into deficit. As Andrew R. T. Davies said earlier, the deficit in Wales is double that of the UK.

I’ll try and deal briefly with the series of questions that were asked. First of all, I want to welcome the acknowledgement from the Conservative health spokesperson of the range of improvements in the service that the NHS provides to the people of Wales. That’s probably the first time I’ve heard that from a health spokesperson from her party and that’s very welcome indeed. No-one should be surprised, though, at these challenges, because I’ve been absolutely upfront about these over a period of months. When I refused to endorse the IMTP submitted by Abertawe Bro Morgannwg and Cardiff and Vale health boards, I was absolutely clear about the range of issues within that. And money was part of the challenge as well, so they did not get their IMTPs approved. Equally, you and others in the Chamber were in health committee on 3 November, when I answered questions about this position, and about the money in particular. I made clear at that point that Hywel Dda and Betsi Cadwaladr would not live within their means. I also made clear the very real risk to be run by Abertawe Bro Morgannwg and Cardiff and Vale. Members are, of course, free to check the transcript and the follow-up letter to the health committee that was absolutely clear about this as an issue. So, this should not surprise people if people have been paying attention.

The challenge is what are we prepared to do, but that goes into the other points that you’ve made. I want to be really clear again: people will get paid; bills will get paid; this will not lead to a trimming in the service that is provided. We will cover this from the centre, but we’ll have the clarity that these health boards have not lived within their means. I don’t accept at all your point that we don’t spend enough money on health. If that really is your view, then you could set out in an alternative budget where you would take that money from. Let’s remember this: when we put in the extra £240 million into the budget that we proposed and this place passed—for the NHS—that comes at a significant cost to every other part of the public service. That means that £106 million in cash terms will come out of local government. If the Tories really wish for there to be further cuts in other service areas, they should set those out. This is not a consequence-free game. We spend nearly 50 per cent of our budget on the NHS.

And finally, the real challenge for getting into financial balance and having a genuinely sustainable service is service transformation, and that requires difficult choices and difficult questions for all of us—all of us as citizens of Wales, all of us as elected representatives—and that conversation with clinicians about how we improve our service by changing it, and not waiting for change to happen to us because we waited too long for those services to be reformed. That’s why I set out very, very clearly to the service, in particular in the NHS Confederation speech last month, what I expect of them and what I require them to do in planning and managing the service over this next year where decisions will have to be made.

Prudent healthcare requires us to do everything differently so that we eliminate waste and avoid duplication of effort. I’m aware that in my own health board, Cardiff, they’ve made enormous strides, for example, in the improvement of stroke patients, which has enabled them to leave hospital sooner, and that’s an obvious financial saving. But I wondered what else can these four health boards do that maybe they could be replicating from other more successful, financially, health boards to, for example, offer more services in primary and community care, as this can be proved to have better outcomes and also save money. What else can these health boards be doing that they’re not doing at the moment?

Thank you for the question. You’re right to point out that there are a range of service improvements already taking place even in these health boards that are not living within overall means. There are good examples across Wales. For example, Abertawe Bro Morgannwg piloted community cardiology, moving services out of hospitals into the community. It’s a better experience for patients and, equally, it means that people who do need to be in a secondary or tertiary care centre are seen more quickly. Often it is the case that a service improvement can lead to financial savings. It is not always the case that you need to spend more money on improving your service. The challenge is that often comes with a difficult conversation—a conversation with the public about why and how services are changing, but also with our staff as well. Not every member of staff is a keen advocate for changing the way that a service works. But we do see a range of different examples where service improvements are delivered, and stroke care is a good example. I had not just a conversation with Cardiff but also with the Aneurin Bevan health board I recently visited with Jayne Bryant—a real improvement in their service and, actually, something for the rest of Wales to aspire to. But, of course, other areas of improvement have been made as well. For example, ABM acknowledged yesterday that they’ve got £4 million of medicines waste within their health board area. So, they’re significant sums of money that could and should be saved that will deliver a better service for our patients, but it still won’t get around the challenge that we do need to see the way in which our service is delivered reformed to improve patient care—the quality and experience. And I fundamentally believe that will also mean that we will live within our financial means as well.

As you know, Cabinet Secretary, two of those local health boards that are affected are in my region. Before the hares start running—and they already have today—I would like you, if you will, to please restate that services will not suffer, and I will ask you also if you will bring back to this Chamber the programme for action that you intend to ask those health boards to implement to provide the changes that are needed in reducing these overspends. And I will ask you, Cabinet Secretary, if you will immediately put to bed the suggestion that was alluded to by Angela Burns that staff won’t be paid as a consequence of this.

I did not say that.

You did.

I’m happy to confirm yet again, as I’ve done in every interview and every question that I’ve been asked about on this, that bills will get paid, staff will get paid and we will not see treatments interrupted as a result of the position of these health boards. We’ll cover this money from the centre, but we’ll make sure that there’s clarity in the amount of overspend from each of these health boards individually. And in terms of the future, well, of course, we’re going through the planning round for the year ahead. And so, health boards that are in a different position, and trusts, will have their integrated medium-term plans approved. There’ll be greater differentiation between those that are approved organisations, and those that are going through the escalation process, and are either in targeted intervention or special measures. There’s got to be clarity about where each health board stands and where each trust stands, and I will provide that.

I’m saying nothing to Members today that I have not already said to people leading and running these organisations, and I am having the same conversation in public as in private about the need to deliver significant financial improvement, and to deal with the need to transform our services as well. And I will, of course, update Members again on the progress in the financial management position and also the service position as well. I will do so when I come back to report on those IMTPs that are approved, and those that are not, and the measures that we are taking in supporting and challenging those organisations that are currently not in a position where I can, or will, approve an integrated medium-term plan.

I’ve listened very carefully to your answers to these questions about the problems being faced by health boards, and I have to say I find it a little rich that you’re sitting there criticising the health boards, telling them that they need to get their act together in terms of the finances, when you’re responsible for one of those health boards that is in special measures. One of the reasons that the Betsi Cadwaladr University Local Health Board was put into special measures was because of poor financial management. You’ve been there nearly two years and still that financial management is looking like the health board is going to be overdrawn by £30 million at the end of this year. Do you accept your responsibility for the failure to balance the books in that particular health board, and what are you doing about it given that it’s in special measures?

I recognise Darren Millar’s consistency in this area, in never accepting that anything is not the responsibility of the Welsh Government when it goes wrong, or there is a challenge or a problem.

It’s in special measures for its management of finances.

Betsi Cadwaladr, as an organisation—

It’s one of the things that it was put in special measures for.

[Continues.]—is improving on a range of different areas, and I look forward to the regulator’s assessment coming up next month on the rate and level of their improvement. And on its finances, Betsi has improved this year compared to last year. I expect it to improve again next year as well. And Members can either take the Darren Millar approach and say that everything is awful and it’s all the Welsh Government’s fault, or they can take a rather more honest and mature approach to the improvement that is taking place within north Wales. And, frankly, a rather and more honest and mature approach to the responsibility for funding public services across the United Kingdom. It is rich beyond belief for a Tory politician to come here and complain about the fate of public services and their adequate funding. Your party is responsible for the parlous state of funding going in to public services right across the United Kingdom. You should take some—[Interruption.] You should take ownership and responsibility yourself.

Listen to the Cabinet Secretary’s answer, please. That was it. Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary. Point of order arising out of the urgent question. Angela Burns.

Diolch, Llywydd. I’d like to raise a point of order, Presiding Officer. I have absolutely no problem with the rough and tumble of politics. What I do have an objection to is being deliberately misquoted. I know what I said, because I was very, very clear, because I wanted to make sure that people in these health boards are reassured. What I did say was that I know that—and I think I quoted nurses, porters and community workers—they will continue to be paid, and where would the Cabinet Secretary say that the areas should be reviewed for cost savings. Joyce Watson deliberately, in my view, misquoted me on that, and I would like to have that put on record.

Can I thank you for that clarification? The Record will deliver the verdict on this matter, when it is published. But I will ask all Members, as I have reminded Members in the past, to listen very carefully to what other Members are saying, and to interpret that carefully as they do. And I ask that of all Members.

The next urgent question, therefore, is Vikki Howells.

I thank the Member for her question. I strongly condemn those who start grass fires. They devastate our community, our environment, and put our communities in fear, endangering our firefighters. And we have had reduced grass fires significantly, but I hope to see the situation sustained this year.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Crews from South Wales Fire and Rescue Service have attended 62 grass fires since Friday, with many in Rhondda Cynon Taf, and the suggestion is that many were deliberately lit. The challenge for fire services was also in the ferocity of the blazes, which posed a danger to the safety of service personnel, and to our communities. Recent figures show that deliberate grass fires were up 33 per cent in 2015-16 on the year before. How is the Welsh Government working with partner agencies to really get the message out there about the risks that these fires cause?

Well, the Member is right to raise the issue of these fires—several outbreaks over the weekend. We have worked with the fire service, the police, local authorities, Natural Resources Wales and others to establish a coherent and strategic approach to preventing and responding to grass fires. Initial figures show that this approach, working with partners, has been highly effective. The overall number of grass fires in 2016 was over 40 per cent lower than the year before. But it doesn’t help residents and emergency services over this weekend who have been having to tackle unlawful fire-starting. The message is quite simple, Llywydd: we will be coming to look for the people and the individuals who started these fires, and will prosecute them if we find them.

Cabinet Secretary, thank you for your responses so far. The pictures that came out from many of these fires were dramatic, in the negative sense, over the weekend, because, obviously, there is the potential to life—not just of the firemen and women, obviously, who are tackling these blazes, but also residents in close proximity to the blazes as well. I well remember your colleague Leighton Andrews coming here to give similar responses in the previous Assembly, and yet, regrettably, we see these fires—very early, I would suggest, in the season; it was the first really dry weekend that we’ve had so far of the spring.

I’d ask you the same question I asked of him: very often, a lot of the people who are associated with some of these fires can be tracked through social media, because, as I said, the pictures are dramatic, and, very often, people are going for that wow factor—in a very negative way, I would suggest. So, what actions are you taking, along with the police, along with the fire service—I hear the fire service have excellent educational tools at their disposal, and are going into schools, but that doesn’t seem to be stopping the arsonists in their tracks? And social media is the tool that’s driving many copycat examples, across the Valleys in particular. So, I’d be grateful to understand what work you have done, along with the enforcement agencies, to try and track and follow people on social media who are exhorting people to undertake such acts of arson and vandalism.

I certainly recognise the points raised by the Member. And it does concern me that, not only firefighters and communities are put at risk, but also there’s animal welfare as well, and that communities are put at risk by the unsociable act of fire-starting in our communities.

The campaign that has brought together all of the agencies has had some great success, and, of course, I do recognise the issue of this weekend. I’ll give you some examples. Aberdare fire station saw 98 per cent fewer grass fires during the 2016 Easter holidays, compared to 2015. And Tonypandy saw a 97 per cent decrease; Maesteg a 93 per cent decrease; and Aberbargoed a 86 per cent decrease. We’ve invested in some camera facilities—covert camera facilities—but what we want to do is look at the prevention side of this rather than tracking people when they aren’t actually fire-starting—we want get in early. That’s why the intervention of the fire service and emergency services is so important. But I will reiterate my point that any information is known by communities—and they will be known. These are badge of honours, worn by the fire-starters, and they will be known in local communities. We would urge them to use the emergency helpline number, of 101, in order to track and trace these individuals, who will then be dealt with appropriately by the emergency services.

I, too, was horrified by the grass fires that raged throughout my constituency over the weekend. The grass fire in Tonypandy was visible from my home in Penygraig, and I know that that locally many people were concerned about it spreading to local properties. These fires tend to peak at this time of year, in April. We possibly would have had more fires by now had we not had so much rain. But the stark facts are that the number of grassland, woodland and crop fires rose in all three fire and rescue authorities in 2015-16. And in south Wales fire and rescue authority, they had the highest increase of 36 per cent. From the Cynon Taf crop fire rates in 2015-16, we’re nearly double the nearest-placed local authority.

Now, I attended a briefing last week where firefighters informed me of the specific issues pertaining to the Rhondda, and of the sterling work that they’re doing to prevent fires through education, and also through their introduction of fire breaks, and the work that they do once the fires are raging. But more does need to done. And one thing that was suggested to me that could help is that if the restrictions on setting fires on the tops of the mountains could be relaxed. At the moment, the firefighters are able to put fire breaks in, but because of the bad weather they’ve been unable to do so. And the restrictions mean that they’re only allowed to do that up until 31 March. So, if there’s any relaxation of the legislation there, I think that that would be useful if it could be looked at.

And then, finally, I wanted to raise the issue of Porth fire station, which was closed in July 2015. Before it was closed, I urged the Welsh Government to intervene and save the fire station on the grounds of public safety. Intervention to stop the closure is allowed under those circumstances, but that opportunity was missed at that time. I very much hope, Minister, that you will reflect on that missed opportunity, and act accordingly should a similar situation arise in the future.

I thank the Member for her questions. I’ll try and treat each one separately in detail. I recognise that the Member has used the figures—I assume from the Welsh Government’s own figures that were produced. We’ve looked at those very carefully on the basis of what was included in the numbers. The figures that are released were inaccurate in reporting this, and it’s through no fault of the Member raising those issues, but I will clarify them today. The figures that were published last month were for the financial year of 2015-16. They included all of the fires of 2015 but didn’t capture the success of last year’s campaign. I will be making amendments to that for Members. Fire service figures show a 41 per cent reduction during the calendar year of 2016 compared with 2015. So, there is a reduction. And the figures that the Member quoted I assume are wrong, but they are Welsh Government figures. And I accept that; they didn’t capture all of the data properly. I apologise to the Member for that, but will be amending those. There has been as significant reduction in the fires started in Wales, but it still has a lot more work to do.

It is far too early to suggest that this a worse situation at Easter this year, than compared to working up to Easter last year. Obviously, we’ll be working hard with the emergency services to clarify that position.

The Member, unfortunately, coming towards the end, tried to make a political point, regarding the Porth fire station. The Member is fully aware of the duties of the Cabinet Secretary today, and prior as a Minister. This is a matter for south Wales fire service and not a matter for the Government. And the missed opportunity the Member talks about is not one for the Government.

Thank you Government Secretary.

Before we move on to the next item, I want to announce the result of the legislative ballot held today. And I’m pleased to announce that Paul Davies may seek the Assembly’s agreement to introduce a Member Bill on an autism (Wales) Bill. Congratulations to the Member.

The next item, therefore, is the business statement and announcement, and I call on the leader of the house, Jane Hutt.

Llywydd, I have several changes to report to this week’s business. The Business Committee has agreed to reschedule last Wednesday’s debate on the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee’s report on the implications for Wales of leaving the European Union to later this afternoon. I’ve also reduced the time allocated to the Stage 3 debate on the Land Transaction Tax and Anti-avoidance of Devolved Taxes (Wales) Bill. Tomorrow, the First Minister will make an oral statement in response to the triggering of article 50. Finally, the Business Committee has agreed to reschedule last week’s short debate on credit unions, and this will take place after voting tomorrow. Business for the next three weeks is as shown on the business statement and announcement found among the meeting papers available to Members electronically.

Leader of the house, I’ve raised on several occasions the state and condition of the A48 and, in particular, the stretch between Culverhouse Cross and Bridgend, sadly to no avail. I don’t seem to get much of a response back from the Welsh Government as to what their maintenance arrangements are going to be, but, today, we’ve also had a very timely reminder of the need to make sure that our roads are repaired in good order because of the potential risk to people and, obviously, damage to vehicles as well. Is it possible to have a statement from the Welsh Government as to what actions they take to support local authorities and the trunk road agency to support the maintenance of the fabric of the highways in Wales, but in particular in the South Wales Central area, and what financial support they make available to local authorities and the trunk road agency to make sure that repairs are carried out in a timely manner?

I thank the Member for his question. You will be aware of the written statement by Ken Skates, the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure, last week on local transport grant allocations to local authorities 2017-18, when he announced that he was allocating a total of over £31.4 million in transport grants to local authorities across Wales, particularly for schemes improving safety, creating economic growth and promoting active travel. The local transport fund of £20 million will allow 47 schemes across 20 local authorities to commence schemes or continue to work on multi-year projects, and, of course, those issues particularly in terms of improving safety. It also links to nearly £4 million in road safety capital grant funding, 31 schemes contributing to road casualty reductions in 16 local authorities, and £5.5 million for the Safe Routes in Communities grant, focusing on 32 schemes available to improve walking and cycling routes to schools in 19 local authorities.

I’d like a statement on the biomass project, or the incinerator, as local residents refer to it. I’d like to enquire why the voices of local people have been ignored. There’s a lot of concern about the possibility of fire and there’s massive concern about the quality of air that people will be breathing. I really cannot think of a more unsuitable place for a development like this—smack in the middle of a residential area—so I would appreciate some kind of statement and to know whether or not you think that Natural Resources Wales should in fact grant the licence, because I certainly don’t think that they should.

I presume the Member is referring to the Barry incinerator. Planning permission has been granted for the construction of a biomass energy plant within the Barry docks regeneration area. Natural Resources Wales is currently considering whether to issue an environmental permit, and extensive consultation is taking place. Obviously, I have, as an Assembly Member, engaged with that, but, of course, issues relating to planning permission are a matter for the local planning authority and it’s not appropriate for the Welsh Government to comment.

I wanted to raise two issues. Refugees who come to Wales and to the UK are keen to work and want to do their bit for society, but they’re hindered by being unable to get a driving licence, because the theory test is only done in English or in Welsh. I understand that, up to 2013, you could do it in languages like Bengali or Arabic. As transport is such a big issue for people getting to work, could the Welsh Government consider entering into a dialogue with the UK Government to find out what the reason was for this change of policy and whether anything could be done about it?

The second issue was that a number of my constituents are calling for an initiative called Operation Close Pass that is taking place in north Wales and in cities in England, where plain-clothed police on bikes stop drivers who pass too close to cyclists and educate them about safe passing distances. So, would it be possible to have a debate about safety for cyclists, as they do make up 1 per cent of the traffic, yet I believe are 16 per cent of all casualties? So, I wondered if we could have a debate on that.

I thank the Member for those questions. Julie Morgan has drawn our attention to a change, which we perhaps may not have been aware of, back in April 2014, because driver licensing is a reserved matter, and the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency prescribes the content and delivery of the theory test in Wales. The loss of that use of foreign language voiceovers and interpreters on theory tests was removed in April 2014, apparently following a public consultation. But, certainly, this is an issue where we would want to ensure our views, particularly now as we are focusing on our Welsh Government refugee and asylum seeker delivery plan, which is being refreshed during this year—. It is about co-ordination between agencies under our responsibility in the Welsh Government, but, clearly, with UK Government as well. So, this is an issue, particularly, that we would want to discuss with the Welsh Refugee Council, but, most importantly, with the UK Government in terms of those opportunities, and hopefully find new ways in which we can address this issue.

On your second point, I’ve just mentioned the local road safety allocations that have been announced recently by the Cabinet Secretary. The road safety framework for Wales sets out the action the Welsh Government and our partners will take to meet our casualty reduction targets. If you look at the statistics for motorcyclists and cyclists, the statistics for cyclists alone were 7 per cent of casualties, 10 per cent of those killed or seriously injured. We publish the statistical bulletin on pedal cycles on 5 April, so that will provide an update. We have got a safety steering group to support work towards meeting a target to particularly reduce the numbers killed or seriously injured by 25 per cent. That’s relating to motorcyclists, but I think the national standards cycle training in all local authorities is crucially important. Yesterday, the Cabinet Secretary supported the launch of Operation Darwen, a Wales-wide police enforcement and engagement campaign, and I think this example is something that clearly we would want to look at.

Leader of the house, I wondered whether we could have a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure on the trunk road maintenance programme in north Wales. Many of my constituents and visitors to north Wales were massively inconvenienced over the weekend as a result of some of the roadworks on the A55 in the Conwy tunnels and, indeed, in Old Colwyn, in my own constituency, and that led to 13-mile tailbacks on Mothering Sunday, with people being cooped up in their cars for up to an hour and a half simply to travel the short distance of just three miles. Clearly, that’s unacceptable. The problem was further compounded because, of course, Network Rail was also doing work on the north Wales railway line, so there was more traffic on the roads, and I think it is imperative that there’s better planning between the road maintenance teams and the Network Rail teams in order to avoid that sort of coming together of these sorts of maintenance works. So, it would be useful to have a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure on how he intends to change the discussions and communications, particularly between Network Rail and his teams in the future.

In response to the Member’s question, this is an issue, and the Member knows well that this is part of wider improvements to the A55 to ensure that it does serve the people of north Wales better. So, actually managing those improvements, as you say, has to involve all those who have a key part to play so that delays are kept to an absolute minimum. I’m advised that work is taking place 24/7 in order to ensure it’s completed before the busy Easter period. I think also, just in terms of engagement, as I said, with appropriate authorities, officers from Conwy council have been consulted on these improvements, they’re being kept informed of progress, appropriate signs have been located along the A55, and it is important that the travelling public are made aware of traffic restrictions. The Traffic Wales website is updated whenever required.

Can I raise two issues, please, with the business manager, first of all to welcome the fact that the debate for today, later on, on landscapes has been withdrawn? Had it not been withdrawn, I would have certainly have argued that it was out of order, as our Standing Orders say very clearly that any debate that relates to a report should have the report with that debate, and the constituents who have been contacting me over the last two or three days were clear in their minds that this debate related to the report that the Lord Elis-Thomas is preparing on future landscapes on behalf of the Welsh Government. Of course, we haven’t seen that report, it’s not been published, though my constituents have been very keen to send me draft copies of the report, together with their criticism of the report, which would have meant for a very interesting, but, I don’t think, a very constructive debate in this Chamber. Can I ask for an assurance, therefore, that there won’t be an attempt by the Welsh Government to treat us in this way again and that we won’t debate this issue until we have seen the report, fully published, and have had a decent amount of time to study the report and, of course, to contact and listen to our constituents’ concerns on the elements of that report?

The second issue I’d like to raise with the business manager is to ask for a statement from the Welsh Government, in the fullness of time, in response to the decision of the UK Government and the UK Nuclear Decommissioning Authority to change the contract around the decommissioning of the old Magnox nuclear reactors in Wales and throughout the United Kingdom. It affects, particularly, of course, Trawsfynydd in my region, and also Wylfa. These are huge contracts for which the UK Government has been found to have gone through a false and faulty procurement process, has had to pay out taxpayers’ money to American companies to get out of legal challenge, and looks like now, with changing the contract with the company that did win the contract within the next couple of years, all told, it is costing about £100 million, which I think is a figure to bear in mind when UK Government tells us that renewable energy is expensive. We may have an opportunity here to review what’s needed in terms of decommissioning in Trawsfynydd and Wylfa, and there may indeed be different changes to what happens there, but I’d like to know whether Welsh Government is yet in a position to tell us what that might be. It could be that there’s more intensive work needed, it could be there’s less work needed—we don’t know. But a statement from the Welsh Government saying that they’ve been in discussion with the authority and the UK Government and these are the implications for employment, going forward, around the two old Magnox sites would, I think, be valuable to the Assembly.

I thank Simon Thomas for his questions. I was content, further to a discussion this morning at the Business Committee, to postpone this afternoon’s debate on the review of national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, and I can assure the Member and the Assembly that we’ll reschedule the debate on the Cabinet Secretary’s return, which is also appropriate, and has had an impact on timing for this, but when the final report has been published. On that basis, I hope that gives you the appropriate assurances.

On your second point, no, we’re not in a position in terms of our understanding of the impact of the announcement in terms of the changes as a result of procurement for the decommissioning of the old Magnox nuclear reactors, but this is something, clearly, that we would want to be fully engaged with, and ensure that Members are appropriately informed about. But UK Government obviously, clearly, have that responsibility, as well.

Thank you. And finally, Eluned Morgan.

Would the business Secretary make a statement on the recent appointment process for the Bishop of Llandaff in the light of reports that Jeffrey John, the current Dean of St Albans, was rejected from the post on the basis of his sexual orientation, despite the backing of the majority of the electoral college and the unanimous support of the Llandaff electors? Whilst I, of course, understand that there is a process of spiritual discernment in the selection of a bishop, this is also a matter that relates to employment. So, would the Cabinet Secretary, in that statement, state whether she thinks it would be appropriate to refer the Church of Wales to the Equality and Human Rights Commission in order to investigate whether the Church in Wales is in breach of the Equality Act 2010, relating to its employment recruitment processes, which the Church in Wales itself claims to adhere to on its own website?

I thank Eluned Morgan for that question. I’m aware of the concerns that have been raised by reports that a candidate for appointment as the Bishop of Llandaff has been excluded from the appointment process on the grounds of his sexual orientation. It’s very clear, of course, in terms of the Church in Wales, disestablished, that the process, as the Member has said, for the appointment of its bishops is a matter for the Church in Wales electoral college and church constituents. The Church in Wales, I also understand, is not covered by the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010, but I’m glad to have the opportunity to respond to the Member’s question this afternoon, and to say that the Welsh Government is opposed to discrimination on the basis of sexuality, and our position in this regard has been consistent and remains very clear.

Thank you very much, leader of the house.

We now move on to item 3 on the agenda, which is the Marine Licensing (Notices Appeals) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2017, and I call on the leader of the house to move the motion. Jane Hutt.

Deputy Presiding Officer, the regulations that have been laid before the Assembly for your consideration today are an amendment to the existing Marine Licensing (Notices Appeals) (Wales) Regulations 2011. This legislation is being introduced in line with the powers set out under the Environment (Wales) Act 2016. Part 6 of the Act amended the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 to provide additional charging powers for marine licensing in Wales. This amendment legislation covers small technical changes to provide an appeal mechanism for notices issued as a result of a licensee failing to comply with the requirement to pay a deposit or a fee charge pursuant to charging powers established by the Environment (Wales) Act 2016. A notice that may be served upon a licensee may vary, suspend or revoke a marine licence. The same procedures and approach currently existing for all other notice appeals under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 will apply. This is part of a wider package of legislation to introduce new fees and charges for marine licensing on 1 April 2017. The new fees, which we intend to introduce from 1 April this year, 2017, will, amongst other positive outcomes, result in a wider provision of pre-application services and fees being set proportionately against the service being provided.

The notice appeals and the wider fees proposals were initially shaped through close engagement with the marine licensing stakeholder group, through correspondence and a stakeholder workshop. The stakeholder group is representative of the marine sector, particularly aggregates, renewables, construction, dredging, local authorities and other marine licensing regulators. The proposals were then subject to a 12-week public consultation on the revision to marine licensing fees and associated charges in Wales between 5 September 2016 and 28 November 2016. A further stakeholder workshop was held during the consultation period. The proposals were supported by nearly all respondents. The new fees and charges will be kept under review, with continuous improvement as a core value, to ensure we continue to provide an efficient and sustainable marine licensing service to the people of Wales. The amendment notice appeals regulations ensure that licensees are able to appeal against notices served for the non-payment of fees and deposits. Deputy Presiding Officer, I commend these regulations to the National Assembly.

Thank you very much. There are no speakers in this debate. Therefore, the proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? No. Thank you. Therefore the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Eitem 4 ar ein hagenda yw Rheoliadau Trefniadau Partneriaeth (Cymru) (Diwygio) 2017. Galwaf ar y Gweinidog dros Wasanaethau Cymdeithasol ac Iechyd y Cyhoedd i gynnig y cynnig. Rebecca Evans.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I move the motion. The amendment regulations before you support the implementation of the Social Services and Well-being Act 2014. They relate to the functions in Part 2 of that Act concerning the production of area plans. Along with supporting statutory guidance, these were subject to a 12-week consultation, which closed on 3 October, to which there were 27 responses. A working draft of the statutory guidance has been published to inform scrutiny. Subject to approval, these regulations will come into force in April.

The Partnership Arrangements (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2017 are made under sections 166 and 167 of the Act. They amend the principal regulations, which require partnership arrangements to be established between local authorities and health boards under the direction of regional partnership boards. These amending regulations add section 14A area planning functions to the list of functions carried out by the partnership arrangements. Section 14A of the Act was inserted by the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. That Act replaced a number of planning duties with the new strategic well-being plans. However, Ministers agreed there remained a need for local authorities and health boards to plan specifically in relation to meeting people’s care and support needs, including the support needs of carers. Section 14A therefore places duties on local authorities and health boards to set out the actions they each need to take in response to the population assessment that they’re required to carry out. By adding section 14A area planning functions to the list of functions carried out by the partnership arrangements, these regulations support the production of joint area plans on the health board footprint, consistent with the population assessment. These will focus on integrated services in response to that assessment, and will set the agenda for regional partnership boards.

Separate Care and Support (Area Planning) (Wales) Regulations 2017 relating to the detail of area plans were laid on 27 January. Those are subject to the negative resolution process, scheduled to be completed by 1 April. Those regulations require the first area plans to be published by April 2018, one year after the first population assessment reports.

In response to stakeholder feedback, these regulations also amend the requirement for regional partnership boards to establish pooled funds. They require partnership boards to consider the appropriateness of establishing pooled funds when working jointly in response to the population assessment. This provides more discretion than the current requirement for the establishment of pooled funds for all functions exercised jointly.

Finally, these regulations include minor amendments to ensure integrated family support functions, including local authorities’ functions to provide for children and young people under Part 6 of the 2014 Act on Looked After and Accommodated Children, in addition to those assessed under Part 4. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Again, we have no speakers; therefore, the proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

We now move on to item 5, which is the legislative consent motion on the Farriers (Registration) Bill, and I call on the leader of the house, Jane Hutt, to move the motion.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, for the opportunity to explain the background to this legislative consent motion. I would also like to thank the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee for their scrutiny of the memorandum. I’m pleased to note that the committee has found no reason to object to the Assembly agreeing to the legislative consent motion. The Farriers (Registration) Bill amends the Farriers (Registration) Act 1975. This sets out the statutory responsibility of the Farriers Registration Council, the regulatory body for the farriery profession in Great Britain. There are over 200 registered farriers living in Wales. The council has responsibilities, as set out in the Act, to maintain a register of farriers to determine who is eligible for registration and to make rules about the form and keeping of the register. The council also regulates farriery training. It also undertakes the preliminary investigation of disciplinary cases through its investigating committee, and determines cases through its disciplinary committee.

The current arrangements for the regulation of farriers are now out of date and no longer in line with the regulation of other professions. The amendments proposed in the Bill are intended to update the constitution of the council, and its investigating and disciplinary committees, to make them fit for purpose and to make it easier to make such changes in future. At present, any changes to the council and its committees requires an amendment to the Act, requiring primary legislation. This is inflexible and makes it difficult to ensure that the council and its committees are kept up to date to remain fit for purpose. The Bill will allow future amendments to the governance arrangements for the council and its committees to be made by secondary legislation by the Secretary of State, with the consent of Welsh Ministers and Scottish Ministers.

The purpose of the council is to act in the interests of animal welfare. This falls within the legislative competence of the National Assembly for Wales. The council has a single constitution, and there is policy agreement across Great Britain for these changes to be made, which will modernise the regulation of the farriery profession.

Thank you. I call on Huw Irranca-Davies to speak on behalf of the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I’m delighted to say a few very short words here today. I made the mistake on the committee of acknowledging some familiarity with the Farriers Registration Council, and, for my sins, the Chair graciously said, ‘Well, you can say a few words.’ He’d be more than capable himself. But I only want to touch on a few things.

As we’ve just heard, this is very much a modernisation, and a long-overdue modernisation, of the Farriers Registration Council. The CCERA committee, chaired by Mark Reckless, found no reason to object. We discussed this and found no reason to object. We discussed this legislative consent motion at the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee on 16 March. It does amend the Farriers (Registration) Act 1975, which sets out the statutory responsibility of the registration council, the regulatory body for the farrier profession in Great Britain. And the arrangements, as has been said already, for the regulation of farriers, as set out in that Act, are out of date, so this is a welcome updating and modernisation.

This will allow for the updating of the constitution of the council and, importantly, for its investigating and disciplinary committees, for it have a real relevance to its members and those who come before those committees. They make them fit for purpose and in line with the regulation of other professions that have modernised in this way over the years, and some quite some time before. It will also make it easier to make other changes in future.

So, as I mentioned, amongst it is altering the membership of the statutory investigating committee and the disciplinary committee. So, instead of those being constituted from members of the council, the reverse will apply. Membership must not be members of the council, which has in previous years caused some concern. This is to achieve the necessary separation of powers, ensuring that those who set standards for the profession are not the same as those who investigate and adjudicate upon potential breaches of those standards. And it also does other measures, such as introducing fitness-to-serve requirements for all members of the council and the statutory committees, as is the practice in other regulatory bodies.

So, this has had approval by frankly everybody that it has come in front of—the original Bill moved by Byron Davies in Westminster, the committees that have looked at it, the Welsh Government itself who consulted on it, the Scottish Government who consulted on it, DEFRA itself, and of course the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee here, which looked at it—so there’s no reason not to approve this—and by the CCERA committee. So, it therefore finds everybody’s blessing. It’s no surprise at all. It’s a long-overdue modernisation, and I wish them well in putting these new measures that we bring forward here within this LCM, and within Byron Davies’s Bill, into practice because I think it will be welcomed by those who come in front of the Farriers Registration Council.

Thank you very much. The leader of the house to reply.

Yes, I think I covered many of the points that were raised by Huw Irranca-Davies. I think it is important to recognise that this, the farriers’ regulatory association, is a GB body. There was a consultation on the governance, structure and operation of the Farriers Registration Council and its committees that was conducted by DEFRA in 2013, in conjunction with the Scottish and Welsh Governments. And the consultation and its responses have shown a general agreement on the way forward, which has led to this. Of course, it was a private Member’s Bill, and the principal objective of the Bill is to make those changes to the constitution of the Farriers Registration Council and its committees, and I would hope that we can now provide legislative consent for this Bill and I ask Assembly Members to support the legislative consent motion.

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

The next item on our agenda this afternoon is a motion to suspend Standing Order 11.16, to allow the next item of business and a short debate on Wednesday to be debated. And I call on a member of the Business Committee to move the motion. Paul Davies.

Formally.

Thank you very much. The proposal is to suspend Standing Orders. Does any Member object? No. Therefore the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

So, we now move on to the debate on the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee’s report on the implications for Wales of leaving the European Union, which is resumed from 22 March. David Rees opened the debate last week, and I call on David Rees again, just briefly, before calling other Members in this debate. David.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. And, as we are all aware of the reasons why it was suspended last week, can we offer our condolences to the families of those killed, best wishes to those injured and their families, and thanks to the security and emergency services for their speedy and efficient actions. Our thoughts are with them all.

Dirprwy Lywydd, wythnos diwethaf agorais i ddadl ar adroddiad cyntaf y pwyllgor ar uchafbwyntiau gwaith y pwyllgor a’r argymhellion y gwnaethom ni i’r Llywodraeth. Fe fydd Aelodau yn hapus o glywed fy mod i ddim yn bwriadu ailadrodd yr araith o wythnos diwethaf; mae ar gael ar Senedd.tv i’r rhai a gollodd hi. Ond rwyf am atgoffa Aelodau bod yr adroddiad yn adlewyrchu dau agwedd pwysig: (1) cymhlethdod y materion y mae’n rhaid eu hystyried, a (2), gweithrediadau Llywodraeth Cymru. Gwnes i hefyd bwysleisio bod y topig yma yn un sy’n newid yn ddyddiol ac fe fydd y pwyllgor yn ffocysu ar sicrhau ein bod ni’n gyfoes a bod ein gwaith wastad yn gyfoes.

Mae Brexit yn datblygu yn fuan, ac ers wythnos diwethaf yr ydym ni yn awr yn gwybod y bydd Papur Gwyn ar y ‘great repeal Bill’ yn cael ei gyhoeddi ar ddydd Iau. Yn dilyn cyflwyniad y llythyr yfory i’r Comisiwn Ewropeaidd i ddechrau’r broses erthygl 50, mae’n hanfodol bod llais Cymru yn cael ei glywed a’i gwrando arno. Tra, yn amlwg, mae hwn yn bennaf er lles Cymru, rwyf yn credu y bydd hwn hefyd er lles y Deyrnas Unedig hefyd.

Dirprwy Lywydd, rwyf am ddiolch i Simon Thomas am gyfraniad wythnos diwethaf ac rwyf yn edrych ymlaen at glywed mwy o Aelodau eraill y prynhawn yma.

Thank you very much. Suzy Davies.

Sorry, I didn’t realise you were calling me first. Thank you very much anyway, Dirprwy Lywydd. As Members may remember, it was actually Mark Isherwood who was making his contribution last week. I’m not Mark Isherwood, and even though he’s kindly given me his speech from last week, I have made one or two alterations so that it’s a bit more me than him today. So, any errors are entirely mine, okay.

Personally, I see this report as the first in a series that I hope will inform and scrutinise the actions of Welsh Government as we navigate these rather choppy waters of Brexit. Again, personally, I think it would have served Welsh Government well to have waited for this report to be published before publishing its own White Paper—it was only a matter of a few days—so it could have referenced a genuinely cross-party document reaching cross-party conclusions, especially as the majority of the recommendations were actually accepted in full. I think that might have just armed slightly better the First Minister, and indeed the finance Cabinet Secretary, in those opening conversations with the UK Government regarding our joint negotiating position, rather than a document drawn up by just two parties.

Will the Member give way on that point?

Have I got time? Yes. Okay, then. Thank you.

I just wanted to make the point that the report from the cross-party committee makes reference to the Welsh Government’s own White Paper, which, yes, was agreed with Plaid Cymru. But it makes reference to it, it gives evidence to it, and surely we don’t have time to wait always for the next report; we have to get our negotiating position in there early.

I take your point completely, but this is actually the Parliament rather than the Government and I’d like this Parliament at the forefront, if you like, in helping inform Government to reach a negotiating—[Interruption.]—inform the Government reaching a negotiating position. I think my point is quite fair, actually, because, of course, although the White Paper calls for full and unfettered access to the UK single market, and although EU rules make that impossible after border control is restored to the UK, that’s not inconsistent with the UK Government’s desire for a free trade deal without membership. Although the White Paper identifies the risk of a power grab from the UK Government, the UK Government’s own White Paper states that we have

‘already committed that no decisions currently taken by the devolved administrations will be removed from them’,

and we will use the opportunity of bringing decision making back here to make sure that more decisions are devolved. So, why I’m raising this is because hares are already running, and when I think we should be focusing on clear and present risks and opportunities rather than those that are more unlikely. We already seem to be calling into question how influential the Celtic nations are in the preparation of a negotiating position, and it would be easy, I think, to crank up the rhetoric on who’s doing what and saying what in a way that doesn’t help create confidence or convey a sense of unity, which will be needed to bring weight to a negotiating position.

So, I’m personally just not inclined to accept the First Minister's take on this, which is why recommendations 1 and 4 are important for us all, because I would like us to see a real drill down on those clear and present dangers. Let's see all the evidence to assess the strength of the Welsh Government’s position to help other voices make the case for it, including, but beyond, politicians. That soft diplomacy in non-intergovernmental relationships—you know, there's a series of them, not least with other advocates from within the EU and I think if you help us help them, that’ll strengthen the UK's negotiating position and the role of the Welsh voice within that. I'd like to see those sort of EU countries help build momentum for visibility for Welsh priorities and so it’s unclear to me why Welsh Government only accepts recommendation 1 in principle, i.e. that it publishes all the evidence on which it bases its position.

Now, similarly, I'm not quite sure what the Government's reticence to accept recommendation 4 in full was—namely providing a register of risks across all areas where Brexit will impact upon its activity. In its response, the Welsh Government states that actually it’s bringing forward a fresh risk assessment after the triggering of article 50. I suppose what I would have liked to have heard in the response is what Welsh Government might like our committee to do to help it identify emerging risks as well as emerging opportunities, of course, as became clear in our conference yesterday.

As the report states, several areas of policy might benefit from an agreed UK-wide approach or framework: for example, agricultural and marine and environment policies, and possibly—possibly—regional development policy to a degree as well. The head of Birmingham Law School told the committee that the process

‘does provide an opportunity to think about things in a different way’,

And, as NFU Cymru said this week:

‘While Brexit presents significant challenges, it also presents opportunities, and we need to ensure we take this opportunity to craft and develop an agricultural policy framework that supports productive, progressive and profitable farming and delivers jobs, growth and investment to Wales.’

So, finally, referencing back to where I started, regardless of my own personal starting position about Wales’s influence, I think we need to accept that the European advisory group—it is kind of bizarre when 11 of the 21 members are political associations but only one represents business, and I'd be grateful if, when considering where Wales stands in its negotiating position from now on, voices from all sectors are considered. It's not just about trade; it's about social, community cohesion as well. Thank you.

May I first of all thank the committee Chair for leading our discussions within the committee? And also, on the quality of his Welsh language contribution, he's kept the quality of his Welsh very quiet since I've been here, so congratulations to you on that.

Nawr, yr hyn sy'n ddiddorol am yr adroddiad hwn yw ei fod wedi’i ddrafftio yn erbyn cefndir a oedd yn newid yn gyson; roedd yn symud yn gyson. Felly, o'r drafft cyntaf i'r drafft terfynol gwelsom Lywodraeth y DU yn amlinellu ei strategaeth a gwelsom gyhoeddi Papur Gwyn Llywodraeth Cymru. Felly, roedd rhaid i lawer o ailddrafftio cyflym iawn ddigwydd. Pan fo cymaint i'w ddweud am Brexit, yr hyn sy'n amlwg yw bod pwysau llethol y dystiolaeth yn awgrymu y byddai gadael marchnad sengl yr UE yn cael effaith ddinistriol ar ein heconomi. Mae hynny oherwydd ein bod yn dibynnu mwy ar allforion ac, wrth gwrs, ar y taliadau hyn yr ydym yn eu cael o gronfeydd amaethyddol a strwythurol. Nawr, mae hwnnw'n bwynt sy'n cael ei wneud yn glir iawn yn yr adroddiad. Mae'n bwynt a bwysleisiwyd eto yn yr adroddiad Demos a gyhoeddwyd ddoe.

Ac, wrth gwrs, yn ychwanegol at hynny, caiff cyfansoddiad mewnol y DU ei brofi o ddifrif yng ngoleuni Brexit, gan nad yw'r Deyrnas Unedig a ymunodd â'r EEC yn 1973 yr un DU â’r un a fydd yn gadael yr UE yn 2019. Mae datganoli wedi digwydd yma yn y cyfamser. A bellach, yn ôl y gyfraith, mae gennym lu o gyfrifoldebau yng Nghymru am lawer o wahanol bynciau, sydd hyd yn hyn wedi cael eu rheoli o fewn fframwaith yr UE. Nawr, yn ôl y gyfraith rwy’n glir mai’r Cynulliad fydd yn gyfrifol am amaethyddiaeth eto pan fyddwn yn gadael yr UE, ond, a dweud y gwir, os nad yw Llywodraeth y DU yn rhoi'r arian inni, bydd hwnnw’n bŵer eithaf diwerth.

Nawr, rwy’n mynd i gyfyngu fy hun i ddau bwynt byr a ddaeth allan o'r adroddiad a oedd yn eithaf diddorol imi. Yn gyntaf oll, cyfraith amgylcheddol: yr hyn yr ydym yn ei wybod yw nad yw llygredd yn parchu ffiniau ac rwy'n credu bod hynny'n un o lwyddiannau mawr yr UE. Dyna’r fframwaith ar gyfer yr amgylchedd y mae angen i aelod-wladwriaethau weithredu oddi mewn iddo. Y ffaith yw, yn y gorffennol, bod Llys Cyfiawnder Ewrop wedi bod yn rym hynod bwerus i sicrhau cydymffurfiad â deddfau amgylcheddol. Dewch inni beidio ag anghofio y bydd sawl agwedd ar gyfraith amgylcheddol yn dychwelyd i Gymru ar ôl Brexit. Y ffaith yw, o fewn yr UE, bod sefydliadau'r UE yn cynnig mecanwaith rhad ar gyfer gwneud iawn, ac ni fydd hwnnw yno mwyach wedi inni adael yr UE. Yn y dyfodol, bydd yn rhaid i unigolion a sefydliadau preifat ddibynnu ar brosesau adolygu barnwrol drud y DU a bydd rhaid iddynt dalu am yr achosion hynny eu hunain. Rwy'n credu mai cam yn ôl i’r sefyllfa amgylcheddol yn y wlad hon yw hynny. Efallai hefyd na fydd dim cyfleuster i herio'r DU, na hyd yn oed Lywodraeth Cymru, os ydynt yn methu â gorfodi'r safonau a ddisgwylir. Dyna dwll enfawr nad oes neb bron wedi ei ystyried eto ynglŷn â’r ddadl hon am Brexit.

Yr ail bwynt yr hoffwn ganolbwyntio arno yw iechyd. Yng Nghymru, gallwn ymfalchïo mewn diwydiant fferyllol iach iawn, ond mae rhan o'r llwyddiant hwnnw oherwydd ein bod yn gweithio o fewn fframwaith sengl yr UE, sy'n caniatáu i feddyginiaethau newydd gael eu dwyn i mewn yn gyflym i’r farchnad. Yn y dyfodol, mae'n bosibl y bydd yn rhaid inni wneud cais am awdurdodi ym mhob aelod-wladwriaeth unigol. Nid oes gennym farchnad sengl i’r DU ar gyfer hyn ychwaith. Felly, bydd angen inni benderfynu a oes eisiau un arnom. Ar gyfer treialon clefydau mwy prin, mae angen inni allu recriwtio o gronfa fawr o gleifion ar draws yr UE, a gallai hynny newid yn y dyfodol. Felly, rydym yn gobeithio y gellir cysoni deddfwriaeth ar y mater hwn ar draws aelod-wladwriaethau ar ôl Brexit.

Rydym yn gwybod y caiff y gwn cychwyn ei danio yr wythnos hon ar un o'r tasgau negodi mwyaf cymhleth y mae Llywodraeth y DU wedi ymgymryd â hwy erioed, dan arweiniad tîm o weision sifil heb ddim profiad negodi braidd. Mae Brexit yn digwydd, ond rwy’n dal i ofni bod y cyhoedd ym Mhrydain wedi agor blwch Pandora ar adeg pan nad ydym erioed wedi gweld cythrwfl gwleidyddol mor eithafol yn y byd â’r hyn sy’n bodoli ar hyn o bryd.

HM Treasury has guaranteed to underwrite all European structural and investment fund projects approved or due to be approved during the ordinary course of business before the UK exits the EU. This guarantee also covers the common agricultural policy, the European territorial corporation programmes, including the Ireland-Wales programme, and the funding awards under the EU’s directly managed programmes, including Horizon 2020. There you have it. The Government’s own response to recommendation 5 of this report: a categorical statement that there will be no change to funding until 2020.

What happens after that?

I think we will carry on. If you’d like to make an interjection, by all means, Eluned, you can.

No, you carry on with your speech and I’ll direct people for interventions.

But perhaps we had better put the European funding into perspective. Again, in a response to this report, the Government states that we get just £370 million per annum across all EU funding arrangements. This pales into insignificance when compared to UK funding, even under the flawed Barnett formula, which sees Wales benefit to the sum of over £14 billion per year. This means that the UK Government only has to increase its allowance to Wales by just 2.6 per cent to sustain the whole of the European funding, or, put another way, 0.01 per cent of UK GDP, or, put another way, 2.7 per cent of UK net payment into the EU every year. I think we can safely predict that Wales will not miss out on one penny piece of the equivalent so-called EU funding. And shall we get a good Brexit? Absolutely, unless the remoaners keep undermining the massively strong position the UK has going into the Brexit negotiations.

Will you take an intervention?

It seems as if they are willing things to go wrong, even if it means a disaster for the working classes—

Are you taking an intervention from Eluned Morgan?

Yes.

I just wondered if you would also commit the Government that you’re not a part of—you committed to this during the course of the referendum campaign—to pay £350 million a week towards the NHS as well.

Of course, and more. [Interruption.] And more. [Interruption.]

You can almost hear them saying, ‘Serve them right for daring to vote against we, the intellectual elite.’ Don’t they understand that it’s we who know what’s best for them? Or, as one of them said,

‘Why should the pond life that dragged itself from the estates to the ballot box be allowed to ruin everything for the rest of us?’

Left-wing elitists, showing—

Who said that?

It’s quoted in ‘The Times’ today, Sir.

It’s showing utter contempt for the British working classes. But, of course, what they don’t understand is that the British people did understand what they were voting for, and that’s precisely why they voted Brexit. It is time this Chamber took a positive stance on the UK’s exit from the European superstate. Every single prediction of impending doom by those in the establishment committed to our remaining in the EU has proved to be wrong. And not just wrong, but substantially wrong. I look forward to the time in the near future when I, and my UKIP colleagues, and all other leavers, will be able to say ‘We told you so.’

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government, Mark Drakeford.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. Can I thank the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee for their report? It is the result of a great deal of hard work, experience and extensive evidence gathering. I was very grateful to have the opportunity to give evidence to the committee, and I know that the First Minister was too.

Mae nifer o heriau yn ein hwynebu ni ar y foment, fel dywedodd Cadeirydd y pwyllgor, David Rees, pan gyfeiriodd e at gymhlethdod y pethau sy’n ein wynebu ni, a’r ffaith hefyd bod pethau yn newid yn ddyddiol. Rydym yn gallu gweld hynny jest wrth edrych ar bethau sydd wedi newid rhwng yr adroddiad a ni yn siarad heddiw.

Between the report being drafted and published on 27 January, the Welsh Government, along with Plaid Cymru, published our White Paper, ‘Securing Wales’ Future’, and the weeks that have followed have been equally eventful: the publication of the UK Government’s White Paper; the passage a couple of weeks ago of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill; Scottish developments in relation to a second independence referendum; a confirmed date for the invocation of article 50 tomorrow; and a promised White Paper on the great repeal Bill on Thursday of this week. This very fast pace of change means that it is essential that we are able to remain agile and able to adapt swiftly to new situations and challenges as they arise. We’ve certainly attempted to do that over the autumn and into this year, by contributing constructively to the Joint Ministerial Committee meetings, and through a series of bilateral meetings that have been held with UK Ministers. And there are some signs, Dirprwy Lywydd, that we are having a genuine impact on the development of the UK negotiating position. We believe they’ve moved towards our position in relation to our clear and consistent call for full and unfettered access to the single market, and in our emphasis on the importance of a smooth transition.

There are, nonetheless, areas that remain of considerable concern. Last week, Simon Thomas referred to the ongoing debate over repatriation. Eluned Morgan this afternoon referred to that as powers reverting to Wales, and while Suzy Davies took a more optimistic view of this, I want to put the Welsh Government’s position on the record absolutely clearly again this afternoon. Powers that have been devolved to the National Assembly for Wales have never left us. We have chosen to exercise those powers through our participation at the European level. When that level is no longer there, the powers will still be here. And if the UK Government wishes to do anything different, it will have to act to take those powers away from us, and that would be absolutely unacceptable.

In its report, the committee identifies a series of issues that are of significant importance to Wales, and there is much alignment between the report and the White Paper shared between Plaid Cymru and the Welsh Government on the vital importance of trade, environment, agriculture, marine and fisheries, and European structural and investment funds in particular. There are six recommendations in the report for the Welsh Government to consider, and the First Minister responded formally and positively to the committee on 10 March.

The first recommendation was that we should publish all the evidence on which the Welsh Government’s position in relation to Brexit is based. And we go a long way to doing that in the White Paper, where there are substantial annexes, which set out the evidence base that we have drawn on in relation to sectoral analysis, macroeconomic forecasting and EU migration in Wales. We’ve certainly gone much further than the UK Government has in publishing evidence, and we will continue to publish economic and other analyses in the future. The reason why we accept the recommendation in principle is simply that there is some advice that comes to Government—legal advice, privileged advice that comes from other Governments on provisions that they are developing, and so on—which we’re unable to put into the public domain. But information that we have that is capable of being published we are very keen to add to the debate, in the way that Suzy Davies suggested.

Recommendations 2 and 3 refer to administrative changes in the role of the Brussels office and the way in which the Welsh Government has acted to make sure that we are able to respond to the challenges that lie ahead. And, in this regard, I think we can show that we reacted quickly to the outcome of the referendum in establishing a dedicated European transition team, which leads the development of strategic policy and co-ordinates work across the organisation. That new team works closely with the existing team in our Brussels office, who help us on transition matters, as well as conducting ongoing EU business.

I’ve already referred to the fast pace with which things are changing in relation to Brexit, and it is very important for us to be able to remain agile as an organisation. We will, therefore, be keeping the use of our resources under review, including the role of the team in Brussels, so that we can maximise our influence and secure the best outcomes for Wales. And, in particular, we will need to reassess the situation when we gain greater clarity about the role that the Welsh Government can play in the negotiations that lie ahead, something that we have been pushing the UK Government to engage with us on for many weeks and months.

Recommendation 4—a register of risks. The only reason why we accept this simply in principle is because we are undertaking a fresh risk assessment exercise, as we move into the next phase of the work, after the triggering of article 50 and the start of negotiations with EU partners. We will share information on risks and mitigation measures once this exercise is completed, in line with the views of the committee, and I hope that that will inform some of the future work that the committee will wish to undertake.

The fifth recommendation in the report asks the Welsh Government to take steps to ensure maximum EU funding is secured and utilised. Well, we’ve heard a number of contributions on that this afternoon. The Welsh Government lies far more at the sceptical end of the debate. We say that it is absolutely essential that those people who made promises to the people of Wales, on which people cast their votes in the referendum, show us that the guarantees that they offered will be delivered, and will be delivered in full. And I’ve said that I recognise the steps that the Chancellor of the Exchequer took to provide certainty in relation to funding up to 2020. Those were helpful guarantees; they have given some confidence to our partners in the use of European funding. But they now need to move beyond that. Under the current round of European funding, had we continued, Wales would have continued to benefit from the current round not to 2020, but to 2023. There are a series of programmes that we would have gone on being able to participate in well beyond 2023. Those are the guarantees that we need from the UK Government now, and I’m afraid they will not be as easily secured as some Members of the Assembly have wished to suggest this afternoon.

Recommendation 6 asks us to press the UK for direct involvement in negotiations. The First Minister has made it clear to the Prime Minister and other UK Ministers on a series of occasions now that we must be fully involved. This is particularly vital in the areas of our devolved responsibility, where we say plainly to the UK Government, ‘We must be at the table when those negotiations are being carried out, in order to ensure that the interests of Wales are protected.’ Simon Thomas referred last week to the possible development of a Council of Ministers model in the future, and we have put those ideas on the table as well.

Dirprwy Lywydd, we remain committed to seeking common ground, and to working constructively with all partners as we approach the next phase of our exit from the European union. With the UK Government due to invoke article 50 tomorrow, we look forward to further work of the committee and with the committee to aid the development of our approach to getting the best possible outcome for Wales.

Thank you very much. I call on David Rees to reply to the debate.

I thank all the Members who have contributed to the debate, and to the Cabinet Secretary for his response.

Dirprwy Lywydd, yr wythnos diwethaf roedd Simon Thomas yn canolbwyntio ar gyllid a phwerau, ac yn tynnu sylw at bryderon ailwladoli a goblygiadau hynny, os cânt eu hailwladoli, na chawn yr arian i fynd gyda hynny. Ac rwy’n credu bod honno'n elfen hollbwysig, a bod angen inni wneud yn siŵr, os ydym yn mynd i allu symud ymlaen, bod yn rhaid cael yr adnoddau a'r pwerau i wneud hynny sy'n dod yn ôl o Frwsel.

Mae Suzy a Mark—rwy’n eich rhoi gyda’ch gilydd—wedi tynnu sylw at y pryderon, yn amlwg, o ran amseru papur Llywodraeth Cymru. Rwy’n credu mai'r peth pwysig y maent wedi tynnu sylw ato oedd bod angen inni archwilio llwybrau amgen weithiau, bod dewisiadau amgen hefyd ac na allwn anwybyddu'r opsiynau hynny, a’i bod yn bwysig cymryd y rheini, fel y dangosodd uwch aelodau Prifysgolion Cymru a ddaeth i mewn. Mae angen inni edrych ar bethau o'r newydd.

Soniodd Eluned am rywbeth efallai nad ydym yn aml yn siarad amdano o ran Brexit, sef iechyd a meddyginiaethau, oherwydd, unwaith eto, mae yna elfennau o fewn yr UE yr ydym weithiau'n anghofio amdanynt. Rydym yn aml yn sôn am amaethyddiaeth a'r amgylchedd, gan mai rheini yw’r rhai yr ydym yn ymdrin â nhw fel arfer, ond mae rhai agweddau pwysig sy’n dal i ddigwydd ar lefel yr UE sy'n effeithio arnom ni, ac mae hynny'n beth pwysig na allwn ei anwybyddu yn y misoedd sydd o’n blaenau. Ac, yn bwysig iawn, mae colli hawl dinasyddion i gael iawnadal mewn ardaloedd penodol, nid mewn meysydd amgylcheddol yn unig, ond mewn agweddau eraill hefyd, a cholli'r hawl honno i gael iawndal, a'r costau y gallai fod yn rhaid inni eu codi, a allai ei wneud yn amhosibl i lawer iawn o bobl.

David Rowlands—beth allaf ei ddweud am ei gyfraniad? Byddaf yn gadarnhaol. Mae'n gywir—a dywedais hyn yr wythnos diwethaf—y dylem fod yn unedig wrth gymryd safiad cadarnhaol wrth inni symud ymlaen, gan ein bod yn awyddus i gael y cyfleoedd gorau a allwn i Gymru. Ond mae honni bod cyllid yr UE yn ddi-nod, yn fy marn i, yn erchyll. Dewch i fy etholaeth i weld sut mae’r arian hwnnw’n gwneud gwahaniaeth i fy nghymunedau i, oherwydd nid yw Llywodraeth y DU yn ein hariannu ni. Mae mor syml â hynny. Ac mae sôn am gynnydd 2.6 y cant gan Lywodraeth y DU i dalu amdano—rydym yn gweld toriadau gan Lywodraeth y DU, nid codiadau, felly rwy’n meddwl mai breuddwyd gwrach yw’r uchelgais hwn o gael arian. Yn anffodus, efallai fod hynny’n adlewyrchu holl feddyliau UKIP am yr agenda hon.

Nawr, Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet, rwy’n croesawu eich ymatebion ac rwyf hefyd yn gobeithio eich bod—

Very briefly. I haven’t got much time.

The reason that we’re having this funding is that Wales is still seen as a very poor country in Europe after 17 years of a Labour Government in Wales.

Well, I’m sorry that he doesn’t understand the economic aspects and the benefits it gives us, but there we are—perhaps that’s UKIP.

Mark Drakeford highlighted the issues of the bilateral discussions, and the importance of the Welsh voice in those discussions is critical. That’s why we raised it, Cabinet Secretary, and that’s why I’m very glad to hear that you still believe that the role of Welsh Government being at the table is crucial. And yes, you’re right, there are challenges ahead of us, both up to 2020 and beyond 2020, because programmes will continue beyond that time. We are in a situation where this topic is rapidly evolving. We are now, tomorrow, going to get an announcement, and Thursday we’ll get another announcement on something that relates to us—a great repeal Bill, or perhaps several great repeal Bills, who knows? But it is something we’ve got to keep on top of, and I can assure you that we will.

Dirprwy Lywydd, in closing this debate I want to restate the important role the committee will play in the exit process as it formally begins tomorrow. Throughout the process, we aim to develop and sustain constructive engagement with Welsh stakeholders and the public, and only yesterday we held a conference—possibly the first in Wales, on Brexit—in which we sought to engage further with stakeholders, including young people, and I’d like to thank the students at Coleg Gwent and King Henry VIII School in Abergavenny for their attendance and involvement with this. Such future engagements will be important to us as we both gather further evidence and also as we hold a wider debate with the Welsh people on the issues we identify. We will do everything we can to understand the Welsh interests and to protect them during the exit process and the arrangements that will follow that—and I’m very pleased that the Cabinet Secretary has highlighted, once again, the importance of the transitional period that will need to be in place, because we all know two years is not going to be enough. In doing so, though, we will be holding the Welsh Government to account for its actions and aim to support the Assembly as it approaches significant legislative tasks that lie ahead of it.

The report we have debated marks a significant step in the Assembly’s consideration of Brexit. I look forward to speaking to many reports in the future from the committee, as it continues to protect the interests of Wales as we leave the European Union and prepare for our future outside it.

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

The next item on our agenda has been withdrawn, so we move on. Before we move to the Stage 3 debate on the Land Transaction Tax and Anti-avoidance of Devolved Taxes (Wales) Bill, I will suspend the proceedings for 10 minutes. The bell will be rung five minutes before we reconvene, but I would urge all Members to return to the Chamber promptly, please. Therefore, we now stand adjourned.

We’ve now reached the next item on the agenda, which is the Stage 3 debate on the Land Transaction Tax and Anti-avoidance of Devolved Taxes (Wales) Bill.

The first group of amendments relates to land partly in Wales and partly in England. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 35. I call on Mark Reckless to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Mark Reckless.

Diolch, Llywydd. The Finance Committee spent quite a significant period of time considering the issue of land partly situated in Wales and partly situated in England. Earlier in proceedings, we understood that there were 40 or so such properties that straddled the border, but as proceedings went on, that number was revised up and up, and we now understand that it is in excess of 1,000. The issue we have before us is that splitting a transaction that straddles the border will, on average, lead to purchasers paying less tax, because with a progressive tax where the rate increases as the amount of land value increases, if you split that land value into two, the average tax rate you pay will be less.

There are also really significant administrative hurdles in this. We’re telling taxpayers to make a just and reasonable apportionment of the consideration for what they must treat as two transactions. The way in which they can do that is open to great argument and potential challenge. So, there’s a risk that the taxpayer may structure in it a way to avoid tax where possible, but also just a large administrative burden on the purchaser of land, and potentially the vendor to the extent that there needs to be any negotiation, and on their professional advisers. It’s not clear what the upside of this is to the extent that properties straddle the border. The law of averages is such that one can expect, on average, the amount of land in England and Wales from all the transactions that might happen in one year to be pretty similar. So, requiring people to split those and pay tax on a just and reasonable basis, and to work it out and justify it, to keep records and be willing to deal with the challenge that might happen later is a lot of work for no obvious gain.

The UK law that we have to deal with and respect in this sense is that the transaction is to be treated as if it were two transactions—one relating to land in Wales, the Welsh transaction, and the other relating to the land in England, the English transaction. And then the consideration for the transaction is to be apportioned between those two transactions on a just and reasonable basis. But there’s nothing to stop this Assembly deeming what a just and reasonable basis might be, and a lot of the reason why taxpayers and their advisers would welcome that happening is because it would reduce the work significantly and scope for legal challenge for them.

I propose two amendments to tackle that: the first is amendment 35, the lead amendment of this group. I happily accept that there are competence arguments around this amendment. What I have sought to do is to make it at least arguable that the legislation we would pass, if the amendment were accepted, is consistent with the UK legislation. The reason for that is that, overall, the apportionment would be done on a just and reasonable basis. If each one of those transactions, the taxpayer processed a nil transaction in respect of stamp duty land tax for land on the English border, and paid the whole price of the transaction in land transaction tax to the Welsh Revenue Authority, (a) that would minimise avoidance of tax through there being a lower average rate, so it would increase the yield and keep the yield where it would otherwise be for the public sector, and the Welsh Revenue Authority could simply transfer half of the cost of the money that’s been raised through the tax to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs so that they would settle up at the end of the year, so that overall it would be done on a just and reasonable basis, which I submit is arguably consistent with the UK legislating, although I admit there are challenges with respect to competence.

My second amendment is amendment 36, and on this we as an Assembly would deem just and reasonable apportionment to constitute either a 50/50 split, so the taxpayer doesn’t have to worry about how much land or building is in one particular place or the other, or, alternatively, we simply deem that the land area of the title, whatever that is according to the map that we’re expecting the Land Registry to develop—whatever proportion is in Wales, whatever proportion is in England of the land area of the title—that should be the just and reasonable apportionment. I think, if we give that option to the taxpayer, it would be a much simpler and easier process for the taxpayer, while protecting the revenues that would accrue to this Assembly from LTT.

Nick Ramsay.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Do you wish me to move my amendment?

Don’t ask me a question. [Laughter. ]

Yes? [Interruption. ] Okay, I’ll speak to it in the group. Sorry. It’s been a while—it’s been a while since I did Stage 3, Presiding Officer.

It’s my first time. [Laughter. ]

I’m just blinded by Mark Reckless’s explanation there for moving his amendments—happy to support that.

Okay, I wish to move my amendment 32, which is pursuant to Mark Reckless’s amendments 35 and 37. As Mark Reckless explained, we believe that this amendment—his amendment—will simplify cross-border land transactions. For those of you who didn’t sit on the Finance Committee during the process of Stage 2 we went through, and I bet you’re heaving a sigh of relief now that you didn’t, there were many issues that arose from cross-border issues, which we believe needed looking at and needed simplification. The Cabinet Secretary did put many good reasons forward against why our amendments at that point should be pursued, but nonetheless, we believe that simplicity in dealing with the cross-border issues is very important. This is a completely new area for the Welsh Government—a new area, indeed, for practitioners across the border in England as well—so it’s important that we get this legislation right.

My amendment 32 reflects the Cabinet Secretary’s points to the Finance Committee at Stage 2, when he noted that digital maps were available from the Land Registry and offered an opportunity for the committee to see the information the Welsh Government has had from the Land Registry. We believe that this will—following on from Mark Reckless’s points—provide a more specific apportionment for cross-border properties, which would fairly divide the tax revenue between the WRA and the HMRC. And that’s what we believe these amendments in this group are about. It’s about providing simplicity, it’s about providing certainty—we’re looking for a smooth transition from the UK stamp duty tax to our land transaction tax, and these amendments are aimed at doing that.

If I can just briefly mention amendment 29—we will also be supporting that, as we believe it helps the WRA to apply best practice in relation to land partly in Wales and partly in England.

I’d like to formally move amendment 29. The amendment introduces a new sub-section to section 9 of the Bill, which would mean that the WRA must publish guidance about transactions to which the sub-section applies and that are partly in Wales and partly in England. The nature of the process in dealing with cross-border transactions, as well as the exact location of the border between England and Wales, has engendered a great deal of interest and debate within the committee. We did realise that the amount of property that may be affected was greater than we first thought, but we also realised that Wales isn’t the only nation on earth that shares a border with another country and that, therefore, we could find a solution to this.

There are concerns about the implementation of the tax, and they’re understandable. I would say that it’s a reasonable expectation from owners of properties and taxation professionals that clear information would be available on how this new tax would be implemented in terms of cross-border property. This amendment would tackle those two concerns by placing expectations on the WRA to publish guidance about cross-border transactions as well as guidance on the location of the border between England and Wales. The amendment, therefore, develops a similar amendment introduced at Stage 2, which focused on the designation of the border only, and, likewise, goes further than amendment 32, tabled in the name of Nick Ramsay.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. As this is my first contribution to today’s debate, I would like to make some general opening remarks. Of course, I welcome the opportunity to consider amendments to the Bill today. I wish to formally thank all Assembly Members, particularly members of the Finance Committee, for their work in scrutinising the Bill. This has been very valuable in assisting us to draw up this tax legislation.

Members will recall that I gave a detailed response to the committee’s recommendations at Stage 1, shortly after Christmas, and that I introduced a variety of amendments in response to the committee’s recommendations at Stage 2 in January. I also want to thank Members who have tabled the amendments that we are to discuss this afternoon. I can assure Members that I have considered all sets of amendments carefully. I also met with Members following Stage 2 proceedings in order to further discuss issues and to look at means of implementing certain sections of the Bill.

I will now to turn to each amendment in group 1.

Wel, Llywydd, fel yr ydych wedi clywed, mae’r mater o eiddo trawsffiniol a chroes-deitl wedi bod o ddiddordeb arbennig yn ystod hynt y Bil hwn. Nod y Llywodraeth drwy gydol hyn fu sicrhau dosraniad cyfiawn a rhesymol o gostau pan fydd tir yn gorwedd ar ddwy ochr y ffin, yn seiliedig ar gyngor gan randdeiliaid y bydd angen i’r prawf hwn gael ei ddefnyddio yn ymarferol ym mhob achos.  Nawr, rwy’n derbyn bod yr holl welliannau yn y grŵp hwn yn cael eu rhoi gerbron gyda'r bwriad adeiladol o fynd i'r afael â materion a godwyd wrth graffu, ond, yn ymarferol, mae gwelliant 29 yn ymddangos i mi i fod y defnydd mwyaf materol ac effeithiol wrth ddefnyddio'r prawf, a byddaf yn gofyn i gefnogwyr y Llywodraeth gefnogi gwelliant 29 yn y grŵp hwn.

Fel y mae Aelodau wedi clywed, bydd y gwelliant yn gosod rhwymedigaeth glir iawn ar Awdurdod Cyllid Cymru i gyhoeddi canllawiau i gynorthwyo trethdalwyr pan fydd tir yn cael ei brynu sy'n gorwedd ar ddwy ochr y ffin rhwng Cymru a Lloegr.  Bydd y canllawiau yn helpu i egluro'r hyn a olygir wrth ddosrannu 'cyfiawn a rhesymol'.  Gall y canllawiau hyn gynnwys dolenni i wefan Asiantaeth y Swyddfa Brisio, sydd ei hun yn cynnwys arweiniad sylweddol ar ddosraniad.

Rwy'n falch iawn o allu cadarnhau eto i Aelodau'r prynhawn yma fod y Gofrestrfa Tir yn gallu darparu mapiau digidol sy'n nodi'r ffin rhwng Cymru a Lloegr. Bydd hyn yn cynorthwyo'r trethdalwr neu eu hasiant i sefydlu, ar sail gyfiawn a rhesymol, y rhan o'r ystyriaeth a roddwyd ar gyfer y tir yng Nghymru a’r rhan hwnnw o'r ystyriaeth a roddwyd ar gyfer y tir yn Lloegr. Mae hyn yn golygu y bydd y canllawiau a ddarperir gan welliant 29 yn cael eu seilio'n gadarn ac yn ddibynadwy.

Mae gwelliant 32 yn enw Nick Ramsay a gwelliant 36 yn enw Mark Reckless yn cymryd agwedd wahanol. Yn hytrach na gofyn am ganllawiau i helpu cyrraedd dosraniad cyfiawn a rhesymol ym mhob achos, maent yn cynnig fformiwla, sydd, fel yr ydych wedi clywed, yn cael ei chyfiawnhau fel un sy’n dod ag eglurder a sicrwydd. Yn anffodus, Llywydd, yr un canlyniad y gallwn fod yn hollol sicr ohono yw y byddai'r ymagwedd fformwläig hon yn cynhyrchu dosraniad annheg ac anghyfiawn mewn llawer o achosion. Ychydig iawn o achosion, mewn gwirionedd, fyddai’n gorwedd yn union mewn cyfrannau 50/50 ar y naill ochr a'r llall i'r ffin, a hyd yn oed lle’r oedd y cyfrannau yn union, nid yw gwerth y tir, yn syml, yn adlewyrchiad o'i faint. Unwaith y caiff hynny ei ddeall, bod gwerth y tir yn cael ei bennu, er enghraifft, drwy’r defnydd y gellir ei wneud ohono neu adeiladau sydd wedi'u hadeiladu arno, ac nid yn unig gan ei faint, yna mae eglurder ymddangosiadol ail brawf yng ngwelliant 36 hefyd yn disgyn. Mae'n llawer gwell, yn fy marn i, i ganiatáu i’r gweithwyr proffesiynol medrus hynny, sy'n ymdrin fel mater o drefn â materion fel dosrannu cyfiawn a rhesymol, ddefnyddio’r dyfarniad hwnnw yn ffeithiau pob trafodiad—bellach yn cael cymorth gan y canllawiau a grëwyd gan welliant 29, a thrwy’r dulliau diogelu a ddarperir eisoes gan y Bil.

Llywydd, hyd yn oed pe na fyddai gwelliannau 32 a 36 yn ddiffygiol am y rhesymau a ddarparwyd yn awr, mae'n bwysig cydnabod na fyddai'r trefniadau a nodir ynddynt yn berthnasol i dreth dir y dreth stamp, a fyddai'n parhau i weithredu ar ochr Lloegr y ffin. Byddai'n dal i fod yn rhaid i'r trethdalwr gydymffurfio â'r rheolau treth dir y dreth stamp ar ddosraniad cyfiawn a rhesymol. Am y rhesymau hyn nid wyf yn gallu cefnogi'r gwelliannau hynny. Mae gwelliannau 35 a 37, a gyflwynwyd gan Mark Reckless, yn gysylltiedig. Mae'r gwelliannau yn ceisio sicrhau bod trafodiad trawsffiniol i gael ei drin gan y prynwr fel trafodiad sengl ac efallai wedyn y gellid dychwelyd ffurflen dim treth, felly, i Gyllid a Thollau EM mewn perthynas â threth dir y dreth stamp, gydag Awdurdod Cyllid Cymru yn talu i Gyllid a Thollau EM beth sy'n ddyledus iddynt gan y trethdalwr. Byddai hyn yn golygu y byddai Awdurdod Cyllid Cymru yn dosrannu’r ystyriaeth ac yn rhoi’r gyfran berthnasol i Gyllid a Thollau EM. Byddai'r gwelliant i bob pwrpas yn gofyn i Awdurdod Cyllid Cymru gasglu a rheoli treth dir y dreth stamp ar ran Cyllid a Thollau EM ar gyfer trafodion trawsffiniol. Mae hynny, ynddo'i hun, yn newid y dreth o dreth hunanasesiad i un lle mae Awdurdod Cyllid Cymru yn sefydlu atebolrwydd trethdalwr ar gyfer Treth Trafodiadau tir a threth dir y dreth stamp. .

Nawr, ni allaf gefnogi'r gwelliannau hyn, a fyddai yn fy marn i yn disgyn y tu allan i gymhwysedd y Cynulliad, gan fod y darpariaethau yn bwriadu newid sut y bydd treth dir y dreth stamp yn berthnasol i drafodiad tir yn Lloegr.  A thrwy ddarparu ar gyfer dychwelyd dim ffurflen dreth i Gyllid a Thollau EM, maent yn ymddangos i osod swyddogaeth ar HMRC heb ganiatâd y Trysorlys.  Ymhellach, nid yw'r gwelliannau’n cael gwared ar y rhwymedigaeth bresennol yn neddfwriaeth y DU i’r prynwr gyflwyno ffurflen i Gyllid a Thollau EM. Ei effaith, felly, yw y byddai mewn gwirionedd yn rhaid i'r prynwr gyflwyno dwy ffurflen i Gyllid a Thollau EM—y ffurflen dim treth a’r ffurflen ar sail gyfiawn a rhesymol, a fyddai'n dal i fod yn ofynnol gan ddeddfwriaeth treth dir y dreth stamp. Gofynnaf i'r Aelodau bleidleisio dros welliant 29, ac i wrthwynebu'r pedwar gwelliant arall yn y grŵp hwn.

I call on Mark Reckless to reply to the debate. Mark Reckless.

Diolch, Llywydd. I thank all Members who have contributed comments, and recognise, with Nick Ramsay, we’re trying to do a pretty similar ambition with our amendments 36 and 32. I note the strength of the Cabinet Secretary for finance’s reply in terms of competence issues around 35, and I had only sought to put in an amendment that I considered might be arguable. I accept his view that that is a stretch, and far be it from me to challenge competence issues and make some great assertion of the Assembly’s power over UK legislation in this respect. I just thought it would be rather easier for taxpayers all round. However, I do think that the idea of either a 50/50 split or simply apportioning the tax on the basis of the land area and deeming that to be just and reasonable is sensible, and that would be achieved either by my own or by Nick Ramsay’s amendments. And, frankly, it would make things a lot easier for everyone concerned, while protecting the tax base. So, I note the Cabinet Secretary’s points, but I’m not sure what merit or use is served by those arguments, when we can actually raise the money and ease everyone’s administrative burden if we accepted either Nick Ramsay’s amendment or my own. My intention, Llywydd, if this is in order, would not be to push 35 to a vote, but to look to vote on amendment 36 from my group.

Amendment 35 has been moved. If everybody’s happy with the fact that it’s not voted on, I’ll accept that that amendment does not need to be voted on.

That being the case, we will move to amendment 37.

Y cwestiwn yw: a ddylid derbyn—

You need to formally move amendment 37. Are you doing so, Mark Reckless?

I think amendment 37, Llywydd, would be consequential to amendment 35, so, I also seek permission to withdraw or not vote on 37, but seek a vote on 36.

It’s not moved; therefore, it does not require a vote.

Nick Ramsay, now you can move amendment 32 formally.

I think I did move it, but that might have been a mistake earlier. That was following your advice, which is why I asked the initial question.

Yes, I think you were wrong to follow my advice and move the amendment. [Laughter. ]

Forgive me for following your advice.

Now you can follow my advice and move it now.

I’m not going to say any more other than I move amendment 32.

The question is that amendment 32 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection. ] We proceed, therefore, to an electronic vote on amendment 32. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 17, no abstentions, 38 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

Amendment 36—Mark Reckless.

I move formally.

The question is that amendment 36 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection. ] We therefore proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 17, no abstentions, 38 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

Amendment 29—Steffan Lewis.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 29 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, amendment 29 is agreed to in accordance with Standing Order 12. 36.

The next group is group 2, which relates to tax rates and bands. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 38. I call on Mark Reckless to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Mark Reckless.

Diolch, Llywydd, and I promise to shortly yield the floor to others as I had the lead amendments on the first two groups. I adjusted my previous set of amendments in light of what we heard at the committee stage and a number of other amendments that I pursued them I’m not pursuing here. However, this amendment is in the same form that I put to committee, and I think it’s a key amendment of principle. It received two votes in committee, three against and two abstentions. So, I thought it was something worth putting to the Siambr as a whole.

We have had arguments from the Cabinet Secretary in respect of this, and I think there are a couple of sort of key issues that are important. There is certainty for taxpayers. We all agree that is something that is attractive and we should have to the maximum possible extent. The committee was, I think, pleased that the Cabinet Secretary, if I recall correctly, made an undertaking at Stage 2 that, by October, he was going to publish formally what the rates would be when land transaction tax commenced next April, next year. His intention throughout, as he has communicated, I understand, is to have those rates continue on the same basis that SDLT has been applied on a UK basis, although, of course, it is possible that the Chancellor at the UK level might change those rates in some respect between now and then. It’s good that we will have certainty, at least from October, and that I do appreciate. It’s also right that the rates, when they do come, and changes to those rates will go through a positive resolution procedure. Again, that does give a level of protection in terms of input from Members on whatever view the Government takes as to what those tax rates should be. However, such a resolution will not be susceptible to an amendment; it is coming from a Minister, it is his view, and it is either accept or reject, and not a full, legislative primary instrument of this Assembly.

So, I think those are the points of argument there, but I think there is a greater argument, and that is one of principle. This is the first tax in modern times that is being devolved to this Assembly to administer, to levy, on behalf of the people of Wales, and it seems to me—and, I would have thought, perhaps to a wider number of Members—that it would be right for us, as the legislators elected by the people of Wales, to determine what rates of tax they should pay, particularly in this very significant moment and, for some in this Siambr, a very important achievement, in terms of that moment, to be levying that tax as an elected Assembly. Yet it is proposed instead that we will not take that decision, those rates will not be on the face of the Bill, and we will leave it to ministerial discretion to determine at a later date what those rates should be, and that we should at most have a secondary process where we can only reject or accept and are not ourselves writing and determining and considering what those rates of tax should be. So, I bring forward amendment 38 to give the Assembly a chance to give its view as a whole, and I look particularly to the Party of Wales, as they style themselves, who abstained at committee stage on this, and for whom this is a matter of great significance that perhaps for some is a key step on the road to an independent Wales, yet, when it comes to it, they will not—unless they do something differently than what I expect—assert the rights of this Assembly to speak for the people of Wales for us as elected legislators to determine tax rates, but will instead allow that to Ministers.

I'm more than happy to support the lead amendment in this group, as moved by Mark Reckless. This lead amendment was the subject, as Mark said, of much discussion at Stage 2, and Welsh Conservatives are happy to support it. I believe it is sensible to get the Welsh Government's proposals for tax bands on the face of the Bill. It does happen in other places; there's no reason why we couldn't set that precedent here and provide the type of clarity and certainty for practitioners and for stakeholders that they need in any time when you have a transition from one tax regime to another. We know that the Welsh Government believes in the maxim of consistency; that's been set out by the Cabinet Secretary and, indeed, by his predecessor, the current leader of the house. So, in order to aid that transition from the UK system to the Welsh system, having as much information as possible upfront, on the face of the Bill, or however you want to do it, we do think would be beneficial.

Now, that said, I know that the Welsh Government are uneasy about doing this. Perhaps they feel that it ties their hands at too early a point. So, I do wait to see what the Cabinet Secretary has to say in terms of dealing with this issue, and, if a compromise will be that, at a certain set date before this tax, the LTT tax, comes into force in Wales—if at some date we can have certainty of knowing what the tax rates will be then I think that that will be a compromise. But it will be a compromise in the absence of a better way of doing things, and I think we do, as an Assembly, and as we’ve done with Finance Committee, need to have a discussion about exactly how we do proceed with fiscal policy in this place as the devolution of taxes and fiscal powers happens, and a finance Bill at some point in the future would be a model that I think we should look at as a better way of going forward and giving that certainty that people need. But I'm more than happy to support Mark Reckless's amendment.

The subsequent amendment from myself in this group is linked to it, and moves on further from that, whereby we will—. When I find my page—. The amendment provides a transitional arrangement to provide certainty for the property market, and our amendment specifically is linked to the way that rates by the Scottish Government have been set. So, I’m happy to support this.

I'm not quite sure if Mark Reckless was offering that, if we supported this amendment, he would come across to the issue of independence for Wales. I think UKIP are casting round for a new mission and a new meaning for the word ‘independence’, so—. It seems to mean all kinds of things from Nathan Gill to Douglas Carswell and no doubt something new from Mark Reckless. But we’ll wait and see.

There is no doubt—and there was a cross-party agreement in the committee, it’s true—that, when you’re passing tax legislation, it is better to put the rates of taxation either on the face of legislation or in primary legislation, because we all here should be voting for rates of taxation. We shouldn’t let Ministers decide it. We shouldn’t let them decide over Easter or Christmas, and then suddenly find ourselves in a position where it’s a ‘take it or leave it’ vote on some kind of subordinate legislation.

But we are in a slightly difficult position because we don’t have the full legislative fiscal powers that will come from the 2017 Wales Act. They don’t commence, probably, until April 2018. Now, when they do commence, then I hope—and it’s certainly the intention of the Finance Committee, I hope with the support of all parties in this place—that we then engage and embark upon a proper finance Bill procedure. That’s what happens in the Scottish Parliament. Budgets are taken through by a finance Bill. Tax rates are declared. You see clearly what you’re voting for and the implications of what you vote for. There’s no doubt, as Nick Ramsay, I think, just concluded with his remarks, that that’s the best way forward.

The question we have now, though, is how we treat this Bill without those powers, and without those powers having commenced yet by the Secretary of State. It’s a difficult call, and we certainly put an amendment forward in committee that put rates on the face of the Bill to test what the Government response would be. The Government’s response in effect is to say they promise—and we have a committee undertaking that I think is enforceable in those terms—to bring forward the tax rates and bands by October this year. Now, from Plaid Cymru’s point of view, that gives the sort of assurance that those who are interested in taxation in Wales need. It is a commitment from Welsh Government that we can hold them to account, but it does not mean that we are resiling from the fundamental point that, over the next year or two, we have to work to put tax legislation through this place as a primary, finance Bill approach. That’s something the Finance Committee itself wants to do—take evidence from other legislatures, and see how it’s done other legislatures, and see how it’s done elsewhere through the United Kingdom as well. It’s something we want to work with the Cabinet Secretary on, and, in those circumstances, I think it is appropriate and allowable, if you like, for the Government to proceed with the Bill in the current form, with the undertaking that we’ll hear the full rates of taxation in the autumn. On that basis, Plaid Cymru will not be supporting this amendment.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary.

Diolch, Llywydd. I recognise that taxpayers and businesses will want certainty about the amount of tax they will pay under land transaction tax in advance of April 2018. However, it’s my view that to include rates and bands on the face of this Bill, at this stage, still 12 months before the tax will be devolved to Wales, would, I believe, be to offer a potentially misleading appearance of certainty without the necessary substance.

Mark Reckless believes that the legislature is somehow abandoning its prerogative to the Executive by not placing written rates and bands on the face of the Bill, and I think that’s mistaken for two reasons. Firstly, to require the legislature to set rates and bands at this point would be to invite Members to make such a decision in the absence of the information necessary to take that decision in an informed way. Secondly, his argument implies that future decisions have been surrendered unchecked to the Executive. In fact, what will happen will be a proposal by the Government, which this National Assembly will scrutinise and determine.

Now, Llywydd, I was persuaded by arguments made at Stage 2 to make a commitment to publish the Welsh Government’s proposed rates and bands by 1 October 2017. In the circumstances we are in—and I fully accept the points that Simon Thomas has made about the need to devise a different system for different circumstances in the future, but, in the circumstances we are in in this year, I repeat the commitment this afternoon that Government will bring forward and publish our proposed rates and bands by 1 October 2017. These proposals can then be scrutinised in a manner informed by all the other information that will be part of the budget-making process. Such timing also allows any changes required as a result of the Chancellor’s autumn budget to be reflected in the regulations that will come before this Assembly for this Assembly’s consideration and this Assembly’s determination. This, I believe, provides a certainty that is real and reliable for stakeholders, and ensures the rightful oversight and decision-making responsibility of this National Assembly. I therefore ask Members to reject amendments 30 to 42 in the name of Mark Reckless.

Amendment 33, tabled by Nick Ramsay, has the effect of handing full control over rates and bands to the UK Government until April 2019, without any scope for Welsh Ministers to propose any changes or for the Assembly to approve them during that period.

Now, Llywydd, securing fiscal powers for this National Assembly has been a protracted process, stretching back now through a commission, a St David’s Day process, an Act of Parliament, an Act of the fourth Assembly to establish the Welsh Revenue Authority, the negotiation of a fiscal framework in the autumn, and the Bill before Members this afternoon. That the first decision we should take in 800 years on rates and bands of Welsh taxes would be to hand that decision back to the body from which those responsibilities have just been devolved does not seem to me to be a course of action that would commend itself to many Members here this afternoon. And I have to ask Members—

Are you giving way to the intervention?

[Continues. ]—to vote against amendment 33.

I’m sorry. Of course, yes.

Thank you for taking my intervention. I think the Cabinet Secretary is being a little bit mischievous there, perhaps with some Plaid Cymru collusion that neither the Member of the lead amendment or me were aware of earlier. But, no, that is certainly not the intention. As the Cabinet Secretary has said himself, the intention is for these taxes not to come into force until April 2019. So, our request that tax rates should be available in advance of that and there should be certainty is not about handing powers back to the body from which they came, it's about certainty. But I understand where you're coming from with the compromise of a date, Cabinet Secretary, and I accept that. Will you, at least, in the future consider a finance Bill so that we can discuss these fiscal issues in this Chamber a lot more effectively than we do at the moment?

Well, Chair, I heard the Chair of the Finance Committee in this Chamber last week say that he hoped that the Finance Committee would be doing some work on the idea of a finance Bill, taking evidence from elsewhere, seeing how it might be adapted to the suite of devolved taxes that we have available to us in Wales, and I look forward very much to co-operating constructively with the Finance Committee in that important piece of work.

I call on Mark Reckless to reply to the debate—Mark Reckless.

Diolch, Llywydd. Nick Ramsay alleges, in reference to the dissing of his amendments, to collusion between Plaid Cymru and the Government. I'm not quite sure what degree of interaction goes on and whether it's properly called collusion, but I think it does give a difficulty for others in this Assembly who are very clearly on the opposition as to whether we’re scrutinising some degree of collusion between Plaid and the Government or whether we’re simply looking at the Government. I am disappointed with Plaid’s statement that they will not be supporting this amendment. I assume that most likely means that they will abstain. Perhaps that's part of their deal with Labour that they abstain on finance measures, except when we had the second supplementary budget, for some reason, but then they let that go through anyhow.

But I don't think it's fair to take a very binary view like this, and I don't want to be too strong in what I say about the legislature versus the Executive. I think the Cabinet Secretary slightly exaggerated what I was saying as he retold it. If this tax is coming in and, sort of April next year, we’re setting the rates for the first time, all Nick Ramsay's amendment is saying that, for the first year, we should keep it in line with the UK rates. And, as I’ve understood from the Cabinet Secretary through committee, he's been saying exactly the same thing—how important it is to have this through train and to allow the tax to settle down without having changes from SDLT for that early period while the tax is bedding in, and he himself, as far as I can discern, is saying we mustn't put these tax rates on the face of the Bill, because, implicitly, if the UK Government were to change SDLT, we’d then have to change ours, so we’d be giving a false certainty to people by putting them on the face of the Bill if we were later going to change them if they changed at the UK level. But it’s simply a matter of principle. We, as the legislators, we as the people elected, should ultimately determine what the tax rate is. Put it on the face of the Bill, be true to your principles. If this is such a big step towards greater self-government, whether it ends in independence or otherwise, as some Members would wish and others would not, it's not the right way for a key process in building a state for that decision to be delegated to Ministers by the legislature when it is so important as putting those initial tax rates that taxpayers will have to pay. So, for that reason, I will want to move amendment 38.

The question is that amendment 38 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection. ] We therefore proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 17, nine abstentions and 29 against. Therefore, amendment 38 is not agreed.

Amendment 39, Mark Reckless.

As it’s consequential to the amendment that’s just been defeated, I won’t move 39.

Amendment 39 is not moved.

Amendment 33, Nick Ramsay.

Move.

The question is that amendment 33 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection. ] We therefore proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 17, no abstentions and 38 against. Therefore, amendment 33 is not agreed.

Mark Reckless, amendment 40.

Similarly, Llywydd, 40 all the way through to 42 are not amendments I wish to move, given the key decision and principles being taken.

Forty is not moved.

Therefore, we move on to group 3, which relates to local authority representations on tax rates and bands. The lead and only amendment in this group is amendment 30, and I call on Steffan Lewis to move and speak to his amendment.

Thank you, Llywydd. This introduces a new subsection to section 24 relating to tax rates and bands, and the impact would be to allow local authorities to make representations and innovative proposals on land transaction bands and rates to be considered by the Welsh Government. The Bill provides a golden opportunity for us to actually implement the tax in relation to the policy objectives of the Government, but also in relation to the various requirements of the various communities of Wales.

There’s a major opportunity here for the Government and local authorities. The intention of our amendment, therefore, is to ensure that local authorities can look at the possibilities of this Bill and make representations to the Welsh Government in the hope of realising such possibilities. For example, it’s possible that a local authority may identify a need to vary the highest rate on additional residential properties within specific residential areas. It’s reasonable, therefore, that a local authority should make representations to the Welsh Government on that kind of variation to the tax, and this amendment safeguards the ability to do that in future and to do so formally, of course. I hope that there will be an appreciation across the Chamber that what we’re doing here is trying to be creative and to see whether there are ways and means of using our new fiscal powers—minor powers as they are at present—in order to implement the broader policy objectives. We on these benches will be interested to hear the response of the Cabinet Secretary.

I’m all for creativity, but there’s a difference between creativity and destabilisation. I think that whilst the devolution of taxation does allow this Assembly and Welsh Government to do things differently here, and over time we would expect that to happen, if you’re following the maxim that in the first instance the system and the regime here should mirror as closely as possible that across the border to ensure stability and a smooth transition, then I think it would be unwise to make this type of change at this point in time. Steffan Lewis, you wish to give local authorities that ability to make representations. Of course, local authorities can make representations to the Welsh Government. I think they probably make many representations to Welsh Government that it often doesn’t want to hear. So, they have that ability at the moment. I’m not entirely clear what the full reason is behind this. I must say I’m a little bit uneasy when you say that there may be local conditions in any local authority area that would see the need to specifically vary the upper rates of this charge. You weren’t entirely clear about that in our contribution. As things stand at the moment, I’m afraid to say we’re not able to support this, but I look forward to hearing what the Cabinet Secretary has to say in response.

I take on board Nick Ramsay’s reservations that he expressed. However, UKIP does support the Plaid Cymru amendment allowing local authorities to make representations to the Welsh Government regarding tax bands and tax rates. We believe that, in general, powers should be devolved to the lowest possible level of Government. This is backing the principle of localism, and we stated this policy in broad terms in our Welsh Assembly manifesto last year. Therefore, we do support this amendment.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. At Stage 2 in front of the Finance Committee, there was a discussion of an amendment tabled by Steffan Lewis that would have enabled local authorities to make representations about the higher rate of tax. I’m grateful for subsequent opportunities to discuss this matter with the Member, because I have no difficulty with the general principle that we need to engage with local authorities on the impact of higher rates on communities, and that that impact could include a discussion about rates and bands. But as Nick Ramsay has said already, local authorities are able to express their views on any aspect of this Bill at any time under existing local government legislation. A local authority does not need to be given the power in this Bill to make representations; they have that power now.

There are a number of practical difficulties with the amendment as well, as presented this afternoon, which means I cannot ask Government supporters to vote for it. Firstly, I’m advised that an amendment that states that the local authority may make representation about rates and bands might actually cast doubt on whether others can make such representations, or whether a local authority can make representations about other matters, such as the operation of the tax more generally.

Secondly, there are concerns that this amendment would, in effect, introduce a statutory process that must be followed before rates and bands are varied. This would be unprecedented in UK tax terms, and would undermine the principle that decisions about rates and bands must rest with the Government and the National Assembly.

Llywydd, with all that said, let me underline my support for the basic intention behind amendment 30. In order to ensure that local authorities are alert to the opportunity they already have to express views on the operation of the higher rates in their area, including discussion on rates and bands, I will write to local authorities following the May elections of this year to draw their attention to the commitment I have made today to engage with them on the operation of the higher rates in their communities. That engagement needs to be properly informed by evidence. When the tax goes live, the WRA will collect and hold the relevant data. I can confirm this afternoon that the WRA will analyse land transaction tax data in relation to the higher rate on a local authority basis. This analysis will be used to inform discussions with local authorities on the impact of the higher rates in their areas. More broadly, that evidence will also support a wider look at the impact of the higher rates on communities, once the land transaction tax is in operation. I intend to publish my tax work plan for the next 12 months in the late spring, alongside writing to local authorities, so that these actions can complement one another.

Llywydd, while I’m unable to support amendment 30, I hope I’ve said enough on the record this afternoon to demonstrate that this is a matter on which local authorities can make representations, that we will ensure that their ability to do so is drawn actively to their attention, and that work will be undertaken to ensure that any such representations receive an informed response from Government.

I call on Steffan Lewis to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Llywydd. I appreciate the fact that the Cabinet Secretary respects the spirit of the amendment. I think it is very clear that we intend to do as much as we can in terms of policy objectives and our new fiscal powers. Apologies to the Member for Monmouth that I wasn’t sufficiently clear in my opening remarks—I thought it was quite clear in terms of the intentions underpinning our amendment. We are very aware of the different circumstances across the counties of Wales and within the counties of Wales, in terms of higher-band properties and residential property.

With what the Cabinet Secretary has said, first of all, I very warmly welcome the fact that he will proactively inform local authorities in Wales of the possibilities and that the Government is open to having specific discussions on an issue that is very important to Plaid Cymru. Secondly, I think the pledge to ensure that the Government has a work plan on taxation, and that that will take this into account in terms of policy and within the fiscal context, is an important pledge and one that I welcome very much—and, of course, the fact that we will have real data in Wales for the first time on the impact of this tax.

Therefore, with the Assembly’s consent, and with your consent, Llywydd, I would like to withdraw my amendment.

The Member has said that he is eager to withdraw amendment 30. If there’s no objection to that, the amendment is withdrawn.

Therefore, we move on to group 4, which relates to major interests in higher rate residential property transactions. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 7. I call on the Cabinet Secretary to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Mark Drakeford.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. When I brought forward a set of amendments at Stage 2 to provide for higher rates on residential property transactions, I explained that I intended to mirror broadly existing stamp duty land tax provisions in order to provide continuity and certainty. I also said, however, that I intended to add clarity and make improvements to the legislation where there were opportunities to do so. I’m keen to address, through this group, a number of such issues where I consider minor revisions will be beneficial. I was grateful for the support of members of the Finance Committee when amendments to secure higher rates for residential property transactions were put forward during Stage 2 proceedings. This will ensure that the significant funding raised by the introduction of this surcharge will continue to be available for the provision of public services in Wales.

This group of amendments, Llywydd, is the most technically complex group of amendments brought forward by the Government. That’s why I issued a technical letter on 23 March to Assembly Members. My hope was that Members would have sufficient opportunity to consider these matters in relation to these amendments in this group ahead of today’s discussion.

By way of summary, Schedule 5 of the Bill provides that a transaction will be treated as a higher-rates transaction where the main subject matter of the transaction consists of a major interest in a dwelling. It is possible, in law, to separate legal and beneficial interest in a residential property transaction.

The vast majority of transactions are likely to involve the transfer of both a legal and beneficial interest. However, during the passage of this Bill, I’ve been alerted by some of our expert group to a potential ambiguity in the existing SDLT legislation, which could lead some people to claim that by structuring the acquisition of their additional residential property in a particular way, it would be possible to argue that the higher rates do not apply. While I do not accept this argument, the amendments in this group are about putting this beyond doubt, and as a result, protecting our tax base.

So, in more detail, then, Llywydd, amendments 7 and 8 amend paragraphs 5 and 15 of Schedule 5 to deal with how a taxpayer’s beneficial interest in a dwelling is to be determined. Where a property is purchased in joint names, the buyers will hold the beneficial interest in the property as either joint tenants or tenants in common. Joint tenants are entitled to an equal share of the property, whereas tenants in common are able to hold the property in either equal or unequal shares, which are known as undivided shares.

Amendments 7 and 8 ensure that the market value of the taxpayer’s interest is assessed as being a proportion of the total market value of the dwelling that represents their beneficial share. This ensures fairness to the taxpayer, because it means the tax is only payable on the share of any property than a person holds rather than the whole market value of that property. This clarification is especially important as the higher rates will not apply if the market value of the interest held is less than £40,000.

Amendment 12 provides for the introduction of a new paragraph 29 into Schedule 5, dealing with the scope of major interest. It does not change the policy intent of the provisions as scrutinised, but adds greater clarity to them. I ask Members to support the amendments in this group.

Nick Ramsay. No? There are no other speakers. Therefore, I doubt whether the Cabinet Secretary has any closing remarks for this debate. The question is that amendment 7 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 7 is, therefore, agreed.

Cabinet Secretary—amendment 8.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 8 be agreed. Does any Member object? The amendment is agreed.

The next group is group 5, which contains technical amendments relating to cross-references. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 9. I call on the Cabinet Secretary to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group.

Diolch, Llywydd. This is the first of a series of groups of technical Government amendments that will come before the Assembly this afternoon.

These all have a slightly different focus and have therefore been separated for ease of discussion, but what they have in common is that they are all minor and technical. In the main, they are necessary amendments to the Bill in order to improve the clarity of drafting. For example, all the amendments in this group address incorrect cross references in the Bill. The majority of these have arisen as a result of the changes to the Bill made at Stage 2, and we now have the opportunity to ensure that these cross-references are correct. I ask Members to support them.

There are no speakers for this group, and, therefore, there’s no need to call the Cabinet Secretary to respond to any debate. The question is that amendment 9 be agreed. Does any Member object? Therefore, amendment 9 is agreed.

Cabinet Secretary—amendment 10.

Move.

The question is that amendment 10 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 10 is agreed.

Cabinet Secretary—amendment 11.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 11 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 11 is agreed.

Cabinet Secretary—amendment 12.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 12 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 12 is agreed.

Group 6, therefore: this group contains technical amendments relating to drafting improvements. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 13 and I call on the Cabinet Secretary to move and speak to the lead amendment and other amendments in the group. Mark Drakeford.

Llywydd, all the amendments in this group make minor improvements to the existing drafting in the Bill. Amendment 6 replaces the word ‘paragraph’ with ‘subsection’, and amendment 13 removes the word ‘but’. Amendments 15 and 16 make minor drafting improvements to the Welsh language version of the Bill only, and I hope that Members will support them this afternoon.

There are no speakers in this group. There’s no need for the Cabinet Secretary to respond to the debate. The question is that amendment 13 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, amendment 13 is agreed.

The next group is group 7, which relates to deputies for higher-rates residential properties transactions. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 14. I call on the Cabinet Secretary to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Mark Drakeford.

Diolch, Llywydd. In group 4, a few moments ago, we debated a set of changes to improve the fairness of the operation of the higher rates surcharge, and the amendments in this group return to that theme. In my letter to the Finance Committee on 15 February, I set out my intention to bring forward changes in this group, which seek to ensure that a dwelling acquired and held by a deputy on behalf of a minor who lacks mental capacity, in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005, is not deemed to be acquired or owned by that child’s parents.

Once again, this anomaly in current SDLT legislation was identified through engagement with technical experts. The objective of this group of amendments, then, is to make the legislation fairer, and ensure that incapacitated minors and their court-appointed deputies are not disadvantaged as a result of the LTT surcharge.

The result of amendment 14 is that when determining whether the higher rate applies to circumstances where an incapacitated child’s interest in acquired, held on trust, or disposed of by a deputy acting on their behalf, any interest held by the child’s parents in a separate property will be unconnected. This change will make the legislation fairer by ensuring that the child’s interest in a property is not subject to the higher rates charge. Equally, any transaction by the parents of an incapacitated child in these circumstances will be considered independently of the child’s property interests.

Amendment 21 has the same effect as amendment 14, the differentiation being it is applied in relation to interests outside of Wales. Llywydd, it’s anticipated that there will be a very small number of cases in which these rules apply, and that this will have a minimal impact on revenues. The use of these rules will be kept under review, but I hope that in the interest of fairness they will be supported by the Assembly this afternoon.

Nick Ramsay? There are no speakers, therefore, and there’s no need to call the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 14 be agreed. Does any Member object? Therefore, amendment 14 is agreed.

Cabinet Secretary—amendment 15.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 15 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 15 is agreed.

Cabinet Secretary—amendment 16.

Move.

The question is that amendment 16 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 16 is agreed.

Group 8 is the next group, and this group relates to higher-rates residential properties transactions for inherited property. The lead and only amendment in this group is amendment 17, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary to move and speak to his amendment. Mark Drakeford.

Llywydd, as you’ve said, this group deals with an issue in relation to inherited property. Amendment 17 provides that spouses or civil partners who are no longer living together are not to have their respective interests combined in order to establish whether the interestheld exceeds 50 per cent. This allows separated couples to be considered individually rather than being assessed as one economic unit with their former spouse or civil partner. This is consistent with other provisions in Schedule 5 relating to those who are now separated.

This amendment inserts a subparagraph into paragraph 33 of Schedule 5. It amends the rules relating to property that is inherited. The existing rule is that, where a person inherits an interest that does not exceed 50 per cent of the property, then that interest will not be taken into account when establishing if the higher rates apply to a transaction for 36 months after the date it was inherited. If spouses or civil partners both inherited interests in the property, then those interests would need to be aggregated for the purposes of establishing if an interest exceeding 50 per cent was owned.

Llywydd, this is another amendment that responds to relatively rare circumstances, but which is designed to improve the fairness of the system, and I ask Members to support it for that reason.

There are no speakers in this group—therefore, there’s no need to call the Cabinet Secretary to reply. The question is that amendment 17 be agreed. Does any Member object? Therefore, amendment 17 is agreed.

Cabinet Secretary—amendment 18.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 18 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 18 is agreed.

Cabinet Secretary—amendment 19.

Move.

The question is that amendment 19 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 19 is agreed.

Cabinet Secretary—amendment 20.

Move.

The question is that amendment 20 agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 20 is agreed.

Cabinet Secretary—amendment 21.

Cynnig.

The question is that amendment 21 agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 21 is agreed.

Mark Reckless—amendment 41.

Could I say, Llywydd, I don’t want to move amendment 41?

The amendment is not moved and will not, therefore, be voted on.

Mark Reckless—amendment 42.

Similarly, I do not seek to move 42.

The amendment is not moved.

Group 9 is the next group, which contains technical amendments relating to the calculation of chargeable consideration. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 1, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Mark Drakeford.

Diolch, Llywydd. Amendments 1 and 2 are minor in nature, but are put in front of the Assembly in order to improve the clarity of drafting. Amendment 1 removes paragraph (b) from section 29, which contains an unnecessary reference to various reliefs provided by Schedule 14. This ensures that section 29 provides a consistent list of the relief provisions that modify how the tax chargeable is calculated. Amendment 2 is consequential on amendment 1. I ask Members to support the Government amendments that improve the drafting of the Bill.

There are no speakers. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 1 is agreed.

Cabinet Secretary—amendment 2.

Move.

The question is that amendment 2 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 2 is agreed.

Cabinet Secretary—amendment 24.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 24 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 24 is agreed.

The next group is group 10, which contains technical amendments relating to definitions. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 25. I call on the Cabinet Secretary to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Mark Drakeford.

Llywydd, as you said, these are technical amendments that all seek to improve various definitions provided in the Bill. Amendment 4 inserts the definition of ‘registrar’ into section 65 of the Bill, for registration of land transactions. Amendment 5 is linked to amendment 4, in that it removes an unused definition of ‘registrar’ in the same section, for the purposes of improving clarity. Amendments 25 and 26 insert the words ‘county’ and ‘county borough council’ respectively for clarity. Amendment 27 updates the section number provided in the Highways Act 1980 to ensure that the correct cross-reference is used when seeking the meaning for ‘highway’. I ask Members to support these amendments—they improve the drafting of the Bill.

There are no speakers in this group. Therefore, the question is that amendment 25 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 25 is agreed.

Cabinet Secretary—amendment 26.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 26 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 26 is agreed.

Cabinet Secretary—amendment 27.

Move.

The question is that amendment 27 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 27 is agreed.

Group 11 is the next group, which contains technical amendments relating to drafting improvements on partnership transactions. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 22. I call on the Cabinet Secretary to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Mark Drakeford.

Diolch, Llywydd. This is the final set of purely technical amendments that will come before the Assembly this afternoon. Amendment 23 makes minor technical improvements to the existing drafting for partnership transactions involving partnerships made up wholly of bodies corporate. Transactions involving partnerships are governed by specific rules, which are set out in Schedule 7 to the Bill. This amendment ensures that this rule operates in a way that is consistent with existing SDLT rules. Amendment 22 is consequential on amendment 23, and I ask Members to support them both.

There are no speakers in this group. The question is, therefore, that amendment 22 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 22 is agreed.

Cabinet Secretary—amendment 23.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 23 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 23 is agreed.

Group 12 is the next group, which relates to the power to amend the period in which returns must be made. The lead and only amendment in this group is amendment 3. I call on the Cabinet Secretary to move and speak to his amendment.

Diolch, Llywydd. Amendment 3—the only amendment in this group—inserts new paragraphs into section 52, which provides Welsh Ministers with a power to amend by regulations the period in which a return must be made. Section 52 already includes a power to amend other return periods, for example, in relation to further returns. This amendment adds to the provisions in Schedule 6 relating to return periods for leases. The aim of the amendment is to correct an omission to ensure that all the relevant return periods are captured, including return periods for leases. This will allow the Welsh Ministers to amend, if required in the future, the period in which all returns must be made, thus ensuring consistency of treatment for all returns. Given that this could alter the amount that an individual may have to pay in future, regulations made under this section will be subject to the affirmative procedure. I ask Members to support this amendment.

There are no speakers in this group. Therefore, the question is that amendment 3 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 3 is agreed.

Cabinet Secretary, amendment 4.

Move.